|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
RE:The concept of preemptive self defense - John
Phoenix Rising
7/12/2002 5:20:53 AM
|
"Well basically yes. If you guys have an alliance to defend Israel, If Iraq attacks Israel, then fair enough. It may be a legal nicety, but so is the difference between taxation and robbery."
---> A reasonable argument. The problem is that, in reality, we would be sacrificing more than we would be gaining by employing such a strategy. It might give us some more legitimacy ... but it would also cost us dearly in the eyes of the Arab world, and would vindicate many of the hardline elements which we are trying to keep on the sidelines in those countries.
That being said, it might still be worth it ... I just wanted to point out that doing so just to make everything look pretty on paper can have its drawbacks.
--------
"Nope, sorry don't buy it. If you think you are going to be attacked, then build up your defences, improve your spy network, recruit allies. But don't commit the first act of war.
If you do then you are the aggressor and you have started the war. Countries often fear each other's military power, that doesn't give them the right to carry out surprise attacks on each other."
---> The problem is that we've DONE all of these, and we still haven't adequately addressed the problem. Our military is stronger now, even in relative terms, than it was in 1990, and was stronger than than it was in 1985. Most countries on the planet cannot say the same.
We've improved our spy network as best we can, and we're almost certainly putting additional emphasis on that post-9/11 as well. I'm sure this element hasn't been overlooked; we just can't go around publicizing everything about it or it kind of defeats the purpose. Nonetheless, the CIA has not had good success in penetrating Iraq, nor has Mossad. Most other countries haven't been really trying. We've got outstanding technical intelligence ... satellites, recon planes, drones, etc. The problems is, simply watching Saddam build chem & bio weapons doesn't exactly protect us from them. At some point, you actually need to do something about them.
We've been trying to recruit allies. We've had mixed results. We've apparently had some surprising successes in Jordan and the smaller Gulf states. We've been surprisingly unsuccessful in Europe; I think most of them have figured out that they can use America as a shield by keeping their mouths shut, their hands to themselves, and their positions officially neutral. They know that we're serious enough about it to pay all the price of any hostilities ourselves, so there's no call for them to get involved.
Another issue that is less visible than recruiting allies but falls into the same vein is denying Iraq allies. We've had some notable success in this vis-a-vis Russia, and even China ... notice that they've been creeping gradually from a very anti-Israel, anti-American stance 10 years ago to a more cautious, balanced attitude now. In other words, they've risen (by our standards) to almost the level Europe has fallen to.
The international situation this sets up is effectively conducive to a mano-a-mano conflict, which is certainly not beyond American capacity or will ... as long as we have the guts to take up the gauntlet in the first place. Effectively, the diplomatic signaling going on is that most of the other major powers intend to stay out of the way. That makes the possibility complications and unintended consequences much less severe than if everyone has their hands in the pie but is trying to hide it (a la pre-WWI Europe).
If we were working directly with Russia or NATO regarding how to deal with Iraq, it would actually take us longer. The costs to America would be less, but our range of options would also be less. That's one of the upsides of unilateralism.
Europe, Russia, and China have basically signaled that they're willing to accept whatever America sets up in post-Saddam Iraq ... or at least, that they believe the costs of contributing to the effort would be more than the amount of say they would gain in the reconstruction. Looking at Germany and Japan, the last two states America reconstructed from scratch, this position is somewhat understandable ... those two countries are hardly economic colonies of America, and are quite willing to trade with anyone who has advantageous goods and services to offer (which the EU certainly does, considering it was originally set up principally as an economic union).
--------
"Yeah, but if you go round attacking every country that takes your fancy, sooner or later a coalition comes together to kill the mad dog.
"And aren't you implying that the only way to take the initiative is military action? Metternich and Tallyrand would surely ahve disagreed."
---> You've said yourself that most of the world will probably not shed too many tears if Saddam happens to wake up without a country someday, or if his country wakes up without him. The reaction to America attacking Iraq will not be the same as it would be if we were attacking, say, France, China, or Mexico. We're not trying to establish an empire here. If we were, I can think of a dozen places we'd rather have than that desert hell-hole, oil or no oil.
There are certainly all kinds of ways to take initiative other than military action. I've already said that I seriously hope to see North Korea, Iran, and Iraq all fall via different means ... North Korea via diplomatic pressure from outside, Iran via domestic pressure from within, and Iraq via the direct approach. We want the world to know that we have every tool in the toolbox, not just a bunch of tanks and guns. With regards to Iran in particular, we probably want to see as little American pressure as possible ... since we're at war with an idea here more than any particular state or region, seeing Iran (the first and most prominent fundamentalist state) democratize from within would send a far more powerful statement about the righteousness of our cause than anything America is capable of on its own. Unilateralism only goes so far, after all, and America is not omnipotent.
All that being said, being afraid to use force where it's called for is just as damaging as using force where it is not necessary. Given all the other options we've tried ... covert operations, economic sanctions, etc. ... I think that by process of elimination, we're arriving at the conclusion that Saddam needs to undergo a process of elimination.
--Phoenix Rising |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
