eRiposte War and Peace - Iraq "Scoreboard"

A Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

About Us	Environment	Women's Rights	Civil Rights	Law	Philosophy
War and Peace	Politics	Media	Economy	Technology	Opinions
Health	Policy/Govt.	Election 04	Blogs	Humor Etc.	Other

IRAQ

OTHER MIDDLE-EAST

KASHMIR

9/11

OTHER

IRAQ

IRAQ Unplugged - an eRiposte compilation
Last Updated April 26, 2003

The main contents on this page were created before the U.S. attack on Iraq. For commentary post-war, please see our Iraq page.

In the following table we capture various opinions representing the cases for and against an invasion of Iraq, with firm Congressional and U.N. approval. The case for invasion is assigned by *us* based on our own opinion, using an arbitrary numerical scale of 0 (no case without U.N. support) to 1 (very strong case even without U.N. support). Note that a 1.0 does not mean we endorse an invasion overall. What it means is that the item ranked 1.0, if taken in isolation, suggests a good case for invasion.

OUR SUMMARY OPINION (UPDATED 3/16/03):
Based on a review of all the pros and cons, and opinions offered, there is no real case for an immediate invasion of Iraq, even though we believe very much in the cause of taking Saddam out. We have always supported aggressive inspections backed by a real threat of military action. We believe that it is imperative for those who are protesting unilateral invasion to also simultaneously protest against Saddam Hussein and ask for him to step down from power for the sake of Iraq's citizens (borrowing Joe Conason's proposal).

As of today (3/16) it has become clear that we are going to war (reading President Bush's latest announcement). It is sad that this is the way the administration is proceeding. We hope and pray for minimal casualties or injuries amongst American troops and innocent Iraqis (whom Mr. Bush has stated, this war is also being fought for). As we have said before, we support American troops who are doing their job, as unpleasant as it might be.

ARCHIVED COMMENTS: While it is clear that Saddam did not fully comply with the inspection requirements, he initially did show a reasonable level of willingness to do what it takes to please the inspectors, to the point that the U.S. has been under some pressure to prove there are sites with weapons of mass destruction. Sec. Colin Powell tried to make a valiant case, but there were problems with his evidence - as shown in A1 below. Let us be clear here. If those that hate Saddam but don't want a unilateral war against him at this time can be labeled as "Saddam's protectors" by people like Mr. Safire, then it would be fair to state that people like Mr. Safire are truly protectors of Osama bin Laden, the Pakistan-based Al Qaeda, and Saudi-Arabia based Al Qaeda and their financiers, and North Korea, since they support the shifting of resources and focus to unseat a person who had nothing to do with 9/11, while some of the key 9/11 financiers and supporters remain in power today.

All we need to really get to the truth about Iraq is for an interview with Powell and Bush that is as tough as the ones the British Press are willing to do (see this interview of Tony Blair (through Atrios) and you'll see how the Britons really know how to ask the right questions and state the obvious the fact that Saddam has been effectively contained all these years). Joe Conason points out in his latest note after Blix's 2/14/03 U.N. report that "...his inspectors had found no significant evidence that Baghdad has revived its effort to develop nuclear weapons...his inspectors have found "no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." According to the IAEA director, Baghdad has provided substantial cooperation even though some issues remain "unresolved." The tone of Blix's report was more positive than his harshly critical assessment of Iraq on Jan. 27. While he acknowledged that the Iraqi regime may still possess some chemical and biological weapons, he said that unhindered inspections conducted by his staff had found none -- and that he knew of no evidence that his operations had been penetrated by Iraqi intelligence..."

What is more serious is the problem brewing in North Korea (which is threatening a pre-emptive act against the US and rebuilding its nuclear program, not to mention showing how doing that and firing a missile may be the best way to get polite U.S. diplomacy), with Afghanistan precarious and lurching back into trouble, with Bin Laden back and rearing his head, and militancy on the rise in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border regions, and terrorism worldwide showing no signs of dissipating (not to mention risks of further attack inside the U.S.). In our opinion, all of this - combined with the lack of any immediate threat from Saddam, indicates a need to focus on the inspections process. Some argue that Saddam may pose a long term threat - a valid point. But a long term threat cannot possibly be more critical and deserving of more focus, energy, lost goodwill, and money than immediate threats like Al Qaeda and their supporters worldwide. We reiterate, though, that it is a good idea to show Iraq we are serious enough to go to war if he does not comply. Joe Conason rightly asks all protestors to also protest against Saddam as well - which is key to achieving the ultimate goal of removing Saddam.

Those who argue that U.S. interests should come first are correct, for all nations put their interests first before others'. However, our long-term interest is more important than our short-term interest and it is not necessarily correct to think that it is in the interest of the U.S. to ignore or vilify the U.N. and our allies, by default. It is only by working with allies and the U.N., and by empowering the latter, that we can effectively police (yes, police) the world's terrorists at the lowest cost to us (money and lives) and with the highest credibility. If the multilateralist path is blocked by self-serving nations who put their monetary or fundamentalist interests over human rights, then the U.S. could still proceed against Saddam with the comfort of knowing that we gave the U.N. a chance to act with one voice. A fairly compelling speech by Democratic Presidential candidate and former Gov. of Vermont, Howard Dean, speaks to a lot of the pros and cons and what we don't seem to be doing right today.

Finally, we would fully support a measured* attack (even immediately if the President leaned that way) on the following countries - to take out the terrorists and their supporters that these countries harbor:
(a) Pakistan - a country (1) whose leaders fertilized and cultivated the Taliban and Al Qaeda, (2) which sent thousands to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan, (3) which has long financed terrorism in Kashmir, (4) where extremist fundamentalists continue to have fair support with support now picking up steam, (5) which has been an Al Qaeda haven (and continues to be), and (6) which has helped build North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
and
(b) Saudi Arabia - a country which funded Al Qaeda, and hides some rich and powerful people who funded or supported Al Qaeda (including some they helped flee the U.S.), and may have also helped finance Pakistan's nuclear program.
In our opinion, these latter attacks are completely justifiable in the context of 9/11, and would not be unprovoked.

[* MEASURED = Properly planned and funded, with minimal civilian casualties, and proper plans for post-war]

NOW, THE LONG and SHORT OF IT

#	Issue	Highlights	Case for Invasion	Why? (Our opinion)
A. Saddam Hussein's past acts
A1	(a) Use of chemical weapons and severe torture to kill his enemies; (b) Stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, (c) Being a repressive dictator (d) Refusal to allow unfettered access to weapons inspectors	Lowlights, really, are quite well known. Previously, the case for invasion was made by Pres. Bush: BBC, USA Today, New York Times; also see this earlier article by Jeffrey Goldberg: New Yorker Saddam's estimated arsenal today: USA Today/AP USA Today/AP (CIA report) - Iraq's apparently does not have any nuclear weapons today. Their main arsenal is biological and chemical weapons (also see item B1 below) The latest case was made by Sec. Colin Powell. The responses to Colin Powell are here: (a) British dossier plagiarized and included stuff from the original Gulf War. More on this, and how it reproduces material that was relevant before the 1991 Gulf War here in the WP. (b) Hans Blix has denied or countered some of Powell's "evidence"; the FBI/CIA have stated there is no real evidence to link Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11 - so has British intelligence - and Al Qaeda is in fact in U.S. controlled regions - The Nation, A3 below, BBC, The Guardian (c) Further debunking of some "evidence" by Al Baradei and others has been reported by many in the mainstream media (for a change): MSNBC/WP, Salon, Herald Tribune, Arizona Republic. Evidence piling up that the administration is lying to us, including Powell's sad lie that bin Laden supports Saddam Hussein (see here and here), and manufacturing evidence relating to audio recordings (Herald Tribune). Also see MSNBC, Toronto Star. See Thinking it Through for a compilation as well. The latest is this fake letter on Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (d) A key defector claimed by the Bush administration as being the source of a lot of the intelligence info said Iraq had actually destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction: Newsweek. (e) U.S. intelligence being called "garbage" by U.N. inspection team: CBS (f) Iraq is not an immediate threat to anyone (see Joe Conason) unlike North Korea and Pakistan, and has been effectively contained for so long. The latter argument is also made by two authors in the New York Times. (g) The threat of terrorists and Al Qaeda is clearly higher and more relevant than Iraq. (see many comments in this table) (h) Joe Conason's latest update that also capture Hans Blix's responses to Powell's charges. Adlai Stevenson's son takes exception to Powell's moment being called an "Adlai Stevenson" moment saying why this is not the same. In the meantime, Iraq has been issuing rebuttals or responses to Colin Powell - WP, USA Today - including a tour of the facilities that Colin Powell raised concerns about - LA Times - which suggests that the bluster is at least forcing Saddam to take the inspections more seriously. The counterpoint/challenges to Ken Pollack (author of a recent book in which he favors military action against Iraq) is available here. (Daily Kos). Additionally, this news report cites a key defector from Iraq stating that the bulk of Saddam's WMDs were destoyed by the mid 1990s. The counterpoint to the original arguments presented by the Bush administration may be seen here: 1. Stephen Zunes' counterpoint to (b) and (d) in The Nation. 2. Scott Ritter's counterpoint to (b) in Time, which at the same time must be juxtaposed with this review of Scott by the Washington Times. 3. Other challenges to the "evidence" presented: MSNBC, WP, WP Washington Times 4. Military officials, intelligence officials and diplomats in Bush administration say they are being pressured to artificially make a case against Iraq : Houston Chronicle, Contra Costa Times 5. The inexplicability of this administration walking away from the Biological Weapons Convention is raising questions as to how serious they are in curbing biological weapons of mass destruction worldwide. 6. The administration also walked away from a nuclear arms destruction pact with Russia, which would have destroyed countless loose nuke. The lack of interest in getting rid of loose Russian warheads and nukes was examined more thoroughly by a San Jose Mercury News special report. 7. Conservative columnist William Safire points out that other actions by this administration are not consistent with their aim to prevent proliferation of deadly weapons 8. Stephen Pelletiere, a former CIA senior political analyst on Iraq says that Iran, not Iraq, was more likely the responsible party in the use of poison gas against Kurds in 1988: NYTimes	0.25	The general evidence about Saddam is well known and the argument is that such evidence is old and that Saddam may not necessarily pose an immediate threat. Weighing the pros and cons, we tend to agree that the evil of Saddam should not be left to roam the earth. Just because Saddam does not have nuclear weapons capability today does not mean that we should sit tight until he does. That would reduce us to the fate we face with the Pakistan's and North Korea's of the world. Taken simply in isolation, the factors here suggest a good case for invasion, if weapons inspections fail again, but the counterpoints made are strong enough and the detailed evidence that the Bush administration has been providing either tainted or falsified "evidence" to make their case raises questions about the real justification (s) and timing for an invasion. Hence, a 0.25.
A2	Unprovoked invasion of Kuwait	Here's a brief chronology from the Kuwaitis themselves: KIO	1.0	Countries invading other countries without provocation cannot expect a soft touch
A3	Suspected links to Al Qaeda or 9/11	The administration is flip-flopping on this. On 9/10/02 the Washington Post reported that the administration is not pushing any such links. However, since then, they've been trying to do just that, as David Broder points out. William Safire has resolutely tried to make a case for Iraqi links to Mohammad Atta in Czechoslovakia, but the Czech President dismissed these claims: New York Times The U.S.'s European allies also point out the lack of serious links between Iraq and Al Qaeda: L. A. Times Also see Stephen Zunes: The Nation and William Saletan pointing out the lack of compelling evidence to link Iraq to Al Qaeda/9-11: MSN/Slate Most recently, as the Bush administration continues to ply the theory of Saddam's link to Al Qaeda FBI and CIA officials have expressed an opinion on the lack of such links: NY Times, San Jose Mercury News Israeli intelligence has also not found any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Nor has British intelligence even in their recent leaked report. On 2/3/03, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Al Qaeda members are sharing a 10-mile area inside the Kurd- controlled portion of Northern Iraq. Some Kurds evidently claim that Saddam is funding these Al Qaeda terrorists. Note, the counterpoint in this Newsweek article published at the same time, that Kurd-originating intelligence is considered of low quality by the CIA for good reasons. The LA Times has also reported on this terrorist camp.	0.0	It's very hard to believe that what has been presented to date constitutes worthwhile evidence of any compelling Saddam link to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Not yet, anyway. Given what the San Jose Mercury News LA Times, etc. have reported, Al Qaeda is really in the Kurd-controlled (and U.S. controlled) portion of Iraq, which is out of Saddam's control. The U.S. can and should invade that region. (Note: Others have been asking similar questions since we wrote the above - Slacktivist, Interesting Times) Then again, as the Newsweek article points out, we apparently should take KURDINT with a pinch of salt.
B. The United States' past vis-a-vis Iraq, the Middle-East, and Islamic-majority nations
B1	The U.S. helped in creating the monster Saddam Hussein	Details laid out by Newsweek and here are the highlights: (a) Rumsfeld, Reagan et al. cultivated Saddam, known to be a murderous dictator back then, to successfully counter fundamentalist regime in Iran (b) The U.S. allowed Iraq to import (from here) weaponry, high-tech equipment and deadly bacterial cultures in the 80s (Salon). This was finally examined by the NYTimes as well. (c) We turned a blind eye to Saddam's growing menace since goal was to prevent Iranian fundamentalists from gaining stronghold and usurping Iraqi oil fields. Additionally, the U.S. recently removed embarrassing information that relate in part to the above. See the Baltimore Chronicle, Sunday Herald,	0.5	Two negatives, does not in this case make a positive. A monster such as Saddam does not deserve to live. Compounding our past egregious errors by doing nothing now, even at the risk of looking hypocritical is a very very bad idea. Saddam has to go. However, the timing and the need for giving weapons inspections a chance are valid counter-arguments.
B2	The U.S. worked in many ways to take Saddam out in the years following the Gulf War of '91	Again, details laid out by Newsweek including attempts to assassinate Saddam, bomb Baghdad, shut down his weapons factories (most of this during the Clinton administration), in the midst of the U.N. and the international community not being much of a support Overall, though, he has been very well contained.	0.5	At the minimum, at least the U.S. has done something worthwhile in the past decade to control this deadly freak. Clearly, what has been done has been insufficient to dislodge him. Given the efforts that were made, and the fact that Saddam still survives hale and hearty, suggests invasion may not necessarily be a bad idea. However, he has also been effectively contained.
B3	The U.S.'s past support for repressive, dictatorial regimes	This is common knowledge, and some highly relevant regimes include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Additionally, though, there are many other regimes which violate human rights. Do we simply go after every one? Fred Hiatt asks that very question in the Washington Post.	0.5	In principle, support for repressive regimes is deplorable, but when confronted with a greater "evil", one may not necessary have a hell of a lot of choices in life. We elect to go fifty-fifty on whether our history of U.S. support for human-rights- unfriendly regimes impacts our credibility today in doing what should be done (get Saddam out). (It's a complex world and we'll talk about this more -- later).
B4	The U.S.'s past support of Islamic/Middle-Eastern states	The U.S. has supported (a) Kosovars and Bosnians: BBC (b) Pakistan: Cato Inst. (c) Turkey : Stephen Zunes in FPIF (d) Afghanistan: CSM (e) Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, et al. (against Iraq) (f) Indonesia Additionally, while the U.S. has leaned towards Israel in the conflict with Palestinians - until recently, the tilt was not so one-sided	N/A	No direct connection between past US support for Islamic groups or nations and decision to wage war on Iraq. But see B3 above, and this WP piece by Nawaf Obaid which argues that Saudi support against Iraq will help them get rid of U.S. troops after Saddam is ousted. (We are fully in favor of getting out of Saudi Arabia.) (We should note that the U.S.'s past has more of a history supporting Islam than the other way around, so nonsensical talk about being anti-Islam should be the last thing dissuading a good cause.)
C. The United States' past (and present) vis-a-vis the U. N. and Communist nations
C1	Many U.S. Presidents have worked over the years to make the U.N. weak over time, by violating Security Council resolutions, reneging on treaties, trying to trash the International Court, violating international laws, etc.	Stephen Zunes in the San Jose Mercury News Wayne Smith in CIP George Fletcher in FindLaw Michael Moran on MSNBC (he also says rightly that we should use the Intl. Court to indict Saddam)	0.0	Perhaps this deserves a -1! When we violate international laws, and work against the International Court of Justice instead of strengthening it, we make laws irrelevant. When laws are irrelevant, there is nothing we can hold maniacs like Saddam Hussein to! (See our opinion on unilateralism written long before the Iraq debate started).
C2	Withstood far greater risk of mass destruction under the Communist Bloc heyday, than we face with Saddam	The U.S.S.R. and its satellites of the Cold War era, had vastly more weapons of mass destruction aimed directly at the U.S. and its allies, than Saddam is even purported to have. Likewise, we have withstood the possible risks of war with China and North Korea for a long time.	0.25	Again, the logic of Saddam being so dangerous instantaneously (today) is specious in comparison to what we have withstood before. What is really more of a concern today is his human rights violations and killings which we have been unable to deter. A counter argument could be that the U.S.S.R. had a lot more to lose than Saddam does, thereby making them respect the need for global peace and security through deterrence. Given this, we weight towards taking out Saddam slightly (0.25).
C3	Put up with North Korea which has far more weapons of mass destruction sitting a few miles from Seoul, South Korea and which has recently announced it has nuclear weapons	The administration has used quiet diplomacy against North Korea which has far more destructive potential than Saddam's weakened Iraq, and waited 2 weeks to tell the world about this until after the Iraq resolution passes in Congress : MSNBC Indeed, some information available says that the U.S. is referring the North Korean problem to the U.N.! The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that the current administration knew for over a year "...about North Korea's program to covertly make uranium fuel for an atom bomb..." and that "...North Korea got help from Pakistan's top nuclear weapons scientist..." in this effort; and yet they chose to remain silent until now. In the meantime, North Korea is threatening a pre-emptive act against the US and rebuilding its nuclear program)	0.25	North Korea can cause a lot more destruction to the U.S. (missiles can reach Alaska) and close allies in the Asia-Pacific. They evidently have nuclear weapons. They have a leadership most vile and amongst the most horrible around. Iraq pales in comparison in terms of its effect on the U.S. and its allies. Yet, we use "appeasement" against North Korea and Iraq needs to be invaded? As paradoxical as that sounds, it may be a reality that the reason we are unable to disarm North Korea is due to the deterrence factor of NK possessing nuclear weapons. On the one hand, it is not illogical to imagine that we should not let Iraq get to where North Korea is today. However, North Korea is a more serious, immediate problem than Iraq and deserves more attention. Given that, it is indeed hypocritical that a more serious North Korean issue is referred to the U.N., while troops are mobilized en masse for invading Iraq!
C4	Many countries in the world (other than the U.S.) have routinely violated U.N. resolutions or prevented human rights related resolutions from being passed	Details are too numerous (and we are looking for appropriate links)	0.5	If the world body aimed at promoting human rights and security of downtrodden people shows no "backbone" (as President Bush rightly stated), then we may be left with no option but to move against Saddam on our own.
D. The taint factors
D1	Pursuit of oil money by some in the current administration	See Washington Post/MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, MSNBC special on OIL (Aside: must-see funny "poster" from DemocracyMeansYou)	0.0	Pursuit of oil cannot be a justification for war, especially an unprovoked one.
D2	The VP profited well from Iraq while at Halliburton some years ago Additionally, he also generously criticized past U.S. sanctions on another "axis-of-evil" member Iran, while CEO	IRAQ: See Colum Lynch (of the Wash. Post), Molly Ivins (in the Baltimore Sun) and in the Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram IRAN: Washington Post His energy task force also reportedly raised the possibility of lifting or "reforming" sanctions against Iran, Iraq and Libya per the WP. Update (via Atrios): The U.S. is dropping any plans of attacking Iran (after Iraq) owing to the presence of democracy there, even though Osama bin Laden's oldest son Sad, and Al Qaeda terrorists are holing out there.	0.0	The taint of past business dealings with the "axis of evil" (and being supportive of relaxing sanctions against them) does not leave us feeling too comforted about why a war against Saddam should be planned now. We would also certainly appreciate it if the VP would stop hinting that the rest of us are "unpatriotic". It is indeed our patriotism and desire to reduce the risk to American lives and the economy that prompts us to examine all the pros and cons.
D3	The VP argued against regime change in Iraq TWICE in the past	In 1991 (as Def. Secretary to Bush I) and subsequently in 1996, now Vice President Cheney asked a lot of questions about the rationale of toppling Saddam, arguing against such an idea: MSN/Slate	0.0	This raises a question as to why these questions are not being asked publicly today to encourage debate, even if the answers are arrived at in private. Debate helps the decision making process become more sound - so we urge the President and Vice President to listen to as many people who offer counter-opinions as those who simply agree with them. This will give them a shot at doing things right with minimal loss of life.
D4	Politics (and Other Related Stuff)	Fareed Zakaria thinks the Iraq blitz is really about Cheney/Rumsfeld vs. Powell Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says its about Imperialism (trust us -this is not a far-left conspiracy theory) Washington Post - 1 2 3 Elisabeth Bumiller reports in the New York Times that a successful Iraq war would be considered a good foil for pushing Bush's (right-wing) domestic agenda - using high approval ratings John Podhoretz in the NY Post asking Mr. Bush to "Wag the Dog" Wait until September because, per Andy Card (WH Chief of Staff), "...you don't introduce new products in August" President Bush on Democrats; and more Commentary by Rep. Dick Gephardt, Bush-Daschle exchanges Sen. Dayton points out in the WP pointing out how Trent Lott and Republicans delayed previous resolution against Iraq when Bill Clinton was President, but want to rush this one.	0.0	No war for political gain. There are too many lives at stake. And as Joe Conason pointed out, Mr. President, when your Dad was president, Congressional approval for war came after U.N. approval. Moreover, Democrats (and Republicans) are elected representatives of the people, not the President. If it is the people we want to represent, we should listen to what they have to say (see item G1 below in this table). Emergency approval (like the time immediately after 9/11) for war is understandable, but with Saddam willing to open up Iraq for inspections (however much of a ruse it is), this is not an emergency. Let's debate and decide the best approach to Iraq. Let's not act like two parents who each think they know the best for the kid and tear the kid apart trying to make her do different things to meet the same goal.
D5	Post-9/11 U.S. support for the regimes that funded Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia) and the Taliban (Pakistan)	The Saudi and Pakistani roles are well known. Here are recent articles about Pakistan being an Al Qaeda haven: Time, New York Times (Also: Pakistan evidently supplied nuclear weapons technology to North Korea: MSNBC, New York Times) Articles on the Saudis being an Al Qaeda funding source: Washington Post, Newsweek A leading Indian newspaper Hindustan Times cites a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report that Saudi Arabia also financed Pakistan's nuclear program	0.0	There can be no doubt in anyone's mind (Right or Left) that this crushes our credibility. Pakistan and Saudi leaders get invitations to the U.S. (sometimes to the President's ranch), whereas, Iraq, with no link to Al Qaeda or 9/11 gets "Evil Axis'd" and becomes an invasion target. We need more consistency between our principles and actions and the first step would be to make Pakistan a pariah state and eradicate the terrorists there. The next target should be Saudi Arabia.
D6	Post 9/11 U.S. support for allies which commit gross human rights violations	A recent case in point is Russia's vis-a-vis Chechnya as highlighted by this Washington Post piece by Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria. TNR talks about Syria. No doubt Chechnya's terrorists should be treated as terrorists, but the brutality and crime against innocent Chechnyan civilians by Russia's army should also be questioned.	0.0	Again, dashes our credibility. Yes we need to work with our Allies and not upset them, but it is not clear that it has to be at the cost of any human rights principles. Moreover, here is an example when a world body such as the U.N. is so weak that it is made unable to protest human rights violations.
D7	Saving "face"	Cato Institute Chair writes that saving "face" seems to be one of the arguments proposed for a war against Iraq since we've gone so far and cannot now stop!	0.0	No war for political "face-saving". Period.
D8	Revenge	As this article in the Philadelphia Daily News points out, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. had plotted to take out Saddam years before 9/11. At least in part as retribution for what he did during Bush I's tenure.	0.0	Revenge is not a good reason to jeopardize the life of our soldiers or innocent civilians.
D9	Hiding sections of Saddam's U.N. report to prevent information on U.S. companies that supplied him weapons	It is disturbing that the United States chose to remove 8000 pages of Iraq's compliance report before handing over the dossier to the rest of the United Nations. Not to mention that this appears to have been done partly to erase the names of almost all of the 24 U.S. companies that provided Iraq with weapons in the past.	0.0	Does anything have to be said??
D10	Actions by Bush Sr., Rumsfeld etc. previously to preserve Saddam Hussein	Gore's reported speech lays out some details.	0.0	-
D11	Countering D10 presumably is the revelation about the plans to attack Iraq since 1998 by....	ABC News reporting on the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC)	0.50	At least shows some consistency of late!
E. Benefits for democracy
E1	Regime change may be loved by the Iraqis and will stimulate democracy in the Middle-East	Argued by various people, but we will feature Tom Friedman's op-ed on this: New York Times. On the other hand, the report from Iraq by Nicholas Kristof is quite the opposite: New York Times The Kuwaitis want Saddam out but fear deadly reprisals from Saddam: LA Times Also see Stephen Zunes' counterpoint to the regime change/democracy argument : The Nation The Los Angeles Times reporting that State Department insiders consider this theory to not be credible	0.25	We are not really in favor of the U.S. going and unilaterally changing regimes without provocation. At the same time, democracy building is not for the faint-hearted, as Afghanistan already shows. Who will be Saddam's "replacement"? Do the Iraqis really want Saddam replaced? Moreover, the credibility of the U.S. as a democracy-builder in the Middle-East is poor. Our credibility is not helped by the civil rights situation in the U.S. post 9/11. There is no significant evidence yet that regime change in Iraq will help Middle-Eastern democracy. On the other hand, we believe that freeing the Iraqi people is likely to be a good act. So, we weight 25% towards war on this specific item.
E2	Plans for post-invasion Iraq	Although there has been a lot of talk about Democracy building in Iraq post-Saddam, the limited information in the Press suggests that the Bush administration plans to run Iraq military style. A prominent Iraqi exile wrote a scathing review in the London Observer (via Joe Conason) in which he expresses betrayal at the military style "governance" planned and the plans to appoint Arab-appeasing Iraqis to this "Government". Kurdish leaders are also angered by this "undemocratic" plan as stated in this article in the Independent (via CalPundit) and feel that the Bush administration has reneged on its promise to build a democratic Iraq	0.0	Should we say more? So much for regime change.
F. Costs of war and aftermath
F1	Actual costs of executing a war with Iraq	Most recently independent estimates suggest the costs could be anywhere between $127B - $682B. Also see San Francisco Chronicle, WP Archives: Bush's Economic Council Chief Larry Lindsey says $100-200B. This has recently been revised down to $50-60B. CBO says $9-13B upfront + $6-9B/mo after that: CNN Treasure Secy. O'Neill said "any price" is affordable: Reuters These amounts are a small % of our GDP - which, historically, is not a burden in itself. However, the costs and high risks to a recessionary economy need to be factored in.	0.25	Overall costs might be manageable, but not with outrageous budget deficits and without firm justification for war. However, it is surprising that essential funds for firefighters etc. which is pocket change compared to the war costs, would be vetoed by Mr. Bush (New York Daily News) under the notion that it is excessive spending.
F2	Lives of soldiers and their morale	This is a big ? mark. (a) The Defense Department does not seem too sure about how well protected our soldiers would be against chemical/bio weapons (b) The only sense we've got on morale is this recent article on the National Guard reservists (c) There doesn't seem to have been a whole lot of actual war planning going on in the Administration so far	?	We believe our soldiers would consider risking their lives for worthy causes, even while facing chemical and biological weapons, as they might in Iraq. However, it needs to be ascertained how worthy the cause for war is now, as opposed to say a few months later, and how well prepared we really are.
F3	Costs of regime change and maintenance of democracy in Iraq for the foreseeable future	This includes not just costs of maintaining a long-term force in Iraq and aid for Iraq, but also dealing with potential economic instabilities due to any flare-ups in the Middle-East. Again, there are too many uncertainties here to predict what would happen. But see this interview with former Middle-East envoy Gen. Anthony Zinni, in which the latter says, "I'm not sure in which planet [the hawks] live on": Salon James Fallows does a much more thorough questioning of what it might take in the Atlantic Monthly Our military brass question whether Saddam will easily be de-seated. They also feel that hundreds of thousands of soldiers may be needed post-war. Most recently, David Corn points out how the Bush administration plans to install a military Government in Iraq and how its post-war planning has been fairly abysmal.	0.0	Clearly, a very difficult situation could emerge if we attack Iraq. However, the situation can be made more tolerable if we are able to convince ourselves that Iraqis would support the removal of Saddam, and we remove Saddam working hand-in-hand with the international community. What we remain skeptical about is whether this administration and the rest of the world for that matter has any significant commitment to the post-war nation/democracy building in Iraq. This is a justifiable question considering how (a) Afghanistan is still waiting for the bulk of the promised money from the rest of the world, and (b) The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reports that the Afghan War against Al Qaeda is faltering and that, "...it may be time for the military to 'flip' its priorities from combat operations aimed at hunting down al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to 'the reconstruction piece in Afghanistan,..." (c) Afghanistan is back on the road to ruin per this latest update, not to mention the state of Afghani children. Not to mention that a military government "installed" by the U.S. is hardly a poster child for democracy building!
F4	Impact to anti-terror efforts within the United States and elsewhere	Impact can't be good. Given the recent horror in Indonesia (MSNBC) and Kenya (MSNBC), which clearly showed Al Qaeda is still alive and well (MSNBC), here's: (a) a Salon interview with a BU professor on how we would risk alienating Indonesian moderates with an Iraq war (b) A Los Angeles Times article on the risk of alienating the moderate Arab street (c) Washington Post article referring to concerns expressed by Sen. Bob Graham (D) during the Iraq debate. (d) Al Qaeda has regrouped under new leadership (WP), while we keep the world focused on Iraq (e) The increasingly famous TomPaine.com Op-Ad says it all Note this article in the New York Times pointing out that anger relating to the planned Iraq invasion is being used as a tool to recruit more Al-Qaeda members. For completeness, we must point out that The New Republic's Peter Beinart doesn't seem to agree with some of the above views.	0.0	We are seriously concerned about a possible lack of focus in uprooting Al Qaeda and other unsavory elements within and outside America's borders, due to this Iraq distraction. Indeed, Al Qaeda even in Afghanistan appears to be adapting quickly. So much so that the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reports that the Afghan War against Al Qaeda is faltering and that, "...it may be time for the military to 'flip' its priorities from combat operations aimed at hunting down al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to 'the reconstruction piece in Afghanistan,..." Recent articles have made it painfully clear that we have not spent much effort on Afghanistan, which is only marginally better off than before 9/11: WP, NY Times As much as the Government may state that an Iraqi war can be executed without impacting our internal anti-terror efforts, we remain skeptical. After all, this administration was the one which first said that nothing was known prior to 9/11 that could have allowed us to prevent it from happening. The bottomline? Mr. President, please focus on the securing of America's borders and our way of living.
F5	Impact to innocent lives in Iraq, especially women and children	With the latest report in the New York Times that an unprecedented bombing blitz is planned for Baghdad, a natural question one must ask is how this would help innocent Iraqi civilians that President Bush says he wants to protect from Saddam. Here's a report in which officials do acknowledge that thousands could die. Additionally, if Saddam uses biological and/or chemical weapons against U.S. soldiers endangering their lives, we understand that President Bush has authorized a response using nuclear weapons! How will this "help" the Iraqi civilians Mr. Bush is fighting for? Moreover, the toll from the Gulf War was high as well, with a demographer having been fired because of estimating a high level of deaths that the Bush I administration did not agree with U.S.-allied Kurds are fearful of Turkish invasion as an aftermath	0.0	A war to save innocent civilians must not exterminate large swaths of them. It is one thing for a few innocent civilians die accidentally, and another for them to get eliminated in the scores.
F6	Betrayal of the Kurds who are our allies	This is pretty unconscionable since the Bush administration has reportedly given Turkey a free hand in invading the lands held by Kurds in Northern Iraq. MSNBC, The New Republic, AP, the New York Times These are the guys (Kurds) we are supposed to protect remember? (Gassing his "own people"...the people are the Kurds)	0.0	This stinks.
F7	Deleterious impact to long-term friendships/alliances with old friends (meaning countries)	Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo sums it up ably. Also see Peter Beinart in The New Republic. So does Paul Krugman in the New York Times. The Washington Post reports that pro-U.S. Arabs are now soundly critical of the Bush administration.	0.0	Just read Josh Marshall and Paul Krugman and see G6 below.
G. Public opinion
G1	Public support for a war with Iraq	Public opinion polls have been in favor of action against Iraq but not unilaterally. The majority have expected U. N. support before war. 9/07/02 9/23/02 9/29/02 10/7/02 2/14/03 Also see WP, San Jose Mercury News Public opinion as reflected by opinion polls and pro-peace protests is also in favor of giving inspections more time. As this article shows, the depth of support for peace cuts across groups and ideologies. (via Atrios)	0.50	A vote of 0.50 indicates support with Congressional and U.N. approval. The vote would have been 1.0 if we had been convinced that the timing of this was not inappropriate.
G2	Support from the military, from veterans and past and present leaders	The majority of past military and civilian leaders (with wartime experience) advocate getting Congressional approval and U.N. support. Most do not favor an invasion of Iraq with the current level of information/evidence 9/23/02 Ex-generals Others include James Baker, Al Gore, Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clark, Brent Scowcroft, Warren Christopher, Norman Schwarzkopf, etc. Some current Democrats and Republicans also advocate this course. Former President Carter shows clearly why a war on Iraq at this time would be unjust. Some veterans are calling for a full debate before going to war and WWII veterans significantly are against a unilateral war Representatives from other countries A past American (Iraq-held) POW speaks out against the invasion	0.25	Regardless of political orientation, people have risked being falsely ridiculed for lacking patriotism by speaking out. That tells us there are experienced people who believe an invasion without proper debate and approval from Congress and the U.N. is not in order. BTW, anyone want to know what dissent really is? Ask GOP ex-Sen. Robert Taft.
G3	Support (or lack of it) from leaders of American churches and the Pope	The Pope considers this war unjust The leadership of the U.S. National Council of Churches, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others, question the rationale of unprovoked war . More recently, here are some pleadings from Bishops, the NCC and stinging criticism from the top Bishop of the U.S. Episcopalian Church. Joe Conason covers more in Salon. Here is an inspiring piece	0.0	Since President Bush has made his plans for invasion on the basis of "Good" vs. "Evil", these voices raise questions about that angle of his campaign.
G4	Support (or lack of it) for unilateral Iraq invasion from leading U.S. Nobel laureates in science and economics	They advise caution and argue that "...Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world New York Times	0.0	These Nobel laureates include Republicans and Democrats
G5	Conservative columnists, groups and editorial boards	Bob Novak says this planned war is to establish U.S. domination and feels it will have terrible consequences Paul Craig Roberts feels this war is likely be the "most thoughtless action" in modern history Republican Businessmen and their anti-war ad in the Wall Street Journal Newspaper editorials in conservative regions of the U.S. Susan Ager writing about a Republican town	0.0	Republicans are putting themselves on the line (at the risk of having their loyalty questioned) asking why a war is needed now. Not that this is in itself a reason to avoid war, but it shows that the rationale for war is a valid question and not just something partisan.
G6	Support from public in countries that have been our allies	Check our eRiposte coverage on worldwide public support (or lack of it). Mass protests recently just concluded: MSNBC	0.0	Should we say more?

Hit Counter