An alternative to war in Iraq

[Guest Some Guy]

Both US and France are wrong

 

 

2/20/2003

 

BOTH THE FRENCH and Americans are wrong in their views about how to deal with Iraq.

 

 

In the case of the French, the issue is not the effectiveness of the inspections, but Saddam's ''material breach'' of the obligations of UN Resolution 1441. By most standards he is out of compliance and should be subject to ''serious consequences.'' Americans, however, are wrong in their belief that the consequence should be a massive, unilateral invasion of Iraq.

 

That said, the sole focus in the UN now should be the form ''serious consequences'' take. In my view we should slowly, deliberately, and progressively occupy the country. Already there is de facto occupation of a large portion of Kurd-inhabited northern Iraq. The next step should be the occupation of Shiite southern Iraq initially as far north as Basra. Later the occupation can move north and also encompass the western frontiers. The occupation should involve as little military force as possible, and there is reason to believe that the morale, equipment, and supplies of Saddam's forces there are sufficiently weak to make that approach viable.

 

The occupation should concurrently include economic development assistance, initially in the oil fields and as soon as possible for restoring the marshes drained and destroyed by Saddam earlier.

 

I would propose taking no action with regard to Baghdad, other than to minimize the economic deprivation to its inhabitants. I would direct sufficient funds from the export sale of Iraq's crude oil to make that possible. I would hope that a secondary consequence of these actions would be the erosion of Saddam's power base and that it might persuade him to leave office.

 

My belief is that such a strategy would prove more effective than continued, even intensified, but ultimately futile inspections. The occupation would bring the ''serious consequences'' required of Resolution 1441 without unleashing the total wrath of the Arab world and moreover hint at the positive economic benefits that might evolve from genuine cooperation in the area.

 

LAURENCE B. FLOOD

 

Dedham

 

I don't think it will work out as he does but at least it's a well rounded argument that doesn't skirt the truth about Iraq's violation of 1441.

Occupying a country piece by piece is unwise. It gives the other areas knoweldge of possible attacks and time to prepare. It also provides Saddam way too much ability to hide behind civillians. Also people generally don't like to be occupied, even it if is for theri own betterment. That is the main problem I see with post-Saddam Iraq. If we make our presence too well known then the resentment will mount and we'll be considered the "new Saddam" to the Iraqis.

I think we should go in, conquer, democratize, help industrialize and get the fuck out with a good oil deal.

 

I posted this because I thought it was a good moderate position that I have never seen. It has aspects to appease both the "hawks" adn the "doves."

 

What do you guys think?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The key to this route would be the fact that we need to gather support, as you said. If the citizens of Iraq would be direly opposed to this, it's not gonna work. However, if we can go about this in a way where minimal/no violence is needed, I'm all for it.

[Guest Some Guy]

Wouldn;t you be opposed to the Mexicans (random country) telling you what to so and when to do it in AMerica? I think the faster the violence is over, the faster we can get the hell out of a place we don't belong. Help them and leave (with a good oil deal as a caveat, if were going to spend billions to liberate them we might as well get something tangible [oil] in addition to more domestic and world safety and good piece of mind).

[Guest Brian]

By good deal, I assume you mean all.

[Guest Some Guy]

No, I mean being able to buy oil below or at market value. I don't want to completely take advantage of them, that's their only major export. I want Iraq to be the most successful Arab democracy in the world adn I want other countries to follow that mold and voluntarilly become free (if possible) through revolution. I don't wish any harm on them and taking all their oil would certainly harm them.

England and America should get the best deal and everyone else should pay more. We do the most work, we get the best deal, the French and Germans get nothing. Seems fair.

[Guest DrTom]

The French and the Russians refine a lot of Iraq's oil, which is the reason why they get good deal from Saddam, and why they're hesitant to see those deals jeopardized. Saying they do nothing is unfair, but saying the US and England do the most, in global terms, is accurate.

 

A bloodless revolt would be nice, but since Saddam hasn't exactly shown a great deal of regard for his own people in the past, what makes anyone think this idea would be successful?

[Guest Some Guy]

The French and the Russians refine a lot of Iraq's oil, which is the reason why they get good deal from Saddam, and why they're hesitant to see those deals jeopardized. Saying they do nothing is unfair, but saying the US and England do the most, in global terms, is accurate.

Point taken.

 

A bloodless revolt would be nice, but since Saddam hasn't exactly shown a great deal of regard for his own people in the past, what makes anyone think this idea would be successful?

 

It won't and their is no such thing as a "bloodless revolt." I'd like to see no American blood shed in a intra-Iraqi revolt. But it ain't gonna happen.

[Guest Brian]

It's just one big capitalist war where everyone is involved.