The problem with revealing US intel on Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz 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.

ah, inspectors, of course. They can never be decieved, noting can be successfully hidden form them. This should work. They will also watch the borders, to make sure banned materials dont come in. Which will be quite a job when Iraq has more money. SO we'll need A LOT of inspectors. Think thousands. All of whom will be of impecable integrity, none subject to bribery or to acting as moles for Iraq. And of course the IRaqis wont call the presence of thousands of inspectors an imperial occupation, and if they do, no one will listen.

Love this idea.

[lord of the mark]

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.

Uh, Im not sure how to say this politely, but this assumes that the French and Russian govts will be motivated by the truth - IE if they know that Iraq is in violation of 1441, they will agree with the US. All evidence so far is that they, like some posters here, never agreed with the idea behind 1441 (that Iraq MUST be disarmed). The only way to get them to shift is to reveal evidence PUBLICLY, so they can no longer credibly oppose a second resolution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Willem


Why not? Now that the inspectors are back in there, what can he possibly get away with?

Uh, developing stuff in underground labs the inspectors dont know about???? What evidence is there that the inspectors have stopped ANY weapons development activity?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This whole dog and pony show about inspections is just a shell game to get people to take their focus off the real issue, which is the US solidifying it's hegemony.

Even if you're totally pro-American, think on this. No empire has ever survived. No empire ever falls gracefully. If you love America, why are you trying to condemn her future to one of war, hatred, and collapse?

How about we balance an increased role in the middle east with a decreased role somewhere else????

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
]

They probably do have some chemical and perhaps some biological weapons.

Name some.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What makes you think that we can continue to deter Iraq indefinitely?

Accepting the conservative position for a moment, the USSR was deterred for 46 years. That required much more effort and dillegence and cost than Iraq would require.

In the long run, even massively increased inspections and smart sanctions will cost less than the economic disruption that the preparations for war and war itself are costing and will cost.

[Drake Tungsten]

Accepting the conservative position for a moment, the USSR was deterred for 46 years. That required much more effort and dillegence and cost than Iraq would require.

Military intervention was not an option with the USSR. The costs of detering the USSR were indeed high, but there wasn't any other option. I don't see how this example applies to Iraq; they're completely different situations.

In the long run, even massively increased inspections and smart sanctions will cost less than the economic disruption that the preparations for war and war itself are costing and will cost.

You're assuming that inspections and sanctions are effective; the events of the past decade seem to indicate otherwise. The lower cost of inspections and sanctions is rather irrelevant if they don't work.

[Willem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Uh, developing stuff in underground labs the inspectors dont know about???? What evidence is there that the inspectors have stopped ANY weapons development activity?

With a permanent team on the ground, he wouldn't be able to hide anything for very long. Certainly not to the point that he becomes dangerous. This in conjunction with supporting his opposition, and he won't have much time to do anything but try and stay in power.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

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

and DD's one of those people that don't mind killing 500,000 Iraqi's to save ten cents on a gallon of gas

[GePap]

Sometimes people must die for policy to be made. Many Americans, though the exact number is not known to us, will die in the coming war. After said war is over, those individuals giving us the 'intelligence' on Iraq are no longer of much use. If some of them die to advance the policy, I feel no greater loss than the soldiers who will die enforcing the policy. And if the realease of information makes the political cost lower, and makes the aftermath of the war easier, then those folks died for good reasons. Once they started spying for another state, they put their lives in danger. Info not used if useless info.

I can't particularly casre more for spies dying (especially spies of limited future use) thasn the loss of everyone else who will die for this said policy.

ON the deterrence issue. If our aims is to stop Saddam from invading any neighbors, then we don't even need sanctions or troops in the region. Make a binding allience with those neighbors we want to keep out of his hands. We of course won't do that, but it is not for the lack of the choice.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't particularly casre more for spies dying (especially spies of limited future use) thasn the loss of everyone else who will die for this said policy.

I don't value the spies' lives more than anyone else's, but I worry about the effects those spies deaths will have on future American intelligence operations. It's going to be hard to gain human-intel sources in Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations if we gain a reputation for hanging our agents out to dry...

ON the deterrence issue. If our aims is to stop Saddam from invading any neighbors, then we don't even need sanctions or troops in the region. Make a binding allience with those neighbors we want to keep out of his hands. We of course won't do that, but it is not for the lack of the choice.

That plan works fine until Iraq get nukes. What are we going to do at that point? Allow Saddam to take Kuwait and keep it? Or nuke millions of Iraqis in response? I'd prefer that such a ****ty set of options never appears on the President's desk...

[Sava]

The problem with revealing US intel on Iraq
Perhaps the fact that the whole world will know you're full of sh!t?

[GePap]

1. America has an intelligence outfit for a reason. INtel is there to be of use, and in this case, it would be of great use (if it actually exists) in the political arena. As for leaving spies high and dry: they know the risks going in, period. A man is responsible for his choices. At this point the info is more usefull going out than staying secret. Tough luck for the guy who got it, but those are the breaks. This sounds heartless, and it is. After all, getting that mechanic LoTM spoke of dead hasn't stopped others spying for us, has it?

2. First of all, since the IAEA inspectors have found little evidence for a new nuclear weapons program (nice and public in their last monday report) I find this worry not to exist. But even if they did have nukes, it is a simple case of A-B-and C deterrence. As long as country B thinks that the nuclear guarrantee of country C by country A is solid, they won't attack at all, even if they have their own nukes. After all, whats the point if the only outcome of your invasion is annahilation?

So no, deterence still works, as long as one makes it credible.

[Drake Tungsten]

At this point the info is more usefull going out than staying secret.

That's your opinion. I would rather see the information remain secret instead of being jeopardized in a futile attempt to sway people whose minds are already made up on the war. There's plenty of evidence of Iraq's wrongdoing already out there; I see no reason to jeopardize sources at the behest of people who ignore the evidence that already exists.

But even if they did have nukes, it is a simple case of A-B-and C deterrence. As long as country B thinks that the nuclear guarrantee of country C by country A is solid, they won't attack at all, even if they have their own nukes. After all, whats the point if the only outcome of your invasion is annahilation?

Do you really think an American nuclear guarantee to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia would be solid? Can you really see an American president risking nuclear war over Kuwait? The public and international outrage would be enormous...

There are plenty of reasons to doubt that America would fulfill a nuclear guarantee to Kuwait or other states in the region. Saddam is the type of guy who might fixate on those reasons and make a reckless decision to invade, challenging the US to respond. I'd rather not see that situation come to pass...

[Kramerman]

America has an intelligence outfit for a reason. INtel is there to be of use, and in this case, it would be of great use (if it actually exists) in the political arena.

the intel is of use. its telling our administration that Saddam isnt being straight with us, so they can deal with it. If not for the intel, we could be blindly thinking the inspections are working...

Kman