Parihaka

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgame...bid=3&pid=2123
Where is that damned trained ape?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Confed999

There was no way to know the WMDs had been destroyed or moved, without cooperation. There was none.

If you're under 40, there is a Social Security crisis.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Julie

Probably on the way to the moon, with a one-way ticket.

smilingassassin

Its kinda difficult to prove that the WMD's ever existed when efforts of biblical proportions have been made to debunk the notion they ever existed, not to mention that Saddam never fully co-operated when people actually took the threat seriously.

To some, WMD's were the only excuse to go into Iraq and even then they advocated sticking their heads in the sand, its only natural therefore for them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Julie

Think about where we stand now.....we're planted in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran dead in the middle. Ah, what is it that I see?....maybe some effective closure on a slack agreement the EU made with Iran? Why not, we're already fighting Iranian insurgents? It's good to kill 2 birds with one stone, but 3 with the same shot?.....what do you think Smilin?

Ray

Ostensible Reasons for Going to War in Iraq

President Bush has been emphatic, including in his State of the Union address, that the reasons for going to war with Iraq were to oust Saddam Hussein because:

· Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which was a threat to the US.
· It would abate international terrorism and threat to the US since Saddam has ties with the Al Qaeda and WMD.
· ‘Liberating’ Iraq from Saddam would bring ‘Freedom and Democracy’ in Iraq and in the Middle East.

The unfolding of events, the internal debates in the US (both official and unofficial) and the various Senate hearings have indicated that the ostensible reasons articulated by Bush were, at best, suspect.

Eliminating WMD.

Bush touted ad infintum that war against Iraq would reduce, if not eliminate, the threat Iraq posed the US with its WMD. Bush’s faithful echo, Blair blared the same and conjured a more sinister scenario of 45 minutes to Doomsday!

This was totally out of synchromesh with the US attitude of the 80s when Iraq, in their war against Iran, employed chemical weapons in the 80s, based on US secret satellite pictures of Iranian military positions. Not once then did Rumsfeld and Cheney object to use of these weapons.

If indeed Iraq posed such a grave threat, logically Iraq should have been addressed before Afghanistan. If terrorism was a graver threat, then Afghanistan should have seen a logical conclusion. Troops availability being at a premium; penny packet employment was definitely not prudent.

The triumvirate of Iraq, North Korea and Iran were declared the ‘axes of evil’ in the US threat perspective. It was generally known that North Korea possessed adequate plutonium to produce one to two nuclear devices along with the capacity to manufacture several more. She also has a large chemical weapons stockpile and a formidable array of ballistic missiles. Therefore, North Korea was a greater threat to the US and US interests in East Asia.

Iran was also said to be in an advanced stage to enter the nuclear club, because of the connivance of the nuclear peddler, AQ Khan of Pakistan. Iran was near, but not totally there.

Of the three, North Korea appeared prima facie the most dangerous to US interests and her ‘war on terror’. Yet she only warranted a perfunctory note.

On the other hand, the real McCoy in this dangerous game was Pakistan. She qualified for both the threats – WMD and terrorism. Pakistan has several dozen nuclear warheads along with missiles and planes capable of delivering them hundreds of miles away. She also has chemical weapons. International terrorism took birth in Pakistan and was the fountainhead of the ‘Islamic terrorist machine’. The impact of her ‘terror factories’ was felt as far as Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia and as near as Kashmir. She was an acknowledged terror purveyor.

Thus, Pakistan met both the criteria – WMD and terrorism – to be the prime target instead of Iraq, even if the military principles of war were to be flouted! It had the added advantage of being contiguous to Afghanistan.
Iraq, in comparison to any of the ‘axes of evil’ or Pakistan, had no WMD or delivery system worth the name (at least the Inspectors could were unsure)
Therefore, the rationale for attacking Iraq appears dubious.

Combating Terrorism.

The US administration had vigorously propounded that a war on Iraq would debilitate the strike potential of international terrorism against the US. The convolutedly brazen rationale trotted out by the Administration to justify by proffering ‘facts’ that Saddam Hussein had connection with the AQ was debunked by the US Congress’ 9/11 Commission.

In fact, the opposite was true. The Wahabi AQ was inimical to Saddam since his government was secular in persuasion, in the sea of autocratic monarchies and obscurantist Islamic nations of the Middle East.

If indeed there was a terrorist connection, then it is odd that Reagan removed Iraq from the countries supporting terrorism list. In fact Rumsfeld, in December 1983, as a special representative of President Reagan, carried the happy tidings as also the provision of billions of dollars' worth of agricultural credits and other forms of assistance to Hussein.

This rationale that a war on Iraq would make international terrorism impotent was irrationally faulted since a ‘Christian’ invasion on a Moslem country would only foment it with greater vigour and not pacify the Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist marauders.

Freedom and Democracy.

The Quaran is not open to interpretation . This naturally moulds the mindset which is less prone to flexibility in thought. Therefore, the perception that in an Islamic Middle East, devoid of democracy from its inception, an instant ‘Freedom and Democracy’ would blossom because of the democracy evangelism US presence, was self deluding, bogus and bordering on a hoax.
It is a hoax because Cheney and Rumsfeld amongst others of the Bush administration had no problems with Saddam’s dictatorship in the 80s. Therefore, the flip in the US attitude did not belie the facts. It was more unbelievable because the US had even supplied secret satellite data on Iranian military positions (at a time when they were informed by a senior State Department official on Nov. 1, 1983 that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians "almost daily") and could use the data to pinpoint chemical weapons attacks on Iranian positions. Hence, the sudden volte-face that converted Iraq from an accepted US ally (which with impunity could use chemical weapons and mistreat its own citizens) to a debauch in the realm of ‘freedom and democracy’ appears extraordinary.
Therefore if in the 80s the Hussein dictatorship using chemical weapons against Iran or oppressing its own citizens was acceptable by the US, then there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current leadership has a principled objection to dictatorial rule in Iraq. Hence, the sudden magical discovery that ‘freedom and democracy’ was direly needed in Iraq is a bit far fetched.

If “Freedom and Democracy’ was suddenly the polestar of US’ Middle East policy and it was charged with a hell fired zeal to spread ‘Freedom and Democracy’ in the Middle East, then the close relationship of the US with Stalinist dictator ruled post-Soviet Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan or with obscurantist monarchies which are equally dictator-like as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, two of America's other close allies in the region, should have warranted a equally ‘regime change’ attention; more so, Saudi Arabia, the home of the Wahabi terrorist virus.

Now, lets lok at the flip side.


US Strategic Constraints

The collapse of the USSR left USA as the sole superpower.

The Grand Strategy was to extend this advantage (as the only superpower) as far into the future as feasible. The danger was that there were nations inimical to the USA and the apprehension was also there that the US ascendancy might not be in perpetuity, given certain countries harbouring ambitions of being alternate power centres. Therefore, it was essential to re-engineer the world political physiognomy in favour of the US.

The reality was that the defence budget would remain the same and in fact could diminish. After debate, it was the view that the gap between resources and strategy be resolved not by increasing resources but by short changing strategy. The option was either to prepare for the future by
retreating from the role as the essential defender of today’s global security order, or it could take care of current business but be unprepared for tomorrow’s threats and tomorrow’s battlefields.

The Cheney inspired Defence Policy Guidance of 1992 (DPG) became the bedrock of this strategy. This policy guidance aimed at ensuring US supremacy, preventing alternate power centres and shaping the world as per US interests and principles.

In essence it encompassed:

· Four Core Mission for the US military, namely:
Ø Defend the US homeland;
Ø Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars;
Ø Perform the ‘constabulary’ role associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
Ø Transform the US Forces to exploit “revolution in military affairs”;

To carry out these core missions, the US had to:
· Maintain nuclear strategic superiority worldwide.
· Maintain a ‘Base Force’ (as visualised in the strategic requirement), which envisaged active duty increase strength of 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
· Configure the quick reaction capability, based on 21st Century strategic realties, by having permanent bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia and changing naval deployment matrix responsive to US strategic concern in Eat Asia.
· Selective modernisation of US Forces, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.
· Cancelling “Roadblock’ Programmes (the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system) since it would absorb exorbitant amounts without commensurate payoffs. The money save could accelerate military transformation.
· Develop and deploy Global Missile Defence that would protect the US, it allies as also assist in the global projection of the US power.
· Control The New “International Commons” Of Space And “Cyberspace,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
· Capitalise on ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ and ensure long term superiority of the US military by:
Ø Applying advanced technologies to maximise efficiency in current weaponry;
Ø Inject profound improvements in military capabilities; encourage competition between single services and jointmanship experiments.
· Achieving the goals through gradual increase in defence expenditure to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 of the GDP (gross domestic product), adding $15 billion to $20 billion to the total annual defence spending.
.
Fulfilling the above alone would retain the dominance of the US in the long term; failing which it could pressure some strategic retreat. The current defence budget short-changed the long-term strategic dominance and US global leadership since it would force withdrawal from strategic areas and instead abdicate the gains in terms of both economic and strategic influence, to forces inimical to the US.

The keynote to US policy is a shift from containing the Soviet Union of the Cold War era to ‘expanding democratic zones of peace’.

The security paradigm has transmogrified from a single are of interest i.e. USSR to global threats that are strewn in penny packets around the world. The US no longer perceives regional assertion through US military interventions around the world as temporary and instead focuses on the inimical interests around the world holistically, since the current shortfalls of US power projection in terms of outdate equipment and military standing strength is being exploited by nations like China, North Korea, Iran, Syria et al; some of whom are going undeterred in acquiring nuclear capabilities and delivery reach that can threaten the US and its worldwide interests.

To this end, it has become essential for the USA to have bases in the areas of US interest so ready reaction to actions inimical to US interest. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq before the Gulf War I indicated that US global presence was essential to ensure no dramatic drawdown in US strategic eminence leading to negative payoffs.

Another issue that is worth considering is:


Role Of Oil

Oil is stated to be the major criteria for the switch to Iraq in the ‘war on terror’. There is some credence. With the rapid advent of globalisation, the demand on oil has increased manifold. Thus, oil has assumed the importance as a potent weapon. The country that controls the oil controls the destiny of nations to a great degree.

The Caspian Oil

With the disintegration of the USSR, the Caspian area has become a focal point of global interest. This area is rich in oil as also is endowed with a huge untapped hydrocarbon reserve. Proven estimates peg it at more than 236 trillion cubic feet and as high as 200 billion barrels. Modern technology can increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day equalling 500% increase in about 15 years, which would be 5% of the world production.

The obstacle for this immense resource is the transportation to world markets. It is landlocked and for US interests, the major conundrum is that this area is not ideally in the US sphere of interest and that the current infrastructure permits oil movement to areas of the erstwhile USSR i.e. to the North and West.

Notwithstanding, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium is to build the infrastructure for outflow from north Caspian to Novorossiysk, the Russia Black Sea port to further movement via tankers to world markets through the Bosporus. This will even out the imbalance and increase export capacity to some extent.
The Azerbaijan International Operating Company (a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil) has conceived two routes i.e. one pipeline moving north and crossing north Caucasus to Novorossiysk while the other would move across Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This would also extend westwards also south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
Even if these plans fructify, it would still not meet the oil output visualised and would not be optimally engineered to feed the future markets. The European, Central Asia markets do not indicate spectacular growth in the near future, unlike the Asian market, which indicates a commercially exciting quantum jump. If the Asian requirement is not adequately met, it will automatically push oil prices up, leading to a turbulent world economy.

Therefore, the routes would be East towards China (fraught with risks) or South (through Afghanistan to the Gwadar port of Pakistan and Iraq). Iran can interdict the sea routres being a littoral state. Hence Iran is drawn into the US focus, apart from the ever growing threat of her nuclearisation.

Ray

The above is my first analysis and still way to go. It need not be correct since I have more reading to do.

Also read the Wolfowitch Doctrine. In tht lies much of the reason.

Ray

Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of a 1992 policy statement on America's mission in the post-Cold War era. Called the "Defense Planning Guidance," it is an internal set of military guidelines that typically is prepared every few years by the Defense Department. This policy guidance is distributed to military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to provide them with a geopolitical framework for assessing their force level and bugetary needs. The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. But controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post and the White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it.


Key Points/Excerpts:· The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower."Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia."There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." · Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea. · If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action. There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.

Parihaka

Ray, this is superb, thankyou

MIKEMUN

Yep,the US is looking out for number one....The biggest challenge is not reaching the top,it's staying there..

Ray

Parihaka,

This is a paart of an article I am writing for a professional journal.

Since much is said, I thought I could share some of the research.

In fact, I would look forward to anyopne providing me links for and against, so that it is not partisan.

Confed999

They were the same reasons given by most of the world's intel agencies, they were the same reasons given by Kerry, Clinton, and a host of others.
It did that.
Never happened, that was a British tabloid spin.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a fools game. "The friend of my enemy is my enemy" is allmost allways correct though, and I could now hardly care less about his friends. Even the ones still termed "allies".
Both, and many more, should have been dealt with decades ago.
We can't do everything alone, and nobody else would have supported it. Korea should have never been done 1/2 assed in the first place, nor should Vietnam. Those people should not have been left to fend for themselves against the totalitarian regimes.
That fools game again.
I would have to see where anyone said there would be instant democracy. Before the war we were told 5-7 years just to get Iraq back on it's feet. It took the US decades to acheive a democratic tradition.
The flip in US attitude occured in the 90s, not in the GW Bush Presidency. The Iraqi liberation act of '98 was passed into law without Cheney or Rummy being there. Also, neither of those guys are allowed to have a problem with Iraq, or anywhere else, they implement policy from the President and Legislature.

I grow weary of these same debates, so you'll have to get my point from that much. The bottom line is, had Saddam cooperated with the UN as he was required too, it would not have been necessary to force the issue.

Ray

Confed,

You have to bear with me.

I write as a pastime for professional magazines and hence maybe I have got immune to debates making me weary. To me more the debate, nore the info.

To me, it doesn't matter whether it is Bush's spin or not. My job is to find out relevant facts. My country nor I am directly involved in the Iraq War and Reconstruction (Chinese are and some Chinese have been taken hostage). Indian involvement are freelance drivers of trucks.

Whatever, I have written are obviously from open surces. Even the 45 minutes. That is not spin. Do look up Parliamentary proceedings.

I look at things from a military point of view and not from any politcal partisan outlook. I found going to Iraq without Afghanistan being complete as a deviation from the miitary principles of war (the ten commandant type of stuff for military planning). Therefore, my curiosity.

Then, the fact that the troops are running short and tenures extended also sends alarms in the military mind. So, militarily I am more curious as to why the US seems to have bitten more than it can chew.

Rebuilding America's Defences, the Defense Policy Guidance of Cheney (when he was the Secy of Defense) and Wolfowitz Doctrine makes some 'method in the madness'. From purely a US point of view, it sure makes a lot of sense.

I will now google Iraqi Liberation Act (see you have given me a lead)! And then check the connection.

Saddam is US' Frankenstein, like it or not. He had become too big for his boots. I don't grudge teh US supporting dictators (even if that may appear incongruous). The US has to do it to pursue her national interest. Obviously, whe would not pursue someone else's interest. So, no grudge (from a military point of view).

Do read 'rebuilding America's defense'
www.cryptome.org/rad.htm

It also contains aspect of the Defense Policy Guidance. It will be a great read.

Julie

I feel imposing sanctions are comparable to a program of "criminal rehabilitation." If the situation is to the extreme where a ruler has to be sanctioned, he is not fit to run a country. Period.

Ray

Sanctions don't work in keeping with the spirit for which they are imposed

The top guys still have their perks. The common man takes the hit.