This War Can Be Avoided

[lummy 4]

Some interesting reading from the SF chronicle this morning. Source found here

IMO, the title is wrong, it should read "a view from the Parents"

This War Can Be Avoided
a view from the left

Kuwait is not Poland. Iraq is not Nazi Germany. Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler. This year, 2003, is not 1939.

People who now urge a slaughterous attack on the Iraqi people don't seem to understand these simple facts.

In September 1939, the mighty armies of Germany and the Soviet Union invaded and quickly conquered Poland, which was virtually defenseless. We like to say now that the world stood by and did nothing, but that's not true. The world finally began to prepare for war.

Germany, at the time, had a magnificent army. Going one-on-one against almost any nation, it was capable of winning decisively. The Soviet Union's military might was nearly on a par with Germany's.

Japan, possibly the world's third-strongest power at the time, had thrown in its lot with Germany.

So, in fact, there really was nobody to resist Germany's aggression. The United States, a long way from becoming a superpower, was on a peacetime footing, and not prepared for war. Britain was gearing up, but it, too, was unprepared.

One can argue that the rest of the world should have seen what Hitler and Stalin and Tojo, and Mussolini, were up to, and perhaps it did. But not in time to help Poland.

How different things were in 1990, when Iraq decided to settle, once and for all, its long-standing dispute with the so-called constitutional monarchy (more monarchy than constitutional) of Kuwait. Hussein invaded and quickly conquered Kuwait, declaring it Iraq's 19th province.

However, unlike Hitler's ambitions in 1939, Hussein's aspirations in 1990 quickly backfired. The rest of the world was mobilized and prepared. The United States -- fearing further aggression by Iraq and destabilization of oil prices -- quickly put together a fighting force to take back Kuwait for the emir and sheiks who own it and the Palestinians who do their work for them.

George Bush the Elder did a magnificent job at the time of rallying world support for a war to retake Kuwait, dropping bribes and forgiving loans at a dizzying pace. Whatever his tactics, they worked, and by the time the American-led and American-dominated forces went on the attack, just about the entire world was united behind them.

The "fight" to retake Kuwait was more like a slaughter. Iraq was said to have the fourth-strongest military in the world at the time, but it might as well have fought with sticks and stones. American technology and firepower pulverized the Iraqis.

So Kuwait was quickly retaken. After a virtual massacre of an estimated 85,000 retreating Iraqi troops, the war was deemed over. Bush, who had made commitments to neighboring nations to not destroy Hussein and throw Iraq into chaos, didn't know what to do next, so he simply withdrew most of our forces.

Please note that there was no appeasement of Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. He was promptly kicked out, at great cost to his armies and his pocketbook. Arms inspectors were sent into Iraq to find and destroy Hussein's major weapons, a job they carried out with varying degrees of success. Economic embargoes were placed against Iraq, and "no-fly zones" were established over huge parts of the country.

Over the past dozen years, U.S. and British planes have struck perhaps thousands of times against Iraq. According to "The World Almanac," more than 400 targets were struck within Iraq in the seven months between January and August 1999 alone. We even bombed and shelled military targets in Baghdad on occasion.


Because of the devastation inside Iraq, and a shortage of food, the United Nations relented on its economic embargoes enough to allow Iraq to sell oil for food. Unfortunately, the U.N. did not supervise the oil-for-food program, so it turned into an oil-for-palaces program. Iraqi children continued to starve, thanks to Hussein's callousness and the U.N.'s carelessness.

The U.N. also allowed Hussein to wreck the weapons-inspections program.

The U.N., by itself, has virtually no enforcement ability, so it depends on the leadership of great nations like the United States to provide that ability. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton wasn't up to that job during his terms of office, nor was George W. Bush before Sept. 11, 2001.

However, it's not too late, not even now.

We seem to forget that Iraq is a vanquished aggressor nation. As such, Iraq does not call the shots. It does what it is told.

Good parents never threaten their children unless they're willing to carry out the threat. Children constantly threatened but never punished grow up thinking they can get away with anything.

The same principle applies here. Hussein has been threatened mightily by the U.N., but punishment for noncompliance has ranged from puny to nonexistent. So Hussein believes he can get away with anything.

That's why he keeps toying with the arms inspectors. Experience has taught him he can get away with it.

The U.N. has made mistakes. The United States has not provided the leadership it should have. However, the remedy for these mistakes is not mass murder. We don't have to destroy Iraq and tens of thousands of its people -- and put our own people at risk of retaliation -- in order to set things right.

If we use our heads, instead of just our muscle, we can get the compliance from Iraq required by the world.

For one thing, we can supervise the oil-for-food program so it works as intended. The fact that Hussein abuses that program is our fault, not his. We know what he is, so why would we expect him to do anything right? It is our obligation to make sure he does it right.

We should disarm Iraq completely and turn it into a kind of U.N. protectorate. Hussein, of course, would not like this proposal. So what? We really don't care what he likes, do we?

If the goal is tranquillity in the region, a clawless Iraq, protected by U.N. forces stationed within Iraq, would go a long way toward achieving that goal. Even Israel, bellicose as it is, might appreciate that solution.

War against Iraq can be avoided. An offensive war, for a nation as powerful as ours, is an admission of failure. It is a sign of impatience and emotional immaturity. Such a war diminishes our moral standing in the world because it demonstrates a lack of character.

Strong people don't control weaker people by knocking their blocks off. "All or nothing" is the philosophy of morons. The same principles apply to nations. When we demonstrate we're incapable of dealing with intermediate steps, we demonstrate our intellectual and moral weaknesses.

We Americans have no aversion to the use of force to achieve our goals. Nor should we, when our goals are noble. However, brute strength should be used wisely and judiciously. An all-out war against Iraq now, when intermediate measures are still available, is neither wise nor judicious.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 3,090]

>We should disarm Iraq completely and turn it into a kind of U.N.
> protectorate. Hussein, of course, would not like this proposal. So
> what? We really don't care what he likes, do we?

I would be curious to see how the author sees this happening. 100,000 UN troops stationed permanently in Iraq? I think the terrorist attacks on troops would start within a week; we'd be fighting the same endless war that Israel is fighting now.

It could be a valid idea, but I think the end result would just be the delay of the war by a few weeks. We would only tolerate so much violence against UN troops before we fought back.

[happythoughts 0]

Bill,

I can understand that there are people out there who are sincerely involved in war as a religious issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. If you totally believe in a religion, it would almost seem logical.

However, when Iran and Iraq were having it out, how did they justify that?

[adamT 0]

Quote

In September 1939, the mighty armies of Germany and the Soviet Union invaded and quickly conquered Poland, which was virtually defenseless. We like to say now that the world stood by and did nothing, but that's not true. The world finally began to prepare for war.

I got to this part and stopped reading. If you are going to use history in an argument at least get it right. Since when where the russians allied with germany in ww2.

[lummy 4]

Quote

I would be curious to see how the author sees this happening.

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Just how would the UN get a couple hundred thousand soldiers into the country without a war?

Logistics aside, I think the author made many valid points why war is not the best couse of action.While reading, I found myself wondering quite a few times which side the author was leaning towards, until I came to the conclusion that it was somewhere in the middle. Definitely a minority when everything seems to be polarized

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[lummy 4]

Quote

I got to this part and stopped reading. If you are going to use history in an argument at least get it right. Since when where the russians allied with germany in ww2.

Germany invaded Poland on Sep 1, 1939.. Russia invade on the 17th from the east. Poland was fighting 2 enemies. when Poland surrendered, Russia and Germany split up Poland

read about it here

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I got to this part and stopped reading. If you are going to use history in an argument at least get it right. Since when where the russians allied with germany in ww2.

In 1939, when they signed a Non-Aggression Pact. The Germans wanted to avoid a conflict w/ Russia so as not to have a two-front war, so they got Russia on board by saying that they (the German army) would give back to the Soviets all the territory that the Russians had lost as a result of WWI. End result? Russia would stand by as the Germans invaded Poland.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[adamT 0]

Oops, thanks for clearing that up. I was only remebering russia and germany fighting with each other.
adam

[billvon 3,090]

>However, when Iran and Iraq were having it out, how did they justify that?

How did who justify what? Sorry, I didn't follow.

[Shark 0]

War is ugly. War is also the last resort. With that said, war is the result of failed diplomacy. Where is diplomacy failing? In this case it would be noncompliance to the UN resolutions to include disarmament.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Where is diplomacy failing?

Sadham...

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

War is ugly. War is also the last resort. With that said, war is the result of failed diplomacy. Where is diplomacy failing? In this case it would be noncompliance to the UN resolutions to include disarmament.

I think war is the result of greed. On a local level, you have police. If someone steals from you, then an authority figure steps in and removes the threat with imprisonment.

With countries, those in power wish to take over another country for whatever resources it has. There is no authority figure. Countries defend themselves through the use of alliances. Generally, the poplulation of the aggressor country is not driving the action, it is a small number of people who will gain wealth from the attack.

Diplomacy only works when people want to discuss something. Most of the time an aggressor nation does not want to discuss. There is not a failure of diplomacy because no one is trying it.

[Shark 0]

Quote

Diplomacy only works when people want to discuss something. Most of the time an aggressor nation does not want to discuss. There is not a failure of diplomacy because no one is trying it.

Not the UN? How about an 18th Resolution some euro countries suggested? Wait, I just heard that another resolution won't work.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Diplomacy only works when people want to discuss something. Most of the time an aggressor nation does not want to discuss. There is not a failure of diplomacy because no one is trying it.

Not the UN? How about an 18th Resolution some euro countries suggested? Wait, I just heard that another resolution won't work.

Another resolution? The UN is saying, "You haven't been listening to us, so now we're going to say something more".

Is that like putting "No Parking" signs in front of banks to stop bank robberies ? Just something else to be ignored. Iraq hasn't worried about UN resolutions for 10 years.

[Shark 0]

Exactly...

[billvon 3,090]

>Not the UN? How about an 18th Resolution some euro countries
>suggested? Wait, I just heard that another resolution won't work.

Well, it's odd. They didn't propose any new resolutions; we did. The European proposal is basically a plan (not a resolution) for a staged disarmament of Iraq. They considered trying another resolution:

"But Chirac noted the Security Council already has passed a resolution demanding Iraq's disarmament, making another resolution unnecessary." (LAtimes)

So they're proposing a plan with essentially no penalties if Iraq doesn't comply. The US, on the other hand, is introducing a resolution that says Hussein is not complying, and the conclusion of the resolution is that the UN "remain seized of the matter." I can't see that helping anything; they will still bicker over what "remaining seized" means and what "serious consequences" are.

Personally, I'd like to see a resolution that just lays it all out. Do X, Y and Z by this date or UN troops will enter Iraq to disarm you; if you resist it will be war. That way, if it passes, there's no longer any question about what will happen to Hussein if he doesn't comply quickly.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Personally, I'd like to see a resolution that just lays it all out. Do X, Y and Z by this date or UN troops will enter Iraq to disarm you; if you resist it will be war. That way, if it passes, there's no longer any question about what will happen to Hussein if he doesn't comply quickly.

I agree with you. I just don't see how we are ever going to get a resolution like that passed. France and Germany won't even support the current "new" resolution and it falls short of that type of direct language.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kallend 2,124]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Diplomacy only works when people want to discuss something. Most of the time an aggressor nation does not want to discuss. There is not a failure of diplomacy because no one is trying it.

Not the UN? How about an 18th Resolution some euro countries suggested? Wait, I just heard that another resolution won't work.

Another resolution? The UN is saying, "You haven't been listening to us, so now we're going to say something more".

Is that like putting "No Parking" signs in front of banks to stop bank robberies ? Just something else to be ignored. Iraq hasn't worried about UN resolutions for 10 years.

There is already a UN resolution in place, 1441. Its terms give the decision on whether Iraq is complying (or not) to the security council based on input from the UN inspectors, not to Chirac, Blair, Bush, you, me, or anyone else on this forum. If Blair, Bush et al. really want to help, they should provide intelligence to the inspectors and not undercut them by grandstanding at the UN. If the allies want to be the "white hats", they should abide by the rules themselves.

Then again, maybe it's all just a game of good-cop/bad-cop.

Since the allies have chosen to go the UN route, they should see the process through.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.