Colin Powell presents the case to the UN...

Not at all true. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have made it clear that they had their eye on attacking Iraq well before 9/11 because of their belief that by erecting a democracy in Iraq a domino effect would be created, making the Middle East more pro-U.S. It seems a naively rosy idea for the Defense Department (who, by its very nature, seems pessimistic in its world view) to base foreign policy on.

That said, I think the case for attacking Iraq has been made. However, a solid case for what a post-Saddam Iraq should and will look like has been largely ignored, in part because I doubt the administration really knows. While the goal may be for Iraq to be a prosperous democratic nation, I think the White House's real goal is just for Iraq to be relatively stable and passive. To do that, of course, will require what U.K. and U.S. leaders have acknowledged will be perhaps a three-year occupation to ensure that the transition (which is an awfully bland word for what will surely be a painful process) happens. But I think three years will be more like five to ten, if they really do want to see it through to some sort of positive outcome.

Emmanuel Todd, in his book 'Apres L'Empire', calls this technique 'theatrical militarism', summarised in the http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/DL04Aa01.html">Asia Times thus:

'America of course will always need staggering provisions of goods and capital. To make this happen, the strategic objective was long ago amplified to exercising total political control over the world's resources. But how to control these resources and eliminate competition when there are too many literate people and too many democracies around? The US is not really threatened by the Axis of Evil: Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the intolerant mullahs faithful to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have only rhetorical firepower. The real strategic competitors are in fact the European Union, Russia and Japan in the short term, and China in the long term. It's unthinkable to apply the preemptive Bush doctrine against these players. In each of these cases, the US has to negotiate.

The problem of its economic dependency remains, but the US also has to find a way to be at the center of the world - at least symbolically - to convince all of its "hyperpower". This mechanism is what French historian Emmanuel Todd describes as "theatrical militarism".

The strategy means that Washington should never come up with a definitive solution for any geopolitical problem, because instability is the only thing that would justify military action ad infinitum by the only superpower, anytime, anywhere.

Washington knows it is unable to confront the real players in the world - Europe, Russia, Japan, China. Thus it seeks to remain politically on top by bullying minor players like the Axis of Evil, or even more minor players like Cuba. The US propaganda machine will always be warning of tremendous threats (Iraq has the fourth-largest army in the world, its renewed nuclear program will incinerate us all, etc). And to keep the illusion going, Washington continues to develop new weapons designed to increase its already smashing military supremacy, fuelled by the Pentagon's astronomical budget and benefiting the US military-industrial complex. Gore Vidal is one of the few US insiders to deconstruct the process which feeds on the logic of an unending, unstoppable arms race.

Does all of this constitute an American Empire? Hardly. A little more than a decade after the implosion of the Soviet Empire, the world may be confronted by the possibility that the American Empire is beginning to decompose.'

N = T+1

It would be great if what we're seeing really were 'theatrical militarism'. Unfortunately I think they really do intend to shed blood. Baudrillard famously said the first Gulf War never took place, but this one probably will.

My position is actually tending towards legal-political obstruction and, failing that, civic insurrection. For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2727551.stm">the Australian parliament has just passed a vote of no confidence in PM John Howard for having 'sent 2000 of our defence personnel off to a war undeclared in the northern hemisphere without any cogent explanation of his actions'. Chirac must veto any UN security council war resolution, because it is actually the will of the vast majority of the French people.

If it comes to war despite the wishes of the majority of the populations of the countries invading, we should have demonstrations that make the anti-Vietnam protests look like a picnic. They should be low-key disruptions of everyday life. Wear too much perfume! Send the lift to the wrong floor! All take your money out of the bank at the same time! Walk to work and let it take as long as it takes! Only go to Iranian films! Cough loudly during the national anthem! Hack into the BBC news website and write 'This space reserved for theatrical militarism' over the top story slot!

This doesn't sound like it would be too inconvenient for me.

2) "If it comes to war despite the wishes of the majority of the populations of the countries invading, we should have demonstrations that make the anti-Vietnam protests look like a picnic."

Maybe the case is different in Europe (to which the American response is 'remind me again why we should pretend to care what Europe thinks? '), but in America the majority of the people are pretty strongly in favor of this war - the numbers were high already, jumped higher after the SOFTU (higher than Bush's actual approval ratings, and I don't think anyone who wasn't in a cave last November can pretend the majority of the American public doesn't approve of Bush). Here's the freaky part - among registered Democrats Bush still beats the Dems on foreign policy by 30%! As for the volatility of the protests....
America is at war with itself!

2. If this happens without democratic backing in the nations participating I want leaders of the nations and the fuckpig middlemen involved put in prison for the rest of their lives.

3. And this is the most important to me - If this happens without full and proper debate I want leaders of the nations and the fuckpig middlemen put in prison for the rest of their lives. It's a crime against democracy. At least give me some debate, not this awful inevitability.

The amount at which I am personally powerless to stop this mass murder depresses me beyond words. Before you start I'm a supporter of the removal of Hussein WMD or not. I just object to the way this is being done. The fact the US is treating the UN as its bitch is depressing. The fact we've been powerless at every stage of this shellwank from inception to action is minky piss. The fact so many leaders, my own included are wagging tails despite the complete undemocracy and sheer fucking cheek of how this is being carried out depresses me. The fact I find myself becoming dis-interested in this pissyard gungame due to its sheer monotony and its bland newsness again depresses me. More than anything the fact it is being so deliberately separated from the general public is now making me physically sick.

I don't care if its oil, I don't care if its a strategic air base, I don't care whether WDM I don't care whether human rights abuses within the state, I don't care I don't care I don't care. The humanitarian need is cause enough for "regime change". It needs doing. The guys a medieval wierdo. What fucks me right off is the fact its all going on with so little input from the populace behind these giant killing machines. I get the feeling about this sort of thing that its the government(s) saying "THIS IS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU". I'm sick of being dictated to as far as international politics go. As a British citizen I must look to Blair and Blair looks to spout a lot of determination without wanting to reveal any cause and detailed evidence to his nation or any other. He sounds as if he knows the whys and the wherefores but just can't tell us. How fucking dare he. Democracy should extend further than rosettes, press junkets and NHS policy. The world of politics stretches far beyond the local or even the national now. Especially when you're living in a G8 country. Fucking hell. I want to be involved.

We've been told in a Bush speech that "UK intelligence has evidence of Iraq attempting to buy nuclear materials in the 90's". Really? As a British citizen I'd like to have seen this in parliament, special committee, fuck it a LEAK before I'd like to see it as a throwaway line in a bullshit political speech in another country. So our intelligence is property of foreign speechwriters more than our own. Lovely. We've been told of the "small war now stops bigger problem later" arguement. Whats this bigger problem, guys? Explain it to us. Now. No more rhetoric, I want to be treated with a shred of intelligence. I want detail, I want all context revealed, I want evidence. And I want the international politics of a country to be a reachable resource for everyone which they can comment on and effect.

I get the feeling that what I'm being told is - You don't need to know the whys and wherefores for our country to enter into a war do you? You don't need to debate or have opinion on something which Blair looks so stone-faced about. He must be serious. We don't need to influence this anymore than a rape victim doesn't need to influence is happening to their sexual organs during violation, do we?

I'm drunk and rambling. Please tear my shitsweep metaphors apart. But don't please fall into my trap of seeing this as something out of my control. If this goes down the wrong way and you feel bad about it, then lets you and me do something about it. This is dictatorship under the guise of global realpolitik. Me and you will not be dictated to.

Whether you agree or disagree with this inevitable war is by the by. The fact we've been bypassed when there is blood in the air is an insult to each and every one of us and to our democratic rights.

(to appreciate this post fully, stick a hip hop instrumental on and put the text through a voice synth)

"These men have things to do".

I can't even muster a response to that. I really can't.

Yes, actually, I do.

See how jm did it?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_iraq_poll030202.html

You obviously didn't follow.

The claim the administration makes about a war on Iraq is that Iraq have connections with terrorists and have WMD, and therefore, it is imperative that they prove not only that Iraq is in breach of the security council (which is justification for a multilateral military action in order to disarm Iraq, as it is illegal for them to possess WMD under international law), but that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US and Britain (who seems to be going to war with the US) because they will hand these weapons to terrorists. Otherwise, there is no delivery system in place for Iraq to drop these things in the US or UK, and therefore they are not an immediate threat.

So, in order to do that, the US must try and prove that A) Iraq has ties with international terrorism aimed at Western Nations (especially the US and UK) and that B) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and finally C) that A and B will be brought together in almost complete certainty and therefore poses a threat to the US and UK. Otherwise, there is no justification for a unilateral military action. The US is just trying to show that Iraq is lying about its stockpiles of WMD (which almost certainly exist except in the mind of only the most hardened pacifist) and therefore get international approval for the act of invasion.

I'm not claiming that this isn't Wag The Dog. I'm not claiming that this isn't a cover for the US to gain a foothold in the Middle East with a puppet gov't. All I'm stating is the official position as to the US government and action in Iraq. And frankly, if they were somehow able to prove all of this without a shadow of a doubt, I'm not sure how anyone could ignore what would then be a certain attack by terrorists using chemical or biological means. As I stated, I've yet to be impressed to the point where I support war.

>>That said, I think the case for attacking Iraq has been made. However, a solid case for what a post-Saddam Iraq should and will look like has been largely ignored, in part because I doubt the administration really knows. While the goal may be for Iraq to be a prosperous democratic nation, I think the White House's real goal is just for Iraq to be relatively stable and passive. To do that, of course, will require what U.K. and U.S. leaders have acknowledged will be perhaps a three-year occupation to ensure that the transition (which is an awfully bland word for what will surely be a painful process) happens. But I think three years will be more like five to ten, if they really do want to see it through to some sort of positive outcome. <<

I brought this up in the last thread on the subject, and it was one of my two huge sticking points as to why I don't believe that (war at this point) is the best solution. Three years is nowhere near enough time. If that ends up being the case, then there will be nothing short of a US supported dictator in that country, and likely insurrections from the north (and perhaps military action involving Turkey). Japan and Western Germany (which were sucessful rebuilding projects) took many, many years to get them to being industrial powerhouses. 3 years isn't enough. Period.

-
Alan

Salon magazine on the recent Knight Ridder poll which found that 50% of Americans believe there were one or more Iraqi terrorists on the 9/11 planes (click through the Well ads to read the whole thing free):

'At best, the administration hawks have only lukewarm support among the American public, with various polls suggesting that less than one-third of Americans would support military action outside the aegis of the United Nations Security Council. Though we regularly hear talk of drawing together U.S. allies if the U.N. does not sanction war, the only materially committed members of that allegiance appear to be the British and the Australians. Similar recent polls in those nations reveal support of 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively -- thrusting leaders like Tony Blair and John Howard into politically hostile territory with their own citizenry should they choose to follow George W. Bush into non-U.N. battle.

'The Knight Ridder poll raises the specter of an unsettling truth. It suggests that whatever support there is for a war against Iraq, it owes much to the erroneous belief of at least half of the American people that it was Saddam Hussein's operatives who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.'

I'm *against* unilateral action against Iraq because I believe the proof that they have strong ties to terrorism and therefore are an immediate threat to the US and its allies is very weak.

I'm *in favor of* UN action against Iraq in accordance with the 4-5 UN Resolutions banning WMD in the nation of Iraq (the result of the war in Kuwait). I believe there is still a month or two before for some very serious negotiations between the two parties (UN and Iraq) and they should be trying to get a hold of each other. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would deny Iraq has such weapons.

I need to add to something too....

>>And of course the problem with the Iraq + Al Qaeda = KILL THEM ALL equation is that Pakistan easily solves A, B and C of yr hypothesis above<<

The US went to the UN yesterday to prove that Iraq still has a chemical and biological weapons program, which they CANNOT have by international law and are subject to disarmament as a result. The US cannot do the same thing with Pakistan in the UN, even if they wanted to. Why? Because Pakistan can have as many WMD as it damn well pleases. It never lost a war so badly that it had to negotiate a cease fire that gave away its ability to have such things. Iraq does not have this freedom, thus the US went to the UN to try and drum up support.

>>How suprised will the Iraqis be when the hundreds of thousands of troops massed in kuwait and saudi come pouring over the border. <<

They aren't coming from Saudi Arabia, far as I know. The Saudis aren't housing troops this time because they're scared shitless of the possible "retorts" from their citizens.

-
Alan

Yup...just read that. They must be getting oil rights and a aid package then. They held out for a loooooong time.

-
Alan

interesting to read these threads 18 years later

pic.twitter.com/U32mZrjF8g

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) October 19, 2021

ackerman: https://foreverwars.substack.com/p/the-only-man-who-could-have-stopped

momus OTM

The US is just trying to show that Iraq is lying about its stockpiles of WMD (which almost certainly exist except in the mind of only the most hardened pacifist)

Holy shit at how conservative/blinkered 2003 ilx was. "I just assume Iraq has WMDs and connections to Al Q", "Taking oil is a legitimate foreign policy action".

The invasion of Iraq was the turning point in my radicalization from a somewhat apolitical former conservative toward a progressive. So, thanks, GWB.

Momus and Lynsk3y as the voices of reason!

tbf I'm guessing a lot of what was happening here was ppl pushing back against Momus because of his hot takes on, like, a hundred other topics

I didn't expect to spend 40 mins yesterday destroying Colin Powell's rep on Facebook with Democrats.

Yeah lol same. I was raised v conservative yet entirely put off by W’s affect and evangelicalism. So even when I’d moved to voting solely for Democrats —mostly for aesthetic reasons tbh—I spent most the two years between 9/11 and the invasion and fallout thinking “well gee whiz they clearly know things we don’t and surely they wouldn’t just cook this up whole cloth. It’s just been eXeCuTeD pOoRlY”.

What a fucking rube. The absolute state of public school history classes in this country.

(Re - The invasion of Iraq was the turning point in my radicalization from a somewhat apolitical former conservative toward a progressive. So, thanks, GWB)

I'll admit being the first black national security advisor, chairman of JCOS, and secretary of state are important, and, according to the former State Department employees I argued with yesterday, he "modernized" the joint; but fuck him and fuck these people who accused me of lacking nuance.

*Black

(public school history classes and a compliant housebroken MSM)

robin wright’s take too, also apparently a very nice guy! she stumbles over cliched reverence for his path like only a white liberal could

https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/colin-powell-the-humble-american

After Bush was reëlected, in 2004, Powell drew up a list of things he wanted to work on during the second term. He took it with him when he was summoned to the White House. He never had a chance to explain it, he later told me. Bush blindsided Powell by announcing that he had just asked Condoleezza Rice to serve as his next Secretary of State. Powell had been fired. He was clearly stung. It was an ignoble end to a lifetime of public service.

Wait -- so he was fired? How did I not know this? This makes him more repugnant. I thought he'd resigned.

Apropos of nothing, did anyone go from opposing the war at the start to enthusiastically supporting it?

Colin Powell lol jk

no joke, him signing on was really key for me (and clearly a lot of people, which the Bush admin and pro-War media leaned on hard obv) initially thinking that It Just Has to be Done

Sorry I fired you, guy

https://www.bushcenter.org/about-the-center/newsroom/press-releases/2021/10/statement-by-president-george-w-bush-on-colin-powell.html