Iraq: What would you have done? (Sodom, choices, choice, hell)

[Mr Spinkles]

So, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Intelligence Council, U.N. inspectors and every intelligence agency but Baghdad inform you that Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing WMD, has a large amount of WMD, has missiles that violate the ranges agreed upon for the ceasefire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War (that has been confirmed by the way), and he's shooting at our planes over the No-Fly-Zone on a daily basis. Here's some further reading on what the NIC has to say about our intel on Iraq: http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_wp_iraq_wmd.htm

As a President who has just witnessed terrorists kill 2,000 Americans in an act of violence forewarned by our under-appreciated intelligence agencies, what actions would you take to prevent a possible future catastrophe with Saddam Hussein? How can you prevent Saddam from, say, invading one of his neighbors, this time with nuclear or biological weapons with which to hold that country hostage? How can you discourage countries like Iran, Libya, and North Korea from pursuing similar strategies?

Here's what I would do: I would go to the U.N. and get inspections going again (why in the world did Clinton allow Saddam to kick the inspectors out in the first place?). I would be as stern in my public statements about Iraq as possible and move troops to reinforce Saudi Arabia so Saddam knows we actually mean it this time. If Saddam didn't start cooperating with weapons inspectors, I would take that as further evidence that he is using a covert system of Denial and Deception (or "D&D") just as he was in the 90's to hide his intentions and his capabilities. Basically he's stalling for time, as he has done for the past decade. I wouldn't let him drag out the process though, I'd try to keep the pressure on. I would send the Secretary of State to the U.N. to try to get another resolution passed by the Security Council, one that gave a specific deadline for Saddam to start fully cooperating with inspectors, after which a coalition mandated by the U.N. would use military force to remove him. If we flex our muscles enough, who knows? Maybe Saddam will start cooperating with inspectors and we can celebrate the diplomatic victory.

I cannot see any reason the countries of the U.N. Security Council would not vote for this (was it the 15th?) resolution...after all, their own intel agencies agreed with the CIA and the NIC's analyses of Iraq's WMD and nuclear programs. Alas prejudice, mistrust, economic and cultural barriers have divided the Western world down the Atlantic--France, Germany, Russia and China voted down this final U.N. resolution. To Saddam and other regimes with aspirations to acquire nuclear/biological weapons, this could have only been seen as confirmation that the U.N. has no real power to enforce its mandates. It would now be clear that the Western world will do anything to avoid an armed conflict--even allow rogue nations to develop WMD.

The large numbers of troops stationed on the border of Iraq cannot remain there indefinitely, as Saudi Arabia and other countries will not tolerate it, and the cost of maintaining those troops is enormous. Action must be taken, and there are two choices: either withdraw the troops, or invade Iraq.

If I witdraw the troops from Iraq's borders, Saddam will have won a clear victory not only for himself but for rogue nations everywhere who will see this as proof that America is a paper tiger. Countries like Libya, Iran, and North Korea would interpret this to mean that if they pursue WMD, America and the rest of the world will back down. If I invade, I have to invade as soon as possible, as the approaching summer will make chem/bio suits very hot and present serious tactical problems for our troops (sandstorms, etc). As President, I would at this time set my own ultimatum and assemble a coalition outside of the U.N. as quickly as possible. If I do not take a firm stance against dictators like Saddam, who will? Certainly not France, Russia, or Germany--that much is clear.

Notice that in the wake of Iraq, relations with other regimes have improved. Iran, Libya, and North Korea have taken positive steps and proved more willing to dismantle their WMD programs than before. This is because they know that crazy S.O.B. Mr Spinkles will oust them faster than you can say "Ayatollah" if it even appears that they are pursuing WMD. In effect, I've avoided armed conflict with several countries by using force on one (not to mention freed millions from an oppressive regime).

[Feathers in Hair]

I honestly can't say I would have known what to do, and that whatever I might have done would have been any better than what was done. (Actually, I can be fairly certain it would have been about ten times worse, me having the military knowledge of your average duck.)

[Faust]

(move troops to reinforce Saudi Arabia)

Mr. Sprinkles,
Please see my reply to you in the religious news forum which is directly related to this conversation.
In addition, we were not attacked by Sodom Hussein, we were attacked by Al Qieda headed by Ossama Ben Lauden who listed American troops in Saudi Arabia as one of his primary grievances precipitating his attack on this country.
I would have gone after Al Qieda in Afganistan because Afganistan was facilitating that terrorist organization, and kept my eye on the objective. This would have been enough to convince the world that America was not a "paper tiger" and world support would still be in our favor. Please see the above mentioned post, I think the title is "I would like to elaborate".

Peace,

Faust

Please excuse any misspellings

[The Voice of Reason]

I know, I know!!!

I would just say "To hell with what the rest of the world thinks. I'm the biggest baddest butt on the block, so I'll just shoot from the hip and tell everyone else to kiss my tail."

Even the information that his intelligence agency was feeding him had been questioned (by them) prior to his pulling the trigger. Of course, when you are determined to do whatever you want to, you can simply claim later that "no one told me that my information was in doubt - my secretary didn't relay the message to me". This is the same stance his father took in regards to the Iran-Contra scandal when he was VP - "I was out of the room when they talked about that".

Woof,
TVOR

[Sunstone]

Isn't one of the problems with Iraq that by being there, and mismanaging the situation, we are creating far more terroists than there would be otherwise?

[Faust]

Your right Sunstone,
We are creating a situation that leads the Iraqi people to fear for their way of life and their very existence and that drives fundamentalism, an especially negative form I might add! I think I just gave you some frubals but I'm still trying to figure this dadgum machine out.

[Irenicas]

Left it alone. I'm an absolute pascifist, so no war is EVER good. Never go to war.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Faust

(move troops to reinforce Saudi Arabia)

Mr. Sprinkles,
Please see my reply to you in the religious news forum which is directly related to this conversation.

Okay, I will as soon as I have some more free time...I haven't had much time for the forums as of late.

Originally Posted by Faust

In addition, we were not attacked by Sodom Hussein, we were attacked by Al Qieda headed by Ossama Ben Lauden who listed American troops in Saudi Arabia as one of his primary grievances precipitating his attack on this country.

1)Who said Saddam attacked us? The goal is to prevent an attack, not wait for one. 2)It's never a good idea to modify one's policies to accomodate the demands of a terrorist group--that only encourages terrorism.

I would have gone after Al Qieda in Afganistan because Afganistan was facilitating that terrorist organization, and kept my eye on the objective. This would have been enough to convince the world that America was not a "paper tiger" and world support would still be in our favor. Please see the above mentioned post, I think the title is "I would like to elaborate".

While your eye is on the objective, what actions would you take to prevent a similar 9/11 -like catastrophe with Saddam? Would you be comfortable with just sitting back and allowing U.N. inspections to cease in Iraq indefinitely?

[Mr Spinkles]

Whoops, sorry about the double post...I had some more things to say

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

I would just say "To hell with what the rest of the world thinks.

Stop right there, and consider this for a moment. Australia, Poland, Britain, Spain, and many other nations supported military action against Saddam. Also, what exactly did countries like France think about this issue? Why did these countries vote against a U.N. resolution to use force on Saddam if he failed to comply with weapons inspectors?

Originally Posted by TVOR

Even the information that his intelligence agency was feeding him had been questioned (by them) prior to his pulling the trigger.

Here is what the Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council had to say:

Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of intelligence services—friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad.

I encourage anyone interested to read the rest of the article here: http://www.odci.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm

Originally Posted by TVOR

Of course, when you are determined to do whatever you want to, you can simply claim later that "no one told me that my information was in doubt - my secretary didn't relay the message to me". This is the same stance his father took in regards to the Iran-Contra scandal when he was VP - "I was out of the room when they talked about that".

The information was not in doubt, in fact our intelligence agencies made their judgements on Iraq with high confidence. Perhaps another quote from the NIC would do the trick:

All agencies of the Intelligence Community since 1995 have judged that Iraq retained biological weapons and that the BW program continued. In 1999 we assessed Iraq had revitalized its program. New intelligence acquired in 2000 provided compelling information about Iraq’s ongoing offensive BW activities, describing construction of mobile BW agent production plants—reportedly designed to evade detection—with the potential to turn out several hundred tons of unconcentrated BW agent per year. Thus, it was not a new story in 2002 when all agencies judged in the NIE that Iraq had biological weapons—that it had some lethal and incapacitating BW agents—and was capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax. We judged that most of the key aspects of Iraq’s offensive BW program were more advanced than before the Gulf war.

see: http://www.odci.gov/nic/speeches_DCIstatement.html

Sunstone-- We are seeing a rise in terrorist activity, because international terrorist organizations know that a democratic Middle East with a free press is bad for business. Terrorist organizations are fueled by recruits from countries where there is political oppression, and the West is a scapegoat. But this is a battle we have to fight. In the long run, we are reducing terrorism by cutting it off at its source. Democratic societies tend not to produce international terrorist organizations as oppressive ones do.

[Faust]

It appears to me that you mix Saddams oppressive and sadistic regime with terrorist activity outside of his country Mr. Sprinkles.

Saddams Gov. if you can call it that was secular. Getting him and fundamentalist Islamists to cooperate would be a bit like getting Newt Gangretch and Hillary Clinton to conspire to get Ralph Nadder elected.( please excuse my terrible spelling)

I don't believe any amount of debate could get you to change your mind about who you are going to vote for, but as far as the war in Iraq is concerned, I don't believe it is your strongest argument for Mr. Bush's re-election.