Iraq-Justified or not?

[Grimweasel]

Hello there!

I am doing a work related project on the justifications and morality of possible intervention in Iraq.

I wished to see what reactions I could evoke with this topic and to see if we really DO think that action is right and just under current UN and Anglo/US defence policies....Discuss.

Many thanks........;)

[solotk]

Work related? Oh you're a journalist then.........

Can I have some bigger bait please? Word of advice, I don't think forces personnel, will actually express their opinions, for or against on a public forum.

For my own part, Nothing wrong with the Iraqui people, bloke in charge needs slotting though :D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I agree.

Try asking politicians.....

Anyway, no decisions have been made yet.

[Jackonicko]

He's not one of those we know to be a Pruning journo, and other posts suggest that he's serving.

No problem with service personnel expressing an opinion while this is still quite so theoretical, hypothetical, conjectural and speculative, surely? It doesn't yet run the risk of running counter to declared national policy - so I can see no harm in people discussing this - except to themselves if they can be identified.

I am a journo, however, and personally I think there are two aspects to this - justification and wisdom. Further action against Iraq may or may not be justified (depends entirely on what parameters are used to justify such action) but while the UK and USA are so clearly seen as supporting Israel during its ongoing Kickskrieg against the Palestinians, any military action against Iraq may be unwise, and may risk alienating our remaining Arab friends and allies.

Re justification, on one level, Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant who deserves to be unseated. On the other hand, will military action achieve that? If it does, is there a viable alternative? Will military action increase or decrease stability in the region? Will it do anything to ameliorate the suffering of the Iraqi people? How will it serve wider Western interests? Will military action reduce or increase the danger from Iraq's WMDs? In Desert Storm a campaign aimed only at ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait gave Saddam a powerful reason not to provoke a more massive allied reaction, whereas a campaign aimed at his removal might remove this restraint?

Moreover, all of the reasons for acting against Iraq are long term and historic, so one must ask what immediate justification is there for attacking (evidence for Iraqi support of Al Qaeda seems limited)? To act against Iraq while ignoring what Israel is doing seems inconsistent (which is fine) and perhaps even immoral (which is not).

I offer no answers, only questions, and must say that my gut reaction is that action against the Iraqi leadership (but not Iraq) is morally justified, but may not be practical or even desirable.

I'll get me coat........... (and tin hat!)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Sod justification and morality..........lets start planning Op Deny Christmas now and save all the heartache later in the year as El Presidente' commits us to yet another overstretch.:mad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Grimweasel]

Sorry Chaps, I thought that when I posted this one it may have looked like a Journo fishing in the military sea!

Rest assured I am no journo! I was merley after making a work project (Promo. course) a little easier with some quotes and feelings that I could attribute to the web.

Thanks Jackino for the reply, some interesting thoughts...

[The Apprentice]

Heres another question......

How much of a rebelious(?) feeling is there within Iraq. I appreciate he has a lot of loyal followers but someone must be pissed of with nearlly starving, but having lots of oil.

Can we achieve an Afghanistan like force within Iraq, by equiping them to do the job themselves. It maybe a way of achieveing a result without losing any Arab support.

"One coup d'état coming right up"

[Flatus Veteranus]

The question that has to be answered is the scale of the threat that Iraq presents to the UK and the West. Threats consist of capabilities and intentions. There is past evidence of Saddam's will to use WMD. Is he able to develop a capabilty that might seriously threaten our way of life in the UK (chemical & biological weapons being the most likely threats).

The answers to these questions lie exclusively with the intelligence services. To answer them publicly would destroy the sources. Therefore we HAVE to trust our political masters, who were democratically elected as our representatives. Tough, but there it is!

[BEagle]

I seem to recall that the Sovietski Soyuz was supposed to have WMD and to have the capabilities to screw up our Western way of life. But I don't recall anything like the sabre-rattling rhetoric being spouted by that simple Texan and his To(n)y Poodle nowadays when there was a good chance that the opposition might perhaps be capable of mutually assured destruction......

"Hell - we kin' whup they'm I-raqi A-rab a$$es for 'em. Tiny, let's go nuke the mothers. Hoo-rah, we're the biggest kids in thisn' here playground! Yes Siree Bob"

[andrewc]

He does seem to have a very effective internal security set-up
in place and has destroyed factional opposition in the shape
of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds. If we want him out then we'll
actually have to go do it ourselves.

Now, is the game worth the candle - my worry is that this will
turn up the wick under pan-Arab fundamentalism. The Middle
Eastern Arab states are by and large fragile and I fear that we
will long-term reap a destabilised region for the short-term
pleasure of kicking Saddam out of Iraq.

And thats if the action doesn't trigger yet another Arab-Israeli
war into the bargin,

-- Andrew

[Lucifer]

Internal opposition:

1) Kurds (unpalatable to both Turkey and Iran, especially since Turkey seems intent on wiping them out at times as well)
2) Shi'ite Muslims. Unpalatable to Saudi Arabia to have another Shi'ite country in addition to Iran.
No other effective internal opposition exists, and as such we will have to do the job ourselves, so as to keep Iraq a unitary state - more of a priority than removing Saddam. The people themselves are not stupid and realise that Saddam causes their strife (he builds statues of himself while they starve), but are happy to live their lives quietly until somebody else does the job.

Iraqi threat - real, but exaggerated. Iraq will not be able to strike the US (despite what missile defence people say) for many decades yet. However Europe could be on the cards, and certainly Israel already is. Much of the drive to strike may derive from the strength of AIPAC within the US administration rather than the real threats. However is Saddam that much of a threat even with the weapons. If he uses them against Israel/Western allies he can expect a nuclear reponse and therefore would not rationally use them unless we provoke him. Note - he is not totally irrational as media portray him and reacts to threat of nuclear use by West, such as when we warned him not to use NBC weapons on our troops during Gulf War.

Should we strike?
Little justification. Although weapons of mass destruction may be in production again, amounts are FAR fewer the prior to Gulf war. Little remains from before then due to inspections that were more successful than US would have us know, but the expertese remains.
No support for war among Gulf allies, who again prefer a stable enemy rather than an Iraqi breakup. Oil flow and revenue are more important to them.
Is it all rhetoric? No, but much of it is - forcing Saddam to engage more with the world and become less of a threat than currently. We would not only be stupid to attack, but it would be highly illegal. No UN justification will simply put us at the top of the list of rogue states rather than Iraq.

But Saddam is evil I hear you say. That is as maybe, but we have supported 'evil' regimes alll over the globe. How much better is Saudi really, other than it is compliant to Western will. Look at the amount of democracy among our Gulf allies. Moral justification may provide SOME limited reason to unseat him, but the realist criterea must be taken into account as well.

What detail do you want? For more, consult Tanter, R., Rogue Regimes or I can point you towards some other references if you require.

Lucifer

[BEagle]

“Yo Tiny - it’s your buddy G Dubya. How’ya doin’?”

“George. Nice to talk to you. Absolutely”

“Hell, Tiny, what we gonna’ do ‘bout these Iraquois an’ their King Hussein? Seems that we need to kick us some butt!”

“George. First we need clear evidence of any Iraqi.....”

“Hell, Tiny. My good buddies of the CBI been gatherin’ plenty of intellectualisatory photographicals. We know what Osama Hussein’s been up to...”

“Ah yes. Now George. Intelligence. Have your people got any better at that? You told us that there were dozens of Al-Quaeda and Taliban forces still holed up in Afghanistan. That’s not what we’ve found....”

“Afghanistralia? You don’t say? Hell, when I pulled my boys back ‘n sent ‘em to the mountains of Kansas to get more training, why we expected your Marine Corps to go do some serious fightin’. So waddya tellin’ me?”

“George. We found nothing. Apart from a few goats with sore bottoms and some posters with rude comments about Queen Victoria..... ”

“Queen Victoria? Is she the new Queen of Englishland?”

“No. When we were last in the North West Frontier, she was the Queen. Actually she was the Empress of India.”

“Really? You don’ say. Was that a while back?”

“Yes. In fact Queen Elizabeth the Second is the daughter of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. She, as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, married the great grand-son of Queen Victoria, George”

“Yes, Tiny?”

“No - his name was George, George. So was his father’s, George the Fifth, George......”

“Hell, Tiny - ma pappy had thuh same idea! But how come ya didn’t find no Arabistanis? Thought they’d be ten-a-penny over there...”

“Ye-es. Quite. But what proof do you have about Iraq?”

“Hell - proof? What’s that? Ma generals say there’s a threat, we go nuke ‘em. Period. Who needs proof?”

“The United Nations?”

“Who?”

[EJ Thribb]

While I could not possibly compete with the humour of BEagle the quote below may help.

'Aggression in international law is defined as the use of force by one State against another, not legally justified by self-defence or other legally recognised exceptions. The illegality of aggression is perhaps the most fundamental norm of modern international law and its preventin the chief purpose ofthe United Nations. Even before the UN, the League of Nations made the prevention of aggression a core aim; and the post-World War II Allied tribunals regarded aggression as a crime under the rubric of crimes against peace.'

I plagiarised this from a book I had lying around at home. I suppose the essential question may be where the UN stand on any proposed military action against Iraq?

A second good question would be to ask whether or not we would be even considering such a course of action if the US didn't need an ally?