How?

With the weight of the whole damned UN in Iraq for 7 years not being sufficient to get everything he was hanging on to how is the US meant to accomplish this task? Wave a magic wand?

They could try and turn Iraq into something like the “Truman Show” and have camera’s tuned in on every part of Iraq at all times – hmmm they may have to launch any additional 3000 or so Keyhole spysats which might be a tad tricky operationally, financially and might actually block the sun from ever reaching Iraq but hey its better than war isnt it Kabir!:) 😀

I’m not turning on you personally Kabir its just I’ve heard lots of people talking about “peaceful means” to disarm Saddam and not one single person say how it could actually be achieved and your comment that the US isnt a superpower if it cant produce and frantically wave this magic wand….well….you dont honestly mean that do you?

Regards,
Steve

Erm… Eric, I don’t think anyone around here is a SH supporter… The motto is not to protect SH, he is recognised by a b*st*rd by everybody, and everybody agrees that he has to go, the dissention is on how to oust him.

What youve written highlights part of the problem right there though Frank. By speaking out against the US and UK after underwriting UN1441, before they even got near use of vetoes, the French and Germans had clearly given Saddam Hussein a foothold in getting around the WMD surrender obligation.

If those nations had simply done nothing Saddam would be facing coherent international opinion and the threat of force may have been credible enough to make him deal honestly with UNMOVIC without the need for 200,000 troops to be sent into the desert. As it stands the ONLY reason Hussein has and will ever comply with UNMOVIC, thanks to the French et al, will be with direct military force backing them up kicking in the doors that Hussein tries to deem off-limits, setting up permanent VCP’s around the whole country, keeping permanent Predator aerial surveillance over his bases, palaces, factories and headquarters and doing it all until every drop of proscribed material is accounted for.

Or in shorter terms – an invasion. Saddam Hussein is either not going to allow the UN to do this or, if he does, it will be a stall for more time and as soon as the blue berets start getting too close to something sensitive the Republican Guard will move in, disarm them, and shoo them away and we all go back to square one.

That, as I see it, is the only way that “peaceful disarmament” could move us any further forward along the path of ensuring Hussein has no WMD arsenal at his disposal. Unfortunately its flawed from the kickoff as, without a commitment from the French, Germans, Russians and all the rest of the do-nothingers to actually deploy in support of a UN intervention like that (‘cos US and UK forces are certainly right out!) nothing will happen. We return to the 91-98 UNSCOM charade that ended up with Hussein terminating the support for UNSCOM inspections he was obliged to provide and denying them access to the sites they needed to inspect when he thought world opinion had shifted off and he’d get away with it.

Net result – Saddam Hussein “wins” the standoff and survives. If you’re stating that French people, Belgians, Germans and whoever else dont support Hussein your governments have a funny way of showing it.

Regards,
Steve

Have to agree with some of Vortex’s sentiments there Keltic.

Lots of people are scaremongering about huge civillian deathtolls in Iraq. Question has to be why though?. In Desert Storm we needed to defeat the 4th largest standing Army in the world so the gloves, to an extent, had to come off. Dual-use infrastructure was targetted and facilities were targetted in error that led to tragic consequences. Yet still, using the Human Rights Watch website as a benchmark (as it certainly has no interest in covering up casualties) I cannot total up more than two thousand casualties directly related to the instensive air campaign.

To suggest that, for some reason, this conflict would generate civillian casualties some 250 times that level when there, really, isnt much of a coherent Iraqi Army left save for the Republican Guard and little need to attrite those dual-use infrastructure targets outside of Baghdad at all seems a little bizarre wouldnt you agree.

Also, credit to HRW, about the conflict in Baghdad itself and the repeated references made to Stalingrad and the chances of a civilian bloodbath there I’d like you to read the following piece:

==========================

Several journalists have noted that the urban form of Baghdad helped minimize civilian casualties: Baghdad is a low-rise city, not densely packed like New York or Cairo. A French journalist based in Baghdad during the war told Middle East Watch that Baghdad reminded him of Los Angeles. Two British journalists made a similar observation: “Civilian casualties could have been higher, but Baghdad is very spread out, with low population density compared to Tehran or Damascus. The typical inhabitant of Baghdad lives in a sprawling suburb.”56

Also significant in minimizing casualties was the fact that the residents of Baghdad were prepared for war because of the recent experience during the bombardment of the capital during the Iran-Iraq war, several phases of which were known as “The War of the Cities” because both countries launched surface-to-surface missiles at each other’s major urban areas (see introduction to Part Three). The Iraqi government constructed air raid shelters, civil defense personnel gained experience coping with casualties and damage, and buildings were camouflaged. In Febuary 1988 the Iraqi authorities carried out an experimental evacuation of Baghdad. Air raid shelters were put to use during the Desert Storm bombing campaign. Ironically, the highest reported casualty toll in any incident during the air war occurred on February 13 when the Ameriyya civilian shelter in Baghdad was targeted and destroyed with two precision bombs dropped by U.S. aircraft, killing 200 to 300

=============================

Steve

Doff cap to Sean! 😎

Not least it should be mentioned that the bizjet in question would be highly impressive to have to come with time-displacement capable engines!. Check out the aircraft in the background of the photo – I believe the last A-6’s deployed to sea in 1996!.

I suspect this was one of those “levels” that SOC was talking about though!:D

Great shot anyway Simmer. I particlularly like the attention to detail shown by Raytheon in painting in the arrestor hook – as if that would make the whole thing more credible!!! :D:D

Excellent post.

There is a LOT of truth in what you’ve written galdri and you present your thoughts well, but, there is an equal amount of factual inaccuracy in what you’ve written.

Saddam Hussein did not overthrow Gen. Ahmed Hassan Bakr ’til 1979 and so was not entirely responsible for the advantages played during the ’73 energy crisis although he did, it must be said, take charge of the infrastucture improvements you mentioned that the UN rewarded him for.

To distill down a lot of what you’ve written you state that Saddam has made bad miscalculations twice. Firstly in trying to rid himself of a troublesome priest (my how that phrase resonates through history) across his Eastern border in Khomeini and that, second, in trying to annexe Kuwait to do a Galtieri number for his own populace after the Kuwaiti’s refused to stump up enough cash to clear off his $75bn war debts from the Iran misadventure.

I agree with everything youve written on these points and on the compositional difficulties he has within his own borders left over from the myopic days of British Empire when we were guilty of creating nations by drawing lines on maps irrespective of pre-existing cultural boundaries (as GarryB has pointed out).

What you have failed to do, in my opinion, is to extrapolate this to its next logical step. Saddam’s situation, if anything, has worsened since 1991 when he got booted out of Kuwait. His debts still exist despite his attempts to unilaterally declare them void after Desert Storm – in fact one of the UN68x resolutions actually contains an article declaring Husseins attempts to walk away from those debts unlawful….wonder who slipped that one into le document…..cough…cough.

He also has a much worsened national picture as the Kurds in the north have formed themselves into quite the coherent little autonomous region depite Hussein cutting them off from the electricity grid and water supply. In the south he still has the shi’ite marsh Arab community who don’t like him very much but have the tacit support of that self same large shi’a muslim nation over his eastern border.

To deal with either community, i.e to forestall a progressive internal fragmentation of his country, he will have to take military action against one or both factions. Here he has a problem as taking down the Shi’a muslims in the south risks tweaking the noses of the Iranians and taking on the Kurds in the north would be militarily more difficult and is likely to appear on CNN radar. To do either or both, which he is going to HAVE to do at some point, he is going to have to have sufficient forces to deter Iran or a US/NATO/UN coalition or have in his possesion some kind of trump card to keep them at bay while he does his work internally.

Like I said to GarryB when you have, to use your figures, 30% of the worlds oil reserves within striking range that trump card cannot be too hard to look for. If you think he’d not be mad enough to try threatening that oil look at his miscalculations in the past. Who could guarantee he’d not be above getting it wrong again?.

Even if he did choose to leave the oil out of it he is still in the position that he needs to create a distraction so that he can finish his business. So he gives a few litres of Sarin to the local terrorist of choice. On the news day that sees the terrorist nerve-gassing of Boston (wild example) who’s going to be paying much attention to Iraqi Kurdistan?. Tell me one other news story that you remember hearing on Sept 11 2001.

What I’m trying to get to, in my roundabout way, is that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous individual, whatever the histories, the rights-and-wrongs or the terrible hypocracies of the situation and his agenda is one that will bring him into conflict with the UN again. IMO were all better off with him gone and, whilst it would be perfect if the Iraqi people were to roll him off the top spot themselves, that doesnt look like a plausible situation and, after 12 years, it doesnt look like it ever will.

Regards,
Steve

UN Resolution 687 dated 3 Apr 1991

Articles 7 through 13…………….

7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq’s declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above; (iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9 (b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq’s nuclear capabilities based on Iraq’s declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency’s verification and inspections to confirm that Agency safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution.

so which countries are ignoring their UN duties Ben? Don’t think its just the US and UK do you?

Bhoy,

Dont think your going to get too far away from this topic for a while – opinions too polarised. Talking of polarised opinions I’m a lifelong Everton fan…..I hope you stuff ’em. Ideally I’d have liked them to stay in the European competition as long as poss to give ’em more matches to have to play towards the end of the season. Your lot stuffing them good and proper might just put a good dent in the Worthie Cup arrogance though!

Outstanding letter – says it all concisely and directly. Thank you Sean!

Ben,

I don`t think Tony Blair was thinking of these kind of anti-war reactions in his own country and in Europe, when he lined up with GWB a year ago. And honestly I don`t think that he would do the same if he had another chance.

I wouldnt agree with that to be honest. I’ve NEVER been a Blair fan, I was calling for him to be lynched in the Fuel Tax protests a couple of years back, but he has impressed me with the consistency of his statements in the face of potentially catastrophic public opinion over Iraq.

I dont think that there is enough “in it” for the UK financially or politically to justify the risks (to his own position) that Blair is taking now so I am left with the conclusion that the PM does actually believe in the correctness of the action being taken. That being the case I think he’d make the same decisions over and again.

Wheter you are pro or anti-War, Jonesy, you have to admit that this British administration made a mistake following the Americans blindly. Blair is still a ****ing socialist. I think he had good intentions trying to influence GWB so that the latter would become more multilateral. But it was the other way around, it was GWB who poisened Tony`s ideas.

No I wouldnt admit that Ben because I feel that your assessment is incorrect. Britain HAS made a difference in coaxing the US position around to a more moderate one than existed 12 months back. I know a lot of continentals like to gloss over that but who else could have done it?

The net result of that being UN1441 which everyone accepted as necessity – again another positive step in global integration and international cooperation. The “poisoning” or increasingly hardline stance from Tony Blair didnt start until signatories to 1441 started to drift away from their stated commitments. Therefore, far from the Bush camp seducing Blair towards its interventionist rhetoric, its more like Chirac has pushed Blair there as Blairs only alternative is to renege on his international declarations like the French, Germans et al.

Glenn,

I am sure that the US probably has brain-stormed that very contingency for some time now. I am for one confident the US could do it alone but they may need to call up more reserves, in fact IIRC they have done so very recently, including another tank division from Texas I think.

125% Agree!. It would be inexcusable to play at these stakes and them NOT to have made plans for any conceivable contingency. I also have little doubt that they could go alone but I’m pleased that they’re not.