@Ellie As far as a resolution that say he has one last chance, that is what they tried to do with 1441 and countries such as France and Russia didnt want it. They are supposedly going to introduce one last resolution stating just what you advocate but France, Russia and China have all said they will veto any resolution that authorizes war under any circumstances.
I dont think war has to happen. I do believe that the only way it wont happen is for Saddam and his family to leave the country. As far as the expense of moving the troops over there and then not fighting, well it is cheaper to move them over there get results without fighting and bring them home, than the expense of not moving them there, not getting results and then having to move them there to fight. The only reason that Saddam has done anything so far is because he truly believes that the alliance of the willing is more than ready to attack.
My biggest concern about this proposed war is the total confusion as to WHY we should go to war - is it:
- Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?
- the fact he is an evil dictator who rapes his own country for personal benefit?
- the threat he poses to Israel?
- the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam?
- the lack of democracy?
- his links to Al Quaida?
All of the above? I am more of a realist. I dont think that Saddam is best friends with terrorists, but I dont doubt that he or someone in his government would willing sell and/or abet terrorist get getting weaponized materials. Personally, I think we helped to make the mess and have some responsibility for cleaning it up.
IF we want to go to war to get this butcher out of power, that is not necessarily a bad thing - but we need to know:
- what criteria do we use to establish which governments should be removed from power: lack of democracy (bye-bye Saudi, China), human rights abuses (Burma, Saudi, Zimbabwe), threat to neighbours (a few mid african countries in here then, plus Nth Korea and arguably Israel, Syria, Turkey, etc), possision of WMD (India, Israel, Pakistan, China, Nth Korea, etc)?
Each case has to be handled differently according to the individual circumstances. No one solutions is going to work with them all. Some can be done with economics, some with pressure and some with outright force.
- is this a one-off or a programme? If the former, what makes Iraq special (besides oil)?
There are any number we have either tried or are now in the midst of trying, all the way from Bosnia to Somalia and all points in between. I have said this in other threads but will repeat it here: There are a lot of problems left over between the global cold war between the USA and USSR. A lot of these countries have either been left with bad governments or have been economically ruined. Someone or some group needs to try and clean a lot of these up. The US had a hand in a lot of it and probably bears more responsibility for fixing them. I can say this is the current administrations policy, but just my opinion.
- who decides on the targets, if not the UN?
I think this depends on who, what, when, were, and how. It is pretty hard for the UN to agree on what to eat for lunch, much less make a major decision. The problem with the UN is that they are willing to put troops in after the fact. They have yet to avert a disaster anywhere. To step between the factions after the country is in ruins makes it a little too late. And they would never take on something like Saddam, unless someone like the US forces the issue.
- what do we put in place once the dictator is ousted? In Afghanistan we have re-installed tribal warlords to the disgust of the majority of the population, in Iraq we plan to curtail about the only functioning regional democracy other than Israel, Kurdistan, in order to avoid offending a coalition ally, Turkey. The record of nation-building after war of the coalition is actually pretty awful.
My choice is to let the people decide for themselves. The world isnt perfect. The US would have had to kill off a whole lot more Afghanis to remove the feudal system they have been using for centuries. What the US did do was to allow the Afghanis decide for themselves and they are now in the process of trying to put a structure in to allow a stable government. These things arent going to happen over night. Afghanistan needs a stronger central government before it can do anything. They are slowly building a national army, which will allow them to control their own country. I dont see it being a stable region for many years to come. 5-10 years at least.
The same thing should apply to Iraq. The people should be allowed to decide themselves. They actually had the start of a democratic republic before the Baath party seized control and Saddam started killing the opposition. The have had elections, lets re-do them and let the people decide who they want in power. However, you cant hold elections the day after Saddam is gone. The country has to be stabilized first. It will probably take less time in Iraq than it will in Afghanistan. The Kurdish/Turkey problem is part of the results of the first part of the Iraqi war. In the 80s and 90s thousand of Kurds fled Iraq and settled in Turkey. This swelled the Kurdish population in Turkey and resulting in problems for Turkey. If the Kurds are allowed to establish an independent country in northern Iraq, they will most likely want to include the areas of Turkey they are living in now. Turkey, understandably doesnt want to see that happen. I think, if Iraq can be stabilized and has a representative government, these issues will fade away.
As far as nation building, I think the US at least has a pretty good record on these matters. If you look at history, the Marshall plan didnt rebuild Europe over night. The Japanese didnt get rebuilt over night. But most of the countries of Europe and Japan, South Korea, etc, have some pretty stable governments and are pretty strong economically. They just take time and lots of money.
[EDIT] Fixed HTML
