Saddam Hussain is not a terrorist,
Most Iraqis disagree. He certainly terrorizes them
doesn't harbor them,
He has in the past and does now.
He is a violence-prone dictator, in charge of a nation-state.
Through his actions responsible for the deaths of around a million people. And he remains, responsible for the torture and death of more now and in future.
As I've said, I think we should handle him, the way we handled Stalin and Mao, by Containment and Deterence.
The Cold War analogy can be stretched too far. The Soviets and Chinese were too big to fight directly. This had to be done through proxies and MAD. Had they been pip squeaks left over after WW2 the US and UN probably would have dealt with them directly.
The Stalinist Iraq regime is small enough to be dealt with directly.
Also, who is going to maintain the containment and deterrence? And while contained and deterred how many more Iraqis will be tortured and murdered? It's in the power of the US, the West, the UN to put a stop to that. Isn't there a responsibility here?
The rest of the world it seemed, until recently, was quite against further containment and deterrence.
Trying to pre-emptively keep WMD out of the hands of every regime who is violence-prone, is a hopelessly ambitious task
Probably. But this doesn't mean the Iraq regime necessarily should not be dealt with through direct force. It's in a particular place and time that's very important to the US and the West. They are the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time and they can't have them.*
*Lets imagine I'm a middle east dictator with ambitions to expand my power over the whole area. Further, suppose I have as much regard for human life as I do for the bug I just stepped on. I got a couple of nukes. I figure they should deter Dubya from messing with me. I "test" the bomb on the desert by the Kuwait border and gain another province; at least that's what I do if I'm feeling magnanimous. Otherwise I arrange an incident, demand outrageous compensation, and if they object, glaze the capital. Then I phone the religious humbugs in Tehran and demand we talk about the waterway and oilfields. Or perhaps the other humbugs in Riyadh and object to the mistreatment of their Shiite minority who should be together with their happy confreres in Iraq, along with the oilfields they live on. About this time one of the major powers, or all of them, will nuke my capital. Due to my feelings of grandiosity - after all, I'm a psychopath - I miscalculated. I'm dead but I managed to cause the death of another million folk. The Saudis and Iranians will tut tut and wash their drawers.
That's why Hussein and his regime can't have nukes.
It's also an excellent reason for removing the regime sooner, rather than later.
If we make that our policy, it will disastrously backfire, sooner or later. If you try to snatch the grenades out of the hands of all the other astronauts, one of them will go off and ruin Spaceship Earth; you have to find a better way.
The weapons are going to be used - and not by the US - whether or not the US pre-emptively tries to keep them out of the hands of violence prone dictators.
One violence prone dictator apparently already has them but they are of limited utility to him. He really only has one neighbour he can threaten with them. Sort of like having a canoe in Death Valley. He's trying very hard to get something from the US with them - mostly money and attention. So he's going to sell them to the US.
The Iranian mullahs want nukes but probably by the time Iran has them, it's likely the mullahs won't be in charge.
The Saudis and the rest sort of want them the way I want a Rolls Royce.... But they'll want them a lot less if Iraq and Iran aren't aspiring for larger horizons.
The Pakistanis have them as insurance the Indians won't be too violent in face of the Pak sponsored terrorism. My gosh, a use! But of course, Pakistan itself is going down the tubes. What might it do with them as the country moves to the expiry stage?
So, who else wants nukes? Some countries have given them up.
Brazil made noises about getting them. In this case it sort of reminds me of the trophy living room which nobody uses except for special company, Christenings, bar-mitzvahs, funerals, etc.
-------------------------
<Utter defeat can work>
Yes, I'm afraid that's what we'll try, first. And when it doesn't work, then maybe we'll try something else, something a little less radical, less ambitious. I'm afraid my nation is going to have to suffer a defeat on the order of Vietnam, before we start dealing with the Islamists in an effective way. We can win this war, but not using the methods now being tried.
It seems to me the US is already trying a number of means to bring discouragement and thus defeat to islamist movements.
It has a long term project for doing so in Afghanistan by gradually making the place safer for less ideologically bound folk. This eventually will give it some purchase on the islamists in the Pakistan territories. Long way down the road , that.
It and Britain are pursuing propaganda and aid efforts in Arabia.
It's trying, not yet with much success, to discourage governments from giving support to these movements.
It's slowly getting some governments to make moves in the direction of modernity which their people can actually participate in. Modernity is inimical to islamists.
It's supporting the governments which are moving in a modernizing direction.
The actual utter defeat the US wants to impose is in Iraq against a fascist dictator and his apparatus. This move against this kind of regime has met with success in the past.
I think you are too alarmed by the Vietnam example. Iraq is not Vietnam. The US is not going to Iraq in the same ad hoc manner as it did to Vietnam. It's not trying to impose rule by a minority religious group; it's not trying to oppose an ideology supported by two super powers; it's not trying to support a government that's unpopular with citizens - it's going to unseat it; it's not trying to pacify a country that has spent decades in guerilla war against a foreign oppressor.
As it stands, right now, the US and Iraq have been in a state of war as the US attempts to get UN resolutions adhered to. The present Iraq regime is untrustworthy, can not be made trustworthy, and so an armistice is not appropriate. The present situation is bad for Iraqis and bad for the US. It must be finished in a way which is good for both - this means the present regime and Baath have to go.
The modern Iraq the US envisages will be very influential in the area - mostly for good. It won't be easily achieved but this doesn't mean the effort won't be worthwhile. Even now, the Saudis, for example are ruminating aloud about greater citizen participation in government and I'm sure this is solely due to the US threat to the Iraq regime. The citizens of Iran seem mostly encouraged by the prospect of a modernized Iraq.
The Rumanian model is far more relevant to the Iraq situation than Vietnam as is the Cambodian model. |
