If Not War, Then What????

[Dreadsox]

Hello to all. After tomorrow, when Colin Powell presents the case to the United Nations, we will be trying to decide what course to take. We have had many threads here in FYM about the evils of war and President Bush.

I think, on both sides, we would all prefer to not go to war. I think we can all agree that we do not wish to see unecessary death and destruction. SO what do you think is the best course of action?

In this thread, I would prefer to keep the WAR option out of it. Here some options to choose from, you may pick your own, but please, do not turn this into a WAR thread. I think we have enough creative minds here, to come up with other solutions.

1. Rebuild Containment set in place in 1991.
2. Add more stronger sanctions.
3. Allow Saddam to build WMD and use Detterence for future aggressions.
4. Covertly remove Saddam.
5. Support opposition movement.

Thanks....

Peace

 

[bonoman]

I asked this question months ago and didnt find many great ideas. As in great i mean workable ideas. Many people believe there shouldnt be a war but give no other alternative.

I personally think the removal of Saddam would be great. Either by killing him or by making him go away from the country or the leadership but the people of Iraq seem to be againist this. This isnt Afganistan, we wont be welcomed. I really dont think giving him another chance is the way to go. He has been givin so many chances and for us to give him another one that is giving him the power.

I really couldnt tell you what other option would be plausable. I support the war if he doesnt do what the UN wants but then again this is only one man and i would think if there was another sane man in the leadership in Iraq they would see the danger of what might happen and they would change their stance.

This is such a hard question to answer. personally i dont think there is another alternative but maybe others have seen one i missed.

 

[STING2]

I consider options one and two to be the same. They are both Containment and I think this is the best option if one were to exclude the option of war. Unfortunately, it won't work, but its the best option if you were to exclude war in my opinion, and has been the option chosen since 1991 for the most part. Option 3 is to dangerous and options 4 and 5 have virtually no chance of working. In fact option 5 would only have a marginal chance of working if the USA was heavily involved with Airpower. Option 5 is basically a war option.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Well, the USA is already working on the #5 option (training exiles in Hungary, financially supporting Iraqi political parties in exile and helping them design a post-Saddam Iraq).

I also see a #6: allow the weapons inspectors to do their job, searching for and eliminating Saddam's weapon arsenal. They've only been in Iraq again for 2 months, which is a very short time. Give them more time to complete their inspections. As long as they stay in Iraq, Saddam will not be able to (re)build WMD, as the chance that the inspectors will find them is then too high (IMO).

C ya!

Marty

 

[STING2]

The USA has worked with exiles before and made attempts to impliment option 5. They have all failed and will never succeed. If Saddam is to be disarmed, only Saddam himself or the USA military can achieve that.

The UN inspectors do not have the ability to inspect area's the Iraqi military does not want them to. They do not have weapons or tanks. For the most part inspectors found things that Iraq decided to give up in the hopes they could get the sanctions lifted. The inspectors themselves never had the ability to destroy or take any of the weapons that they found if the Iraq military had decided not to give them up. More time than I can count, were weapons inspectors blocked, while the Iraqi's sneaked weapons out the other side of buildings.

When the inspectors left in 1998, Iraq still had not accounted for 30,000 Chemical/Bio munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas.

Saddam is willing to play the game of "Hide And Seek" because he knows that ultimately he can win that game. The inspectors will probably be "cold" for a long time in the sense they can't find anything, but if they ever get "hot" in the sense their about to make a major find. The Iraqi's have the ability to block them for how ever long they need to re-hide any evidence they would be about to find.

Today as we speak with "Weapons Inspectors" on the ground, Iraqi Republican Guard Troops have been engaged in training manuvers to use Chemical and Biological Weapons. The value of goods smuggled into Iraq last year was estimated at over 4 Billion dollars. This continues everyday across most of Iraq's borders. As we talk about this, goods are being smuggled into Iraq that can aid in the development of WMD.

 

[Popmartijn]

The USA has worked with exiles before and made attempts to impliment option 5. They have all failed and will never succeed. If Saddam is to be disarmed, only Saddam himself or the USA military can achieve that.

Those attempts have failed only because the USA didn't want them to succeed. At the end of the Gulf War there was a strong opposition in Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Most of the opposition were sji'ites, gathered around Basra in the south of Iraq. There would be an uprising, supported by the US airforce (who would prevent the Iraqi air force from attacking). Well, the uprising came, but the USA dropped out of the promised air support. Thus, the Iraqi army could suppress the uprising.
So it's not that they'll never succeed, it's just that until today there has not been enough commitment.

The UN inspectors do not have the ability to inspect area's the Iraqi military does not want them to. They do not have weapons or tanks. For the most part inspectors found things that Iraq decided to give up in the hopes they could get the sanctions lifted. The inspectors themselves never had the ability to destroy or take any of the weapons that they found if the Iraq military had decided not to give them up. More time than I can count, were weapons inspectors blocked, while the Iraqi's sneaked weapons out the other side of buildings.

The inspectors have the ability to immediately report to the Security Council that Saddam is not cooperating. Strong enough evidence of that is enough for a second UN resolution enabling the use of military force against Saddam.

Saddam is willing to play the game of "Hide And Seek" because he knows that ultimately he can win that game. The inspectors will probably be "cold" for a long time in the sense they can't find anything, but if they ever get "hot" in the sense their about to make a major find. The Iraqi's have the ability to block them for how ever long they need to re-hide any evidence they would be about to find.

See my statement above. Any blocking of the inspectors will be reported to the Security Council. As for 'hide and seek', yes, Saddam may play that game. But as long as they are hidden and the inspectors are searching for them he cannot use them/show them. And he may think he can win that game, but ultimately he'll lose. Either any concealed weapons will be revealed, or he will not be in power anymore (what's his age again? Past 60?).

C ya!

Marty

 

[STING2]

Popmartian,

These days being over 60 is not old anymore. As for reporting Iraqi blockage to the Security Council this happened all the time in the 1990s, but action was only occasionally taken and had little to no effect in accomplishing the objective. "Cheat And Retreat" it was called. There has already been tons of Iraqi obstruction which is illegal, but steps to stop this or correct it were never taken.

Iraqi Self Propelled Artillery can move anywhere in Iraq. A single one of these Self Propelled Artillery vehicles could hold 60 Artillery shells filled or that could be filled with Chemical and Biological weapons. At any point inspectors want to inspect something the of the Republican Guard they can, but the Iraqi's will simply transfer what they need to hide to other units. Because Iraq's much of Iraq's WMD program can be mounted on mobile trailers or in Iraqi military vehicles and need be, be transfered to other units not being searched, the Iraqi's can continue to both hide and hold on to the capability to use WMD weapons. The only thing that is going to make Saddam comply if he does not want to is the USA military.

As for attempts to use only the US Airforce to support Iraqi opposition after the Gulf War, such an effort probably would have failed. While the USA Airforce has great capabilities it cannot make up for the lack of strenth that the 12,000 Shiat forces and the 50,000 Kurds in the North had. Such forces were weak, had no tanks, and would not be able to overthrow the Iraqi regime if only the US airforce was involved. Bringing down the Iraqi regime would take the use of USA ground forces just as it had taken USA ground forces to liberate Kuwait and temporarily occupy southern Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq lost most of its tanks, and Armored Vehicles during the 100 hour ground war rather than the 40 day airwar. The Airforce is great and can accomplish many goals but it can do everything. Iraq still had over 300,000 troops at the end of the Gulf War vs. at most 70,000 lightly armed resistance fighters, they did not have the capability, equipment, training and years of experienced like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan did. For the 1991 revolt to succeed would require large numbers of US ground troops.

 

[Popmartijn]

Then why did the USA make a promise to support the opposition in the first place, if they knew they could/would not hold up to their promise?

Oh, and you're talking about reporting incidents to the Security Council in the '90s. This is 2003 and there is a new, harsher resolution. The circumstances have changed.

C ya!

Marty

 

[STING2]

The opposition get little of the support the USA promised them. There was a lot of dispute in the Clinton administration at the time about whether or not to use them. An invasion at the time was not on the table. Many in light of that considered this to be the best option short of invasion. But just as many saw it as laughable that it would ever work. As time and events have shown, they were right. Especially after the debacle the 1996 Coup attempt was in the Kurdish Northern part of Iraq.

"Oh, and you're talking about reporting incidents to the Security Council in the '90s. This is 2003 and there is a new, harsher resolution. The circumstances have changed."

Thats true. But realize also that Iraq has had four years to hide and develop ways of concealing weapons of mass destruction in addition to being experience and enlightened from its previous UN inspection experience. Indeed, the circumstances have changed.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:
That's the best question i've read on the iraq subject!

A complete iraq blocade would be my favourite.
So that the UN can ensure that no military stuff can be imported in the Iraq. Food and medicine should be allowed to pass this blocade of course.
Of course this blocade has to be more than just noble words.
We would need military to enforce it (ships patroling in the sea and ground troups at the borders of Turkey, Iran, ...)

Klaus

 

[hiphop]

I would like to see Saddam removed, as I would like to see every cruel leader removed. I think, though, that the Iraqi folks have to do that themselves. If they are the ones who were kept "in order", and their brothers the ones who were killed, they have to get up and try a revolution. If CIA or Mossad or whoever does this, it will not earn them respect, but the contrary by a majority of Iraqis, I think, for mixing into Iraq?s affairs.

I think the blockade is quite a strong one economically (Oil for food). To ensure that no military stuff is imported, there would have to be controls all around, especially illegal weapon traders (but also official ones, France f.e., a country that always likes to make big bucks with arms trade) worldwide should be be watched closely. The Pentagon and the NSA have the power and the necessary technique to do so.

Plus, the opposition movement has to be strengthened. Civil society has to be strengthened. With this, democracy strenghtens itself.

Plus, there has to be pressure and control from the UN. The controls of the IAEA could be continued.

Plus, solve the problem with Palestine! Give them an own state and the rest of the Arabic world will not support Saddam as a strong Arabian leader anymore - not to that extent. Make deals with people who are known to intelligence. With King Hussein from Jordania, for example, or with Arafat? Don?t support Sharon anymore, support someone who keeps Israel being the "U.S. base in the Arab region", if you want, but with less extreme policies towards Palestine.

Get less extreme, and the "enemy?s" power will crumble. Saddam will lose his allies, by not having support from his own folks, no more support from other Arabic states.

And chase the Al Quaeda for real.

 

[U2girl]

Keep sanctions and inspectors in Iraq. International exchange of intelligence info to help them work effectively, if necessary, add military backup troops (sort of "peacekeeping" kind of troops) if they should be stopped.

 

[JOFO]

Dreadsox:
That's the best question i've read on the iraq subject!

A complete iraq blocade would be my favourite.
So that the UN can ensure that no military stuff can be imported in the Iraq. Food and medicine should be allowed to pass this blocade of course.
Of course this blocade has to be more than just noble words.
We would need military to enforce it (ships patroling in the sea and ground troups at the borders of Turkey, Iran, ...)

Klaus

ok, saddam has been allowed food and medicine since the gulf war. guess what? he sold it so he could buy more military supplies, materials for weapons programs, etc.
his people's suffering won't stop until he's out of power. if that can be accomplished without spilling a drop of blood, that's perfect.

 

[JOFO]

Keep sanctions and inspectors in Iraq. International exchange of intelligence info to help them work effectively, if necessary, add military backup troops (sort of "peacekeeping" kind of troops) if they should be stopped.

yep, and we had this for the last 12 years. guess what? it didn't work. he's still got his weapons and treats the u.n. like some bunch of idiots he's got on the end of a fishing pole.
saddam must be removed. be it on his own accord with a suitcase in his hand, or not on his own accord, with a cruise missle up his ass. the inspections ARE NOT WORKING.

 

[STING2]

The biggest problem with containment, is that most of the governments around Iraq do not support it. Saddam made 4 Billion dollars from smuggling last year. Countries like Turkey, Jordon, Syria and even Iran facilitated this smuggling and even made a profit from it. Saddam has illegally sold oil to these countries at prices well below the market price in return to look the other way when it comes to sanctions. Attempts to re-energize containment and sanctions have failed and the hole system has been crumbling for the past 5 years.

The only reason inspectors are on the ground today is because of the real threat of war. But this is a thread that does not put this as an option. Take that option and out, and the inspectors will have to come out as well.

Deterence, Containment, Covert Action, and Supporting an Iraqi based revolt are all options and have all been acted on and or considered in the past. Deterence by itself is to much of a gamble. Containment is nearly gone, and will be enormously expensive to re-energize if there is really even a chance that it can be, covert action has been tried multiple times and has not ever come close to succeeding, and Iraqi opposition forces will never be strong enough or well equipped and trained enough to defeat the Republican Guards in battle.

Time is a factor that must be considered. Even by the most optimistic estimates, Saddam will probably have a Nuclear Weapon by 2010 if the current situation does not change. Some estimates say he could have a nuclear weapon as early as 2004.

But barring a war invasion option, the best option is containment which is nearly gone. Re-energizing this will require tens of Billions of dollars per year, maybe even more to get nations like Syria to close off the smuggling. But if Syria decides it can have the best of both worlds, US funding but still secretely continue to profit from smuggling over its border with Iraq, containment will never work.

 

[Klaus]

JOFO:

I know that it didn't work, that's why we need lots of troups at the borders to iraq and battleships at sea to control every sincle parcel which is imported into this country.

In this scenario - he still might sell this medicine - but he has no more chance to get new weapons - or material for development for new weapons inside his country

Klaus

 

[Popmartijn]

The opposition get little of the support the USA promised them. There was a lot of dispute in the Clinton administration at the time about whether or not to use them.

I'm not talking about the Clinton administration, but about the Bush I administration. Just after the conflict ended Saddam's position was weak and resistance against him was building (especially around Basra). Although Iraq wasn't invaded, there was a pledge of support for that opposition movement. But when push came to shove, the USA withdrew their promised support, causing the Iraqi army to crush any resistance.

Thats true. But realize also that Iraq has had four years to hide and develop ways of concealing weapons of mass destruction in addition to being experience and enlightened from its previous UN inspection experience. Indeed, the circumstances have changed.

Yes, Iraq has more experience. But that was not the point you were making which triggered my comment about changing circumstances. You wrote about blocking inspectors and not immediately giving up detected WMD. That was in the '90s. In 2003 there is a harsher resolution that allows for an immediate report to the Security Council when Iraq is blocking inspectors. That's the changed circumstance I was talking about.

C ya!

Marty

 

[melon]

There are few options left on Iraq. If Saddam wasn't a real threat 5 or 10 years ago, after enough poking at the bear, he certainly will be a threat now. If the U.S. left him alone all of a sudden, I think he would pursue WMD more than ever.

I'm honestly disgusted at the way this has been handled in the last decade, and he should have been removed in the first Gulf War, when there was not only an obvious motivation to remove him, but Iraq's infrastructure and people could have been saved. We, essentially, have a formerly wealthy nation plunged into poverty, and it is going to take much more money and time to fix this mess--and it may never be fixed at all.

As much as I'm disgusted at the way Bush I handled the original Gulf War, and as equally disgusted as I am over Bush II for his "secrecy" mentality that has made everyone distrust America, I don't know if there are any more options with Iraq. Would you feel comfortable leaving Iraq alone after all this?

Melon

 

[JOFO]

from what I 've read the reason they didn't go into bagdad and take out saddam in 1991 is because they arab states in the coalition were against it.

melon, you have a point. who in the world would feel comfortable leaving iaq alone now?

 

[Klaus]

Melon:

of course not! Not caring about a problem dosn't solve anything. But i guess we should ask neigbours of iraq first how they'd like to handle that. And make decisions in the UN. Bush's or Schroeders statements werent verry smart. Whe shouldn't give the world "our" solution before discussing the problem and thinking about it.
Sanctions / embargo which is enforced by UN troops could be the answer.

I guess it would be much easier for our Presidents, Prime ministers or Chancelors if they wouldn't have to please their lobbyists, most of the time the companies who spend a fortune for a ellection campaign wouldn't do it again if they wouldn't profit from this (and wars do not only cost a fortune - some people who sell their stuff get really wealthy)

People who say "either war or doing nothing" have either no political competence - or worse want a war - no matter what.

Imho war was never a solution it's just a chaos factor on the way to a the solution. Maybe we would have less wars on the world if the political leaders still had to ride on their horse in front of their army. It's easier to decide about thousands of lifes if your's isn't one of them.

So let's finish with a quotation of Karl Kraus:

"How is the world ruled and how do wars start?
Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read"

Klaus

 

[melon]

But sanctions / embargos have been done for the past decade, and it is clear that they haven't worked.

So what's next?

Melon

 

[Klaus]

Melon:

They did not work because they were just written on the paper, no UN troops at the borders who controled the embargos ;-)

Klaus

 

[melon]

Melon:

They did not work because they were just written on the paper, no UN troops at the borders who controled the embargos ;-)

Klaus

The country is already as starved as it can be. You might as well sign a death sentence to the people of Iraq. Saddam, I'm sure, will be the last to suffer, and he's the one everyone is after!

Melon

 

[Klaus]

Well if they controll all the stuff that will be imported they can allow to pass food and medicine (as mentioned before) and take care that no more guns and ammunition come inside the iraq.
How long do you think can a Dictator keep on his place if he has no more ammunition?

I can't post a complete list what's allowed and what's not - that would be too much - but just think about these 4 goods as examples.

Klaus

 

[melon]

You can't completely seal this nation. Is a nation like Iran going to handle having foreign troops, even with the U.N., standing in its borders? As it stands, there's a radical Islamic terrorist group hanging around in Iran, near the northeast border of Iraq, killing off Kurds in the area (this is the group suspected of collaborating with Saddam, BTW). I'm sure they'd love a foreign, Western U.N. presence, now wouldn't they?

In fact, Saddam's son, Uday, has made a fortune off the sanctions over the past decade with all the black market trade. I'm sure he would love to see these sanctions continue on infinitely.

It is just too idealistic of a prospect, and I think will be even more damaging to the people. I can almost imagine what the people of the U.S. or Europe would say if they had an unruly leader that they couldn't depose, and were forced into internationally-sanctioned destitution as a consequence--and then told to either depose him yourself (and try and fight a well-fed army with guns and other high-tech weapons) or to wait the several decades until he dies.

Melon

 

[Klaus]

Who says that UN troops must be American troops or western ones?

We all know that other arabic countries would like to get rid of Saddam too - but they just disslike the US style which they think is a little to selfish.
So if we put the money and the energy we need for a war against Iraq into that i'm sure it will work.

Why are we willing to spend hundreds of mio. of $ for war but not the same ammount for a peaceful sollution?
Why do Bush, Blair & Co. invest tramendous time for war preparation but have no time for solutions like the above?

It's not idealistic - it's realistic. The main change in US politics which would be neccessary would be "cooperation" talk with all affected nations (iraqi neigbours) and respect their point of view.
Don't try to make a deal with the devil and be surprised if fundamdental Islamic groups will be the real wiinner in the end. The US army which fights down Saddam, who will be replaced by a Taliban like regime, that's a worst case scenario - but quite possible.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

The problem with a re-energized for of containment is that the nations that border Iraq do not want that. For the past 12 years, this has been the policy of the USA and UN and it has failed to disarm Iraq. It has also failed to maintain itself. Sanctions have completely crumbled because the smuggling that goes on is so profitable. None of these countries wants large numbers of foreign troops stationed on their borders indefinitely. Many attempts have been made to restart or re-energize sanctions and containment and they have failed because many of the countries that border Iraq have been unwilling to go along. The United States has spent Billions and Billions of dollars every year for the past 12 years trying to contain Iraq. Unfortunately, are efforts have been frustrated by the very countries we depend on in making containment work. It is the best solution though, if war is not an option which it is not in this thread. Unfortunately, it will never work.


"Imho war was never a solution it's just a chaos factor on the way to a the solution. Maybe we would have less wars on the world if the political leaders still had to ride on their horse in front of their army. It's easier to decide about thousands of lifes if your's isn't one of them"

hmmm....perhaps and arguement for military government. The use of military force is a legitamite and necessary solution to solve violations and problems of security, just as the use of force by the police force in your local community is sometimes justified.

 

[STING2]

Melon,

While I agree with you that the World should have taken Saddam Hussien out of power in 1991, I disagree that it was Bush I's fault that did not happen. If Bush I had been able to get the support to do that, he would have. But Bush I barely got enough support to got to war to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Most Democrats voted against using military force to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. The Senate vote was 53-47 in favor of the use of force. So I think you can see it was difficult enough for Bush to get the support just to push Iraq out of Kuwait. It was politically impossible in 1991 to go all the way to Baghdad.

 

[STING2]

Popmartian,

"I'm not talking about the Clinton administration, but about the Bush I administration. Just after the conflict ended Saddam's position was weak and resistance against him was building (especially around Basra). Although Iraq wasn't invaded, there was a pledge of support for that opposition movement. But when push came to shove, the USA withdrew their promised support, causing the Iraqi army to crush any resistance."

While this is true, there was no political support for the president at the time to send USA ground troops to Baghdad to aid the opposition in bring down Saddam. If Airpower alone had been used, it would not have been enough for 65,000 lightly armed resistance fighters to defeat Saddam's remaining 300,000 troops. Without extensive US military force, the opposition did not stand a chance. But this a thread the discusses options other that than large US military use of force.

The new security council resolution is mainly just a rephrasing of what existed in the 1990s. But anways, what do you plan to do if Iraq blocks the inspections and you are unwilling to invade the country to enforce those inspections? Remember this a thread that discusses non-military options.

 

[Popmartijn]

The new security council resolution is mainly just a rephrasing of what existed in the 1990s. But anways, what do you plan to do if Iraq blocks the inspections and you are unwilling to invade the country to enforce those inspections? Remember this a thread that discusses non-military options.

Now you're re-phrasing the subject of the thread in a way that indicates you just want war. This thread is about what to do now Powell has presented his evidence. It does not talk about Iraq blocking inspections, it talks about the current situation. While there is a feeling that, although Iraq complies to the letters of the resolution, it should also comply with the intent and cooperate more, Iraq is currently not blocking the inspections.
Thus, what non-military options do you have at the moment.

Should Iraq start blocking the inspections and throw the inspectors out of the country, then the situation changes. Personally, I think military options should then be considered. But at this moment, I'll stick with my answer: They may continue with option #5 (training the opposition) and use option #6, let the weapons inspectors do their job of searching for (and if needed, destroying) WMD.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. I noticed it yesterday and saw it again a few times today. For a good debate you have to take into account who you are talking to. That begins with addressing people by their correct (nick)names.