International Relations Heavy Hitters Against an Attack on Iraq: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal

Ever since Newt the GOP has become the master of newspeak.

These drones repeat their indoctrination every morning when they get up and check their emails; emails from HQ that provide the exact form and content of what they will say regarding current events.

Whoever writes this stuff has decided that if enough people say something enough times then it becomes true; or at least true in the minds of the voting public.

Another strategy of the GOP , since Bush, has been to create - or at least inflate - crisises, fan the flames of fear, then sieze the moment and make policy. CA energy "crisis" was the first time this technique became readily apparent.

So it's natural that these strategies are applied to the Iraq situation; shameful, but natural for the GOP.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Dem.s do it to, but to a far lesser extent. There is still independent thought exhibited by that party.

The rifts in the GOP that have developed in the last year or so have been encouraging. Democracy may triumph yet.

Posted by: E. Avedisian on September 30, 2002 10:22 AM

Josh Marshall's post is well worth reading in full: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0203.html

He also goes on to point out that the opponents of war against Iraq are not doing much better, in that they "simply not willing to face seriously the belligerence, recklessness and brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime".

Josh Marshall has come out in favour of deposing Saddam, for reasons that are pretty well documented on his site. He is simply concerned that the Bush administration is not prepared to honestly deal with the consequences of the war, that they will abandon Iraq afterward instead of putting in an effort to build up some kind of civil society there.

Since this is pretty much what I thought U.S. policy should be in the first Gulf War (I wrote a paper in university advocating exactly that), I of course agree of them.

Posted by: Kevin on September 30, 2002 11:21 AM

The assasination attempt on the first President Bush is indicative of Hussein's willingness to engage in violent attacks against Americans without regard to the relative strategic value of the attack. If he had actually succeeded, and been detected as the instigator, would the United States have tolerated his continued existence? It is quite likely that a fatal assault on a former U.S. President, if detected, would have resulted in Hussein being destroyed by the U.S.. This episode indicates that Hussein is willing to undergo enormous risks, either in terms of being detected as the source of attacks on the U.S., or how the U.S. will respond, even when the strategic value of the attack is somewhat nebulous. It is unlikely that Hussein would miscalculate so massively as to believe that the U.S. would fail to respond massively to a known source of a WMD attack on U.S. citizens. He very well could, however, miscalculate , or take enormous risks, regarding his ability to conceal himself as the source of such an attack on U.S. citizens. Now envision a situation in which Hussein believes once again that he can dominate the gulf if he is sufficiently bold, as long as the U.S. does not prevent it. Is one prepared to state with overwhelming confidence that a Hussein with access to WMD would not attempt to use cut-outs in the deployment of such weapons against the U.S.? To answer "yes" is to ignore what past observation of Hussein's behavior reveals about the man.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 30, 2002 11:38 AM

after reading that suck article, i googled around to see what schwarzkopf's been saying:

General tells Bush: Don't go it alone

NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, the US general who commanded allied forces during the Gulf War, joined a growing number of senior US military and political figures yesterday who are opposed to a unilateral invasion of Iraq and said President Bush “should not go it alone”.

Posted by: kenny on September 30, 2002 01:03 PM

"
This episode indicates that Hussein is willing to undergo enormous risks, either in terms of being detected as the source of attacks on the U.S., or how the U.S. will respond, even when the strategic value of the attack is somewhat nebulous.
"

Will,

It is Western interpretation that an assasination attempt on an ex-President is seen as an attack on the US.

This is a man who believes in assassinating enemies (including son-in-law, who was executed; same difference). To his (dare I say Eastern) way of thinking, an assasination is just a way to settle a blood feud, 'nothing against your coutry, but I hate the guy' thinking.

Making war, for him, is totally different. he launches his armies.

In fact, this incident is the strongest argument in favor of a covert operation against him personally. After all, we would pay him back in his own coin.

Posted by: Suresh Krishnamoorthy on September 30, 2002 01:24 PM

While I have no objection to a covert operation against Saddam, there's a mountain of evidence that shows that his sons (Uday and Qusay) are as dangerous or more so.

I believe Saddam is a more-or-less rational actor, although I don't mean by that that he evaluates risks the same way you or I would--I simply mean that he is clinically sane.

I do not believe that that is true of Uday.

Posted by: Kevin on September 30, 2002 02:27 PM

Yes, and what would cause such vengeful sentiments to arise in the heart of Hussein?

For years Bush 1 - from the CIA, to the Vice Presidency, to the Presidency - was very friendly with the man. Bush supported his regime and looked the other way while massive human rights violations took place. Bush provided Saddam with the technology necessary to make biological and chemical weapons. Bush promoted the use of such weapons on the Iranians.

It has been fairly well documented that high level State dept. officials led Saddam to believe that an invasion of Kuwait would be an "Arab problem".

Then the U.S. attacks him, lays waste to his armies, demands disarmament, and calls him the devil incarnate.

You can kind of see where he might develop a grudge against his old friend Bush 1.

He poses no immediate threat to this country; certainly not one worth the costs of aunilateral war and subsequent occupation.

This is such an interesting site, with so many intelligent people engage in thoughtful interchanges. I can't figure out why this issue of war with Iraq brings out the opposite; I mean unexamined over simplified GOP rhetoric.

Posted by: on September 30, 2002 02:37 PM

There are enough good reasons to overthrow Saddam Hussein that we can afford to ignore the bad ones.

It's not a case of starting a war against Iraq. The point is to finish the war we are already in.
Saddam Hussein has already broken the truce by refusing to adhere to the conditions he agreed to.

From a purely humanitarian point of view sending in the troops would be a good thing. Saddam Hussein is killed or put on trial, the sanctions are lifted, and millions of Iraqi refugees return home to participate in the reconstruction of the country. The result may not be a democracy, but it would be a lot better than what's there now.

Posted by: Joe Willingham on September 30, 2002 05:35 PM

Anonymous, the point was not whether Hussein was emotionally justified in wishing to see the first Bush dead, the point was that, in our way of looking at things, killing the first Bush had very little strategic value, carried enormous potential costs if the attempt had succeeded and the source detected, yet Hussein went ahead with the plan. This episode suggests that Hussein calculates risk/reward in a far different manner than we are accustomed to, and that he is capable of taking enormous risks if he were to develop effective WMD that might be deployed surreptitiously. None of this has the slightest thing to do with the GOP.

Posted by: Will Allen on September 30, 2002 05:47 PM

Will,

Note that Josh Marshall is in _favor_ of toppling Saddam through an invasion. His real point is that the Bush Administration's penchant for distorting the facts risks discrediting the whole enterprise.

And, pace the assassination attempt, there's no reason to think that Saddam's cost/benefit analysis is _so_ different from ours that he would launch a surprise nuclear attack on the United States. Even if he might have considered it before, I doubt he would consider it now after what happened to Afghanistan after September 11th.

But we should topple him _anyway_.

Posted by: Walt on September 30, 2002 06:46 PM

Will, it's interesting that you and others place so much emphasis on risk/reward and cost/benefit analyses regarding an Iraqi military adventure.

Having paid fairly close attention to the congressional hearings and informed debates I cannot see where the advocates of war have developed any real assessment of potential costs.

Yet they still continue to advocate an attack in the near future.

How then can you say that we weigh costs and benefits differently from Saddam?

People like Shwarzkopf are saying the potential costs are enormous; greater than the benefits. They are ignored by Bush and his crew.

The Bush admin. is mostly tossing out emotionally charged rhetoric. Not so different from Saddam.

Posted by: E. Avedisian on October 1, 2002 12:39 AM

Something needs to be done about Iraq, but what? I think a lot of people around the globe feel quite sceptic concerning why the US all of the sudden again want's to invade Iraq? Bush talks about silly stuff like "he tried to kill my father", so one of the most important international dilemmas is supposed to be handled by a redneck with a vendetta motive? Why a lot of people in Europe and around the world do not support USA is merely because there isn't any consequence in the foreign policy from the states. One day the US supports the talibans, the other day they bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age.

If the US now is going to invade Iraq, I think the world should demand that USA enter via the ground. No "precision bombings" that we heard about before, that wipes out civilians to the right and the left.

Mikael, Milano

Posted by: on October 1, 2002 01:47 AM

I fail to see how Josh has supported his claim that war proponents lie, or at least exaggerate, a lot. With that claim he's come to as fallacious a conclusion as he claims others have.

Josh: You don't know. It's possible that there's no evidence, but since little if any of that evidence has made it into the public domain, you're in the dark. You can complain about being in the dark, or about war advocates not substantiating their claims. That is not the same as having no basis for the claims. It's possible that the intel is still being developed and will continue to be sensitive until after certain actions are taken. Like it or not, certain things will remain out of public view until declassified.

This is a classic quandary: How many people have to know a fact before it can be legitimately used as basis for taking some action? What if, in the process of revealing that knowledge, you substantially reduce your probability of being able to take effective action, or substantially increase the number of people who have to die for that action to be effective? I don't pretend I know the answer to this; I'm wondering what others think.

Posted by: David Perron on October 1, 2002 04:37 AM

Walt, it is extremely doubtful that Hussein would miscalculate so massively as to believe he could openly attack the U.S. with a WMD and not suffer annihilation. It is far less clear, however, that he would not miscalculate in regards to his ability to escape annhilation by concealing himself as the source of the weapon, through the use of cut-outs in the deployment of the weapon(s). We are very fortunate that the Soviet Union ended prior to nuclear weapons proliferated widely, since MAD fails as a doctrine once it becomes extremely difficult to confidently assess which actor was the source of an attack. Even if Hussein is toppled, this will be a growing source of insecurity to the U.S. It is my opinion that the maintenance of the status quo, or even a slow change in the status quo, in the Islamic world generally, and the Arab world particularly, will nearly certainly mean that tens of thousands, if not more, American civilians will be murdered. Our enemies will pursue their logic, it is impossible to construct a 100% effective defense, and anything less than 100% effectiveness results in massive slaughter. The difference with these enemies and our Soviet adversaries is that it was never Soviet doctrine to slaughter as many Americans as possible. While Hussein is not a theocratic fascist with the United States as an enemy, he is a fascist with the United States as an enemy, and he is a fascist with a long history of attempting to acquire WMD. It would not be historically unusual in the least for fascists holding different murderous totalitarian ideoligies to work together, if only temporarily, in attacking a common enemy.

Posted by: Will Allen on October 1, 2002 06:31 AM

How many people have to know a fact before it can be legitimately used as basis for taking some action?

isn't that the basic dilemma of bayesian probability statistics? that when updating probabilities with the introduction of new information, you still need to construct a 'baseline'. except that there's really no good way (non-arbitrary method) of going about it as yet, like it's mostly heuristic trial and error, finding a 'good fit' being more art than science.

or alternatively, non-monotonic logic would dictate the wider the 'fact net' the greater the consensus would be and more effective the decision making process -- as keynes would say, "when the facts change, i change! what sir do you do?"* (or something to that effect, i forget exactly :)

but, in this case, (after watching copenhagen the other nite :) the uncertainty principle -- that acts of the observers change the outcome from what it would be otherwise -- limits what one can know about the facts on the ground, which remain fluid, shall we say.

still tho, i agree with robert wright's assessment that, "The more broadly you view the new national security strategy, the clearer its contradictions become." the administration's policies (at least when viewed dynamically) appear neither coherent, consistent nor likely to be effective.

statically, taking a virtual snapshot of the world and declaring ceteris paribus, US military preeminence perhaps makes sense. but even then as wright points out, "you should at least try to make sure that the world believes the laws are fair and fairly enforced." unilateral rhetoric (and actions) undertaken due to america's 'unique position' as world authority or correctness by virtue of might, hardly endears one to the larger community, i think.

um, i concede that endearment may not be the point or even the goal, fear can be an effective deterrent, we're after terrorists afterall, etc. but acting on the belief of one's inviolability has to me the hallmarks of psychotic behavior.** maybe it's just an episode, isn't it always? i dunno, i just hope that whoever's orchestrating things has in mind an entertaining finale :)

[*or doestoevsky for that matter in the penultimate line of the dream of a ridiculous man, "if only everyone agreed, it could all be arranged at once!" and let it be known that agreement is currency]

[**or perhaps particular genius? like a seed crystal, it's conceivable the 'solution' is amenable to american-branded hegemony! altho i have my doubts about its inherent stability or the eventual structural integrity of its resonance frequency as it 'scales' if that's one too many metaphors :]

Posted by: kenny on October 1, 2002 07:14 AM

>> If the US now is going to invade Iraq, I think the world should demand that USA enter via the ground. No "precision bombings" that we heard about before, that wipes out civilians to the right and the left. <<

Sure - and lets have the world also demand that Saddam not use schools, hospitals and civilians to shield his military. After all, fair is fair!

Posted by: Jim Glass on October 1, 2002 08:20 AM

'I fail to see how Josh has supported his claim that war proponents lie, or at least exaggerate, a lot. With that claim he's come to as fallacious a conclusion as he claims others have.'

There's the Atta meeting in Prague, or wherever, that there's little or no evidence for. And the weekly standard article described here. And that NYT article by Kissinger, where they managed to badger the NYT itself into stating Kissinger supported "the war" when he did no such thing. And using that non-existant IAEA report about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on October 1, 2002 12:25 PM

Jim Glass writes:
"Sure - and lets have the world also demand that Saddam not use schools, hospitals and civilians to shield his military. After all, fair is fair!"

If you don't see the difference I really don't know what to say. We in the western world are supposed to be the good guys here. For the first it's quite uncertain that Saddam has the military resources that the Bushes say he has. Something needs to be done, but we (I say we because if something will be done I surely hope for an cooperative action, not solely an american one) also need to minimize civilian deaths. This can't be done with the so called precision bombings. Hey, shoot me, but I actually have the opinion than an american life is not worth a penny more than an iraqian one (Now I'm talking about civilians of course).

I'm also very sceptic to the motives of the American government. The last couple of days the Bushes have heaviliy condemned the UN establishment for pursuing furhter talks with Iraq in Geneva concerning military inspections. Why is this?

I also understand that the regime in Iraq is sceptical about the inspections, since several important members of the last military inspection a couple of years ago reported that the inspections also were used as espionage for the Americans and some countries in Europe. This is not good for the credibility of course.

Misunerstand me correctly now, I naturally agree that the crock here is Saddam and his regime, but I'm also shamelessly tired of the way the western world, and especially the Americans have handled this situation over the last couple of years. The way water supply has been intrerupted is one example of horrible tactic from mainly the Americans. Who does this hurt? Saddam? Of course no. The civilian population in Iraq? Yes, of course.

Let's do someting about Saddam. But don't even talk about doing it for moral reasons, because why USA and Britain is acting now is solely for egocentric purposes. And finally let's do it for the iraqian population too, that has suffered in a way no one of us in our rich part of the world even can be close to understanding.

Mikael, Milano.

Posted by: on October 2, 2002 02:39 AM

I have a hard time taking seriously the opponents of the attack on Iraq who seem more intent on character assassination (eg calling people liars) than on first learning enough about the substantive issues. There are many proponents of the attack who have made substantive arguments based on real facts. I think the opponents ought to respond to the most substantive arguments made for the attack. See this post for links back to writings by Kenneth Pollack, Marc Trachtenberg, and some of the others who are making fairly well reasoned arguments for the attack.

I also find the Congressional testimony of former UNSCOM inspectior Richard O. Spertzel and Charles A. Duelfer to be persuasive.

Posted by: Randall Parker on October 8, 2002 12:04 AM

Randall, the links you posted contain nothing new.

And certainly nothing that would suggest Iraq poses a unique threat to the United States.

Modern medicine and public health infrastructure greatly reduce the impact of a BW attack; rendering the nightmare scenarios the stuff of science fiction.

However, even if you believe the worst about BWs then you must consider that Saddam Hussien is not an essential ingredient for a terrorist attack using such weapons.

Terrorists possessed of the necessary knowledge could simply set up a lab within this country and produce all the BWs they desired. The odds of being detected are slim, if they played it cool.

Saddam is irrelevant in this regard.

The WMD arguement in favor of an attack on Iraq is a poorly examined proposition. Its intent is to induce fear and, hence, an emotional reaction calling for Saddam's destruction.

What about Saddam using WMDs against his neighbors? Well, if he does, then we step in and slap him down just as we did in the first Gulf War.

And he knows this, which is why he is not likely to use WMDs against his neighbors. There would have to be a dramatic shift in the balance of power in the region for Saddam to see an opportunity worth exploiting.

He also knows what is not being told to the American public; that the U.S. has incredibly powerful and effective means of monitoring developments within Iraq. In other words, Saddam is not going to be able to mobilize against a neighbor (and this includes BW armedmissiles) without the U.S detecting the movement and terminating it before an attack can be launched.

Finally, many countries have well developed BW programs. Iran is one of them. Iran is also a major sponsor of terrorism; the number one sponsor of terrorism according to our State department.

If fears of WMDs in the hands of terrorists is a major reason for going to war, then why are we not attacking Iran first!!!???

The answer is obvious. This war is not about a threat to the U.S. It is about Bush settling a personal vendetta and grabbing some major oil profits in the process.

Posted by: E. Avedisian on October 8, 2002 12:48 PM

E. Avedisian: Right. Independent thought in the Democratic party. "It's not working? Throw more money at it." Guess which party this represents: We're running a deficit. It's time for a tax hike." "We're running a surplus. It's time for a tax hike." "We're at peace. It's time for a tax hike." "We're at war. It's time for a tax hike."

And guess which party this represents: "UN resolutions have been violated for ten years? Let's call for more UN resolutions." "No UN inspections have occurred for four years? Let's call for more UN resolutions."

And guess which party lionizes John Ritter, the former UN inspector who now sides with Iraq, after selling his soul to an Iraqi-American for $400,000 to make a documentary about Iraq? You know, the Ritter who now says whatever his Iraqi puppetmasters tell him to say.

And Republicans created the California energy crisis? Don't you mean the Democratic legislature in California and the Democratic governor in California?

Yup. Independent thought. Or what passes for it among some Democrats.

Posted by: Ken on October 12, 2002 11:28 AM