![[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* )
no subject
Re:
(no subject)
Re:
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Re:
As Mr. Reeves would say...
Re: As Mr. Reeves would say...
Re: As Mr. Reeves would say...
BAH
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
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
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-18 06:48 (UTC) - Expandno subject
Hmmm
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
(Anonymous) 2002-09-18 10:07 am (UTC)(link)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
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-18 10:27 (UTC) - ExpandOn hydrogen
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-18 10:46 (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think I have to disagree
Re: I think I have to disagree
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-19 11:41 (UTC) - ExpandAt what point do you define war starting?
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?
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-19 11:50 (UTC) - ExpandRe: At what point do you define war starting?
Re: At what point do you define war starting?
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-23 08:51 (UTC) - ExpandRe: At what point do you define war starting?
Umm...about Bush's goals
Care to just pay the fiver now? :-p
Re: Umm...about Bush's goals
Re: Umm...about Bush's goals
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-20 10:34 (UTC) - ExpandRe: Umm...about Bush's goals
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-20 10:41 (UTC) - ExpandThe Fiver
(Anonymous) - 2002-09-21 10:33 (UTC) - ExpandRe: The Fiver