![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
what i REALLY think about iraq
Sep. 16th, 2002 10:58 amSome folks have pointed out that my "loud stereo analogy/joke" was oversimplification of the Iraqi issue. In other words, the center did not hold. true, true, but i think that the mindset of my old noisy neighbor, and saddam hussein are very similar. "i will comply, but only for now" It is true, i did blow things out of the water by applying our actual solutions and fears to the analogy (an attempt at humor, and to make a point, to show how those policies were fruitless in the situation and to apply absurdity by using those solutions in the admittedly flawed analogy...otherwise it might not be FUNNY.)
anyhow, i thought i'd better air how i REALLY DO FEEL about iraq, nno glazing over. it ain't easy.
if we go in and fight a war with Saddam without NATO or the UN, then we look like aggressors trying to overthrow the head of a nation. the international community,( although you and i know that they have no cause to fear us,) may begin to think that the US is in the business of changing out heads of state that we don't approve of.
on the other hand, if the president lets the UN try to sort it out, the UN will most assuredly let Saddam play his same hand. "Yes I'll let you let a team in" (although right now, he is attaching conditions that he has no right to attach, like cessation of sanctions,) and then, as soon as the US ' foriegn or domestic policy heats up on another front, (for example, the Democrats barely control the Senate, a number of close races will determine whether there is a Republican controlled Legislative AND Executive branch at the same time, something Bush and Cheney would very much like. To keep that from happening, the Dem's will try to bring the current administration to task on the economy (whether it is the Repubs fault or not, another grey area.) they will assuredly drag Greenspan's warnings about deficeit spending into the fray, especially with the Military Complex contemplating an "endless" war on two fronts,) At THAT time, Saddam, if he has let inspectors back in, will find some way to eject them (whining about "iraqi soveriegnty "I guess, calling them spies or CIA shills, etc) knowing that the UN won't back it's bets, and betting that the US won't move against the Dem's, because this would create unpopular public opinion (remember that the Dem's did take more than Half of the popular vote, that counts for a lot of public opinion related muscle,) in any case, this is what Saddam and Tariq Aziz are maneuvering for right now, sustaining the status quo. You will see them drop the ridiculous "no sanctions" restrictions (i'm sure that they only added them as false bravado, just so that they can drop them and appear submissive) and allow inspectors back in under the terms that Powell has set before them.
on the other OTHER hand (Larry Niven would call it "The gripping hand") we can't let the Iraqi's have thier status quo, no matter how much the UN wants them to have it. If we let Iraq develop into a nuclear power, we risk a lot on the humour of any new "regime." Historically, Persia has always been ruled by one thing only, the iron hand.... any supplanter of Saddam may be no better. If we don't swap regimes before then, we may hand the keys to a nuclear program close to fuition over to an unstable region.
No, Iraq is no easy nut to crack. what we need is unilateral action, so we must include the UN, the inspectors can be let in, but any resolution should have that as only its secondary concern. the resolution should set up all the tools for an attack, bases, troop movements, etc, put in place starting NOW (something that will take months) and then, when that is in place, send inspectors in, saying that any attempt to resist or reject them will be met with immediate UN military reprisal. But i think that requires too much of our international allies, who do fear for thier own soveriegnty.
(you know, i tried to spell check this, but the spell checker broke my browser. having had to retype this once already, i think i'll just post it now, errors included, tyvm.)
anyhow, i thought i'd better air how i REALLY DO FEEL about iraq, nno glazing over. it ain't easy.
if we go in and fight a war with Saddam without NATO or the UN, then we look like aggressors trying to overthrow the head of a nation. the international community,( although you and i know that they have no cause to fear us,) may begin to think that the US is in the business of changing out heads of state that we don't approve of.
on the other hand, if the president lets the UN try to sort it out, the UN will most assuredly let Saddam play his same hand. "Yes I'll let you let a team in" (although right now, he is attaching conditions that he has no right to attach, like cessation of sanctions,) and then, as soon as the US ' foriegn or domestic policy heats up on another front, (for example, the Democrats barely control the Senate, a number of close races will determine whether there is a Republican controlled Legislative AND Executive branch at the same time, something Bush and Cheney would very much like. To keep that from happening, the Dem's will try to bring the current administration to task on the economy (whether it is the Repubs fault or not, another grey area.) they will assuredly drag Greenspan's warnings about deficeit spending into the fray, especially with the Military Complex contemplating an "endless" war on two fronts,) At THAT time, Saddam, if he has let inspectors back in, will find some way to eject them (whining about "iraqi soveriegnty "I guess, calling them spies or CIA shills, etc) knowing that the UN won't back it's bets, and betting that the US won't move against the Dem's, because this would create unpopular public opinion (remember that the Dem's did take more than Half of the popular vote, that counts for a lot of public opinion related muscle,) in any case, this is what Saddam and Tariq Aziz are maneuvering for right now, sustaining the status quo. You will see them drop the ridiculous "no sanctions" restrictions (i'm sure that they only added them as false bravado, just so that they can drop them and appear submissive) and allow inspectors back in under the terms that Powell has set before them.
on the other OTHER hand (Larry Niven would call it "The gripping hand") we can't let the Iraqi's have thier status quo, no matter how much the UN wants them to have it. If we let Iraq develop into a nuclear power, we risk a lot on the humour of any new "regime." Historically, Persia has always been ruled by one thing only, the iron hand.... any supplanter of Saddam may be no better. If we don't swap regimes before then, we may hand the keys to a nuclear program close to fuition over to an unstable region.
No, Iraq is no easy nut to crack. what we need is unilateral action, so we must include the UN, the inspectors can be let in, but any resolution should have that as only its secondary concern. the resolution should set up all the tools for an attack, bases, troop movements, etc, put in place starting NOW (something that will take months) and then, when that is in place, send inspectors in, saying that any attempt to resist or reject them will be met with immediate UN military reprisal. But i think that requires too much of our international allies, who do fear for thier own soveriegnty.
(you know, i tried to spell check this, but the spell checker broke my browser. having had to retype this once already, i think i'll just post it now, errors included, tyvm.)
