Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

WMD's War in Iraq (CFR Community Actions (War in Iraq (Next Stop…

- - - - Concession point: He clearly states that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, but instead the policy that has been placed against Iraq since the early 1990s.
        
        The author states that invasion should always be the last resort, but, "Unfortunatley in this case, since all the other options are worse, it is a necessary one." They state that the reason for this is because it would do the following: prevent saddam from rebuiling military might, prevent him from acquiring nuclear weapons, prevent him from threatening the world's oil supply, allow the US to return to its pre-Gulf War presence, and in general aid the muslim world.
        
        Saying that the invasion needs to be immediate because, "Today the shock of the September 11 attacks is still fresh and the US government and public are ready to make sacrifices. important because he stated it has nothing to do with 9/11 but they want to play on everyone's emotions.
    - - The Reasons why countries would not support the war in Iraq.
        
        they didn't believe US would accept disarmament
        
        Deployment was determining policy, not policy determining deployment.
        
        Saddam Complied with the UN agreements; therefore, the US position lost credibility. (they would much rather have had him not comply and this needs to be addressed.)
        
        Bush failed to compromise on deadlines for secondary UN searches
        
        Bush was not friendly or humble when asking for help
        This is important because I can tack it on as more context and significance in regard to the gridlock on the security council
        
        Even the officials in the United States couldn't seem to compromise. Those in the state department focused on the WMD issue and human rights violations, while the Pentagon pushed for the Al Qaeda link (which was pretty much non existent.)
    - - The author says that anyone who didn't believe that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction was historically ignorant of the Arab's technical skills. Well no weapons were found so...
        
        Blatant suggestion for the United States to stay in Iraq after the war. "The case for war must rest in part on the kind of vision the United States has for Iraq. The dread of "nation-building" must be cast aside. It is too late in the annals of nations for outright foreign rule. But there will have to be a sustained American presence if the new order is to hold and take root.
  - - - You can't even have a viewpoint about war being bad without mentioning regime change. The author states, "No good alternatives to war exist at this point, but there are several that are less bad." The first was containment, the second was to stoke the flame of dissidents through covert action to overthrow Saddam (similar to Operation Ajax, PBSuccess, and the Bay of Pigs.), and the third was what he called a quasi war, which was amass forces outside of Saddam's reach and move in and take him down whenever a great opportunity arises. Different from the other Regime change points because this gives discussable suggestions.
        
        The author wonders if this article was the actual sentiment of the state department and foreign policy community at this time. There was genuine fear on their behalf that Saddam might strike back with WMD, but they still wanted regime change. Could wmd negative inspection of Iraq have allayed the fears, consequently providing an opportunity for a war without consequences?
- - - - America's Imperial Ambition-John Ikenberry 2002 The second element is a dramatic new analysis of global threats and how they must be attacked. The grim new reality is that small groups of terrorists--perhaps aided by outlaw states--may soon acquire highly destructive nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that can inflict catastrophic destruction. These terrorist groups cannot be appeased or deterred, the administration believes, so they must be eliminated. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has articulated this frightening view with elegance: regarding the threats that confront the United States, he said, "There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. ... Each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns." In other words, there could exist groups of terrorists that no one knows about. They may have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons that the United States did not know they could get, and they might be willing and able to attack without warning :check:
        
        Here the war on terrorism and the problem of the proliferation of WMD get entangled. The worry is that a few despotic states--Iraq in particular, but also Iran and North Korea--will develop capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction and put these weapons in the hands of terrorists.
      - Bush's Nuclear Revolution-George Perkovich 2003 this article was mainly about forming stronger international ties. But it mentions matter of factly that there is a wmd issue when Perkovich writes, "America's willingness to use force against emergent WMD threats, as in Iraq, can stir the limbs of the international body politic to action." :check:
      - America the Vulnerable-Stephen Flynn 2002 In this article, the author states that Americans need to be ready for more terrorist attacks in the future, because 9/11 and the anthrax attacks definitively prove that the terrorists of the future will use chemical and biological wmd on US soil. :check:
    - - Why the Security Council Failed-Michael Glennon 2003 This article provides a great summation of the inspections issue. Colin Powell pushed for the vote of Resolution 1441 which would have allowed the UN to go into Iraq and inspect for WMD (confirm this is true). The UN went inside and found no weapons despite the long campaign of WMD hype and 11 whole weeks of inspections. Powell then back tracked and said that inspections will not work and Saddam was still hiding his weapons. During this time, the other nations involved with the UN were discussing what should be done, including giving more time or de facto failing Iraq on its inspections. The Bush administration then changed its tune from worry about WMD to regime change. The Security Council found itself in gridlock on the use of force in Iraq. Approximately 15 days later on March 20th, the United States began the war in Iraq. This should be my final point on the WMD issue :check:
      - Stumbling Into War-James P. Rubin Back during the beginning of the WMD issue, Cheney (CFR) said he would discredit Blix and Muhammad El Baradei (the head of the international atomic energy agency) if he happened to find fault in their judgement on Iraq's capabilities. Wolfowitz (CFR) shot condescending remarks at the inspectors due to their caution by saying, "You do know they have weapons of mass destruction, don't you?" The author points out that even though the US military was essentially in control of all real estate in Iraq, no weapons were found. :check:
        
        Cheney went as far as to say that Iraq had "reconstituted Nuclear weapons"
        
        History: The main intelligence briefings that the Administration was using as a back up for their claims on WMD primarily came from the UN inspectors. Both the inspectors and the intelligence community were wrong. This author laments that we went after the WMD idea at all, and instead based everything on the UN inspectors, thereby bypassing important follow up that would show whether or not there were wmd in the first place. Why though? because they wanted regime change and war in iraq at all costs.
      - colin powell addressing the security council in Feb 2003 with the illustration of the anthrax in the vial. Saying that Saddam had 8500 liters of anthrax back in 1995, and that it could fill "10s upon 10s upon 10s of thousands" of the vials that he was presenting. :check:
      - From Prague to Baghdad-NATO at Risk-Strobe Talbott 2002 Saddam had used weapons in the past, and when it came time for UN inspections, he actually agreed and allowed them in. Bush wanted Regime change, and he tried to do so through the UN based on his past track record. :check:
  - - - Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger-Ashton Carter, John Deutch, Philip Zelikow 1998 " The danger of weapons of mass destruction being used against America and its allies is greater now than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. It is a national security problem that deserves the kind of attention the Defense Department devotes to threats of military nuclear attack or regional aggression. The first obstacle to imagination is resignation. The prospects may seem so dreadful that some officials despair of doing anything useful. Some are fatalistic, as if contemplating the possibility of a supernova. Many thinkers reacted the same way at the dawn of the nuclear age, expecting doom to strike at any hour and disavowing any further interest in deterrence as a hopeless venture. But as with nuclear deterrence, the good news is that more can be done.(FN1)" :check:
        
        The U.S. government should therefore have the authority to monitor any group and its potential state sponsors that might have the motive and the means to use weapons of mass destruction. In order to detect such weapons anywhere in the world, the United States should utilize remote sensing technology and cultivate global sources of information. Necessary measures include clandestine collection of open sources, such as foreign newspapers and the Internet, as well as a full exchange of information with key allies. :check:
      - The New Threat of Mass Destruction- Richard K. Betts 1998 This article states that we need to transition from fear of nuclear annihilation to the fear of WMD. He almost literally says that. He then talks at length about the dangers of Biological weapons. :check:
        
        He then formulates a hypothetical situation where a group of radical muslims kill 100k people with bio weapons. He states that we need to curtail civil liberties to stop this from happening. If not, he states that muslims will probably be put in concentration camps like the Japanese during WWII. It is incredible fear mongering. :check:
      - Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered: Repairing the Security Council- Richard Butler 1999 During the past eight years, many but not all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been eliminated. Disarmament tasks remain to be completed, however, and monitoring and verification systems need to be secured to ensure that Saddam does not reconstitute his illegal weapons. Yet the Security Council has been unable to reach a decision that would restore, even in a modified way, the implementation of its own law. Indeed, some members--including, incredibly, Canada, a nonpermanent member of the council--have sought to lower the standard of Iraqi compliance." Almost all of Iraq's wmds had been eliminated by 1999. Later in the article, they ramp up the fear mongering and say that Saddam probably has a bunch of hidden weapons and has an incredible capacity to make more. :check:
      - Defense in An Age of Hope-William Perry 1996 This article presents the boogeyman change from Nuclear Weapons to WMD to other nations. :check:
      - A Revolution in Warefare-Eliot Cohen 1996 Just as nuclear weapons did not render
        conventional power obsolete, this revolution will not render guerrilla
        tactics, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction obsolete. Indeed,
        the reverse may be true: where unconventional bypasses to conventional
        military power exist, any country confronting the United States
        will seek them out." This is fear mongering and stating that the boogeyman is WMDs and guerilla warfare :check:
      - A Farewell to Arms Inspections-Daniel Byman 2000 "THE RETURN of U.N. arms inspectors to Iraq woiild do more harm
        than good. Although politicians and pundits alike call for renewed
        inspections, the inspectors' return not only would not remove Iraq's
        remaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities, hut—
        more ominously—might actually help develop Iraq's WMD programs
        over the long term and make a mockery of arms control in general.
        Surprising as it sounds, an impasse over inspections is actually the
        best realistic outcome for the United States. A continued standoff
        will better position the United States to hamper Saddam Husseins
        quest for WMD—and avoid being party to the deliberate flouting of
        U.N. resolutions and arms control agreements."This is important because this shows that they wanted to keep the story alive in order to perserve the regime change ability. Moreover, this is pre 9/11, so all of this cannot be blamed on a terrorist attack :check:
        
        To continue on from the last point, the author is afraid that inspections won't uncover anything and will allow Iraq to continuously build weapons. The issue with this, is that he is taking the stance, just like Powell, that no matter what, Iraq has wmd. No matter how much evidence is provided, not finding wmd simply means they are hiding them. "Even Iraq's most vocal
        supporters know that it retains some WMD capacity and almost certainlywill pursue WMD in the future."
        
        "As long as Saddam does not let inspectors
        into the country—and he has rejected even the suggestion of compromise here—the United States can plausibly argue that Iraq retains its WMD programs. Saddam, not the United States, appears the villain."
        
        The reason for his belief is that the previous inspections in the 1990s failed to destroy and find everything he had.
        
        If the United States and the other major powers close their eyes
        and declare Iraq to be in compliance, they discredit the very premises of
        arms control: that states are bound to their international agreements
        and that the international community has a duty to enforce these
        obligations. Other states will learn from Baghdad's example, cheating
        or ignoring their commitments if they feel that they will pay no price.
    - - Defense Strategy for the 1990s-The Regional Defense Strategy-Dick Cheney Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, and the threat of nuclear proliferation, despite our best
        efforts, persists. Other countries -- some of them, like Iraq, especially hostile and irresponsible -- threaten
        to acquire nuclear weapons. Some countries are also pursuing other highly-destructive systems, such as
        chemical and biological weapons. These developments require us to be able to deter use of such
        weapons, and to improve our defense capabilities. Other things to mention that I will not extract text for is that the strategy proposed suggested that we increase military presence in the region, establish connections and bases (including "over seas basing of forces, prepositioning and periodic deployments, exercises, exchanges, or visits of forces) to get back whenever needed, and increase the speed in which we can respond to attacks. This was the prequel and the lead up to WMD issues. :check: