OT*** More realpolitic rambling. <g> Paul, I posited Arab states
seeking a Russian nuclear defense umbrella in a WORST case
scenario where Israel used a nuclear weapon on Bagdad under
circumstances (limited Israeli casualties albeit from chemical or
Biological agents unleashed by Saddam) which did not justify that
Action in the minds of most of the world, or essentially any Arabs.
That is the worst but unfortunately hardly inconceivable case
given the current Israeli government.
(It would only be inconceivable if Netanyahu could be trusted to
respond with some proportionality, and with some regard for
America's as well as Israel's own enlightened interests in the
region. I for one do not trust him and even less many of the
pressure groups represented in his cabinet.)
As for America reneging on promises to give Israel further
housing aid (beyond the usual $3 billion a year) in return for an
Israeli promise to not respond to Scud missile attacks (and
thereby turn the Arab part of the US coalition into a united front
against Israel), I regard any such demand by Israel to be little
short of outrage. Talk about cheek! One would think Israel owed
this country something for the US Government's unprecedented
levels of support for almost 50 years; not to mention considering
where Israel's own enlightened interests lay.
By the way, as I recall, the principal issue with the housing aid
was that it turned out it was to be used, or funds freed up by
American money were to be used, to build even more of those
predictably hugely problematic settlements in the occupied West
Bank, on occupied Arab land. Which Israeli fundamentalists
regard as belonging to Israel by ancient divine right, if not by right
of recent conquest. (I am deeply suspicious of all religious
fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Moslem,
Hindu, Sikh, or whatever.)
With respect to current US response to Iraq's once again ejecting
the UN arms inspectors, the issue for me is not whether it is
morally justified for the US to undertake air strikes against Iraq.
For me considering all the circumstances the answer is clear
(though much of the non (native) English speaking world
disagrees). The question is what happens after the bombing?
What is most effective?
I tend to think that an extension of the oil export embargo for
however long it takes for Iraq to comply with the UN inspection
program, whether that be 2 years or 50, coupled with more
aggressive clandestine attempts to topple the regime, are the
smart way to go. Combined with a sort of MAD pledge. Any use of
chemical or biological agents against any US ally or protected
state (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the micro gulf states
such as Qatar, Egypt, perhaps Jordan if they continue
behaving) WHICH CAUSES MASS DEATHS would risk a US
nuclear response. Just lay it out there as an open threat. Iran,
Syria, Lebanon etc get left out for now, as do the oppressed
within his own borders...for the later such as the Kurds we step
up aid if they can get their act together, which is perhaps doubtful
based on their recent and probably ancient history of internecine
division.)
On the other hand, and you may regard this as contradictory, if
we do bomb I would advocate we do so massively, and without
excessive regard for casualties. Yes, we should be seen to try
and limit casualties, and certainly we shouldn't be dropping fire
bombs on downtown Bagdad, but we should for instance kill tens
of thousand of Republican guards (even if their families happen
to be in camp at the time), and we should destroy most of
Saddam's palaces, even if he has enlisted civilians as human
shields. (If they are acting as human shields, and are not
imprisoned at the time, they have effectively entered his military
service. It is one thing to avoid civilians when an enemy is not
purposely using them as a shield; it is another to be disarmed by
such terrorist tactics on Saddam's part. Let's get serious. Let's get
tough.)
The point is, the worst thing to do would be to huff and puff....and
then blow nothing down. We will be accused of brutality no matter
what we do if we bomb. While we should not target civilians, if we
do bomb, we should cripple. Make it hurt Saddam. Hurt his power
if possible (Republican guards, as well as command and control),
and hurt his prestige. Think of how much treasure those palaces
cost him to erect, to enhance his image. A smoking rubble where
once a palace stood on that hill overlooking Bagdad will not
enhance his prestige. Dictators depend on the perception of their
invincibility, not on public affection.
Both sorts of targets are much more important to hit than the
stated goal of taking out biological or chemical weapons. The
latter is likely to be largely impossible, given their small size and
ready mobility. (Of course it will also be nearly impossible for the
press to disprove military claims that classified intelligence
reveals we have eliminated some 85% of his biological
capabilities. I fully expect to hear that, more or less, regardless.)
Doug |
