From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 11:34:21 MST
At 01:27 AM 2/24/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Am Sonntag, 23. Februar 2003 17:21 schrieb John K Clark:
> > If WMD are ever used by Saddam or any other terrorist organization
> > against America I expect they will be shipped just like any other
> > package, by UPS or Federal Express.
>
>And why should he be so stupid? If any piece of such an attack could be
>traced back into Iraq, Saddam and his regime would be bombed to pieces by
>an international coalition, not by one country alone. To actively attack
>something or someone outside his own country would be suicide for Saddam
>and I'm sure he knows that so pretty well, that nowadays, he wouldn't let
>any terrorist come near him.
I see your point, but then again I also think its an easy mistake to make
to assume that a dictator has an accurate perception of reality. When you
have the ability to execute anyone who says what you don't want to hear,
people tend to tell you what you want to hear, and that in turn tends to
make you delusional. Saddam has already misjudged his position once, when
he invaded Kuwait, and most of the dictators we read about in the history
books are prone to do very stupid things - like the invasions of Russia or
trusting Hitler to keep his word or the Great Leap Forward.
> > >I don't think that Iraq is telling the tuth, but
> > Then I guess you don't think the United Nations should play any part in
> > future world events.
>
>This decision has been made by others, not by me. Several states continue
>to ignore UN resolutions, simply because they know that noone is coming
>to punish them. Not only Iraq, but Israel, China (AFAIK) and last but not
>least the US government.
>
> > The UN unanimously passed a resolution requiring
> > Iraq to tell the TRUTH about its weapons and disarm; if UN resolutions
> > are nothing but hot air then the UN is toast.
>
>So, in your opinion, the punishment for lying is total destruction and
>death not only for the liar, but also for those he holds hostage? There's
>nothing else we can do? Hm. For someone with only a hammer, everything
>looks like a nail, right?
I think the idea being put forward is more: "If you try to conquer a
country we'll conquer you, unless you do these things so that we'll trust
you again."
> > > I say send more inspection teams, do more surveillance
> >
> > The only reason Saddam let inspectors back in is that the USA
> > surrounded his country with 200,000 soldiers, that can not be
> > maintained indefinably and the nanosecond that pressure is reduced he
> > will kick the inspectors out just as he did before.
>
>(1) It doesn't take 200,000 soldiers to maintain the pressure.
>(2) The best part of the world would be glad to help, if this
> were not the private adventure game of Mr. Bush and his friends.
>(3) The USA military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were
> able to ensure the no flight zones for twelve years now. How much
> more would it take to extend this zone across the whole country
> and have daily practice with AWACS, U2 and other systems?
>
> > >force Iraq to accept human rights, free press,
> > >free political activities.
> >
> > Force? How?
>
>Read my mail again: "But _not_ by a massive attack and military
>invasion, but by one step after another, full publicity and no chance for
>arab extremists and terrorists to use the Iraq incident for their own
>business - e.g. get their hands on the leftovers of any WMD fabrication."
>
>That means: use _approriate_ tools and force on the actual spot, military
>if necessary, but don't make it a global mess.
>
>"If an invasion is necessary, make it a silent invasion of inspection
>teams, human rights supervisors, international relief organizations, etc.
>until the Iraq regime can no longer maintain its pressure on the people.
>If Saddam refuses to comply, use restricted force against the spots he
>denies access to. Even if this requires years, it will be cheaper and
>more under control than a war at this time."
Its nice to see constructive ideas about what could be done with regard to
Iraq short of war. I would bet that if a super intelligence was present it
could quickly come up with ideas for resolving the crisis that even normal
intelligences like us are capable of understanding. However, I have to say
that I don't think this particular idea would work.
If we were to invade we would have several advantages over the Iraqis.
1: We know where they're forces are.
2: They don't know where our forces are.
3: We have the initiative.
4: We have air power.
5: Iraqi troops aren't very competent.
I fear that if were to only send in troops to support our inspection teams
we would lose all of these advantages, except perhaps for 1 and 5. If
Saddam denies the UN access to a site, he knows where the US will have to
strike, and he can easily ambush the forces and then withdraw before our
plane get there. Or, he could just remove any incriminating materials from
a locations while he denies access, but before our forces arrive. I won't
say this situation would be anywhere near as bad as Vietnam, but it would
be similar in that our troops would be dying in a foreign country without
appearing to be accomplishing anything, and so I doubt we would be able to
sustain these efforts for long. It might be that I am missing something,
and I look forward to what you have to say, but right now I think that it
would be better to do nothing than to use the plan you suggest.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign
to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume you
opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you.
-M.N. Plano
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 11:40:41 MST