What would you do?

[XGropo]

Try to imagine the following scenario:
You are the President of a post-9/11 America
Your intelligence community tells you that a large Mid-East nation is developing WMD's
Other nations, and the U.N., confirm your intelligence agency reports about WMD's

You have four options:
1) Do nothing
2) Try diplomatic action
3) Try covert action
4) Try military action

Consequences:
1) If you do nothing, the Mid-East nation may finish developing WMD's and either attack America directly or sell/give the WMD's to a terrorist organization (which they hope gives them plausible deniability)
2) Diplomacy may fail, and while it fails, you are giving the Mid-East nation time to finish developing WMD's. Even if successful, their WMD program may simply move underground.
3) Covert action is risky and there is a high probability that it may fail. If it fails, then either nothing happens (see #1) or it spurs the Mid-East nation into accelerating their WMD program. Even if successful, their WMD program may simply move underground.
4) Military action may fail, but the possibility of failure is remote. If successful, you can guarantee that the WMD program is stopped.

[/b]Political Fallout:[/b]
1) Doing nothing implies zero political risk if there is no future attack on America.
2) Minimal political risk as any failure can be blamed on diplomats.
3) Large political risk if covert action is revealed to the public through failure.
4) Maximum political risk as the pacifists and military-haters and other Moriori come out of the woodwork to protest you.

REAL Risks:
If an attack occurs, then the political consequences are enormous (see Neville Chamberlain) and the real consequences would be the deaths of thousands or even millions of Americans.

However...
1) If you do nothing and an attack does not occur, then you can appear wise and prescient, but risk still exists.
2, 3) If an attack does not occur, you can point to you the success of diplomatic/covert action, but risk still exists.
4) If you act militarily and an attack does not occur, you can point out that military action prevented the attack and you've potentially prevented many American deaths, but you still receive all the political fallout.

Your only GUARANTEED solution is military (and that may only be short term), but the political and diplomatic fallout could be enormous.
Covert action is risky, especially given previous actions and the Mid-East environment. Previous covert actions have failed.
Diplomacy has already been tried and has done nothing.
Doing nothing could lead to another attack, or maybe not...

What do you do, if anything?

[giuliano]

step back and take a deep breath?

how reliable is the intel? how definite are the conclusions? what do we really know? what are the possible ulterior motives of the intel sources? have we ever met the sources?

what are weapons inspectors saying to verify/contradict these claims?

only when there is clear evidence of WMD being produced by an aggressive rogue leader who is not friendly towards us can war be entertained.

if our intel falls down and it turns out we were wrong, well then it's time to face the music. no excuses or shifting the goals.

[Young]

I go after that asshole with the OIL....who was dumb enough to try and Kill my daddy.

Welcome Newbie....You need to do sum reading, North Korea is a Serious threat, Iran is a Real threat, Iraq is just a Lil prick.

All this evidence you speak of came visa vi Russia who Voted against Us, and Colon's UN speech about Nigerian Yellow Cake....which tastes good when your stumbling around trying to pin the WMD on the Jackass, so good that when someone called a spaid a spaid....they had to feel the Prez's Wrath or atleast the Wife did, and thats Treason son. Go see F 9/11 then come back and talk to Us.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Welcome to the board, word of caution, if its Pro-War/Bush, you are gonna get attacked, by people that think Bush would kill a Nascar driver for sayign go see F911. Just a fair warning.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Bugs, I think he was poking fun... unless you are poking fun, in that case... uhm... carry on smartly dang it.

[Zeebadee]

Yeah, that's it. Anybody that thinks there were better alternatives to Bush's war are all " pacifists and military-haters and other Moriori". No bias in your thinking, is there?

[Mr.Vicchio]

You mean treating terror as a Law Enforcement issue?

Or I know... I know, waiting another 12 years for the UN to do something about Saddam's flagerant disreguard for the 1991 Cease Fire and the how many resolutions ignored? I got it. Silly me, we should have listened to the bribed members of Saddams Food for Oil scheme to learn the path we should have taken, ya know about those guys don't you? Got money for oil that they pocketed, and Saddam while leaving millions of people starving to death and without the medical supplies they needed.

And of course the big, we should have ignored all teh intel saying Saddam had WMD. I mean come on, even John Kerry called Saddam a threat and was sure he had WMD... oh yeah he also voted for war. What rational person would conclude from Saddams 12 years of refusing to co-operate with the UN inspectors, there to clear his country to the world that they had no WMD, that he had WMD. All he had to do was cooperate fully and there would have been no war. All he had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job.. which he didn't. Since he had nothign to hide, then it must of have been all a big lie by Bush right?

[Gorgo]

Reading Horowitz again, there 'V?" The oil-for-food scandal is mostly right-wing blather:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=5909

[Zeebadee]

" All he had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job.. which he didn't."

Weren't the inspectors doing their job up until almost the hour of the U.S. invasion? Didn't they only leave the country when told that Bush was going to invade? Can you point to a link that documents the fact that saddam was preventing them from doing their job? Where in Iraq were they prevented from searching for WMD's??

[Zeebadee]

"Since he had nothign to hide, then it must of have been all a big lie by Bush right?"

Well, since nothing significant has been found, I guess he really did have nothing to hide. Therefore, you pretty much answered your own question.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Sigh...

In addition to allegedly buying political support through the oil contracts, Saddam’s regime itself looks to have profited enormously from the scheme. The General Accounting Office (GAO), an arm of the American Congress, reported last month that prices for humanitarian imports were inflated by some 10%. This allowed the regime to sell 10% more oil to pay for the imports and to cream the extra money off for itself. In addition, the GAO said that the regime managed to sell over $5 billion-worth of oil illegally outside the programme. In all, Saddam’s government may have netted almost $10 billion from its chicanery. http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=2618260

But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040...01405-2593r.htm

More than $1 billion (£560 million) collected by the United Nations as its "commission" on Iraq's oil-for-food programme has become a fresh focus for the inquiry into the biggest scandal ever to engulf the organisation.   At least $1.1 billion was paid directly into UN coffers, supposedly to cover the cost of administering the $67 billion scheme, while Saddam Hussein diverted funds intended for the poor and sick of Iraq to bribe foreign governments and prominent overseas supporters of his regime http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

You should try reading multiple sources, not just leftwing .org rags Gorgo. You might open your eyes to something other then grossly partisan lies.

As for the Inspectors. They were there.. they weren't being allowed to do thier jobs. How then does that ensure anything?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Says it all.


http://www.lifeaftercapitalism.org/

Another great bit yanked from your "source".

The word "progressives" is tossed about everywhere on your sources site... why don't they just say what they really are and be done with it instead of hiding under a false moniker?

Oh and I love thier vast Chomsky files...

Wow, and you slam Horowitz.. crazy.

[Gorgo]

To stay on topic, what would I do? I would work towards a UN and for that matter a U.S., that works towards the needs of the people of the world, not one that exists to make the poor poorer, and the wealthy wealthier.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Socialism. I gag at the thought of socialism. Its a feel good system that seeks to make everyone equal, except that all it does is make 99% of the people miserable and 1% of the peopel fabously powerful and wealthy. no thanks.

[Zeebadee]

" All he had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job.. which he didn't."

Still waiting for that link......

[Mr.Vicchio]

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has expressed confidence that Iraq will comply with a tough new UN Security Council resolution calling on it to give up its weapons of mass destruction. Dr Blix told the BBC he hoped Baghdad would use the opportunity to "come out of a dark tunnel". -- The team will be backed by the UN resolution's new, tougher, rules which give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded and unconditional" access to any site they want, including Saddam Hussein's palaces. "The principle is no notice inspections," Dr Blix told the BBC's Newsnight programme. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2428463.stm

This is Blix before the war, after the toughest UN Resolution...

To save his own neck he will have to allow immediate and unrestricted access to all sites—even if they are palaces or mosques—that are believed to be linked to weapons development programs, with no negotiations. The makeup of the inspection teams must be determined by the United Nations in New York, not by Baghdad. The United Nations must be able to remove or destroy any weapons and weapons materials that inspectors find. And there must be ongoing monitoring of all sites that could be used to build more weapons. Even a robust inspection and monitoring regime might not keep Iraq from attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It would, however, make such efforts much more difficult, costly and risky. And of course, evidence of Iraqi noncompliance when inspection begins again would be cause for using force against the Baghdad regime. The United States is more likely to gain broad support for military action against Iraq if it makes clear that Mr. Hussein has been given a final chance to allow meaningful inspections. Without weapons and under permanent international monitoring, Saddam Hussein would be a major nuisance, but not the threat he is today. That is why if he agrees, the United States should be willing to take yes for an answer. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/daalder/20020324.htm

I loved this one, the NY Times...

When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons programme were destroyed together with the weapons. However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material. ---- To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq’s monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews “in private”, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad. ---- http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

[Zeebadee]

Nothing about the inspectors being denied access to any site they wanted to search.

As for:

"The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq’s monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official."

Is this so hard to understand? If a person was questioned solely in the presence of U.N. or U.S. officials, what would prevent those officials from claiming the person interviewed said anything they wanted him to say? If you were being questioned by foreign intel services, wouldn't you want U.S. personnel present? The inspectors weren't denied access to those individuals.

Don't forget we had already seen massive censorship by the U.S. on the CD's supplied by Iraq on it's weapons programs. (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraq-statement-toc.htm) Why wouldn't Iraq be wary of these individual interviews? What's wrong with having Iraqi witnesses at the interviews?

So exactly how were the inspectors prevented from doing their jobs?

[harumscarum]

sorry but I think you need to take off your elephant glasses.

All of your "Consequences:" seem to mean WMD will prevail and we will all die unless we go to war.

Another "REAL Risks" you might want to add is American Soldiers and Iraqi citizens dying.

You say WMD but you never say what happens with them. I guess I am to assume that they would blow up America?

"4) Military action may fail, but the possibility of failure is remote. If successful, you can guarantee that the WMD program is stopped."

It is only guaranteed if they find it.


"Your only GUARANTEED solution is military"

Wrong. What if these weapons were carried out of the country and never found? What would be the reasoning of the war and how would this prevent the terrorist and WMD?


I would go with unilateral diplomacy.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Zee... the scientist were not allowed to speak to the UN because the Iraqi officials would not let them. They would not let them because??? The scientist families were threatened.. go look it up.

You guys still want to say that the world would be better off with Saddam in power. To say that prior to entering Iraq, it is perfectly concievable that someone would belive Saddam's claims and that nothing he did was in violation of the 1991 Cease Fire.

[harumscarum]

I never said the world would be better off. I dont think that is something we can answer (although Iraqis sure as hell can).

I didnt even realize the original post was about Iraq :) I was just treating it as a hypothetical. I felt it was nice to the war option so it was an unfair question.