‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ has a bad name these days: the idea was that if a gang of killers murdered a British subject in a far-flung country, a gun-boat would be sent out. If the local potentates were considered to be accomplices of the killers, the gunboat would bombard the government palace until the potentates agreed to hand over the killers or execute them locally. Otherwise a joint-punitive expedition would be organised with local involvement.
To the extent that the US supported by the UK, carried out such an operation in Afghanistan last year, I approve. My reasoning is that there was a very clear chain of events which anyone, regardless of which side they support, could understand. As regards Iraq however, no such clarity of purpose exists.
The real justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein is that he is
- a tyrant
- the highest profile Arab government opponent of the West.
Therefore Saddam’s overthrow would demoralise Islamic fundamentalists. But the US government won’t put it this way because it looks too much like an imperialist anti-Arab position. Instead an arbitrary objection to the Iraqi regime’s attempt to build nuclear weapons is invoked, creating an opportunity for the campaign to be side-tracked by the weapons’ inspectors issue. There is no mileage for the British government to get involved in this.
First, never start a war which you would be unable to finish if your allies pulled out: the sad truth is that the UK would lose a war against Iraq, unless Mr Blair launched weapons of mass destruction on Iraq.
Second, war against nuclear proliferation cannot be won. There is first the hypocrisy of letting Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea develop nuclear technology, whilst threatening war on a dictator who is no worse than some of the leaders of all the other nuclear powers (all of them anti-American at various times too). Then there is the fact that this is sixty year old technology. We might as well try to prevent cross-bows or hard-encryption from spreading.
Third, unless the British government gets serious about its own internal terrorist threat: Islamic, eco-terrorist and of course the IRA, what is the point of sending British troops to traipse around the Middle East?
Finally, the equipment is so poor, the fighting capability so stretched, the politics so unrealistic, that sooner or later the British Army is going have another Majuba Hill.
Iraq is in violation of the truce in the Desert Storm war, a war never ended. They are violating terms of that truce, subjecting themselves to resumption of the war.
First: are you suggesting that smaller countries should not support bigger ones in just wars, in case the big ones pull out? Erm, why not, and what about basic moral principles?
Second: war on Iraq isn’t war on its nukes, it’s war on Iraq. We don’t mind nukes themselves: it’s fine for the US to have them because they aren’t evil bastards.
Third: the UK should be serious about its internal terrorist threat *and* wage war on Iraq: but doing one right thing doesn’t make you entitled to do another, does it? Otherwise everyone who isn’t perfect is a hypocrite, right?
Finally, we’re supporting the Americans, aren’t we? Don’t they have any decent weapons?
Hmm, I’m not very impressed by any of these arguments. Surely the anti-war brigade can do better than this?
I really doubt the U.K. would lose a war against Iraq unless y’all decided that the cost was too high. Your military is almost certainly strong enough for the job. Besides, the U.S. is much less likely to pull out than Britain, and the U.S. is strong enough to easily defeat Saddam on our own.
I’m also sort of unclear on the manner in which Saddam’s overthrow would “demoralise Islamic fundamentalists.” More likely, a U.S. attack on Iraq with such weak justifications would galvanize anti-western sentiments, just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan galvanized the anti-Soviet mindset of the fundamentalists.
Hussein is as bad as Chirac? What Indian government was as bad as Hussein? China is hardly a threat to the western world because they want our money too much. I’m no fan of Russia’s or Pakistan’s governments, but they’re extremely unlikely to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. (though I could really see Musharaf being the next Hussein: our disobedient ex-lacky). North Korea faces certain nuclear death if they attack the U.S. (as does Saddam, I might add). And Israel, well, they’re certainly not a nice country, but it’s about as likely they’ll use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. as, um… I can’t think of anything right now, but it’s pretty damned unlikely.
Nuclear weapons are still extremely difficult to produce, so at this point proliferation is far from inevitable. (begin Christopher Loyd voice) Maybe you’ll be able to buy plutonium at the corner drugstore in 2085, but it’s a little hard to come by now. (end)
I’m not in favor of war, but this sort of strange “reasoning” really hurts the anti-war cause.
I could understand a principled argument like: never start a war, defend yourself when attacked, but never start the war, especially not overseas.
But I cannot understand when someone claims Saddam, with nukes, would not be extremely dangerous. This is escaping from reality as I see it into dream land.
Suppose, that after geting the Bomb, Saddam again invades Kuwait and dares you all to come and dislodge him. Or suppose he just provides safe bases, financing and training to terrorist, Afghanistan style. (As he is already doing, secretly).
Are these non existent, or implausible, or tolerable risks ?
Is Britain unable to defeat Iraq alone ? I tend to agree that it is mainly a question of will. Anyhow, those who oppose this war are not lamenting the sorry state of the British military, they are the ones who whould weaken the Military ever more, to the vanishing point.
I think we could take down Iraq unaided but it would be a question of stepping up a couple of gears. For all the nay-saying about poor old Blighty, it is the world’s fourth largest economy and still an industrial power. As others have said, it is a question of will not capability.
That aside though, Antoine is correct about the real reasons for the US and UK wanting Saddam’s head on a spike. But there is another more tangible reason; whilst Saddam does not have the capacity to launch missiles at either New York or London, ne nonetheless Saddam stands out as the most likely supplier of a nuclear device which could be sneaked into either country by sleeper Al-Qaeda cells.
I rather doubt that the Russians, the French or the Israelis would be so disposed though the North Koreans must be pretty high up on the worry list as well.
David:
nonetheless Saddam stands out as the most likely supplier of a nuclear device which could be sneaked into either country by sleeper Al-Qaeda cells
If I were from Al Qaeda I wouldn’t go to Saddam to get the weapons (unless his back was against the wall in which he could do anything). I’d go to Pakistan which actually has nuclear weapons and contacts with Al Qaeda through the ISI. Alternatively I’d go to Russia which has loads of poorly inventoried weapons and with plenty of hungry mouths. Of course China, who will sell to anyone if they don’t get caught, would be number three.
Iran, which has a nuclear development program, would be a minor worry, as would Israel – simply because they know that the bomb could be quickly aimed at them. However, they have both had murky dealings with Sunni Islamic groups in the past with the hope of disrupting secular Arab regimes (or just the PLO) and could be worth keeping an eye on.
In short Iraq is not the only possible source of nuclear weapons, nor is it the most likely. It must also be said that we have lost the fight against nuclear proliferation. It’s time to move on to the next fight.
Emmanuel,
It occurs to me that I have no idea how traceable these things are. If wholly untraceable then China is a possibility but an outside one, I’d wager. The Chinese regime may love nothing more than watching Chicago go up in smoke but I don’t think they are self-destructive enough to risk any chance of it being linked back to them. Similarly the Russians
But, I had forgotten about Pakistan and, I concede, they are just as likely, if not more likely, a source than Saddam.
I also agree with you (and Antoine above) that the fight against non-proliferation is lost or, at least, not winnable. I think we all have to come to terms with a more dangerous world.
Is there not another reason why GWB2 wants Saddam taken out, which is that if he is to sort out Saudi Arabia, the real heart of darkness in this business surely, he needs (a) a base, and (b) for Saddam Hussein not to be one of the main beneficiaries. No wonder the Saudis have lurched, in headless chicken mode, between grovelling support and terrified opposition, depending on the political weather during the previous twelve hours.
China makes a lot of money off of the U.S., and it’s difficult to think of any of their interests which would be served by nuking a U.S. city, even if we didn’t respond.
I find it only slightly less unlikely that Saddam would use nuclear weapons against the U.S. The charges of “untracability” don’t mean very much. If a nuclear weapon went off in New York, step one of our response would be to invade Iraq. It wouldn’t matter whether the weapons came from Iraq or not, since that would give the hawks all the excuses they need to do something they want to do anyway. Saddam knows this, and very well might work to stop a nuclear weapon from going off in the U.S. that wasn’t even his.
Granted, there are many threats out there, China, Iran, Pakistan. Can we fight them all ? No, they are too big, too strong, we are weak, unable. Correct. Does this mean that if we are too weak to fight all threats we should refrain from eliminating any one?
Saddam seems at the moment mad, dangerous, and also (for now) the weakest of the thugs. It is not a bad start to knock him out, since that is within the possible. We will see later what can be done about the others, like fomenting democratic reforms and revolutions, propaganda, subversion, maybe even terror against thuggis tyrants. I don’t think GWB2 has some hidden agenda. He is “doing” Iraq because that is within the possible. I think Iran is more advanced in getting nukes, and more active in supporting terror – in short – more dangerous than Iraq. But I also understand that it is not practically possible to invade Iran. But that does not mean the next best choice is to do nothing.
Taking out Saddam will eliminate one big danger, and will also contribute to diminish the others by lending credibility to our deterrence.