On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: > > First of all, I'm not convinced that Hussein has the ability to use > > massive amounts of anything against the US. I don't doubt that he > > has stockpiles of the stuff, but that's not the same as being able > > to deploy them in any significant way against the US. It seems to > > me that in order to be able to "use massive amounts of anthrax and > > nerve agent" against the US, Hussein would have to be able to fly > > planes over the US or else to target us with ICBMs or maybe warships > > or something else comparable. He can't do that right now. > > How about cargo containers?
A possibility - our port & harbor security isn't great, plus our homland security measures for them are underfunded. But still, I'm under the impression that under sanctions Hussein can't load a container of VX on to an Iraqi ship manned by Iraqi sailors and launched from an Iraqi port and expect to get it to the US. This means he has to find intermediaries he can trust and who don't mind taking the risk of being implicated in the act. That's a pretty big hurdle in itself. Or he could just sell it to al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, but that assumes Hussein is willing to take some big chances on *their* behalf which, though not impossible, seems unlikely unless he can get a tangible long-term benefit from the deal -- pissing off the US, by itself, may not be enough for him to take such a risk. Supposing for the sake of argument that he does manage to get a container of nerve agent to a US port, and there are sympathetic agents in place to take receipt of said container, there are still a number of logistical hurdles to making use of the stuff. Moving the container will be expensive and, the more it's done, risky. Handling the bio/chem agent will require some expertise. A form of effective mass dispersal will need to be found, otherwise you're left pulling an Aum Shinrikyo-type move, and basically you will have gone to enormous effort to do something that could be done as effectively with some traditional explosives or guys with guns. Even with a form of mass dispersal, your effectiveness will be reduced unless you can find a way to contain the target population and prevent it from fleeing the area of effect. Maybe poisoning a water supply is the way to go, but then you forfeit dramatic news footage and the glory of fiery martyrdom (and would a container's worth of agent be sufficient to cause WMD-class fatalities before it's detected? I really don't know.). Nevertheless, it's a possibility worth thinking about and guarding against. But it's not something that Hussein can expect to accomplish by simply issuing an order. And if you're a terrorist working on limited budgets of money and time, importing Iraqi biological or chemical WMD to the US may not be cost-effective. Therefore, it's still an exaggeration to say simply that Hussein (alone or in concert with others) has the ability, at a wish, to use a WMD against the US. He's highly dependent on the help of others to do so...which means he is relatively weak right now, especially compared to the US's ability to retaliate. > > Weak enough so that we could have spent another year on diplomacy to > > try to build support instead of announcing ahead of time that war is > > what will happen no matter what anybody else says and then reluctantly > > going through the motions of negotiating with the UNSC. > > I agree that would have been far preferable, but the problem is, we > don't have it to do over again. While I think Bush COULD have done it > that way if he started a year ago (and weren't so inept at persuading > Europeans to his viewpoint), I think that it is virtually impossible > for him to persuade Europeans now, even if he were transformed into > a brilliant and charming diplomat tomorrow. There has been too much > conflict over this issue for any chance of changing most Europeans > minds. So, the important question is what to do NOW. Personally, > I'm supporting the war in Iraq, even more strongly supporting nation > building after the war, and I'm also going to pay a lot of attention to > foreign policy and diplomatic ability of presidential candidates when I > vote in 2004. I think that's as good a stance as any I've been able to come up with. > > Secondly, please note that you quoted me out of context above. The > > quoted statement was originally part of a hypothetical designed to > > explain why some people might think Hussein in his current state is > > less dangerous than a United States, power unchecked by any rival, > > armed with the precedent that preemptive warfare is a legitimate > > principle whenever our interests are at stake. I believe Erik > > described this perspective as a selfish ivory tower paranoid fantasy. > > :-) > > You forgot irresponsible :-) Yes, thank you! Although, I think irresponsible better describes those who sit on their couches watching Seinfeld reruns and not giving the matter a thought. People who are vocally resisting war are - with some exceptions to be sure - probably *trying* to be responsible, but have a divergent point of view on matters of fact or theory that needs to be addressed if one wants to gain their support. > Hmmm, maybe I didn't express myself clearly before. I'm not against > others trying, in general, to limit the power of America in the future > to dictate world events, and I can certainly see how America dictating > world events with no checks and balances would be a bad thing, not the > least of which because Americans would have a vote and be protected > by the Constitution, but foreigners would not. But I fail to see how > opposing America on Iraq is likely to limit America's future world > power, and it is probably more likely to increase American hegemony. > As I said in my previous post, people who are concerned about American > hegemony (and I am, although not to the extremes of the viewpoint > you mention) should work to create balance in a positive manner, for > example, by trying to establish a League of Democratic Nations to > provide a vote and something similar to the protections and freedoms > guaranteed in the US Constitution to all people in the world. That sounds good, but I think it's very hard to do. How would one start, since buidling such a thing would appear to involve scuttling or restructuring NATO and possibly the UN as well? I can't think of a way for anyone to begin such a process unless the US itself were to place such a plan before the UN, or maybe just NATO, as the overall framework for fighting tyrrany and terrorism around the world. (Which perhaps is what the US should have done before leaping towards Iraq, but I'm not sure how doing so would benefit the US - or more specifically, any given US administration - in its immediate goals. If the US can attract a group of allied states that have no votes or veto powers, why create a structure that must limit the US just by existing?) Any ideas, beyond just not blowing the list of blown diplomatic opportunities you gave to John G.? I'm thinking of the example you gave from Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age, but I'm not sure how applicable it is. Do morays guide the direction of the shark? Can the passengers hijack the plane if the cabin is fortified and if the pilots are better armed than all the passengers put together? It seems to me that by hitching rides on the American war-wagon, other nations could hope to ameliorate the aftereffects of war in Iraq and have a small say in the management of the region, but not much effect on America's overall strategy. Only the power to say "No" could influence that. (Which, in turn, supports the idea the European nations need to spend a hell of a lot more on the ability to project force around the world if they want their views to be taken seriously.) > > However...having said that, I want to say this: I've been silent > > in this thread since the post quoted above because I found Erik's > > response to be very powerful, powerful enough to make me decide to > > shut up and sit and listen and read what others have to say and think > > for a while. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to shut you up! I like to hear what you have > to say, although I would rather you were using your considerable > persuasive writing powers to influence events positively, for example > by discussing how to rebuild Iraq after a war or how to check future > American excessive power expansion while simultaneously increasing > freedom and democracy throughout the world. No worries! I'm a poor man's policy wonk at best, and I'm very slow at some things, so it behooves me at times (most times, some would say) to listen more than talk. And I think it does me good to just listen to what you and Gautam and John G., for instance, have to say. Despite my knee-jerk leftist tendencies, or maybe because of them. :-) Plus I have a bad tendency to let my political pessimism run away with me. And alas, I have no quick answers to the questions you pose above. I see more obstacles than opportunities...and in any event, these issues deserve their own threads. I'll try to think of something. > > I think the US has handled this issue about as badly as possible > > on the diplomatic front - by our bluntness placing at needlessly > > increased risk the very leaders, like Tony Blair, by whose support we > > hope to gain international legitimacy. > > I completely agree. Why do you think Bush is so inept at this sort of > thing? He certainly seems to have charmed millions of Americans, why > can't he do the same with Europeans? I'm guessing it's because he has a highly competent staff who do a lot of work teaching him exactly how to appeal to the interests and emotions of Americans. You'd think that if he cared about European opinion he'd go to the trouble of getting advisors to help him there, but it's hard to see much evidence of it. > > So at this point I'm thinking that if war comes to pass, as it almost > > certainly will, I'm going to bite my tongue and hope and pray, in my > > strange and godless way, that everything works out for the best. > > Any ideas on what we could do, personally, to increase the chances of > success in nation building after the war? (I'm thinking along the lines > of charities, lobbying groups, spending time on the weekends, writing > letters, etc. -- I'm not sure I'm committed enough to quit my job and go > to Iraq to help) All the usual routes of activism are open, of course. With my pessimist hat on, I think that once Bush announces that Hussein's WMD programs have been destroyed, the American electorate will focus *heavily* on the domestic economy. Bush has promised victory and tax cuts and no perceptible sacrifices (for civilians), so he'll have to find a way to deliver. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
