🚀 go-pugleaf

mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon (593-0923)) writes:

>Saddam Hussein is not a child with a banana in his hand.  He is a man
>who has used chemical weapons is developing nuclear weapons, has
>killed more than one million people and spent over 100 billion dollars
>on war machinery.  He is a man who commands the fourth largest army
>in the world with 6 million mines, 10,000 artillery, tank and other
>weapons and 800 tactical aircraft.  A man who in his short life has 
>killed all his opponents, attacked Iran, attacked Kuwait and promised
>the defeat of Israel and the west in general.

>Your analogy is somewhat weak.

That's true. But valid for almost every analogy yet tried to explain
this war and the persons/nations waging it. 

The point is, that one has to look for the real danger. Which of
the whole bunch of iraq's threads SH is capable to fulfill. 

1. Nuclear weapons

Obviously SH tried to get nuclear weapons. He did not have success yet.
So the danger is that he will be able to finish this work. Countermeasures
are blockade, stronger control (IAEO) and destroyment of nuclear research 
facilities. In the long term, export of nuclear technology has to be
reconsidered.

If you want to get rid of this danger totally, the only way is to
conquer Iraq. 

2. Chemical weapons

Iraq has chemical warheads for artillery and air-ground missiles.
IMHO that he has no chemical warheads for IRBM's, I mentioned
several reasons earlier, I want to add just two more:

a) after Jan 17, I expected, that even the first strike against Israel
would be a chemical one. I was relieved, that it did not happen, but
also puzzled. When it became obvious, that Israel would not retaliate,
I considered a chemical strike the logical consequence. The danger increased
even more when the patriot system had been installed. Two explanations
are possible: either deterrence is working and SH is not a madman,
or he has not the ability to do, what he is threatening to Israel.

b) "Use them or loose them". If SH has the option of a chemical strike
against Israel, he is going to loose it, so the pressure to use it
increases with every day of bombardment.

Regarding the danger of developing chemical warheads the options are
the same as for nuclear weapons.

Let me finish by focusing on the fact, that there are two very different
objectives of this war:

1. get rid of iraq's military thread.

2. free Kuweit

To reach the first, it may not be possible to avoid the use of military
force at all, but bombardment of selected targets would be enough and 
proportional.

To reach the second, the blockade is the adequate way.

In the long term, a strategy of restrictive use of military force
and full sanctions combined with an immediate start of a near east
peace conference WITH Israel (discussing the real long term thread
to peace in this region, the palaestinian problem), but WITHOUT Iraq,
(to indicate that Kuweit is another problem, and has to be discussed
in another plenum), would increase the credibility of the United States
in this area (as far as the arabian point of view is concerned) and
would force (in favour of the hour) all involved parties (Israel
and the arabs) to approach each other.

Compare that to what is happening now: a full decaptation strike
with all its detriment to civilians, the risk of escalation
into the use of nuclear weapons and involvement of the NATO, the
damage to the credibility of the USA in the arabian point of view,
and Israel denying the participation at a near east peace conference
after the war.

This will probably move Iraq out of Kuweit and will destroy the
military thread of Iraq to the region. But the first day after
this war will be the first day before the next.

-- 
Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, schlut@oski.toppoint.de
     Stop bombardment. Continue embargo. Start negotiations. NOW!
"Someone is always the evil in the land, and then the good guys are
marching, the eyes full of sand, into a holy war." Konstantin Wecker