Iraq, Zarqawi and the 'al-Qaeda link'

[chequita guevara]

Since the site is outside effective Iraqi control (it's in indpendent Kurdish territory), I'm finding it rather unlikely that any clean-up and grading went on there. Ansar al-Islam may be fighting with the Kurds, but the whole are is inside the Iraqi no go zone. Hussein's forces aren't allowed there at all.

[GePap]

Providing a safe haven for 1 Al qaeda cell is not a Causus Belli. Harboring one cell is not a logical proof either that the regime would transfer WMD.

So for me, this is a small issue, and certainly not what the war is about.

Until someone shows me proof of past conversations and or serious discussions between Al qaeda and the Hussein government in which the topic of a transfer of WMD from the Hussein government to Al qaeda appears, the ties between the two would not, in any case whatsoever, justify war for me.

PERIOD.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Since the site is outside effective Iraqi control (it's in indpendent Kurdish territory), I'm finding it rather unlikely that any clean-up and grading went on there. Ansar al-Islam may be fighting with the Kurds, but the whole are is inside the Iraqi no go zone. Hussein's forces aren't allowed there at all.

They aren't allowed to fly planes there but the Iraqi military can still opportate there. At least I think. the only place they don't opporate is in areas the Kurdish militants have occupied. This area supposedly isn't under kurdish occupation and the fact that the Iraqis can organize press tours through the village shows Saddam isn't afraid to opporate there.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Providing a safe haven for 1 Al qaeda cell is not a Causus Belli. Harboring one cell is not a logical proof either that the regime would transfer WMD.

So for me, this is a small issue, and certainly not what the war is about.

Until someone shows me proof of past conversations and or serious discussions between Al qaeda and the Hussein government in which the topic of a transfer of WMD from the Hussein government to Al qaeda appears, the ties between the two would not, in any case whatsoever, justify war for me.

PERIOD.

I'll grant you all that. There is still the issue of Iraq being ordered by the U.N. to show where its WoMD are or to provide evidience they were destroyed.

To date 25,000 liters of Anthrax are still unaccounted for as are numerous Scud missiles, their launchers, as well as nerve gas. Those aren't small things. Then there are the human intelligience reports from defectors, the intercepted cell phone calls were Iraqi military officers talk about hiding "nerve agents", the 15 sites which were cleaned up right before the U.N. arrived, the refusal to allow U2 inspection flights, the refusal to allow scientists to be questioned without Iraqi secret police present, the holding of scientists families hostage to make sure the scientists spout the party line, intercepted radio transmitions that Saddam had authorized the use of chemical and biological weapons in case of attack, that 6,500 chemical bombs and 550 chemical arty shells still remain unaccounted for, the human intell that right up to 2002 Saddam was trying to make a nuke or failing that a dirty bomb, and lastly you throw on top that there are a handful of terrorist cells opporating in the country and Saddam is deliberately not arresting them even though several countries have requested he do so.

There is a solid case for knocking Saddam off; the inspections will never be able to insure Saddam is conforming to his treaty requirements.

[Kramerman]

couldnt have said it better

[GePap]

Oerdin:

What you pointed out is a case for War with Iraq, not the case as there is no such thing. And believing this case only works if you a)discount the theory of detterence and b) have faith in the aftermath.

I believe detterence theory stands firm, since I have seen no worthwhile counterargument of a serious, theoretical nature anywhere and b) I have little faith in the aftermath, wich is far more important that the actual war.

Obviously you don't care for dettrecne theory in this case and you ahve faith in the aftermath. We disagree on the fundamentals of this war and thus can come to no agreement.

[Dinner]

You're right about having faith in the aftermath being better then the status quo being a requirement for miltary action. I can't change your mind if you feel it will be worse though I would like to hear your opinion as to how it might be be worse.

Deterence is also an interesting question. Detering a furure act of aggression from Saddam might be possible but that still leaves the issue of him deliberately disobeying some 16 U.N. resolutions. Either those resolutions mean something or they don't. If they don't then fine let's junk the U.N. and be done with it, but, if those resolutions do mean something then we need to enforce them.

[GePap]

The UN does not allow for "posses". It is the UN Sec Council that approves and the UN Sec Council and it alone that gets to legitimize action to enforce resolutions. The system is not built to be a legal court. The only enforcement comes when enough nations think some issue is enough of a problem to deal with it, but the act is only legitimate if the council approves of it. After all, if the US invades Iraq without clear UN backing, the UN would be utterly unable to penelize the US for breaking the rules itself because the US and UK have vetos. Thus the only reason the US can decide to move wihout the UN is because it has the power to itself block any UN counteraction. So by "defending the UN" in his own special way, the admin. makes use of the very flaws it states it is out to correct. Which is why I find all this "What about the UN talk" silly.

As for my pessimism of the aftermath:

1) the talk I hear form the admin. scares me. I keep hearing how the US will remake Iraq like it remade Germany and Japan: the problem is that there are huge gaps in the legitimacy of such action today, problems not present in 1945 Germany and Japan. In 1945 Ger. and Japan were defeated nations (not just governments) and in that sense, outside states had the legitmacy to remake their national institutions. Today we say we are out to liberate Iraqis. That means the Iraqi people are non-complicit with their state and thus we have no more legitimacy to try to impose a system on them anymore than their current government, even when we win a war, since if Saddams rule by force is illegitimate, so is ours. We did the right thing in Afghanistan by letting them decide the shape of their future government and culture, though we have failed to give them the necessary material support. I fear we will try for far more in Iraq.

2)From the time the US invades ot the time all sites in iraq are fully under US control: that is the one time WMD could get into the hands of terrorists. What could be done to stop that?

3) the American people support a war to get rid of Saddam's WMD. After this gets done, how many will support and occupation of Iraq for many years to turn it into a democracy, with the bill coming out of their pocket? The war the American people back, and the war they will get are two different things. How long can this dicodomy last before it turns into a problem?

The aftermath of the war might be better for the Iraqis (though for how long, only history knows right now) but what about for everyone else? I am not an iraqi, so call me selfish for not carring about their prospects as much as those of everyone else.

[Dinner]

I'd have to agree that the scariest part is what happens during the time between when Saddam's regime is imploding and the new regime is put in place. How do we minimize the risk that WoMD will not be stolen or transfered to "undesirable" persons? I don't have an anwser other then we must use over welling force so that the window of opportunity for this to happen will be as short as possible.

Another very big problem is the reports that Saddam has authorized the use of chemical & biological weapons as well as moved mobile scud launchers into western Iraq where they could fire upon Israel. I think there is little doubt the Israelis would go nuclear if they suffered a NBC attack. The entire philosophy of deterence is predicated upon a massive counter attack if NBC weapons are used so Sharon would be duty bound to nuke Baghdad. That would be a horrible turn of events.

Lastly, you're right the U.S. people probably wouldn't support a long drawn out war. So if some sort of rebel guerilla group, similiar to the VC, were to pop up then things could get nasty. Fortunately there is no North Vietnam like state who could act as the rebel's patron saint and provdie them with bases, weapons, and money.

[Kramerman]

Fortunately there is no North Vietnam like state who could act as the rebel's patron saint and provdie them with bases, weapons, and money.

exactly. The problem in Vietnam was that we could not invade the north and hold ground, for fear of China and the SU coming into the war... there is no such circumstance in Iraq. We can gain and hold ground virtually at will.

[Dinner]

I could possiblely see Iran becoming a patron of a rebel group, after all they tried to do it in Afghanastan, but I think they know they've more to gain by being reintegrated with the world. Besides Iran, unlike North Vietnam, doesn't a China to back up it beligerancy.

[Dinner]

Today both the CIA and FBI directors testified before Congress about the state of these opporations and they both anwsered a number of questions which Congressmen asked them. Here's a snippet (for the rest go to CNN's Web site).

"We see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq," Tenet said. "In addition we are concerned that al Qaeda continues to find refuge in the hinterlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Tenet said two dozen members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which he called "indistinguishable" from al Qaeda, and two senior planners have been "operating freely" in Baghdad.

"There is a presence in Baghdad," Tenet said.

BTW Tenet is the Director of the CIA.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
Oerdin:

What you pointed out is a case for War with Iraq, not the case as there is no such thing. And believing this case only works if you a)discount the theory of detterence and b) have faith in the aftermath.

I believe detterence theory stands firm, since I have seen no worthwhile counterargument of a serious, theoretical nature anywhere and b) I have little faith in the aftermath, wich is far more important that the actual war.

Obviously you don't care for dettrecne theory in this case and you ahve faith in the aftermath. We disagree on the fundamentals of this war and thus can come to no agreement.

GePap

Good points one and all. The theory of detterence is likely valid when one consideres nation states. Thee theory of deterences holds no claim though when one considers more loosely defined terror cells.

If one follows the cases Oerdin has been making and the ties that have been made connecting Iraq to terrorism and Al Quiada in particular, one need very well be concerned that as the relationship grows (albeit due to their shared hatred of the US and its actions) the likelihood for terract with WoMD becomes very real.

Deterrence works only when both parties have something to lose.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Providing a safe haven for 1 Al qaeda cell is not a Causus Belli. Harboring one cell is not a logical proof either that the regime would transfer WMD.
.

as you are undoubtedly aware, the legal casus belli is based on Iraiq violation of its 1991 ceasefire agreemtna dn subsequent UN resolutions relating to WMD, most recently UNSC 1441. The argument about terrorists realted to the prudential case for war, not the legal case. Haroring one celmy not prove that Iraq WILL transfer WMD, put it DOES prove that the "iraq will never ally with AQ for ideological reasons is false" It increases the POSSIBILITY that iraq MIGHT transfer WMD to AQ. Whether that establishes a PRUDENTIAL case for war depends both on your view of risk, your view of other factors relating to saddams behaviour, and your view of other costs and benefits related to the war.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
Oerdin:

W
I believe detterence theory stands firm, since I have seen no worthwhile counterargument of a serious, theoretical nature anywhere and b) I have little faith in the aftermath, wich is far more important that the actual war.
/QUOTE]


In 1991 Saddam launched scuds against Israeli cities, knowing Israel had nuclear weapons and that there was a chance Israel would use them. Now it turned out that Israel did not for a variety of reasons. Was Saddam so astute that he understood every aspect of Israeli strategy, and of the relationship between Bush Sr and Shamir, so that deterrnece didnt come into play becuase he KNEW there would be no nuclear response?? Or did he simply take a high risk approach that agreed with Baathist ideology, disregarding the risk to his regime, pace deterrence theory?? And are we sure we know the answer?? And what are we willing to risk to find out???