... a strong consensus that nothing short of war would force
Hussain out.
Please remember that as of 17 Feb 2003, when I posted to the Brin
List, the US government did not argue anyone should
... help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel
dictatorship.
During a long part of the military build up, freeing Iraqis from
Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was *not* a stated US goal.
Here is what I wrote to this list more than two years ago:
... four major arguments for such an invasion. The Bush
administration claims to favor arguments two, three, and four. I
think that argument number four is their prime reason, although
their day-to-day rhetoric focuses on argument number three. [Find
and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons]
...
1. To help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel
dictatorship.
Salmon Rushdie made this argument. No government that I know
of has said that this is a prime reason to go to war, although
all claim it would be a nice side effect.
2. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions.
International laws and resolutions are a Liberal, Democrat,
and contemporary European ideal; they provide a mechanism for
restraining the actions of a super power.
... UN Chapter 7 resolutions are supposed to be enforceable by
military action if necessary, in contrast to Chapter 6
resolutions ...
3. Find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
The French point out they lived for years next to a power that
had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and that broke
treaties. In this respect, the Iraqi government is neither
special nor unusual.
The US says that the Soviet government was successfully
deterred but that the Iraqi government is unusual in that it
cannot be deterred. ...
4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence
in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab
dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against
enemies of US.
I think this is the primary motivation of the US government.
As side effects, a successful US invasion of Iraq will also:
* Enable the US to find and destroy chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons that might be used to threaten the US or US
allies or US interests -- in other words, satisfy argument
three.
* Reduce the power of Europe and the Russia by establishing a
Middle Eastern hegemony.
* Maintain oil supplies from Middle East until new central
Asian and west African supplies become available.
* Extend the economic dominance of the dollar over the euro
for a few more years, by ensuring that oil is priced in
dollars.
As Gautam Mukunda said on 7 Apr 2005,
The _first task_ of the statesman is to make choices.
For whatever reasons, US President Bush chose to invade Iraq rather
than spend the same resources to find and develop alternative sources
of energy.
Obviously, if a country can implement alternative sources of energy
and purchase less fossil oil, those Iraqis (and Saudis, Iranians,
Russians, Nigerians, and others) who benefit from a high price are
hurt when its price drops. In such circumstances, dictatorships may
well become even more terrible, as rulers endeavor to retain power
more through coercion when they lose part of their ability to bribe.
(Interestingly, President Bush chose to occupy Iraq in a manner that
reversed Maslow's needs hierarchy, making security for Iraqis a low
priority; this is the opposite of what he and others did in the US at
that time, where they focused on fear, making security a high
priority.)
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
