Is this a reasonable alternative to war?
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07WALZ.html"; target="_blank">Another NY Times Editorial from Michael Waltzer.</a>
name: appleinsider
password: appleinsider
Some snippets:
"The way to avoid a big war is to intensify the little war that the United States is already fighting. It is using force against Iraq every day — to protect the no-flight zones and to stop and search ships heading for Iraqi ports. Only the American threat to use force makes the inspections possible — and possibly effective.
"...So here is an exit strategy for the Bush administration. They haven't asked for it, but they need it. First, extend the northern and southern no-flight zones to include the whole country. ...But the main reason would be punitive: Iraq has never accepted the containment regime put in place after the gulf war, and its refusal to do that should lead to tighter and tighter containment.
"...Second, impose the "smart sanctions" that the Bush administration talked about before 9/11 and insist that Iraq's trading partners commit themselves to enforcing them. Washington should announce sanctions of its own against countries that don't cooperate, and it should also punish any companies that try to sell military equipment to Iraq. Third, the United States should expand the United Nations' monitoring system in all the ways that have recently been proposed: adding inspectors, bringing in United Nations soldiers (to guard military installations after they have been inspected), sending surveillance planes without providing 48 hours' notice, and so on.
"...Finally, the United States should challenge the French to make good on their claim that force is indeed a last resort by mobilizing troops of their own and sending them to the gulf. "
My personal reservations are that "smart sanctions" can't and won't be enforced even if they do relieve some of the problems from the sweeping sanctions that hurt Iraqi civilians. And I doubt France would do anything about helping to enforce these new sanctions, including sending troops and helping with the no-fly zones or military pressure, despite the author's point about their image otherwise. And I think there nees to be more thought of what ways Hussein will jerk everyone's chains even in this scenario.
But it's the first definitive alternative to war I've seen with this issue. I'm certainly willing to consider this framework as a second-to-last resort.
name: appleinsider
password: appleinsider
Some snippets:
"The way to avoid a big war is to intensify the little war that the United States is already fighting. It is using force against Iraq every day — to protect the no-flight zones and to stop and search ships heading for Iraqi ports. Only the American threat to use force makes the inspections possible — and possibly effective.
"...So here is an exit strategy for the Bush administration. They haven't asked for it, but they need it. First, extend the northern and southern no-flight zones to include the whole country. ...But the main reason would be punitive: Iraq has never accepted the containment regime put in place after the gulf war, and its refusal to do that should lead to tighter and tighter containment.
"...Second, impose the "smart sanctions" that the Bush administration talked about before 9/11 and insist that Iraq's trading partners commit themselves to enforcing them. Washington should announce sanctions of its own against countries that don't cooperate, and it should also punish any companies that try to sell military equipment to Iraq. Third, the United States should expand the United Nations' monitoring system in all the ways that have recently been proposed: adding inspectors, bringing in United Nations soldiers (to guard military installations after they have been inspected), sending surveillance planes without providing 48 hours' notice, and so on.
"...Finally, the United States should challenge the French to make good on their claim that force is indeed a last resort by mobilizing troops of their own and sending them to the gulf. "
My personal reservations are that "smart sanctions" can't and won't be enforced even if they do relieve some of the problems from the sweeping sanctions that hurt Iraqi civilians. And I doubt France would do anything about helping to enforce these new sanctions, including sending troops and helping with the no-fly zones or military pressure, despite the author's point about their image otherwise. And I think there nees to be more thought of what ways Hussein will jerk everyone's chains even in this scenario.
But it's the first definitive alternative to war I've seen with this issue. I'm certainly willing to consider this framework as a second-to-last resort.
Comments
Sick bastards our government has become.
I suspect that you're right, at least ultimately. But perhaps this might be a compromise in the international community, and if/when this fails, we might all see war as a last resort.
Does anyone in the anti-war contingent want to take a pass at this?
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Happens all the time.
- "So, for those against the war, how do we get Saddam to disarm?"
- "BUSH IS LIKE HITLER!"
...from the link above.
Pardon me if I don't give a f***. They aren't citizens,they aren't part of a "real" army. They are terrorists. I have better things to fret about than two low-life, scum bag non-citizen, Islamic revolutionaries dying in the middle of the desert.
<strong>
Does anyone in the anti-war contingent want to take a pass at this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's what a lot of people here (and elsewhere) have been pressing for for a long time. Bush's anti-anti war rhetoric has always been 'no compromise' though. 'More sanctions won't help...war is the only option now.'
Not only do I think there's a chance more stringent sanctions would work, I think if they didn't it would lead to a legitimate military option with full international support. That would go more smoothly all around for the future of the world.
So, an operation is not legitmate unless other nations approve it?
OK
All other options have failed. Sanctions, inspections (which are NOT working...they are FINDING banned weapons), limited military strikes, 17 resolutions, "more time"......everything has been tried. We know containment doesn't work.
<strong>Did you notice that all you get in response to asking for/about reasonable alternatives is anti-Bush rhetoric? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Happens all the time.
- "So, for those against the war, how do we get Saddam to disarm?"
- "BUSH IS LIKE HITLER!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes groverat, and your response here is so helpful and poginant to the question at hand. I think with insight like this you could have just locked the thread since you've obviously covered all bases with this topic. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Notice everyone how the pro-war crowd is unable to come up with a resonable response to this question?
Like SDW, they're only happy with a little bit of blood letting. No need for justice, honor, valor, or honesty, just the blood letting will do. They're just brown-skins...let 'em die in the desert and the buzzards will do the rest. Meanwhile my SUV is nice and warm in the winter, cool in summer.
<strong>
All other options have failed. Sanctions, inspections (which are NOT working...they are FINDING banned weapons), limited military strikes, 17 resolutions, "more time"......everything has been tried. We know containment doesn't work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You see, here's the problem with the pro-kill crowd. You can say 'inspections don't work', but 'inspections' is a fairly generic term. We've not had 'inspections' like those explained in the first post. Those 'inspections' haven't failed yet because they haven't been tried.
So, sure, 'inspections' of Saddam's palaces didn't work in the 90's. Why? Because we gave them 48+ hours notice. So, now that we realized that this wasn't such a good idea, 'inspections' of his palaces are now much more valuable because we don't have to give several days warning.
Notice how in both instances, the word 'inspection' is used? Only it refers to two completely different acts? So, when the pro-kill crowd throws around the idea that 'inspections' failed, well, I think it's a lie.
<strong>Not only do I think there's a chance more stringent sanctions would work, I think if they didn't it would lead to a legitimate military option with full international support. That would go more smoothly all around for the future of the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one, economic sanctions isn't the only part of this proposal. It's much more complete than that, and I think at least that's what you mean here (feel free to correct me). I've always felt that sanctions have hurt, not helped, so more stringent (general) sanctions would only make the situation of the Iraqi citizens and others' (Arab or Muslim especially) opinion of those who enforce the sanctions that much worse. It's why I'm skeptical of the sanctions aspect of this proposal, though it does qualify the sanctions as "smart," aka, industrial material sanctions. But that I think hurts Iraqis as well, assuming they're enforced. It's like the debate over dual-use technology Iraq is accused of using to import would-be weapons components into the country, and that despite sanctions against them anyway. So I see these "smart" sanctions heading down the same path as the previous "dumb" sanctions, and ultimately failing, our own allies probably being the ones who break them as much as anyone else.
I'm more interested in the other components of this informal proposal: the no-fly zones covering their entire airspace, unconditional use of high-altitude surveillance, political and economic pressure on other nations to help enforce the new punitive measures, both economically and militarily.
Like I said, I have a fatalistic attitude about this, that it will fail eventualy, mainly due to the impotence and complacency in enforcing these sanctions, without which everything else is just a half-assed military solution which can't be effective without its economic component. So I guess my thought at this point is, can we afford to waste another year with those conditions placed on inspections and increasing the punitive cease-fire conditions? One thing this proposal does not solve is Saddam Hussein himself, and I suspect that since he's such a clever guy, he will find ways to frustrate, cripple and crumble away these nuisances in his eyes. Agreeing to that will put us right back to where we are, because he won't flat-out reject these measures, he'll just jerk us around the same as now. So in that respect I don't this is a solution.
Read Blix's report from today. Not an op-ed piece talking about the report but the report itself.
Then tell me that Iraq has cooperated fully with the inspectors. Read the resolutions and tell me they've complied.
Even now Saddam isn't cooperating fully, even now. Don't take my word for it, read Blix's report.
From today (03/07/03) at a time when Blix is trying to balance his objectivity and not give anyone a trigger for war:
Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.
On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note.
However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break.
Just a bit of cooling off, sipping some iced tea and eating a few crackers. They sure are in a rush to cooperate.
One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.
Keep your head in the sand.
<strong>
Keep your head in the sand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, stop it. You can attack me personally as much as you like but try, try, to stay on topic.
No one expects this to work overnight. It shouldn't have to. Was is so repugnant we need the patience to work through the difficulties. And don't say "12 years of patience" because that's still avoiding the topic of this thread. New force behind new rules will produce new results.
Military might in the region is having a positive effect. Extending the no-fly zones, searching boats, smart restrictions all would do a world of good. I do think the sanctions up to this point have caused a lot of harm, but if you investigate why they've caused harm you'll find it's because they're being manipulated at the UN level.
So, responsible sanctions combined with a credible threat of force will lead to one of two things.
One, a war free solution.
Two, a war free from the acrimony Bush has so far created.
<strong>
...from the link above.
Pardon me if I don't give a f***. They aren't citizens,they aren't part of a "real" army. They are terrorists. I have better things to fret about than two low-life, scum bag non-citizen, Islamic revolutionaries dying in the middle of the desert.</strong><hr></blockquote>let me paraphrase the words of our most thoughtfull SDW:
"I don't care about them there Arabs they aren't human they're just animals in the middl-ah-nowhair"
let me further paraphrase
"i am a racist arsehole . . "
Back on topic:
I say that the pressure brought on by possible war is a good thing so far . . .
except the fashion in which Bush and admin have been devisive in relation to our allies (his recent comments about Mexican citizens and reprisals against them for not voting for us are insanely insane and unworthy of a US leader)
I think that it is unfortunate that there is the feeling of a need to stick to a military timetable . . . and that this will rule out, eventually, over reasonable timing and diplomatic manoevering . . .
I think that with the pressure we can flood Iraq with inspectors . . . aggressive inspectors, team after team of inspectors: teams that are almost military squads in themselves without any escort on the part of Iraqis
Also, since we are allready bombing them and we have these supposed sites, what is stopping us from "surgical" strikes on these sites?!?
If that fails to turn anything up . . . (perhaps there really is Nothing to turn up) then move the troops in . . . I am just warry of diplomacy being at the mercy of a timetable that is allready set in stone . . . or, set into the flesh
<strong>No one expects this to work overnight. It shouldn't have to. Was is so repugnant we need the patience to work through the difficulties. And don't say "12 years of patience" because that's still avoiding the topic of this thread. New force behind new rules will produce new results.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, so we can conveniently dismiss history now? Excellent!
4 months isn't enough to determine whether or not Iraq is willing to fully comply? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>Military might in the region is having a positive effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but only for so long will the threat be credible.
[quote]<strong>Extending the no-fly zones,</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that's outside the UN, how unilateral of you!
[quote]<strong>searching boats,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, because inspectors are supposed to be looking for stuff.
[quote]<strong>smart restrictions all would do a world of good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since when have resolutions and sanctions worked against Iraq? What would lead you to believe that the 12 years of history would just change and Saddam would be compliant?
[quote]<strong>I do think the sanctions up to this point have caused a lot of harm, but if you investigate why they've caused harm you'll find it's because they're being manipulated at the UN level.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Manipulate at the UN level by UN members. Are you sure you aren't arguing my point for me?
[quote]<strong>So, responsible sanctions combined with a credible threat of force will lead to one of two things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How long can a threat of force remain credible? 6 months? 2 years? 8 years? 12 years?
[quote]<strong>One, a war free solution. Two, a war free from the acrimony Bush has so far created.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or more gridlock. Or more acceptance of partial compliance.
France has said there will be no deadlines, no ultimatums, are you paying attention? France has said they will veto anything firm. Read up.
How many anti-war people agree that "Vietnam" was just a prolonged meatgrinder situation, but think this alternative (the one proposed by this topic) is a good idea, when in reality it follows very close in profile to Operation Meatgrinder v.2.0? Essentially, give plenty of opportunities for casualties and provocations over an indefinite time period over an ambiguously accomplished goal? If you were opposed to "Vietnam", then you should be adamantly opposed to the operation proposed here.
What was that saying about "repeating history"? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what is being proposed or overblowing the downsides, but what I can see so far of this seems laughable at best for even having been proposed in the first place. I'm sorry I can't sound more objective and unemotional about it than that.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't argued anything on topic yet. Should we expect it soon, or just assume you're going to avoid it at all costs?
Strengthening sanctions are working. I have yet to hear an argument against that point. Sanctions worked up until 1998. They're working again.
Sorry. I know it hurts. You want war, and you'll most likely get it, but it's the wrong thing to do at this time. I think you know it, but are afraid to admit it. Do you just like the pretty glow-in-the-dark pictures on CNN? Or would that be FOX? Or are you like SDW who just doesn't give a rat's arse about 'sand people'?
> Yes, but only for so long will the threat be credible.
That's true. That's what we're saying. You're agreeing that they're working as long as there's a credible threat. So why war, instead of a credible threat and more sanctions? Because you want war.
> How long can a threat of force remain credible? 6 months? 2 years? 8 years? 12 years?
I don't know, but it's lasted 50 years in Korea.
> France has said there will be no deadlines, no ultimatums, are you paying attention? France has said they will veto anything firm. Read up.
Good for France. Bush wants a 'trigger' so he can jump to war at will. That's wrong. France is correct to veto anything 'firm' as you say. When the trigger is to be pulled, the Security Council is there to make that decision at that time.
> Ah, so we can conveniently dismiss history now? Excellent!
Read up. We're talking about new sanctions. They might both be called 'sanctions', but they're completely different beasts. You can play semantic games, but I think it takes someone sick in the head to try and go to war based off of semantics.
<strong>
How many anti-war people agree that Vietnam was just a prolonged meatgrinder situation, but think this alternative (the one proposed by this topic) is a good idea, when in reality it follows very close in profile to Operation Meatgrinder v.2.0? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point, but when the alternative is war, a definitive meatgrinder, then an option that possibly doesn't include a meat grinder already seems better.
Besides, if it's a UN endeavor, when the UN troops start dying, you've got many nations no currently 'with us' (does that really mean they're against us?) now more motivated than ever to solve the problem.
<strong>Strengthening sanctions are working. I have yet to hear an argument against that point. Sanctions worked up until 1998. They're working again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sanctions accomplished what, exactly? I mean if the goal was death for Iraq's children then it was a wild success. If it was to get Iraq to fully cooperate then it was a failure. If it was to punish Saddam then it was a failure.
[quote]<strong>Do you just like the pretty glow-in-the-dark pictures on CNN? Or would that be FOX? Or are you like SDW who just doesn't give a rat's arse about 'sand people'?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I prefer war and a future without Saddam over senseless economic slaughter with Saddam. Call me crazy.
[quote]<strong>That's true. That's what we're saying. You're agreeing that they're working as long as there's a credible threat. So why war, instead of a credible threat and more sanctions? Because you want war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More sanctions mean more death for Iraq's people with absolutely no ill effects for Saddam. More sanctions are a bad idea. Even France would disagree with you here.
A credible threat cannot stand forever. This is basic psychology.
[quote]<strong>I don't know, but it's lasted 50 years in Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you think that is? It's because North Korea is historically willing to participate. Iraq is not. Let's not act like all these situations are the same.
[quote]<strong>Good for France. Bush wants a 'trigger' so he can jump to war at will. That's wrong. France is correct to veto anything 'firm' as you say. When the trigger is to be pulled, the Security Council is there to make that decision at that time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is there any point that the Security Council would make that decision? Any at all?
[quote]<strong>Read up. We're talking about new sanctions. They might both be called 'sanctions', but they're completely different beasts. You can play semantic games, but I think it takes someone sick in the head to try and go to war based off of semantics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What new sanctions, tell me what the anti-war Security Council nations have proposed. Please please please.