Unqualified Offerings sets out arguments for waiting on Iraq:
Deterrence requires two components:
1) A sure penalty for noncompliance.
2) A clear benefit to compliance.
US policy toward Iraq has lacked factor 2 for a decade. Current, stated policy is
1) If Saddam uses, acquires or conceals weapons of mass destruction, he dies.
2) If Saddam foreswears use, acquisition and concealment of weapons of mass destruction, he dies.
Um, guys, while thats a nice trope, this isnt how 4th Generation warfare works. Saddam gets the maximum benefit from lying about his activities. Its more like this:
Wow!! Bummer about Tel Aviv!! Who would be crazy enough to smuggle a nuke in there? Wasnt us, promise!! No, really!!
While the tame game theory model suggests that he and others can be managed successfully through boundary and consequence-setting, the only thing that might work would be something Godfather-like:
If anything bad happens to me; if I catch a cold and go to the hospital; if I get hit by a car while rollerblading drunk; you will die. You are now the guarantor of my wellbeing.
And of course, if something bad did happen, there would be many people who would say: “With no apparent thought given to the thousands of casualties on both sides, de-stabilization of the entire Middle East, loss of just about every ally we have except maybe Britain – well, the whole thing is quite mad. Adventurism at it’s worst, cynically done, at least in part, as a desperate ploy to aid Bush & Co. in the midterm elections.” (from Bob Morris)
Personally, I lean toward doing something, and doing it now. It will destabilize the Middle East, but the reality is that the Middle East is going to get destabilized soon by demographics, resources, poverty, and most of all by a virulent and murderous culture that is growing there unchecked.
I have three reasons for wanting to get it over with; they are eighteen, fifteen, and five years old. I want to buy some time for them, and some space to try and come to any humanly sustainable resolution, and we simply cant do it in the face of an increasingly belligerent (the proof is just inland from Battery Park) culture that will only be richer, better trained, and better armed tomorrow.
Im still looking for an alternative path. But I dont see one.
Date: 08/12/2002 00:00:00 AM
I’m in the “take them out now” camp. Can we afford to wait until the sons take over?
Date: 08/10/2002 00:00:00 AM
How can you possibly destablize something that’s extremely unstable now? Don’t wait! Unilateral action now (the Euroweenies and some of the middle eastern countries will climb aboard after we start so it won’t wind up being unilateral. But better unilateral action now than a world-wide conflagration later or nuclear/WMD cold war standoff for generations of our children. Just do it.
Date: 08/08/2002 00:00:00 AM
There is one condition under which we might – just might – consider resuming weapons inspections, in lieu of an invasion to make sure Iraq no longer has the capability of making WMD, and Saddam no longer is breathing: The inspectors are in constant communications by satellite. If their entry into any place at all they wish to go is denied or delayed, however briefly, we immediately launch sufficient cruise missiles to completely destroy that site, followed up by a fighter squadron to ensure complete destruction and ensure no significant amount of equipment got trucked away before the site went up. (That is, Saddam better make sure no bridges wash out, because wherever the inspectors were going when the road was blocked will no longer need to be inspected…) The questions here are (1) whether there are sufficient intelligence assets left to guide the inspection teams, and (2) whether it would be better to remove Saddam anyhow.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
That’s Bigboo-tay! (sorry, Lord Whorfin…)I’m very interested in what Ritter has to say; his Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus change in position is one I’d like to understand better.I have very little interest in what the rest of the UNSCOM folks have to say; their position throughout has been clear and consistent – let Saddam run his country.I disagree, because I believe Saddam will and has used his national resources to harm our country (primarily through proxies), and will continue to do so as long as he is left unchecked.I’m looking for some means of conclusively checking him short of an attack, and heven’t heard it yet.A.L.
Date: 08/08/2002 00:00:00 AM
I suspect that whether or not Hussein will suddenly about-face and give free access to weapons inspectors, and whether or not he is currently doing any of the internationally nasty things he’s accused of (in distinction to the nasty things we darned well know he does internally), it might still be a good idea to summarily and fatally remove him – simply as an example to the rest.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
“(well, except for the destabilization part)”Doesn’t belong in that sentence. I changed what I had written, and missed that correction.Sorry.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
I think there are several good sources on why any action against Iraq is not only premature but based on false premises.I strongly suggest a perusal of this article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/81412_sean6.shtmlI think it makes the case for the weakness of unilateral action perfectly clear, and rounds up the major players very well.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
ALWe already have that model. Any terrorist attack that takes place with WMD’s will get Saddam killed, and he knows it. Why? The assumption is that anyone terrorists would have gotten their WMD from him. Remember, we did not have iron clad proof that bin Laden was behind 9/11, but we went and got his organization. Same situation.Remember also that he DID HAVE chemical weapons during the Gulf War, and did not use them. I have to believe it was because we never made a serious attempt to remove him from power.Joel, why should I believe that an Administration that celebrated the overthrow of an elected government and has badly mis-handled rebuilding Afghanistan is capable of rebuilding Iraq in a democratic fashion? Especially considering that it appears the Administration is content to put another General in Saddam’s place? If we are truly worried about WMD, then why discard inspectors? Since we know that Saddam had WMD’s during the Gulf War, and we know that Saddam has not used a WMD outside of his nation since the Gulf War (the “outside his nation” qualifier is there because I cannot remember if he used chemical weapons to subdue the southern rebellions after Bush I abandoned them or not), and since no terrorist organization except for the Japanese subway gassers (who made the chemicals themselves, if IIRC) has used a WMD, then we are left with one of two conclusions: either deterrence works, or weapons inspections work. If deterrence works, then why are we wasting our time with Iraq when we have more pressing problems? If inspections work, then why are we so cavalierly dismissing an option that would neutralize our main concern, allow us to deal with more pressing threats, and spare us from having to deal with the very real and very destabilizing effects this invasion would have?
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
Kevin – Just a quick note as I head to another meeting.I believe the only form of deterrence that would work is what I called “Godfather” deterrence. Future attacks will continue to be ‘deniable’, and while your formulation would likely hold up in a world of perfect information, that’s not what we face.How do we deal with the issue of an attack that can at best be indirectly linked to Husseinunder evidenciary standards?I’m not spoiling for a reason to invade. I’m spoiling for a model that doesn’t leave us simply sitting and hoping there are no further attacks.A.L.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
Kevin,Taking your points in order:”an Administration that celebrated the overthrow of an elected government”Please be specific. What are you referring to?”badly mis-handled rebuilding Afghanistan”How? We gave them the freedom for the first time in years to convene a Loya Jirga, establish an interim government, and hold actual by-God elections. It’s true that the people of Afghanistan still identify themselves more in terms of tribes than as a nation, but it’s a real stretch to blame us for that. Nice try, though.”If we are truly worried about WMD, then why discard inspectors?”We don’t. But Saddam won’t let them in.”we know that Saddam has not used a WMD outside of his nation since the Gulf War”True. But after 9-11 we are no longer willing to assume that he never will.”If deterrence works, then why are we wasting our time with Iraq when we have more pressing problems?”See above.”If inspections work, then why are we so cavalierly dismissing an option that would neutralize our main concern”Inspections don’t work. Saddam won’t let them in.”the very real and very destabilizing effects this invasion would have?”That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. We want Saddam to be destabilized – toppled, in fact. We want the Saud’s to be scared shitless, and move towards democracy (if for no other reason than to save their own butts). We want the PA, Hamas, the Syrians, and other terrorists and terrorist supporters to realize that their patrons are gone, that they all have bullseyes painted on their foreheads, and that they’d better stop plotting America’s and Israel’s downfall. Destabilization of the entire region is the goal.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
Of course we are spoiling for a reason to invade – we don’t want to have to deal with another 9-11.Deterrence isn’t working. It’s preventing Saddam from attacking us openly, but it is not preventing him from developing WMD’s surreptitiously and slipping them to a terrorist group for application. Stronger measures are needed to prevent this from happening.I frankly cannot believe that you seem to be denying that Arab culture is virulent and murderous. Do you approve of the beheading of homosexuals (KSA), the persecution of religious minorities (throughout), the circumcision of women (throughout), the denial of fair elections (throughout), the stifling of political dissent (throughout)? The last point should be of particular interest to you. People with your political outlook in Arab countries tend to live in prisons. Be thankful that you don’t live under such a culture.And though I don’t expect you to share this view, I am thankful that my government is seriously considering doing something about it.It’s true that the political liberation of Arabs is only a tertiary effect of our intended actions, the real goal being the prevention of violence against us. But liberation will be an effect nonetheless. Does this mean nothing to you?
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
Pray tell, what is it about “fourth generation warfare” that makes deterrence impossible? The idea that people might say that Saddam didn’t do it? That’d only be true if the United States weren’t spoiling for a reason to invade, and it is. Yes, deterrence requires the stick as well as the carrot, but there’s absolutely no reason to believe that that stick doesn’t exist; the danger right now is that there’s no carrot. That’s why your attack on that quote is inaccurate… invading Iraq is not justified as a defensive measure, but it would be were Iraq to attack. As for that “virulent and murderous culture”… Palestine is not the entire middle east, and I personally believe that those with agendas (such as many warbloggers and the current administration) aren’t exactly the best authority to decide whether such a culture is “murderous” or not. The “alternative path” is to leave this “fourth generation” analysis aside (which, although intersting, is just a theory with no real grounding in current international relations theory) and look at what works historically and within related theoretical work. It’s also the idea that one should start with a question and come up with an answer, instead of the warblogger technique of starting with an answer (invade Iraq) and finding a reason for it(WMDs, tame oil supply, “humiliation”, or whatever). I can understand the desire to remove Saddam, as he truly is a bastard, but to do so creates far more problems than it solves and will ruin the United States’ ability to wage the real war on terrorism. Deterrence works, fourth generation or no. It’s scary as hell, but it works.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
I have said this before, but no one has answered the two most important questions:Why won’t deterrence work against Hussein – who, after all, is interested not in destroying Israel, or spreading fundamentalism, but in surviving. If he really was insane, why did he not use his chemical weapons in the Gulf War?AndWhy is Iraq more dangerous than a destabilizing Afghanistan, or an Iran building nuclear reactors, or a deteriorating Pakistan (which already has nuclear weapons), or a Saudi Arabia that actively exports the most vile form of fundamentalism.To me, these two questions form the basis for any justification for invading Iraq, and yet they seem to be taken as givens, never fully addressed.