![[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: At what point do you define war starting?
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?
(Anonymous) 2002-09-19 11:50 am (UTC)(link)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?
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
Re: At what point do you define war starting?