Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JEB who wrote (288376)	8/20/2002 2:08:39 AM
From: asenna1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

This war can't be left to the politicians Almost any outcome of an assault on Iraq would make us less secure Timothy Garden Tuesday August 20, 2002 The Guardian Speculation about an imminent American operation to finish the Gulf war is rife. Yet the strategic aims remain uncertain. President Bush focuses on a change of regime. Donald Rumsfeld worries about the potential for state-sponsored terrorism. Colin Powell highlights the problem of weapons of mass destruction proliferation. No one has given a clear picture of what a post-conflict Iraq should look like. There is little doubt that the massive military power of the US could conquer Iraq in a relatively short time if used without restraint. The timescale would depend on the strength of political will, and a willingness to accept casualties to their own side. Tactics would be affected by access problems to local bases and overflying rights. How the war would run is unpredictable. Saddam Hussein would be unlikely to give US ground troops, assembling for an invasion of Iraq, a free ride. Once it was clear that a ground invasion was imminent, he might use his shorter range missiles against their assembly areas. Allied troops would need to protect themselves against possible use of biological and chemical agents. A serious attack by Iraq on allied rear areas would almost certainly strengthen the resolve of the US leadership to reply with massive air strikes. Elimination of the infrastructure of Iraqi government by precision air attacks would be a high priority. As the noose tightened around Saddam, he would have to think about his own exit strategy. He could surrender to save his country. This seems unlikely. He could flee with his dedicated followers like Osama bin Laden, and continue the war against the west by other means. Or he might take a death or glory route from his final bunker. In this case, he might decide that igniting a regional conflict would leave him personally no worse off. The three possible ends for Saddam all give problems for the world in general, and America in particular. If he were to resign (or be killed), power would transfer to his equally unpleasant colleagues. The problem of the future of Iraq would not have been solved. If he fled, then we would have created a new international terrorist threat. His followers could certainly bring biological and chemical terror weapons into play, and we could expect wholesale destruction of oil facilities in the region. If he decided to go down with the sinking ship, then he may choose to use his small number of longer-range missiles against Israel. A chemical attack on Tel Aviv, whether real or anticipated, might draw a nuclear retaliation on Baghdad. None of these scenarios is certain. However, it is difficult to construct models of a massive invasion of Iraq that give comfortable end states. Dubious international legitimacy for any war, effects on neighbouring governments, the state of the global economy, growing antipathy to the west are all arguments for restraint. The question remains as to what we do about Saddam's ruthless dictatorship. The political realist may argue that we deal with many such leaders around the world when it suits us; yet Iraq is different. We know that Saddam is prepared to acquire territory by invasion when he thinks he will get away with it. We know that he will use chemical weapons when there is no fear of retaliation. We know that he is prepared to invest enormous national effort into procuring weapons of mass destruction. We assume that these are to underpin his wider regional aspirations, which would in time affect US and European energy supplies. Since 1991, the international community has had a remarkably successful policy of containing the Iraq problem. The UN inspectors did painstaking work in finding and dismantling the nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capabilities and achieved a great deal. In parallel, the international sanctions regime has made it more difficult for Iraq to rebuild military capability. Certainly, it would be safer if the UN inspectors could return soon. For over a decade US and UK aircraft have patrolled the skies of Iraq. From time to time the intensity of operations is increased, and the Iraqi military are kept from new adventures. The current increase in tension may make it easier to reinstate the inspection regime. The decision on any war will be taken by George Bush. Tony Blair appears to be enthusiastic for bringing about a regime change. His military and diplomatic advisers will point out the uncertainties. Many of the possible outcomes would make the west less secure. If a full-scale military operation is undertaken, we can expect British forces to be involved. They will do what their political masters ask of them. It will not be military failings that leave the world in a more precarious state. Sometimes war seems too important to be left to the politicians. guardian.co.uk