The problem with revealing US intel on Iraq

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sanctions that simply target Iraq's capacity to make weapons of war. Everything else is fine.

How do you deal with dual use items?

[chequita guevara]

Set rational limits on importation (how much chlorine does Bahgdad need for water treatment, etc.) and have inspectors make sure that none of it gets diverted.

[Agathon]

Great, we've all let Bush off the hook by going down this road. In short the administration probably has some evidence but they have basically hoodwinked everybody into agreeing that this is sufficient for going to war.

The real question should be, "even if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, is force justified."

It's not clear that the answer to this is "yes" since the Iraqi regime has proved itself deterrable in the past.

Read: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html

They probably do have some chemical and perhaps some biological weapons. Who cares? Plenty of other states do too. The notion that Iraq would give such weapons to terrorists when they could be traced back to Iraq is risible. Saddam Hussein is an evil despot, but he didn't get to where he is by being stupid.

This is a war for other reasons. What they are I am not quite sure (though I have some suspicions) but it's not about what they say it is.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Read: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html

There is already a thread on this. Go there if you insist on brining it up.

[Agathon]

It's relevant here - it speaks to the question of sanctions and deterrence which CG raised.

But...

I wasn't aware that you'd started a whole new thread about it. I linked to this article last week and I thought no one had noticed.

Bad me.

[Edan]

Re: The problem with revealing US intel on Iraq

Hopefully, the administration and the CIA have been preparing and making sure that sources are protected. However, there is certainly the possibility that some will lose their lives, and they knew that by becoming such a source, they were putting their lives a risk. Some of that information, however, may be important enough that it may have to put people at risk because it needs to be released - if that's the case, it's a horrible decision to have to make.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Kramerman


Perhaps the information that intellegence possesses is not that type of information, as far as being exact locations of stuff (which is no doubt changing everyday anyway). There are a million different types of damning evidence, it doesnt have to be something that could help the inspectors, else for the reasons you said, Bush would most certainly jump on the chance to tell the inspectors. Telling the inspectors what actual intel we have however may not be helpful in anyway, it could even be a liability, depending on the type of intel

Suppose this info is damning in ways that telling the inspectors will not help them uncover what they are looking for. Why doesn't the US at least tell the UN Security Council members this info? That way Bush doesn't need to b!tch about the UN doing nothing. He can convince them with actual evidence that Iraq is a threat. Instead all that is happening is that Bush is hoping the UN will see his way without the need for evidence. A frightening, frightening man.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I wonder why those staunchly apposed to war are just so convinced Bush is lying about this evidence.

The problem is that he won't release what he has even to the UN inspectors. Blix has spoken out on a number of occasions now, publicly challenging both Bush and Blair to reveal their intelligence, but nothing's come of it. I don't expect full public disclosure, but if the head of the inspection team can't even get his hands on it, it more than indicates to me that they don't really have anything conclusive.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kramerman
... like I've said before, Bush isnt stupid.

That's a matter of personal opinion of course.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does this mean that you are for continuing the sanction regime che?

Why not? Now that the inspectors are back in there, what can he possibly get away with? As long as he knows that if he expels them once again there'll be war. Consider it a form of parole; as long as he abides by the conditions, he doesn't get his ass kicked.

And yes it will cost a lot of money to have an insection team there on a permanent basis, but it will probably be a lot cheaper than engaging in an all-out war!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
Why not?

che's one of the people that complains about the lives that the sanction regime has cost.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Suppose this info is damning in ways that telling the inspectors will not help them uncover what they are looking for. Why doesn't the US at least tell the UN Security Council members this info? That way Bush doesn't need to b!tch about the UN doing nothing. He can convince them with actual evidence that Iraq is a threat. Instead all that is happening is that Bush is hoping the UN will see his way without the need for evidence. A frightening, frightening man.

They are going to do just that to some extent according to the administration. Keep in mind that the security council always has such staunch U.S. allies as China and France sitting on it. Any information given to the security council might as well be handed straight to the Iraqis. Ditto information given to the inspectors, who hail from many countries and work far at least as many intelligence agencies. Thus the administration has been hesitant to reveal its information. Informers are not easy to get in a state like Iraq, and developing an effective (non-human) method for gathering intelligence often takes a considerable effort, man-years of labor and millions of dollars. It's a lot to risk, especially if you have good reason to believe that many on the security council would be happy to turn the information over to those who could do you harm.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I do think Iraq has WoMD and that they aren't complying. I don't care. Iraq has been deterred successfully for twelve years, it can go on indefinately. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to its neighbors anymore.

What makes you think that we can continue to deter Iraq indefinitely? The containment of Iraq isn't a cost-free endeavor as you would have us believe. Two of the major reasons for anti-Americanism in the region (sanctions on Iraq and US forces in Saudi Arabia) are direct effects of containing Iraq. These issues will only generate more hatred of America as time goes on, so why do you think that America can afford to deter Saddam forever? You would think that 9/11 would've woken people up to the fact that our policies in the region need to be changed...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I do think Iraq has WoMD and that they aren't complying. I don't care. Iraq has been deterred successfully for twelve years, it can go on indefinately. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to its neighbors anymore.

What makes you think that we can continue to deter Iraq indefinitely? The containment of Iraq isn't a cost-free endeavor as you would have us believe. Two of the major reasons for anti-Americanism in the region (sanctions on Iraq and US forces in Saudi Arabia) are direct effects of containing Iraq. These issues will only generate more hatred of America as time goes on, so why do you think that America can afford to deter Saddam forever? You would think that 9/11 would've woken people up to the fact that our policies in the region need to be changed...

hi ,

well its cheaper to station your troops in a region then wait and react , .....

its called proreaction , ....

the containment of iraq and other rogue states is needed , why , simple , try a couple scuds on your head , we know what it means , do the american people want to get them on the heads , no , thats why you station troops next to the madman who has some special ideas about the world , .....

have a nice day

[Drake Tungsten]

well its cheaper to station your troops in a region then wait and react

Why not just take the bastard out now and eliminate the troubles associated with containing him?