1. Why engage in a risky and potentially calamitous invasion of Iraq when the existing strategy of
"containment"--entailing no-fly zones, sanctions, technology restraints and the deployment of US forces in
surrounding areas--not only has clearly succeeded in deterring Iraqi adventurism for the past ten years but
also in weakening Iraq's military capabilities?
Because Saddam's "weakened military capabilities" are strengthening to a level which is dangerous, and intolerable. If you could go back in time and stop Hitler, would you?
Everything is risky, but it won't be calamitous. We can do the job right, but it won't be easy, and it won't be pain free.
2. Why has the Administration found so little international support for its proposed policy, even among our
closest friends and allies (with the possible exception of Britain's Tony Blair), and what would be the
consequences if Washington tried to act without their support and without any international legal
authority? Isn't it dangerous and unwise for the United States to engage in an essentially unilateral attack
on Iraq?
Because the international community has a long track record of sitting on its hands, hoping for the best. Chamberlain at Munich. Roosevelt at Yalta. Truman at Pottsdam. We stood by and did absolutely nothing about the killing fields of Cambodia, we did nothing about the slaughter in Rwanda.
One of earliest childhood memories is of my mother telling me about listening to the radio when the Soviets invaded (I believe) Hungary during an attempted revolution, and how the students were throwing bottles at the tanks and begging the US to come help them. It's a little vague in my mind but I was brought up to believe that we should help other nations who ask for our help. We should not just help Northern Europeans, we should be willing to help anyone who is fighting against repression.
We owe a debt to Lafayette and Pulatski and we should strive to emulate them.
3. Is the United States prepared to accept significant losses of American lives--a strong possibility in the
projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas?
Our military is willing to do it, God bless them.
4. Is the United States prepared to inflict heavy losses on Iraq's civilian population if, as expected, Saddam
concentrates his military assets in urban areas? Would this not make the United States a moral pariah in
the eyes of much of the world?
We're going to let people out, not keep them in. If they stay in, then it's their choice.
The United States is already a moral pariah in the eyes of say, China, North Korea, Cuba, Somalia, Sudan, and other places. I can live with it.
I can't think of a war that was ever fought that did not make somebody angry. Unfortunately, wars are necessary.
5. Wouldn't an invasion of Iraq aimed at the removal of Saddam Hussein remove any inhibitions he might
have regarding the use of chemical and biological (and possibly nuclear) weapons, making their use more
rather than less likely?
Probably, but we can't let that stop us, otherwise every scumbucket dictator on earth will copy him.
6. Are we prepared to cope with the outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that, in the event of a
US attack on Iraq, are sure to erupt throughout the Muslim world, jeopardizing the survival of pro-US
governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and further inflaming the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?
What pro-US governments? Egypt? *snort* Saudi Arabia? *guffaw*
Don't you think that if we cut off a major source of funding and weapons (remember I think Iraq and Iran will be a twofer) won't that ameliorate Israel/Palestine?
7. Can the fragile American economy withstand a sharp rise in oil prices, another decline in air travel, a
bulging federal deficit, a drop in consumer confidence and other negative economic effects that can be
expected from a major war in the Middle East? And what would an invasion mean for an even more fragile
world economy and for those emerging markets that depend on selling their exports to the United States
and that are vulnerable to rising oil prices?
Yes. There may be a recession due to higher oil prices. The war on terrorism requires sacrifices.
8. Even if we are successful in toppling Saddam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country
in chaos (as we have done in Afghanistan)? Or will we try to impose a government in the face of the
inevitable Iraqi hostility if US forces destroy what remains of Iraq's infrastructure and kill many of its
civilians?
We're going to install the guy with the Gucci shoes and the Rolex as interim leader and hold real elections.
9. Are we willing to deploy 100,000 or more American soldiers in Iraq for ten or twenty years (at a cost of
tens of billions of dollars a year) to defend a US-imposed government and prevent the breakup of the
country into unstable Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite mini-states?
How likely is this? Sounds like something I'd read in an editorial the Nation. -g- |
