Greetings all, and an early good morning. I'm coming up for air, upon which I blame any nonsense that may ensue:
There are profound differences between the situation now and that that prevailed in WWI. 1. SH had occupied Kuwait. 2. Lots countries wanted, each of their reasons, to undo that occupation. 3. Some of these contributed substantially to the Gulf I effort: Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, UK, Iran, et al. None of these conditions obtain now. SH is accused of seeking to develop chemical/biological/nuclear weapons of "mass destruction" -- (whatever that means). But this is ALL that is known: a. In the aftermath of Gulf I we know that SH had developed (and used) chemical weapons. We have zero evidence that he has developed or was seeking to develop nuclear or bio weapons. b. Iraq ejected the UN weapons inspection teams, and before that obstructed their inspection processes. What does this add up to? Not much, and certainly no casus belli. Given the lack of casus belli, and in distinction to Gulf I, many will oppose any attack we make on Iraq as unwarranted. They will also view the Bush 'doctrine' that lies behind it (unlimited and un-vetted preemptive strikes at 'suspected' sources of terrorism), as a potential threat to _any_ country that has a quarrel with the US. The countries and peoples who will see any Gulf II in this way are not limited to Muslim countries, but to any country that is starting to see the US as a bully, out of control. They don't have to love SH to feel this way; they simply have to fear the US or believe that the US has gone 'too far.' This is the first time in US history that I can think of where the US government has simply targeted another country because we don't like it. So, why do we do so? One of the many interesting things about Bush and SH, is that it is a rivalry that seems almost entirely personal, and one that is being exploited by others for their own purposes. Only two other countries are urging Bush on: Kuwait and Israel. Odd, isn't it? Even Tony Blair is backing off. Kuwait is pushing Bush on by asserting that the US did only 'half the job' in Gulf I. This is, of course, nonsense; US objectives were to expel Iraq from Kuwait, and that was achieved 100%. Kuwait _does_ have continuing issues with Iraq, some major, but it is nonsense and ill-behooves Kuwait to be asserting that we didn't get the job done, or did not do enough. To this I would say, If Kuwaiti-Iraqi relations deteriorate to the point where US interests are threatened, then we will consider taking action, but we are not is the business of righting all the world's wrongs, and have no interest in further pursuing a vendetta against Kuwait's antagonists. Israel is pushing Bush to attack Iraq because Israel believes that Iraq is not the greatest threat to general Israel security. But Israel's security problems and peace-making skills are such that they will always have enemies, and will always be trying to sic the US on them. To this I would say: the US has done more than enough to protect Israel, and it is time for Israel to do what it has to do to become a 'normal' country and settle the issues that now bring it under such ferocious attack. The US is not interested in further sacrifices of US lives and resources to maintain Israel in its present un-viable posture. There are many things we _can_ do to help Israel, without putting US standing in the world in jeopardy. So, where does that leave us on SH, himself? What many people fail to understand is that Gulf I and our subsequent posture toward SH has served to _build_ -- not minimize -- his stature in Iraq and the Middle East. The US increasingly is viewed as a bully, and SH as one of the few who has the courage to stand up to us. How ironic! SH is one of the least admirable people around, and here we turn him into a heroic figure. In my view, we should do three things regarding SH: 1. Announce that our policy is severe, immediate and non-negotiable retribution against any uses of internationally banned weaponry (CBN) by Iraq. We should make this a general policy, not focused solely on Iraq, but on any country that might use such weapons. Work with other countries generally to limit the spread of CBN-related technology. 2. Ignore SH. Don't criticize him publicly, cease the embargo, and allow the peoples of the world to focus of SH and his policies and actions, rather than on Bush-and-SH. Allow those who wish to bring him down to work to do so without the burden of being viewed as the US's pawns. 3. Remind the Israelis privately that if they want to 'get' SH, they know how to do it better than anyone else, and have the assets in place to do so. Cheers, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:16 AM > To: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV (was Re: Kenneth Lay in > handcuffs? > > > Keith & Jan - Good posts and good exchange of information/opinion that may > be helpful in the next six months if things heat up as expected. > > Let's hope WE ARE ALL WRONG, and that SH is toppled by a non-nuclear coup > d'etat that is quickly supported by the international community. > Moderates > in Iran might be encouraged, if not initially further repressed by the > threatened mullahs, and perhaps replacing SH might lead Saudi Arabia to > consider a less oppressive control of their own people. > > Following my fantasy domino theory, the Palestinians and Israelis kiss and > make up out of sheer economic necessity, just before Israel becomes a > bankrupt state after the IMF moves to prop up Japan. Then, the G8 > could pay > (yes, pay) more attention on the lost South American continent, and maybe, > just maybe, George Bush will decide not to run for a 2nd term, > disappointed > he didn't have the chance to put SH six feet under to avenge his father's > humiliation from not finishing the job himself. > > The ex-President, following recent trends, becomes a leading > entrepreneur in > fitness equipment (his wildly successful infomercials and videos > titled "Cuz > I Said So") converting millions of beer-bellied and twinkie-bottomed > Americans to a healthy lifestyle, finally having a true impact on > the health > care system in a traumatized transitional free-market capitalism (seeing a > resurgence in bartering) and earning a nation's gratitude for helping to > avoid a health care crises of baby boomer proportions, while the gov't > struggles to avoid bankrupting Social Security funds from his tax > cuts. He > receives a special Nobel Prize and retires to Crawford to write a > ghost-written book about all the friends he made in global politics. The > book, titled I Looked into his Eyes, is published by the Carlyle Group. > Sales exceed expectations when, it is later learned by investigative > reporters, every member of the GOP is required to pay at least > 100 books and > contribute to a fund-raiser for Dan Quayle. > > That was fun. No, I'm not drinking decaf. Why? > > Karen > > PS But just in case, I'm keeping my 32-mpg Toyota. Note that Ford is > phasing out their jumbo Expedition models and OPEC wants Russia to keep up > the status quo. ??? > > Keith wrote: > Jan, > > I may be wrong, but my view of what might happen in Gulf War II is much > guided by the occasional reports from BBC correspondents in Saudi > Arabia or > thereabouts which, over the past year or so, suggest that Saudi Arabia is > now close to insurrection for very much the same reasons (Islamic > fundamentalism) as the revolution in Iran in '79 when the Shah was > overthrown (and, ironically, why America teamed up with Saddam Hussein in > that year, lavishing huge quantities of arms on Iraq in order to contain > Iran's revolution spreading further). As you will know, the Saudi > establishment are now so fearful of a similar uprising that they dare not > allow America to develop air bases in the country as springboards for > attacks on Iraq when, you might suppose, it should be only too happy to in > order to have a more friendly Iraqi government. > > As I've written before, I think that Bush's purported reason for war on > Saddam Hussein is a red herring. The sudden acceleration in > Bush's plans in > recent months has not been caused by anything that Saddam Hussein has done > recently or is supposed to be planning in the future, but by the state of > health of King Fahd, 82, now ailing fast in a Swiss hospital where he has > been for the past two months. It would seem that he is now highly > likely to > die within weeks or months at most. > > I agree with you that the Islamic countries of the Middle East would not > support Saddam Hussein on the sole basis of an America attack on Iraq. > Saddam Hussein is not considered to be a good Muslim and Iraq is far from > being a typical Muslim state. They didn't help Saddam Hussein during Gulf > War I and there's no additional reason why they should do so now. > > *Except* in the event that a fundamentalist revolution also takes place in > Saudi Arabia, either being sparked off by King Fahd's death and the > subsequent in-fighting between five princely claimants of the > royal family, > or by the provocation of American troop landings in southern Iraq and > Kuwait. If the fundamentalists take over in Saudi Arabia then American > troops would have to invade the country in order to control the oil wells. > It seems to me that Iran would attempt to prevent that by pouring in their > troops against the Americans. > > As mentioned before, America couldn't fight a land-based war against > foreign troops on three sides. Besides, the last time Iran was at war it > sent in hundreds of thousands of children as suicide squads and > the mullahs > would be quite capable of organising these again. And would the > mullahs and > Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia do the same? Quite likely. Apart from the > inevitable deaths of their own soldiers, would American public opinion > stand for large scale massacres of children? (that is, middle > class/intelligentsia opinion as opposed to the virulently anti-Muslim view > of Christian fundamentalists which now holds sway). > > The only way that America could preempt such conventional military attacks > and avoid a blood bath would be by threatening both countries with nuclear > bombs. If America threatened to nuke Jeddah and an > equivalent-sized city in > Iran -- and perhaps even carry it out -- then this is about the only thing > that America could do to keep the two countries out of the conflict while > it got on with pursuing Saddam Hussein and trying to encourage a new Iraqi > government. > > It seems so incredibly unreal to be calmly writing about nuclear > warfare in > such a way. Yet Bush himself broke through this incredibility barrier > himself many months ago when he talked about the possible use of nuclear > weapons against 'evil' countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. I > would be very surprised if Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (deputy defence > secretary) have not considered the scenario I have sketched above. > > Another likely consequence of all this is that Israel would take advantage > of the situation and drive Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza into > neighbouring countries. They drove 650,000 Palestinians out of Israel in > 1948 when establishing the new state and, in van Creveld's opinion, Ariel > Sharon is contemplating a repeat performance in the event of any > extraordinary pretext. Martin van Creveld, one of the world's leading > military specialists (quite beside being an Israeli) considers that such a > pretext could be the assassination of the King of Jordan by Palestinian > terrorists or an act of terror in Israel which kills hundreds rather than > dozens of Israelis but the one I have sketched above is equivalent. (I > think there's more than a hint that Rumsfeld is well aware of this > possibility and that's why neither he nor Bush are getting themselves into > a sweat in trying to solve the present problems in Israel.) > > Muslim fundamentalism, according to Prof Bernard Lewis, acknowledged to be > one of the world's authorities on the history of Islam, is not simply > virulent anti-Americanism. This is just the latest version of a bitter > hatred of anything that seems to have caused the decline of what > was once a > powerful Muslim Empire for hundreds of years right up until comparitively > recent times. In trying to find reasons for their decline, the mullahs of > the Middle East Islam have increasingly fallen back on a defence of the > pure form of their religion and in opposition to any technological or > secular trend which reduces their power and influence. There are a handful > of universities in Saudi Arabia and Iran (combined population of 35 > million), which is amazing, considering their financial assets, and their > industries (apart from oil) only manage to export as much as Finland (with > 5 million population). > > For this reason, in addition to the necessity of Middle East oil supplies, > American foreign policy experts have now given up on any possibility of > rapprochement with Middle East Islam -- at least this side of 2100. So it > seems to be a matter of needs must when the devil drives as far as America > is concerned, and no amount of opposition from liberal opinion in Europe > and elsewhere is going to persuade it otherwise. > > It may be just a 'simple' matter of dethroning Saddam Hussein, as > you write > below, but I doubt whether it will stop there (or even perhaps > start there). > > Keith Hudson > > Jan wrote: > At 23:02 08/08/02 +0200, you wrote: > >The second Irak war will not be Vietnam again for several reasons. First > >and foremost Iraq doesn't have the Soviet or Chinese backing Vietnam had > but > >will be utterly isolated. Secondly the Iraqi people don't > believe in Saddam > >the way Vietnamese believed in Ho Chi Minh. Thirdly the > Americans have now > >more conventional firepower, high technology weaponry and satellite > >intelligence etc. than during the Vietnam era. Fourthly everyone > with a bit > >of sense agrees Saddam Hoessein is a dictator and criminal, > oppressing his > >own people, which is quite something different from the north Vietnamese > >leaders who at least were idealists. So there will be some protest from > >Europe, but the anti-war movement within the US will be nothing like the > >anti-Vietnam-war movement. The war will not go on and on, but > most probably > >will be over about as quickly as the Golf war of 1991 was; and that was > very > >quick, remember? > >All Arabs unite behind Saddam? He would certainly like it, but there is > >little or no chance of that. Nothing of the sort will happen in Iran, why > >should it? They have been fighting Iraq for a decade, and Saddam is not > >their friend nor even co-religionist. And why would any muslim > >fundamentalists suddenly be able to take power in Saudi-Arabia > next month, > >when they weren't in the previous year when their precious friends the > >Taliban were attacked? There is a point in the danger of fundamentalists > >taking over Saudi Arabia in the long run though. This country has been > >provided with weapons by the West for decades. But don't forget they fly > >American planes, need American spare parts, don't have satellites etc. I > >don't believe they stand a chance against US and British. And, > guess what, > >they are not stupid like Saddam seems to be. They know this too. > >So, I'm sorry, but your scenario has a very small chances of > becoming real. > >The Bush scenario will probably unfold more or less as planned. The main > >question is, what and who after Saddam... That's what keeps me busy. > >In any case we seem to agree that 'the empire' is going to win this war. > > > >Jan Matthieu > > >
