The question of why the US is gearing up to fight Iraq and not North Korea has been explored at length, mostly by those who would like the US do nothing about either. The reasons given here are convincing but there is an even more likely scenario. North Korea’s power to blackmail the rest of the world by threatening or invading its neighbours is correctly put into perspective.
The maximum damage North Korea could inflict on the world, even with tactical nukes, would be to destroy the economy of South Korea. Certainly, a tragedy for the South Koreans but its catastrophic impact on the country and its population is not likely to spill over to the rest of the world to the extent Iraq’s success would, as I argue below. This scenario, of course, assumes rather vaguely that the South Korean army would not annihilate the 1950s-style North Korean army in the first encounter. Tactical nuclear devices are horrendous, however, with so much at stake, South Korea would put everything it has into defending its territory and ultimately free existence. Further, it is likely to be a one shot event, so to speak. Yes, the destruction of the South Korean economy would plunge the world economy into recession but ultimately even if Seoul is destroyed, it could be rebuilt just as the Japanese rebuilt their cities.
The point I want to make is that the same kind of ‘local incidents – global effects’ reasoning should be used for thinking about Iraq. My conclusion is frightening and adds an extra urgency to the removal of Saddam and disarming of Iraq. This is because Iraq armed with nuclear weapons, tactical ones that is, could not only destabilise the Middle East, it could hold the Western world to ransom for the foreseeable future. I am pretty sure it would. Here’s how: Saddam manages to stall US intervention long enough to develop a couple of tactical nuclear warheads and the ability to fit them to SCUD missiles. He is aided by a large number of political leaders and public opinion even in those countries where the leaders are determined to get ‘im.
Having demonstrated this ability, Saddam then re-invades Kuwait. You may think only a complete nutcase would try this after what happened last time but Saddam actually made preparations to re-take Kuwait in 1994 by amassing troops at the border. The Iraqi army may be only a shadow of its former strength, but it has more than enough to invade Kuwait, which would take a leisurely drive to the sea and retake Kuwait city in less than a day.
Saddam then digs in. The crucial point is once he possesses tactical nukes he could not be kicked back out again. A military operation to liberate Kuwait, based on the first Gulf War and the current accumulation of military capabilities, would require large concentrations of US and other allied armour, troops and helicopters, as well as the use of local Arab airfields and ports, which would present very tempting targets to Saddam. SCUDS may not be accurate, but with a 20 kilotonne warhead, who needs accurate? The United States would have to make a very different and extremely difficult cost-benefit analysis and budget for the greatest loss of all, a large number of soldiers annihilated by the WMDs in such a conflict.
There have been many comments talking about deterrence. Couldn’t Saddam be deterred from using his nukes? A nuclear threat is a combination of ability and will. Given the warheads for ability, Saddam certainly has the will. His threat to nuke our ‘liberation’ troops is credible. The US or allied counter-threat is highly unrealistic and politically unenforceable. First, of all it would mean incinerating three million mostly innocent civilians in Baghdad. Secondly, CND and the assorted lefties, Nobel Prize winners and more importantly many country leaders would go ape and Saddam would manage to wreak a more effective havoc in the international arena. Saddam is smart enough to know this.
Yes, on a very basic level deterrence will work like it did in the Cold War. The problem is it would work exactly as it did in the Cold War. That is, it would work for Saddam and against us. I won’t scratch yours, if you don’t scratch mine…. It will deter Saddam from nuking the West, but will prevent the West from ‘interfering’ within his ‘sphere of influence’.
So the net effect of Saddam with a usable tactical nuke? At a stroke he can control not only Iraq’s, but also Kuwait’s oilfields, gaining direct control over a substantial proportion of the world’s real energy reserves. Unless you consider windfarms a viable source of energy, this is a situation that is going to have an enormous impact on the world economy. He already exerts veto control over the Shatt-al-arab waterway, the casus belli for the Iran – Iraq war and a vital route for half of the world’s oil.
Finally and terminally, with a nuclear armed Iraq right on the border with Saudi Arabia, Saddam will be able to force the Saudis to restrict their oil production. It is hard to imagine that the Saudi royal family will put up huge resistance to his demands, especially as they are now presiding over a population who thinks Saddam is great and the West is the source of all evil. This way Saddam dictates the price of oil and I can’t see him selling it to us at a bargain price. At a stroke, he can not only cripple the world economy, but grow rich on the proceeds of his overpriced oil.
His Western ‘enemies’ – think France and Russia – will welcome Saddam as a long lost brother to the international family and remind him of their support to get access to that oil. The Russians might even thank him for boosting their most important foreign currency earner.
Now, I wonder what Saddam will spend all his new oil income on? Starving Iraqi children? Somehow I think he is not so fond of “schools-and-hospitals”. I wonder…..just how much do you need to build an ICBM? …and to buy a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
Well said.
I don’t get this idea that oil doesn’t matter, and that statesmen should be downright proud of themselves for not thinking about it. If the world suffers another “oil shock”, many many people will die.
Of course Bush’s plans for taking out Iraq are influenced by oil thinking, as well as by WMD thinking, and by the two together, as you say.
Quite so. When people say ‘no blood for oil’ what they really mean is ‘no blood for western civilisation’.
Oil is a integral part of the foundation of western civilization?
Yes, Harry, of course it is. Try to imagine Western civilization functioning without oil.
For example, what will happen to food production if farmers’ tractors and trucks no longer run? And even if the same amount of food is somehow grown, how will it be distributed without trucks or railroads?
Without oil, millions in the West will starve, and as food riots erupt in every city, civilization will founder.
Here’s another example: no oil means no plastics. How well do you think hospitals will function without anything made of plastic?
The scenarios you pose are some of the very reasons why there are not one, but as many as five anti-missile systems in test by the US right now, and at least one may be pushed into advanced deployment very shortly even though it is still developmental.
Quite so Dale, but of course the scenario Gabriel posted will still apply, because unless you can be absolutely 100% certain of destroying every missile in flight (i..e never) Saddam’s ability to deter Western intervention in “his” sphere of influence will still apply.
As a possible counter to the “Iraq uses army/nukes to intimidate Kuwait/Saudis”, what would happen if we just sold Our Good Friends(tm) some nukes of their own? Some Davy Crockett (W54) nuclear RRs and land mines would put a big dent in Saddam’s ability to attack Kuwait .
On a related note, if Kuwait is so vital to the survival of our civilization, why didn’t we have a defensive alliance with them in 1990? Why didn’t we tell Mr. Hussein we would tolerate no aggression against Kuwait when he brought the matter up with our ambassador before the invasion?
Either James Baker & Co. fucked up big time, or other motives were at work.
Strategically speaking, we’ll eventually convert over to solar power towers to provide us with energy. The free market will take care of this once oil gets to ~$40-50/barrel.
Solar power doesn’t scale well enough to supply even basic electricity needs. Satellite solar power might, but that’s not yet possible.
Also, remember Saddam dreams of being the next Saladin. Nuking Isreal would be a big part of that.
So say Saddam invades Kuwait, and says that he’s got a nuke aimed at or planted in Tel Aviv. You are planning on deterring him from becoming a living legend? Are you serious?
Forget nuking our air forces… Just threaten to nuke the capital city of any country that allows the U.S. the use of its land. Or even, if he’s really bold, threaten to destroy Mecca if Muslims do not untie under his banner.
Any of those nutball countries with a nuke is a problem, but Saddam with one is a potential catastrophe.
Surprisingly enough, NPR (National Public Radio, a supposedly public but nevertheless liberal statist radio outlet in the US), had an interesting take on Bush’s reasons for going after Saddam.
The speaker (I forgot who it was) said that Bush’s advisors believe the Middle East is at an inflection point in history. The people of the region are faced with two diametrically opposed options for the future course of their societal development – statist Islamism or secular democracy. The old guard consists of the ayatollahs, mullahs, clerics, other religious leaders and priveleged people in general who desire to hold onto power (and wealth & privelege) by throwing the Middle East down the path of Islamism. But many of the people (Iran’s students, most normal Iraquis, etc) want to emulate the West without completely abdicating their religion. The economic and civil success of Western civilization is impossible to obscure from these people. Two forces are straining against each other, and Bush’s advisors believe that toppling Saddam and replacing his regime with a stable, democratic government may, in the long run, tip the Middle East in favor of secular democracy.
The reasoning is that Iraq is already a secular, progressive, economically developed nation. The people are generally educated, women enjoy rights unheard of in most other MidEast regimes, they have massive oil wealth and the ability (and motivation) to turn that into other forms of wealth. The only thing holding them back is the psychotic madman who has had the country under a reign of terror for two decades. Yes, the CIA helped install him way back when, to their eternal shame, but at the time they believed he was the only one strong enough to counter the Islamic revolution in neighboring Iran, that he would be a bullwark preventing it from spreading to Iraq.
Regime change in Iraq will make one of the region’s strongest states into a progressive, secular democracy. That would be a first for the Middle East, as the other major powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are Islamist and autocratic. No longer will Iranian students have to travel to Europe or America to see how things should be done, their next-door neighbor will provide a perfect example. America will have other options to dealing with the Saudi Royal family and the mixed alliances that involves. A democratic Iraq will provide a cultural example for the people of other MidEast regimes to aspire to, while giving America greater leverage over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries whose rulers resist modernization and the institutionalization of universal human rights.
None of those changes will be immediate, of course; rather the time frame is the next 50 to 100 years. But Bush’s team believe that if this can be accomplished, it is worth every negative reaction that could possibly arise from any country. It is worth the possibility of setting a dangerous “regime-change” precedent, and of spooking China (who was already spooked to begin with, considering their history of foreign invasion, their current military inferiority, and America’s position on Taiwan, Tibet, totalitarianism, and human rights). Over the next 100 years, this could be the seed, so to speak, that contributes more to solving the major problems of the region than anything else, including the Israel problem. The hope is that a democratic Iraq will eventually lead to the wane of the power of Islamists, that terrorist funding and support will dry up, and that resistance to the existence of Israel will erode as religion is supplanted by democracy and economy as distinguishing social characteristics.
While WMD are a major concern, it is more of an easily sell-able excuse than the primary reason for our impending invasion. That also explains why we are not seeking similar regime-change in North Korea. North Korea has no influence over its neighbors. China will not cease to be a totalitarian nation if we regime-change North Korea, and every other major nation in that region is a more or less stable democracy, or at least on that path. North Korea is being left behind culturally and technologically, and it is only a matter of time before they either collapse or change. Instead of spending American lives on bringing that regime down, Washington prefers to wait for its inevitable collapse.
In a nutshell, that is basically what the interviewee said on NPR. I was most surprised to hear such a reasoned and informed point-of-view on that channel, as I was only listening to it b/c there was nothing worth listening to on any other channels.
Gabriel,
It isn’t about oil.
It is about Arab _unearned income_.
As long as Arab culture don’t have to work for its living and can play oil parasite. They will export their crazies rather than initiate the social changes necessary to adapt to the modern world.
Iraq is only the first step in removing the “golden chains of oil” from Arab (and Persian) society.
And if the Arab culture still refuses to change and still insist on attacking Americans in America. Then America can then kill them all with a clear concious, having tried every other moral alternative first.
Whatever else happens, understand that America’s Wilsonian velvet glove has a Jacksonian fist inside that is powering it.
Ryan hit close to the crux of the issue and Byron had a fine analysis. But the real danger of a nuclear Saddam is:
* That he intimidate (or even overthrow) the Sauds. Don’t get me wrong – the Sauds are greasy rats but as bad as they are they’re still better than Saddam. This gives him de fact control of their oil fields.
* Saddam destabilizes and topples the Hashemites in Jordan. Saddam has his knee on the economic neck of Jordan and can squeeze whenever he wants. Plus, the Palestinian population of Jordan loves Saddam and would rally to his side if they thought he would finally annihilate the Jews for them. And, let’s face it, any modern Saladin will be able to unite the Arabs if he vaporizes Israel. Sure, the Israelis will glass a dozen Arab cities, but they will, in the end, be gone and Jerusalem again called al-Quds.
There’s no good scenario for a nuclear Saddam. None. We get rid of him today and lose 1,000 or tomorrow and lose 100,000. I pick option “A.”
Trent Talenko: Of course, it’s not about oil, for chrissake! The title was a joke at the expense of those who cry: It’s all about oiiiil, as if it was a crime to defend economic necessity and welfare of the Western population.
nk actually is a credible threat against sk, japan, and the better parts of china…
this is not an incosnequential part of the world, but rather one of the key regions of the world. what is different is that a the sk government and votersare a bunch of frenchies, and they are currently learning that you don’t mess with rumsfeld. japan and chicoms are realizing that they need to sort out the aituation or else rumsfeld and perle get to do it… not a good idea
sk are getting seriously freaked at the fact that we’re ready to let em hang if they don’t want to help. we are screwing the french and will screw any imitators. this is not how us normally plays, but its the new rules, and people are learning what’s happening
take iraq, show nk taht we don’t need to nuke em, we can just unleash hell at any moment, and wouldn’t it be a better idea to sit down, shut up, and maybe get the hell out of the country?
hence the nk threat to attack the us as pre-emption… fing suicide, but they really are, and shoiuld be, scared of the undiverted attention of the us!
NK can threaten its neighbors, but it exerts no social influence on them. Iraq can both threaten its neighbors and exert social influence. Over the next century, we want Iraq to stop threatening and exert a positive, democratic social influence over its neighbors, which won’t happen with Saddam in power. Additionally, Iraq’s oil sustains Saddam and prevents his regime from collapsing. NK has no such sustenance, so the probability of that regime collapsing of its own weight is greater. Add it all up, and you see there is not so much hypocracy in attacking Iraq and not attacking Korea.
NK can threaten its neighbors, but it exerts no social influence on them. Iraq can both threaten its neighbors and exert social influence. Over the next century, we want Iraq to stop threatening and exert a positive, democratic social influence over its neighbors, which won’t happen with Saddam in power. Additionally, Iraq’s oil sustains Saddam and prevents his regime from collapsing. NK has no such sustenance, so the probability of that regime collapsing of its own weight is greater. Add it all up, and you see there is not so much hypocracy in attacking Iraq and not attacking Korea.