From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >At 02:06 PM 9/7/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote: >>I still want someone to tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorism, >>Or 'had' to do with terrorism, as it may well have a lot to do with it >>in the future. I wish people would stop saying terrorism and Iraq in >>the same sentence, or else explain, with the addition of some evidence.> >I've addressed this many times on the List, but here is a quick summary: I have been meaning to respond to this for ages, sadly have not had the time until now. Thank you for summarising it again, it is a topic that interests me, and your viewpoint is valued. >1) Following September 11th, it was clear that letting failed States fester >posed a threat to the United States. Back in 1994, it would not have been >obvious that Taliban-occupied Afghanistan was a threat to the United States >- but this country would go on to produce the most devastating attack on >the United States in 50+ years. OK. And I, along with most of the world supported the actions the US took to stabilise Afghanistan. An effort, that sadly seems to have taken a back seat to events in Iraq. Afghanistan had clearly aided AQ in its terrorism, and had refused to co-operate in handing over the criminals. Your reference to failed states is an interesting one. Are you suggesting that Iraq was a failed state like Afghanistan? If so, I would be forced to debate you. Not a state I would want to live in, but I dont think you can call it failed. Iraq was not a failed state, so its invasion could not have been realistically considered part of the war on terror. I am concerned that without a long term US presence, Iraq may well revert to a failed state, which would seem to rather defeat the purpose. I am also concerned that the US has taken its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and also in regard to Osama et al. >2) Following September 11th, if terrorists were able to kill thousands >using airplanes, it immediately became worrisome as to how many thousands >could be killed through the use of WMD's. Saddam Hussein had twice come >within a year or so of building a nuclear bomb in 1981 and again in 1991. >Moreover, Western intelligence services had been previously caught >completely by surprises in 1991, again in India and Pakistans several years >later, again in the DPRK in 2001, and then again in Iran in 2003. Given >that intelligence could not be relied upon to predict when a nuclear bomb >would be imminent, pre-emptive action was necessary due to the tremendous >downside of letting Hussein go nuclear. I dont doubt it was not in the USA's strategic interests (or anyone else's for that matter) for Saddam to aquire nuclear weapons. There were programs in place to monitor this, steps underway to ascertain the status of his efforts, and a general consensus that it was not a good idea to let him get nuclear bombs. I don't think anyone disagrees that Saddam having bombs would be a bad thing. At the time of the invasion, there was not really much evidence to suggest that he did, or was even close. But this is a different question anyway, one of nations rights to defense etc, one of strategic balance. All important issues, but...
I return to my question. What has this to do with terrorism? There was no link established between Saddam and AQ, no hint that he was hanging out to hand over atom bombs to AQ, who would have been just as likely to use them against him as anyone. Saddam was a SOB, but not a fool. If he had bombs, it was his hand that was going to be on the trigger, not anyone elses. I noted with interest the recent revelations that the US seems to have not been bothered to protect Iraq's nuclear facilities after the invasion, and that half the place was looted. To me that speaks volumes about where the Bush administrations real priorities lay. They did manage to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry. >3) The primary grievance of Osama bin Laden was the permanent placement of >US troops in Saudi Arabia - a strategic necessity so long as Saudi Arabia >continued to supply the plurality of the world's oil and so long as Saddam >Hussein remained in power on Saudi Arabia's border. Eliminating Saddam >Hussein would permit the US to begin to defuse this grievance. I can't claim to understand AQ's reasoning, but I don't dispute that this is part of their public rationale. And here is where it gets interesting. The US could have pulled their troops out of Saudi Arabia any time it choose. Was Saddam about to invade Saudi Arabia? After such a resounding success in Kuwait? I doubt that somehow, but regardless, it was the US's choice to keep its troops their, to, as you say, defend their strategic interests. Saddam saw the worlds response to his invasion of Kuwait. Do you imagine he thought we would let him invade Saudi Arabia? And would the US troops in Saudi Arabia have been enough to stop him anyway? It was a strategic, power projection issue for the US, probably as much to do with internal Saudi politics as anything. And would pulling them out be giving into terrorism? And are you suggesting that invading Iraq was somehow going to make AQ lay down its arms? As you point out, troops in Iraq pose a real threat to Saudi independence. So taking out the anti-US, Arab ruled government in Iraq, and having a compliant Saudi government, and a vassal Iraqi state, with the 101st Airborne 45 mins from Mecca instead of 15 was going to make them dance in the streets? I think you are underestimating their intelligence. The US has no intention of surrendering strategic control over the Middle East. Moving the bulk of the troops from Saudi Arabia to a conquered Iraq would change nothing, and would do nothing to calm AQ's concerns. Quite the contrary, as it just further demonstrates the US's intent to do whatever is needed to retain control. Removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia may have removed one of AQ's concerns, I doubt however, that moving them to Baghdad was quite what Osama had in mind. So as a sop to terrorism, it was a pretty stupid move. >4) The September 11th attacks were carried out by a large number of Saudis >- apparently iun large part due to #3, and probably also in large part in >reaction to the tyranny in their own country. This necessitated working >for reform, if not regime change in Saudi Arabia - something that was >impossible so long as US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. Removing >Saddam Hussein would permit us to take stronger gambles with pressuring >Saudi Arabia for change. I must have missed the mass US evacuation of Saudi Arabia, and the subsequent pressure for regime change. I am not privy to the highest diplomatic channels, so its quite possible I am sure. Are you suggesting that the Saudi's, cowering in fear from Saddam's iminent invasion, where going to throw out the US troops? And that the US, gentle, subtle, diplomat that its recent invasion of Iraq demonstrated was afraid of appearing too forceful in its words to the Saudis. And that the absence of US troops was somehow going to prompt the Saudi's into embracing democracy, or that the sort of regime change that would have pleased Osama would have been greeted with open arms by the US? Are you really suggesting that the US wanted to abandon Saudi Arabia to an unsupervised probably fundamentalist led regime change, and that they would sit by and let that happen? The US intends to retain control over Iraq, and over Saudi Arabia. This has a whole lot to do with strategic power projection, and almost nothing to do with fighting terrorism. >5) Two of the primary sources of Arab outrage against the US are the >continued occupation of the Palestinian people by Israel and the >impoverishment of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein and UN Sanctions - >both of which are often blamed on the US. Removing Saddam Hussein would >eliminate a funding source for Palestinian terrorism - the single greatest >obstacle to peace there, as well as ending the UN sanctions on the Iraqi >people and leading to their eventual relative economic prosperity. I confess to being ignorant as to the extent of Saddam's real support for Palestinian terrorism. I have read stuff, and dont deny its possibility, just question whether his input actually increased it. I remain neutral on that issue, neither confiriming or denying. In all likelehood, removing Saddam has reduced some money flowing into Palestine. The whole Israel/Palestine issue is a can of worms... another option would be removing US support for Israel for example..not one I necessarily support, but an option regardless. Saddam is gone, the terror in Israel continues. If the best ther US could do to solve the Israel issue was invade Iraq, then geez... why not invade Palestine, get right to the point. I bet that would have thrilled AQ as well. As for the sanctions... well... you got me there... so you think AQ was going to prefer a US vassal state in Iraq than a struggling, starving, independent Iraq? I dont doubt that poverty and starvation in Iraq were an issue for AQ, I do wonder if opening 500 McDonalds franchises in restored Mosques was quite the solution they had in mind. Thus, I still cant see how invading Iraq was supposed to end terrorism. >6) Removing Saddam Hussein and installing a semi-liberal democracy in Iraq >ala Turkey or Bangladesh would serve as a kernal for reform in one of the >most totalitarian regions of the world - which not coincidentally is also >the wellspring of most of the world's terrorism. I would love to see a flowering of democracy in Iraq. It is a noble aim, and one I fully support. I dont think the US invasion was the way to do it, or if it was, it should have been done differently. Like with a clear UN mandate. Its pretty hard to impose democracy on a country, especially one as troubled as Iraq. But, this aim I can support. I might suggest that we could have started elsewhere, like Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or even Iran. And we might have used tools other than the unilateral invasion of a soverign state. There were a ton of other options open to the US (and the world) to address these issues. Patience could have let some of them develop, perhaps fail (again) and perhaps succeed. Bush choose to invade Iraq. And supposedly to prevent terrorism. I am not arging that the invasion of Iraq was not done in the long term strategic interests of the US. I am a realist, and I dont deny the US its right to protect its interests. I would contend that other nations have the same right, and that I think this was a strategic error on the part of Bush. I think it has done more harm to the US's long term interests in the region than good. I think it was stupid. I hate war, but accept sometimes it is the only feasible course of action. Here it was not. It was a mistake. And it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was a strategic decision made by the Bush administration. I dont support it, and believe it set a very bad precedent for the conduct of international relations. It was an unprovoked invasion of an independent country. This doctrine of pre-emption is a Pandora's Box. The US represents a realistic threat to every nation on earth. No intelligence mis-management is required to make that appear so. It is. And to some (misguided I believe) it is a corrupt, power hungry, nuclear armed, biologically equiped tyranny. On this basis, the invasion of Iraq provides an ethical basis for an attack on the US. For this reason alone it is a bad doctrine. It was a lie, or an excuse, or a total stupidity. There was no demonstrated link between Iraq and terrorism. The Bush administation has admitted as much, and claims that it had to be done quickly to save the free world are just hocum. It had a lot more to do with the US election cycle. Pre-emptive invasion of other countries cos they are perceived to represent a posible risk in the future is a very slipperly slope. One does not embark on such a slope without absolute proof of ones perceptions. Even then I am not sure I can support it. Thus my objection to the Invasion of Iraq. It was wrong, stupid, and had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I do however, hope it works out OK in the end. I am proud to be on the side of democracy and the US, but I feel ok with being critical of it too, cos that what democracy stands for. Andrew
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
