War? Not forseeably, anyway.
Sep. 18th, 2002 02:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI was planning to post this yesterday, but didn’t have time. As it is, current events seem to be proving my point, but we’ll have to see.
Many people seem to be convinced that there will be a war between Iraq and the USA/UK alliance. Personally, I’m don’t. I don’t think there will be a war. And here’s why.
What we’ve been seeing in the war of words between the two camps in the last few months is a classic example of a political technique called ‘Brinkmanship’. Brinkmanship is a technique that has been about for a long time – it’s mentioned, in one form or another, in Machiavelli (“A wise Prince does not make empty threats”), but was given it’s name for the modern era by John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State, during the Cuban missile crisis.
What Brinkmanship involves is basically being a world-class bully. As such, it helps if you a major military power and can afford to take the risk that it entails, because what you have to do – and where the name came from – is be prepared to go to the brink of War (and beyond, if you have to) to get your way. Hitler did it, which is why he was appeased so much, as people were afraid that he’d start a war they didn’t want. The US did it with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it paid off. They tried again in Vietnam, and screwed up. They’re doing it again now.
The mistake people make is thinking that George Bush wants a war. They’re wrong, he doesn’t. The deaths of several hundred US servicemen, or a drawn out conflict would effectively mean he’d lose the next election, and that’s not a risk worth taking at this time given the preparations that the Iraqis have made following Desert Storm. What the US does want is for Iraq to back down and shut up, and for Saudi Arabia to get back ‘on message’ – allowing US military presence there to guarantee the continued flow of oil for the next decade. They’ve got both these things. Risking more on a matter of principle is politically futile, and so it won’t happen.
However, don’t expect the war talk to stop; taking away pressure as soon as Saddam caved would be foolish, as he’d renege. The military forces in the region will continue to build, and the war of words will continue. This was demonstrated yesterday by White House & Downing Street announcements that Saddams unconditional offer to allow weapons inspectors access was nonsense. You can now watch for the Iraqis scrambling to prove their good faith, and to save as much face as possible in the process.
Of course, brinkmanship states that you should be prepared to go to war of the other side doesn’t back down, and the US is prepared to; it just doesn’t want to. The Iraqi government knows that the US doesn’t bluff in these matters either – they can’t afford to bluff, because if you don’t carry through a threat then nobody takes you seriously any more, and it takes a lot of work to get your reputation back. However, or the moment, Bush & Blair have got what they want.
On the ‘not bluffing’ stakes…
During the Gulf war, Iraq threatened to launch chemical and biological strikes against Israel with their SCUD capability. They could have done so, easily. So why didn’t they? The US took Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and showed him the nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles aboard. If you go chemical or biological, Aziz was told, we’ll nuke Baghdad. They weren’t bluffing then.
They aren’t now.
The Iraqis know this, and that’s why there won’t be a war in the foreseeable future. There’ll be a lot of sabre-rattling by Blair & Bush to keep up the pressure, but it’s all over bar the shouting. To put my money where my mouth is, is anyone offering a bet? (up to £5, as I’m skint at the moment *grin* )
Many people seem to be convinced that there will be a war between Iraq and the USA/UK alliance. Personally, I’m don’t. I don’t think there will be a war. And here’s why.
What we’ve been seeing in the war of words between the two camps in the last few months is a classic example of a political technique called ‘Brinkmanship’. Brinkmanship is a technique that has been about for a long time – it’s mentioned, in one form or another, in Machiavelli (“A wise Prince does not make empty threats”), but was given it’s name for the modern era by John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State, during the Cuban missile crisis.
What Brinkmanship involves is basically being a world-class bully. As such, it helps if you a major military power and can afford to take the risk that it entails, because what you have to do – and where the name came from – is be prepared to go to the brink of War (and beyond, if you have to) to get your way. Hitler did it, which is why he was appeased so much, as people were afraid that he’d start a war they didn’t want. The US did it with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it paid off. They tried again in Vietnam, and screwed up. They’re doing it again now.
The mistake people make is thinking that George Bush wants a war. They’re wrong, he doesn’t. The deaths of several hundred US servicemen, or a drawn out conflict would effectively mean he’d lose the next election, and that’s not a risk worth taking at this time given the preparations that the Iraqis have made following Desert Storm. What the US does want is for Iraq to back down and shut up, and for Saudi Arabia to get back ‘on message’ – allowing US military presence there to guarantee the continued flow of oil for the next decade. They’ve got both these things. Risking more on a matter of principle is politically futile, and so it won’t happen.
However, don’t expect the war talk to stop; taking away pressure as soon as Saddam caved would be foolish, as he’d renege. The military forces in the region will continue to build, and the war of words will continue. This was demonstrated yesterday by White House & Downing Street announcements that Saddams unconditional offer to allow weapons inspectors access was nonsense. You can now watch for the Iraqis scrambling to prove their good faith, and to save as much face as possible in the process.
Of course, brinkmanship states that you should be prepared to go to war of the other side doesn’t back down, and the US is prepared to; it just doesn’t want to. The Iraqi government knows that the US doesn’t bluff in these matters either – they can’t afford to bluff, because if you don’t carry through a threat then nobody takes you seriously any more, and it takes a lot of work to get your reputation back. However, or the moment, Bush & Blair have got what they want.
On the ‘not bluffing’ stakes…
During the Gulf war, Iraq threatened to launch chemical and biological strikes against Israel with their SCUD capability. They could have done so, easily. So why didn’t they? The US took Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and showed him the nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles aboard. If you go chemical or biological, Aziz was told, we’ll nuke Baghdad. They weren’t bluffing then.
They aren’t now.
The Iraqis know this, and that’s why there won’t be a war in the foreseeable future. There’ll be a lot of sabre-rattling by Blair & Bush to keep up the pressure, but it’s all over bar the shouting. To put my money where my mouth is, is anyone offering a bet? (up to £5, as I’m skint at the moment *grin* )
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 06:16 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-18 06:26 am (UTC)In about a decade or so we'll be able to forget about the Middle East, as oil-producing nations will be of less & less importance on the world stage in coming years.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 06:37 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-18 06:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 06:59 am (UTC)'Scuse me?
Who do you think the biggest investors in fuel cell tech are?
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 07:09 am (UTC)I slouch corrected.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 07:11 am (UTC)The oil companies are heartily sick of having to deal with the middle east, and are eagerly looking for alternatives.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 07:28 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-18 07:32 am (UTC)As Mr. Reeves would say...
Date: 2002-09-18 07:46 am (UTC)Although I did know they were running on some kind of alternate fuel source, but not exactly what it was.
Squiffy, the road to mass water pollution lies ahead... erm.
I think the buses should have big signs at the back that say "WARNING! H2O emissions! STAY WELL CLEAR!" and see how many people panic or complaing...
Re: As Mr. Reeves would say...
Date: 2002-09-18 08:11 am (UTC)A couple of Uni students tried to get as many people as possible to sign a petition to ban Dihydroxy-monoxide on various grounds, the following are the ones (sort of) that I remember:
It errodes buildings
X people annually die due to inhalation
Children cannot be left around this in any volume
It reduces the number of anti-cancerous T-cells in the blood
it is a significant constituant of almost all known poisons
it is present in car exhast fumes
it is significant ingrediant in acid rain
and so on. They got a significant number of signatures!
Dihydroxy-monoxide having the chemical formulae of H20 of course
Re: As Mr. Reeves would say...
Date: 2002-09-18 10:32 am (UTC)BAH
Date: 2002-09-18 06:20 am (UTC)One thing this saber-rattling has done is totally distract the press from Bush and Cheney's insider trading, the undue influence they have from the petroleum industry, their economic mismanagement, and their abrogation of American civil rights. There are US Citizens, arrested on US soil, who are being denied Constitutional rights.
But, none of that makes the papers. A misplaced memo details how talk of war is a calculated strategy to create "a positive issue environment," basically involving the administration being on the offensive against issues it defines, rather than weathering scandal and being faced with questions that everybody knows have no acceptable answers. Iraq makes a convenient Judas Goat--when the arms inspectors were expelled in 1998, Clinton roughed them up a bit to distract the press from his poor judgment in his personal life.
We'll keep turning up the heat through the beginning of November, then the pressure will be back off, and stay tuned for the 2004 Presidential elections where we'll go through this same song'n'dance for Dubya's reelection.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 06:23 am (UTC)Saddam Hussein doesn't particularly want to end up as a patch of oily rainbow sheen on the glassy crater that was Baghdad.
Bush mark II
Date: 2002-09-18 06:48 am (UTC)And remember how popular Paw Bush was during the last Gulf War. Anybody else remember those parades in Washington with young children playing on tanks as if they were climbing frames, and calling Bush I "the best president ever"? Truly frightening, and now people keep talking about bombing "back into the stone age" or "the middle ages" as Rumsfeld said the other night.
Let's hope that you're right!
Cheers
Nanny Ogg
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 06:36 am (UTC)Hmmm
Date: 2002-09-18 06:36 am (UTC)I don't think the US would nuke em as they would become the bad guys, but I do think that Iraq is desperate to keep the Arabic Moral high ground - the minute they do some thing the Arab countries won't like they will loose the 'Arab vs West' position and earn the distain of their neighbors - after all part of Saddams home 'take' on this whole mess is that the bully boy west is ordering around the arabs - look at israil v palastine - so us arabs need to stick together and refuse to be bullied.
Saudi Arabia agreed to support the US if sanctioned by the UN. all of a sudden Iraq started to agree to be a good boy... no sense in getting serious if your neighbors and signed up Arab country is starting to think you are pissing in the wind.
Not that this means a thing if there are more terrorist idiots doing dumb stuff.
I think I have to disagree
Date: 2002-09-18 10:07 am (UTC)Firstly, I think there's a considerable misunderstanding of what the goals are. Europe, and most of the world's chief interest in Iraq, is the return of UN weapon inspectors - plus stable oil prices. This *is not* the aim of the current President of the United States. From the start, Bush's primary goal is the removal of Saddam from power, by any means at his disposal. You don't achieve this aim by reintroduced UN inspectors ... even worse if they were to corroborate the Iraqi argument all along, and utterly shatter the flimsiest 'weapon of mass destruction' rationale Bush is employing to go after his chief aim in Saddam.
Right now, the military maneuvers are very initial, and can be seen as mere sabre-rattling, is true. Even the unprecedented (iirc) forward deployment of B-2 bombers can be seen in this context. However, given the preference for attacking in winter, and the logisitical requirements for such a siege ... the slow buildup now being witnessed is in keeping with a proper invasion plan. Don't forget that in 1991, there was a whole year of sealift and other preparations under the auspices of Operation Desert Shield before 'Desert Storm' took place.
Even though many in the Pentagon are not keen on a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, especially one with such difficult political goals as 'regime change' (I do hate these bloody terms they come up with) - the final decision rests with the civilian authority, who, for the most part, are *very* hawkish on Iraq.
I also think a war is likely because Bush has invested so much political capital into one - most markedly by his 'axis of evil' speech during the State of the Union address, iirc. You simply do not outline challenges like this in that forum if you do not intend to do something about it.
I think, once the heavy MBT, like the Abrahams and Challenger board ships in battalion or division-strength quantities, we can be sure that a war is in the offing. That, I think, marks the difference between a brinksman sabre-rattle, and a bona fide invasion. If people might recall, the last big 'Desert Storm II' that the media went on about in 1999-2000 involved the forward deployment of airforces, BUT NO sealifting of heavy armour.
Re: I think I have to disagree
Date: 2002-09-18 10:27 am (UTC)I would add that while it is a bit of a political gambit, it's a good bet for a President going towards an election to start a war ... people are actually even less likely to seek a new President/Commander in Chief in the middle of a war (unless it is extended and going poorly that is).
The only real risk to Bush then, as chief of the Party, is how many Congressional seats might change out of his favour if he were to start a war before the November election.
In any event, I doubt Bush will attack before the election ... but the current aggressive rumble might be part of a plan to maintain the sense of emergency which has proved such a political lifeboat for his administration since 11 September. I will add an important caveat though, event can transpire to take the initiative out of his hands.
As can be seen with the chaotic reaction to the Iraqi submittal to UN inspectors proposal, and the lack of comments to Koizumi's initiative and success with North Korea - this US administration doesn't seem to have a good grasp of things ... especially in regards to its own 'axis of evil' agenda items (I wouldn't call it a 'policy' - there hasn't been a coherent policy since the 2000 election)
On hydrogen
Date: 2002-09-18 10:46 am (UTC)Whatever the application, we're going to need to find inexpensive hydrogen, and as great an idea as renewably-driven water electrolysis is, the electrolysing technology just isn't there yet ... certainly not at any profitable or cost-breaking level.
So...
Gassifying waste hydrocarbons, like used paint solvents and thinners. Rather than introducing oxygen early in the process, add steam near the end, which will mix with the melted mix (C, N, Cl, H, metals) to produce H2 and CO ... the carbon monoxide can be drawn off to keep the pyre going, and the H2 can then be sold. The remainder nitrogen could be fixed so as not to form polluting NOx, and the remaining constituents can be schelped off to cement kilns for binding within the lime of the concrete (assuming marketable byproducts like ammonia aren't formed). True, cement produces considerable CO2, a climate change gas of concern, but I read somewhere about an Australian 'eco-crete' that uses magnesia in the formulation which actually binds carbon to the product, actually absorbing rather than emitting CO2.
Now, admittedly, this is a very hot process which requires significant energy expenditure ... but it should produce 'premium' hydrogen from an entirely wasted resource normally relegated to landfill ... and could be a good interim solution for finding the badly needed hydrogen to support the whole fuel cell shift. The economics might also work out because it's fairly mature technology, and if there's large enough volume (like large metropolitan waste streams), an economy of scale can shape up ... and quickly. Even the large capital expenditure could have a quick payback period (a few years, rather than the decade+ of a renewable-electroylsis solution).
Hey, maybe this is already well underway in Europe, but the US, as always, is lagging.
Re: I think I have to disagree
Date: 2002-09-19 01:23 am (UTC)Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Re: I think I have to disagree
Date: 2002-09-19 11:41 am (UTC)Absolutely! I'll be in the UK in December, I'll collect my fiver then. :)
---
BTW, on your comment about showing Aziz the nuclear-tipped tomahawks.
I think, at this stage, there are few things guaranteed to create a shattering political crisis than another US use of nuclear weapons. Beyond the clear international repercussions, including concerns of a free-for-all unlimited retaliatory response by everyone and anyone, it would split the country domestically. Even with 11 September, nuclear weapons remain hugely unpopular, and I don't think this President has the finesse to carry off a 'it was the only way' explanation to his widest constituency.
Assuming no scenario of retalitory annihilation, and a solely a 'limited nuclear strike' - the weapons are such political poision that only a truly desperate politician (regardless of party) would earnestly consider using them.
---
As for why Saddam didn't use his chemical and biological weapons in 1991 - true, there was a strong deterrent effect from Coalition weapons, but also there is some question about whether those weapons would have been particularly effective against Israel and US forces. Both were quite well-prepared for a chemical attack to a degree that losses that would occur probably wouldn't seriously disrupt their ability to wage war.
As for biological weapons - there is too much risk that they'd get out of control, harming many of the Arab neighbours Saddam was hoping to earn prestige/respect points with.
At what point do you define war starting?
Date: 2002-09-19 01:42 am (UTC)On the other hand the UK/US deal being hammered out to help Palestine gain statehood (surely if it has a name this has kinda happened already) seems to be bein kept rather quiet in the news.
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
Date: 2002-09-19 01:57 am (UTC)Eh? There are lots of places that have names but aren't independant states. Cornwall, Wales and Scotland spring to mind immediately...
As for when does war start? Currently we're in a state of low intensity conflict (as the US so well defined such actions); we'll be at war when they define it as such on CNN - that seems to be the agreed yardstick :)
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
Date: 2002-09-19 11:50 am (UTC)I think the best answer is also the easy way out: a war will be self-evident.
If you want to get into technical definitions, you immediately run into a number of current arguments at the moment:
For starters, the 'end' of the Gulf War (armistice?) in 1991-1992 was predicated on a number of Iraqi actions in submission to UN resolutions - which they really haven't complied with. Moreover, with subsequent embargoes, no-fly, no-tank zones - and frequent bombings and raids to enforce this policy ... a general state of low-level warfare has been continuous since 1991-92.
Another spanner in the works is that there was no official declaration of war by the US at least - even though they took up the lion's share of the Coalition's war activity. There was merely approving Congressional *opinion* of the President's exercise of Tonkin-era powers, enwrapped in UN resolutions sanctioning the use of force to eject the invading Iraqi army.
That UN goal, at least, was met.
---
So best leave that lot in the box, Pandora, and simply accept that violence of sufficient scale, moving towards the goals set by the warring President should qualify as de facto war. And no, I wouldn't argue the current 'softening up' operations are themselves 'war' - but are strong indicators of a war.
If you insist upon a handy definition of war in this context - how about when a minimum of a division of ground forces are committed and invade Iraqi territory
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
Date: 2002-09-23 07:49 am (UTC)Re: At what point do you define war starting?
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
Date: 2002-09-23 10:16 am (UTC)Umm...about Bush's goals
Care to just pay the fiver now? :-p
Re: Umm...about Bush's goals
Date: 2002-09-20 01:42 am (UTC)Can I take this as you offering a bet? If so, you'll owe me a fiver on January 1st.
Re: Umm...about Bush's goals
Date: 2002-09-20 10:34 am (UTC)http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20CND-STRA.html
also: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/20/MN215482.DTL
(if the sign up stuff is too cumbersome)
To the Ken Macleod fans out there: the teletrooper doctrine is here now.
---
The bet: I bet 5 quid that the US will go to war with Iraq before 1 January 2003. Agreed to on or around 19 September 2002. Any witnesses, or is the ether of the internet sufficient?
Re: Umm...about Bush's goals
Date: 2002-09-20 10:41 am (UTC)He has never had much of a policy, but he has certainly been earnest is trying to achieve his electoral agenda items.
The following model can be applied to all of this President's actions to date:
1) Come out with a very broad political initiative, not particularly well or fully designed, usually garnering furore from one or all quarters. Not a consensus-building platform in the slightest.
2) He steps back from that initial political statement and objective amid 'consultations' with various factions
3) These 'consultations' invariably leak, and since there isn't a solid policy arc that he's elaborated upon, every faction is fairly vocal about their position, sowing general confusion from one or all ranks.
4) As events transpire and new initiatives draw media focus, Bush returns to his initial start position & submits these proposals as law and administrative changes to the various authorities involved. Some become promulgated, some are leaked, some are not.
If nothing else, Bush is something of 'a man of his word,' no matter how stammered and ungrammatical the word may be. :)
The Fiver
Date: 2002-09-21 10:33 am (UTC)To be fair, I might owe you a fiver due to my being off by a mere month or two.
Read this:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/21/MN100817.DTL
Sorry, too many indicators that this is more than brinksmanship sabre-rattling.
Re: The Fiver
Date: 2002-09-23 01:53 am (UTC)