2003-4-13 14:16:00
John Z mentions the possible motives for the current war in the Gulf:
1. The main driving force that initiated the war was our (the U.S.) fear of WMD, and their imminent use.
2. The main driving force was the continued threat of terrorism, and the possibility of WMD was a supporting consideration.
3. The main driving force was to free the Iraqi people from a tyrant. Terrorism and WMD were just propaganda to give the world.
4. The main driving force was to insure a supply of oil, which is still "the" primary source of energy. Ousting Saddam was a means to an end.
5. The main driving force was to stabilize the political environment in the middle-east. Freedom for the Iraqi people, and access to oil were just side benefits.
6. The main driving force was to continue a campaign to control the middle-east. Afghanistan was first; now Iraq; Washington has already implied that Syria and Iran could be next.
JJ:
You left off the real reason which has been clearly stated by the administration.
To prevent another 911 or worse.
All these points you mention were in existence before 911 and at that time none of them were powerful enough to move Bush to even consider another war, for his attention was on the domestic agenda. After 911 he saw that Iraq and Osama Bin Laden as the two greatest dangers we face.
John Z:
We have spoken about polarization with regards to our stance on the war in Iraq.
Question: What type of polarization is it that fails to consider all reasonable alternatives, AND to methodically evaluate them given the best information available?
Question: Has this been done?
JJ:
As far as I can see, alternatives with Iraq were considered for the 12 years of the semi cease fire. Did you have something in mind that is a present possibility that was not considered? There has to be an alternative before we can consider an alternative.
John Z:
This war puts world events at an interesting cross road. Where will we go from here, and why?
Who will lead Iraq? Will the U.S truly back away and be "hands-off" after a leader that the Iraqi people will support is put in place?
JJ:
This and your other questions have been clearly answered by the administration and I see no reason, or evidence, to not believe them. Of course we could always have some future administration with sinister motives.
The stated policy is to let the Iraqis lead Iraq as soon as possible. We will stay in control only long enough to facilitate this.
John Z:
What of the oil situation? Will the U.S. help the Iraqi people profit from their own oil? Will there be any strings attached?
JJ:
Colin Powell has clearly stated that the oil profits will be put in a trust fund to assist the Iraqi people.
John Z:
What of the alleged WMD? The inspectors found none. The U.S. claimed superior intelligence, and to know that such did exist. How many WMD have been found?
JJ:
Several possibilities exist including what they think is enriched plutonium, but they will not confirm until they know for sure. They have always said that it may be some time after the war before confirmation is made because the main motive at present is to end the war and stabilize the country. I would guess that many weapons of mass destruction have already found their way to Syria. Hopefully, not many.
John Z:
What of stability in the middle-east? Will this war prove to have improved it, or lessened it, and why?
JJ:
This war will improve stability. Even now Israel is expressing interest in giving up some of the west bank for peace. A possible reason for this is that it expects fewer suicide bombers because the financing from Iraq for materials and rewards is now dried up.
North Korea is also showing new signals that it wishes to negotiate. I think the quick victory in Iraq has illustrated what could happen to them if they make a first aggression.
Unfortunately DK was correct when he said that tyrants only understand a show of force.
Copyright 2003 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved