The Agonist (who has just upgraded his site to a nice new design) says that Osama’s apparent rise from the dead is a sign we’re losing ground in the war on terrorism.
In some ways, the news that bin Laden is alive is disturbing (although I still have my doubts about the veracity of the recording), however, the war on terrorism is bigger than Osama bin Laden. While it would be nice to have his head mounted on a pike in the middle of the National Mall, that doesn’t mean we should focus all our resources just on al-Qaeda.
Iraq is part of that equation, even if all it achieves is preventing Saddam from doing something to throw off our balance elsewhere. We’re now in the phase of the war on terrorism where we don’t need 50,000 troops to fight the Taliban. We’re not going to send massive amounts of troops to the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s simply better to use smaller units to find al-Qaeda leaders in hiding. This is something we can do regardless of our actions in Iraq.
Our military was designed to fight a two-theater war. We can easily manage to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda while going after Iraq. In fact, it would be much easier to do so, as al-Qaeda would more likely to stick their necks out of their hiding places if they thought the US was distracted. All it would then take is one lucky Predator to eliminate another al-Qaeda leader.
This is a long and complex war we’re in right now, one in which there will be times when a lot of things are happening at once along with times in which nothing seems to be happening. For right now, we’ve disrupted al-Qaeda to the point where they’re only able to pull off relatively small attacks. We’re slowly but surely whittling down their leadership and disrupting their financial and logistical links. All of this can continue regardless of what happens in Iraq.
Are we winning this war? Well, there will be times when it will seem like we’re not , but in the end we are making progress. We’re fighting an enemy that’s persistent, clever, and difficult to catch. However, we’ve faced such an enemy before, and we will win, if for no other reason than our survival depends on victory.
Of course Saddam’s regime is corrupt and indefensible, but what, exactly does an attack on Iraq have to do with the War on Terror? Like the Saudis, Saddam has made payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There is no other evidence whatever of his involvment in terrorism.
That in itself should be more than enough, however we also know that Saddam was shielding the terrorist Abu Nidal until his death, that he has likely met with members of al-Qaeda, and the issue of the anthrax attacks of last year remain unresolved. (Which are unlikely to be the product of just one individual.)
As far as I’m concerned, removing Saddam is a good idea even if he had nothing to do with September 11. He’s a threat to the region, a tyrannical dictator, and he has the potential to kill millions with weapons of mass destruction. There’s more than enough justification for regime change in there without ever needing to have a direct tie between Iraq and terrorism.
“As far as I’m concerned, removing Saddam is a good idea even if he had nothing to do with September 11. He’s a threat to the region, a tyrannical dictator, and he has the potential to kill millions with weapons of mass destruction. There’s more than enough justification for regime change in there without ever needing to have a direct tie between Iraq and terrorism.”
Mao and Stalin were all of the above- but we never fucked with either one of them. Tell me why, please?
“Saddam was shielding the terrorist Abu Nidal until his death”
Jay, the accounts I read at the time were that Saddam had him killed . . . Moreover, nobody has come up with any evidence that Abu Nidal was involved in terrorism while in Iraq–the guy was a terrorist leader in the early 80’s, not recently. Orlando Bosch is alive and well in Florida–should we effectuate some “regime change” down there?
“He has likely met with members of al-Qaeda” Not a shred of evidence of this–and it falls well short of showing his involvement with terrorism, even if true. After all, you say Arafat is a terrorist, and Bush I met with Arafat.
You also say that making payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is more than enough to conclude that he is invovled in terrorism. I guess (1) you’re planning on attacking our allies, the Saudis, too–except that they should be first, since they do more of this than Saddam. Doesn’t sound like any such attack is included in the administration’s plans, however, (2) apparently, you don’t dinstinguish between groupls that attack us, and groups that attack other countries. Time for a little “regime change” in the UK? After all, they made peace with the IRA. And I guess you want us to get deeply involved in Sri Lanka, , or the Biscay area of Spain, too. You going to support miltary intervention on behalf of China against their domestic terrorists, or on behalf of Castro against Cuban rightists? Gosh, you want to arrest Kissinger for his backing of a regime in Chile that committed a state-sponsored terror bombing in Washington, DC, or maybe Reagan for his support of the Contras and terrorist sponsoring regimes like those in Guatemala and Argentina?
And oh, by the way, if I read the end of your post correctly, your answer to my question, “exactly does an attack on Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?” appears to be, “nothing–but we’re going to do it anyway!”
Sorry to take up 3 posts saying what I might have said in one, but let me address one last point: you write, “the issue of the anthrax attacks of last year remain unresolved. (Which are unlikely to be the product of just one individual.).” You link to an article that says that some peole doubt the FBI’s theory about who caused the attacks, which is that they were the product of a disgruntled American scientist. Jeez, Jay, “the FBI says Saddam didn’t do it, but there some holes in their theory about who did.” is pretty shakey proof on which to start a war. What’s Saddam’s motive for an attack on Daschle, Brokow, and the US tabloid press? The ony evidence offered against Saddam is that Iraq has some biowar capacities, but aren’t there half a dozen other countries with as much biowar capacity as Iraq? Not that I believe this, but doesn’t your reasoning point more to, say, the Israelis?
As for the anthrax, we know that Iraq have developed weapons-grade anthrax, and that they’ve used silica as a binding agent for other bioweapons. Granted, the chances of finding a smoking gun are slim, but the possibility is still very much there. (And this underscores the fact that an attack with biological weapons could be deeply devastating and it’s not at all certain we could trace it back to Saddam Hussein.)
The rock-bottom reason why war is essentially inevitable is that it is intolerable for Saddam Hussein to have a nuclear weapon. We cannot allow that kind of power to be introduced into that region without serious negative consequences. If that scenario were to play out, Saddam would essentially be able to use the nuclear card to do whatever he wants knowing that we can’t risk a full response short of anihilating Iraq, which we’re unlikely to do.
If Saddam Hussein must disarm, the only way we can do that is by removing him from power. Inspections are too fallible to ensure that the Iraqi arsenal isn’t just being hidden. Taking the risk of so much as one hidden nuke is too much.
In the end this war is a necessity rather than a choice. Removing Hussein should have been done a decade ago to avoid all this trouble. It’s further proof that Machiavelli was right – you only put off war to your disadvantage.
“We cannot allow that kind of power to be introduced into that region without serious negative consequences.”
Uh, Jay, last time I heard, there were two other nations in the area who indisputably have the bomb NOW, and a third apparently as far along as Iraq.
“As for the anthrax, we know that Iraq have developed weapons-grade anthrax, and that they’ve used silica as a binding agent for other bioweapons. Granted, the chances of finding a smoking gun are slim, but the possibility is still very much there.”
No progress on this front either, Jay, Let me give you a little example of how evidentiary inferences work. Let’s say there’s a robbery of a gas station in your home town. Now, it seems beyond dispute, Jay, that you personally have the capability to commit a robbery. How much weight should we give that fact in analyzing whether you did it? Evidence that Saddam at some point may have had the capability to conduct an anthrax attack is not very persuasive evidence in support of a conclusion that he’s the one who did it. If you have nothing else to support such a conclusion–and nothing else appears to be exactly what you have–we have to regard the matter as unproven. Given the evidence we have, chances are better that there’s a terrorist somewhere snickering at the foolish Americans suspecting Saddam, than that Saddaam really did it.
“Inspections are too fallible to ensure that the Iraqi arsenal isn’t just being hidden”
By all knowledgeable accounts not true–it takes a fair amount of infrastructure to make a bomb–at least that’s what family members who have worked in our own nuclear weapons program tell me, and everything I’ve seen online on the topic tends to confiirm this. Recall that before the Gulf War, people were saying Saddam was on the brink of making a bomb. If inspections didn’t work, why doesn’t he have a bomb already?
If inspections didn’t work, why doesn’t he have a bomb already?
He’s probably very close. He more than likely has a weapon, but not enough fissile material to create a nuclear weapon. (Which is why he’s been trying to purchase materials for the enrichment of uranium as well as looking for materials on the black market.) He’s had four years without inspections to do as he wants, and the area of his presidential "palaces" are large enough to hide virtually anything in.
As for the anthrax, no, the evidence isn’t conclusive. However, what it does underscore is that Saddam Hussein could pull off a biological attack and remain undetected. To use your analogy, if I were a former bank robber and had been seen with a copy of "Bank Robbery for Dummies," I would more than likely soon be getting a visit from the police. I’m not saying that Saddam did it, but I am saying it’s quite possible he did.
As long as Saddam remains in power, he will continue to violate the inspections regime, develop more weapons, and continue to oppress his people. Which is why the only way to deal with the situation is to remove him from power.
“further proof that Machiavelli was right – you only put off war to your disadvantage”
Like all such generalities, subject to numerous counterexamples. Let’s see–assume that rather than starting the war in ’39, Hitler waited until ’45, and attacked with rockets, jet airplanes and atomic bombs. Or imagine that the South had stalled the Lincoln administration for a couple of years. Or imagine that the Boers had played for time until the outbreak of WWI. Or imagine that Napoleon had placated Russia until the Pennisular War was won. Need any more example? I’ve got more!
“He more than likely has a weapon, but not enough fissile material to create a nuclear weapon.”
Sorry, Jay–that’s not a very good argument, since its the fissile material that’s the problem. To paraphrase D-Squared, I knew several kids in high school who knew enough physics to build a bomb with enough fissle materials. I could almost do it myself. You simple start with 2 chunks of fissile materials, neither of which are critical mass by themselves, but which can acheive critical mass if compacted together. You use conventional explosive to push them together when the bomb goes off. Voila.
The fact that almost any idiot knows this nowdays is why the idea of fighting anyone who looks like they might develope nukes is absurd. What we need instead is an international regime to keep better control over fissile materials and the means of making them.
“Saddam Hussein could pull off a biological attack and remain undetected. To use your analogy, if I were a former bank robber and had been seen with a copy of “Bank Robbery for Dummies,” I would more than likely soon be getting a visit from the police. I’m not saying that Saddam did it, but I am saying it’s quite possible he did.”
No, no, and no. I assure you, they don’t prosecute, or even bother to investigate, all former bankrobbers living in the same town as a bank robbery, even assuming that Saddam qualifies as analogous to a”former bankrobber”–when did he previously comiit a biowar attack? Sending contaminated letters to liberal politicians and members of the news media from a mailbox in New Jersey or Florida doesn’t exactly suggest Saddam. And after all, the FBI doesn’t think he did it.
Please note your circular reasoning You think the evidence shows that “Saddam Hussein could pull off a biological attack and remain undetected.” Why do you think he could do it and remain undetected? Well, apparently because, we didn’t detect him doing it!
“As long as Saddam remains in power, he will continue to violate the inspections regime, develop more weapons, and continue to oppress his people.” Well, if you want to argue by catagorical assertion, i guess you can say that. You predict that he will continue to violate the inspection regime and develope weapons. Well, he won’t develope weapons if the inspection regime works, the inspection regime will work unless he’s allowed to violate it with impunity, and if he violates it, we AND OUR ALLIES will proceed to kick his ass. Will he continue to oppress his people if not removed? Well, probably–but we can’t go around the world kicking out every oppressive regime in site–and there are a great many, some MUCH worse than Saddam, and there doesn’t seem to be any alternative to his regime in sight that wouldn’t probably be just as oppressive–which is a big part of why why left him there 10 years ago. Make it into a democracy, you’ll say. What will you do when they elect a disciple of bin Laden, and proceed with their nuclear weapons program? (See, for example, Algeria, Turkey, Pakistan . . .)
As support for the statements about nuclear weapons design in the previous post, see this link: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm
Now, assuming that you have the fissile materials and the means of handling them, does that look hard?
You wrote that I said: Osama’s apparent rise from the dead is a sign we’re losing ground in the war on terrorism.
I said no such thing. My post was simply a way of reminding you and others that the soon-to-be-war in Iraq (which I believe is necessary) IS distracting us from Al Qaeda. And it was also a cheapshot–but hey, I’m allowed a few from time to time, wouldn’t you agree?
I think our war in Iraq has the potential to radically alter the War on Terrorisn in a favorable way. But it can also hurt us if it is not done well–as more time goes by Afghanostan looks worse and worse. Why? because we are distracted. I think it is paramount to do the job right. We cannot just go in a bomb and then leave. We have a moral obligation to help rebuild.
However, I think the rewards outweigh the risks in Iraq and I sense that the Bush Administration is learning from its past mistakes in Afghanistan, at least I hope so.
Other than that, nice post.
One thing I really hate about comments sections is there is no way to correct typos after you finish. ARGHHH!