Bagh of TricksSaddam's ploys and how to beat them.
Updated Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2002, at 6:58 PM ETOn Monday, U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad to begin examining Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Everyone hopes the inspections will avert war. But before concluding that the Iraqi problem is going away, let's consider how Saddam foisted that illusion on us last time and how we can avoid getting snookered again. Here are 10 rules to keep in mind.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon1. Don't declare victory. That's the mistake the Persian Gulf War coalition made in 1991. The easiest way to lose is to think you've won when you haven't. To escape justice and preserve his weapons, Saddam doesn't have to beat us. He just has to make us conclude prematurely that he's been disarmed.
2. Don't mistake means for ends. Many people expressed relief on Nov. 8 when the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iraq to submit to inspections. But resolutions aren't the goal. Inspections aren't the goal. Disarmament is the goal. If resolutions don't achieve inspections, or if inspections don't achieve disarmament, force must follow.
3. Don't leave gaps. Loopholes in agreements are often easy to spot. The less visible and more exploitable problem is gaps in time. Every delay between transgression and punishment gives the Security Council time to waver and gives Saddam time to renegotiate. That's why President Bush wanted the Council's resolution to authorize immediate military action if Iraq reneged. If the Council orders troops to Iraq, Saddam will use the same ruse: When the troops arrive, he'll try to call a timeout.
4. Don't negotiate. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has begun talks with Saddam's representatives about compliance. Haggling with Saddam goes like this: He shoots a rock through your window. You tell him to hand over his slingshot. He says he will if you'll give him $2. You give him a dollar. He says that hardly seems fair, why not throw in an extra 80 cents. You give him 40 cents. He asks for another quarter, you give him a dime, he asks for another nickel, and so on. As long as you're splitting the difference, the game goes on. You have to stop talking and grab him by the collar.
5. Don't try to be fair. Already, Blix is reassuring Middle Eastern reporters that he'll be fair to Iraq. Bad idea. At a minimum, fairness implies that Iraq is entitled to unspecified considerations, which Saddam will be happy to specify. At worst, fairness implies even-handedness, obscuring the difference between perpetrator and victim.
6. Don't hold out for cooperation. Blix said he was going to Baghdad this week to seek "cooperation with the Iraqis." That's asking for trouble. If everyone agrees to do the right thing, great. But if not, and if you can do it by yourself, go ahead. If you insist on Iraqi cooperation, you give Saddam the power to set terms by withholding cooperation. Ditto for France, Russia, China, and the rest of the Security Council. If Bush had insisted on getting the council's cooperation in demanding new inspections, he would never have gotten it. He got it by making clear that if he didn't get it, he'd go to war.
7. Keep the burden on Saddam. If you show Saddam a photo of himself holding a canister of nerve gas, he'll say he's gotten rid of the gas since you took the photo. If you try to get into his basement to show that he's still got the gas, he'll block the door. That's his strategy: to make evidence collection your problem. Four years ago, he succeeded: U.N. inspectors left Iraq because he wouldn't let them do their job. To avoid that mistake, we have to make evidence collection Saddam's problem. Bush has done so by making clear that he'll disarm Iraq by force unless inspectors disarm it peacefully. Blix says effective inspections are "in the Iraqi interest" because "otherwise, they would not be credible." But the only reason Iraq cares whether the inspections are credible is that if they aren't, Bush will strike.
8. Don't let Saddam enlarge the issue. On Monday, Bush's spokesman accused Iraq of violating the U.N. resolution by shooting at planes patrolling the no-fly zones. That's what Saddam wants us to do: zoom out from the offense on which everybody agrees—Iraq's weapons of mass destruction—to a broader debate over American military activity in Iraq. Blix has worsened the problem by suggesting that his inspections could lead to "a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East." Saddam would love to drag Arabs and Muslims into his fight by making his disarmament contingent on Israel's.
9. Don't let Saddam erase history. We spared him in the Persian Gulf War in exchange for his agreement to inspections. Then he dragged his heels on the inspections, and after a few years, everyone forgot the original deal. Inspections began to look like a favor he was doing us. They aren't. They're his probation in lieu of being toppled. If he violates probation, we have to follow through.
10. Don't separate diplomacy from force. When the Security Council passed its resolution, pundits and foreign leaders congratulated Secretary of State Colin Powell for leading the administration's diplomacy camp to victory over its war camp. But if the hawks hadn't been noisily preparing for war, the diplomats wouldn't have obtained the resolution. If Iraq cooperates with the inspectors in the weeks ahead, people will say that it shows military power isn't necessary. In fact, it will show the opposite.
When Congress Sends a Bill to the President, Do They Use E-Mail?
Gov. Haley Barbour's Strange Habit of Pardoning Murderers Who Work on His House
Slowpoke Directors Explained: Why It Took 12 Years to Make Avatar
The Surprising Reason Banks Are Suddenly Repaying Their TARP Funds
How Come You Don't Hear About the "War on Christmas" Anymore?
Jeff Bridges Gives the Performance of the Year in Crazy Heart
Remarks From The Fray:
Is all this really THAT complicated? These "10 points" seem like a lot of wasted energy. It would have been more efficient to reprint the lyrics from Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down" and be done with it. Not too helpful. However, I offer something, as have a few others recently, that might be helpful:
Every WMD requires sites to develop and produce them, store them, and, with regard to missile based platforms, launch them. The principle behind weapon inspections is that such sites can be identified as actual, possible, or potential weapons sites, based on human and electronic intelligence. Combined with the now blanket search warrant embodied in the recent UN resolution, a proper policy would make this inspection process a virtual cakewalk, and eliminate the justification for a regim change.
What is that process? I call it, "show it, or blow it"-- because it fits on a bumber sticker, and is therefore something that even the neocons can get their minds around. It's simple: inspectors get to go anywhere they want; if they are refused entry to any facility, that facility is targeted and destroyed within some small number of hours from the refusal. Destruction will be by any means necessary, be it high altitude bombing (last resort) or cruise missile attack. The cost of the munitions used should be added to the reparations bill owed by Iraq. The facility will be subject to repeated, unannounced attack until such time as it is opened to inspection.
Technically, this is entirely feasible with GPS guidance and smart weapons. There is nothing that the Iraqis can do to stop it. They will themselves be responsible for any civilians killed in the attacks, since the easy way to avoid the attack is to open the facility to inspectors.
It further eliminates all that messiness that makes this a war of acquisition. No grab at the oil fields; no occupation; no Kurd problem; no Shi'ite separatist problem; no corrupt regime to prop up forever; no chance of escalation; no war. And it makes WMD development in Iraq impossible WITHOUT giving Saddam the incentive to give any WMDs to terrorists (since we still hold the final trump card in our hands-- flattening him and everyone he knows.)
It further provides a far more workable model for dealing with future rogue states. It allays the fears and stops the whining of the Russians and French. It is heavy notice to North Korea. It allows for diplomacy to move forward. It does not radicalize the Arab states nor threaten their regimes. It does not do Israel's bidding, nor take the pressure off of Israel to pursue a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.
Clearly, over half of the reasons that this is a superior policy over war are EXACTLY the reasons why the administration is choosing war over this option. But that's on them. "Show it or blow it" will work.
-- doodahman
(To reply, click here.)
Saletan's absolutely right to emphasize the importance of keeping our collective eyes on the main issue. We can't let Saddam narrow the issue. . . or broaden the issue. . . or. . . um. . . just what WAS the issue? I've heard all sorts of versions.
(Really narrow) Is the issue Iraq's specific violations of specific U.N resolutions?
(Pretty narrow) Is the issue Iraq's (as yet unproven) role in the events of September 11?
(Narrow) Is the issue Iraq's fomentation of terrorism in general?
(Slightly narrow) Is the issue Iraq's "weapons-of-mass-destruction" program?
(Slightly broad) Is the issue the balance of power in the region?
(Pretty broad) Is the issue the "Axis of Evil" and the threat it supposedly presents to the other nations of the world?
(Really broad) Is the issue Islamic fundamentalism generally?
(Frighteningly broad) Is the issue a "clash of civilizations" fundamentally characterizable as "Islam vs. the West?"
Clearly, we have to prevent Hussein from changing the issue. . . but first we have to decide on what it is! For the time being, it's like one of those phantom red dots in an opthalmologist's machine. . . no form, no depth, no fixed location, and no substance.
-- Thrasymachus
(To reply, click here.)