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* )
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.