![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
War? Not forseeably, anyway.
I 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* )
Re: I think I have to disagree
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Re: I think I have to disagree
(Anonymous) 2002-09-19 11:41 am (UTC)(link)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.