welsh said:
Thanks for the two cents OTB.
Cheers!
welsh said:
...[T]he line between tactical and strategic becomes a bit more hazy.
Yes, hazy lines indeed.
However, I'd like to bring up something in this general issue of hazy lines, namely all of the hype about "WMD". Now, I understand certain fears regarding them, for instance, the fact that a nuclear device could turn one man with a briefcase into a Hiroshima or Nagasaki that comes virtually out of the blue. (Aside: In the wake of WWII there were certain people arguing that the next war would be won by a half-dozen men smuggling nuclear devices through customs.) I can also understand certain fears attached to biological agents, since they can be very hard to control once they are loosed. However, for the most part, the lethality of bio, and especially chem weapons is just a hobgoblin that frightens a public that has little or no real understanding of what they really are, or -- more importantly -- their limitations. The vast majority of chem agents are designed to force the enemy into chemical protective gear, which degrades their combat efficiency. The vast majority of agents are non-persistant in nature, and -- depending on the circumstances -- are no longer dangerous 15 - 45 minutes after use and their effect is localized. (Unlike the very high dud-rate in cluster bombs, especially in sand, or forgotten minefield, either of which can threaten an area for years to come.)
Before I start sounding like an apologist for the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) munitions industry, I'll get to my point. You can do just as much damage w/conventional, often primitive and homemade weapons as you can w/much of what is classed as "WMD". I understand that societies have basically irrational rules about acceptable methods of killing. For instance, the Germans thought it was barbaric that US soldiers showed up in the trenches back in '18 and shot people w/shotguns, which was considered by Europeans to be a hunting weapon and therefore degrading to kill a human being with. Just like in much of the ancient Mediterranean world it was considered bad form to use an axe in combat. Personally, I find it a bit strange, since dying from shrapnel wounds inflicted by conventional artillery is deemed a fitting way for someone to come to their end, while exposure to nerve agent is not. "I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold," as it's been put.
I find it disturbing that while we seem to have outgrown phrases like "Deus vult!" -- at least in some areas of the world -- you can still launch a crusade with a phrase just as meaningless: "They have WMD!"
welsh said:
I would add that there was another issue at stake as well- the sanctions. While sanctions had been applied against the Iraqi regime, they didn't seem to be having the impact anticipated- creating grievances that would lead an uprising- although they did limit the Iraqis in acquiring new weapons.
The problem w/putting Iraq under sanctions was essentially the same as the sanctions applied to South Africa, namely that the sanctioned party had something other people couldn't do without. Diamonds or oil, the modern industrial powers can't do w/o either one, and that took a lot of the bite out of the sanctions. In Iraq's case you can add that it was a PR fiasco due to the widespread suffering that they caused, not to mention that starving a nation isn't the way to cause an uprising. Starving people are too busy dying to worry about what their gov't is up to. There are exceptions, but if you're looking to gamble I don't recommend putting your money on the starving peasantry taking up pitchforks and torches and storming the cruel nobles ensconced in their castles.
welsh said:
The war on terrorism opened up a unique opportunity to do (3) with the maximum of public support so the Bush administration took advantage of the window of opportunity.
That's a really good point, actually. There are too many baseless conspiracy theories out there regarding Dubyah and his administration's actions. I really don't think that this was a carved-in-granite plan from the time he took office. It seems more like he was handed the opportunity of a lifetime (from his perspective).
The biggest problem I see having come out of this whole deal is that more nations will likely take a cue from the US' pre-emptive action and international relations will be set back something like a century or more. (Remember that the Japanese were launching a pre-emptive war against the US and others back in '41.) I sincerely hope -- although I'm afraid that this is just a pipedream of mine -- that the lesson learned from the so-called War on Terror is that the US policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" will be retired. (It's too late to take Operation Iraqi Freedom back, so the best thing to do is to simply try to make the name something resembling reality, and -- perhaps more importantly -- to learn not to repeat the mistake.)
The US really needs to learn that propping up dictators until they commit the cardinal sin of disobedience but turning a blind eye on their human rights record until that time (e.g. Noriega) is a "no-go". Up until last weekend the two most wanted men were two ex-stooges that would have lived out their lives in relative obscurity had it not been for the fact that they eventually ran into conflict w/their former supporters. But, like I said, that people would learn the lesson I'm proposing is probably just a pipedream of mine...
One last thing, then it's bedtime for OTB: regarding the "detainees" I have to say that I'm glad that they found succor in the US court system. However, rather than having this sort of nonsense repeat itself the next time a sovereign nation finds itself at war w/what an extra-territorial organization I say the Geneva and Hague Conventions need to be either severely amended or simply completely re-written. Considering how much the political scene has changed in the past century I say it's time that someone sat down and looked out for people fighting for a cause but who do not have the good fortune to have a sovereign sanctioning their actions. Otherwise it simply gives nations virtual carte blanche to do things that it would cry foul over were they visited on their own people.
Bradylama said:
That's a good point, OTB, but one would think that they'd put more priority into organizing weapons that could kill thousands of people than survival kits. And its not like the Iraqis have to work on the beurocratic scale that we do either.
I
knew someone would say the WMD would be more strictly inventoried than survival kits.
But seriously, this is just an example that's stuck w/me. You would be surprised what the US gov't has stashed away. Note that there were both weapons and gold in those kits.
Also, the US has often been very, very sloppy about its disposal of WMD, particularly chem and bio. Take Ft. Detrick, MD for instance: that place is undergoing a multi-million dollar clean-up right now and there have been over 100 vials of anthrax found along w/tons and tons of soil that was contaminated w/biological and lab waste. There were no records of these weapons, nor of their disposal. While the US gov't does indeed operate on a larger scale than its Iraqi counterpart the former has not been embroiled in wars that destroyed a large portion of its infrastructure over the past twenty-odd years.
Okay, now it's bedtime.
Cheers,
OTB
-- his philosophy is worthless, even when it comes to his interpretation of other philosophers. Basically that point boils down to, "since the author was afraid to say what he really meant, just read whatever you want to into it." The true value in reading Strauss is in getting a better understanding of men like Wolfowitz, who are disciples of his disciples. Just like people need to read Machiavelli in order to get a better understanding of our leaders in general. 
