Some questions about Iraq

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Douglass Carmichael" <doug () bigmindmedia com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:49:11 -0800
To: "Farber@Cis. Upenn. Edu" <farber () cis upenn edu>

Dave, love what you are doing. The following might fit the style of just
trying to be reasonable. Use if you like.

Doug

Some questions about Iraq

The US needs to be fair and competent. These are core American values -
or should be - fitting our own culture, which is better at fact than at
feeling. It's simply quality control, and we are not looking very good.
We want people to buy our products, then we should take care about our
logic. Mere technical competence has its place, and the argument about
why Iraq is a threat, how to assess it, and cope with it, seems like one
of them. I have been disappointed at the school kid quality of the
American approach to Iraq, but Blix too seems less methodical than we
should expect. The 173 page report is, as I write still not publicly
available, so it is hard to make a clear assessment. (see for example
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/recent%20items.html ). Disarmament of
Saddam implies that he is armed (with weapons of mass destruction.) So
far as I read the evidence, even on this point it is weak and vague. So
are we asking for a disarming when there is possibly no capacity to give
up?  Powell is now claiming yet more nuclear evidence. This is a
shifting scene, and there will be many more surprises. But as of now I
have the following

Questions

1.    So why is it taking the German's to propose a list of issues,
and the establishment of a hierarchy of task? Why has not Blix been as
technically methodical? The same for the US. (The Canadians too deserve
credit for a workable approach that seems to appeal to much of the
world, but that the US can't accept.)
2.    How can the US do a pinpoint war on a country where weapons,
with inspectors on the ground, cannot be found?
3.    Blix says that the rockets now being destroyed were listed in
the Iraq declaration in December. The Iraqi's argue that, loaded, these
missiles are within UN specified rage. This seems to me to be one of
those grey areas of honest difference. Iraq did not intend to deceive,
but to push the edge. The US is trying to make a case out of something
so on the border that it seems like a quibble. Yet such missiles could
be significant against American troops. So the US government wants Iraq
to give up its major (non WMD) before the US attacks him.
4.    Powell now claims new evidence that these are being rebuilt. Why
does Blix not immediately deal with this issue?
5.    The inspectors are given the authority by 1441 to destroy
weapons. Why are they letting the Iraqi's destroy the missiles, and why
not do it much faster?
6.    On bio-chem: Blix says that Iraq has handed over lists f several
hundred people who were involved in the destruction of those.  This
looks pretty straight forward, and that Iraq may be right. If so, why is
Blix not pressing much faster on the interviews, and making a fuss, if
they are not getting full cooperation?
7.    The US has insisted on the clear potential of the aluminum tubes
for nuclear fuel production. It seems to me Blix out-experted the US. By
getting very good detailed accounts of the procurement, specifications
and use of those tubes. This is embarrassing. For Powel to continue to
assert nuclear capacity on the basis these tubes feel like just stubborn
childishness. If he can't do better than that, it seems to me the Bush
team is not looking for facts but for arguments.
8.    The same with the nuclear materials. The Niger connection now
agreed to be false, where is the American evidence, yet Powell insists.
9.    What about the drone(s)? Why isn't Blix on this like a sparrow
hawk? The failure of these feedback loops breeds anomie, a sense of
helplessness at doing the appropriate?
10.    Why do we get no reports from Blix on the U2 and Mirage
surveillance flights?
11.    And why is Baghdad not more helpful? The argument is that Saddam
has to appear strong in the eyes of Iraqis or they will take him down.
Plausible. 
12.    Why does the press push so hard on Saddam and so weakly on the
logic of the situation? I mean the lack of Iraq - Al Queda connections,
the differences between Iraq and Islamic fundamentalism, and all these
other questions asked here? Another example, the well documented
pressure on Mexico to vote with the US.
13.    How can a coalition based on buying votes and bullying UN
members survive an historical analysis? It is very much against the
rising tide of decency in the world.
14.    Why does Bush present no budget and budgetary analysis of the
war? Part of the answer is that politicians and market analysts agree
hat the market will bounce back, either because of the war, or because
the war is over. But this seems to me very unlikely. The US is in a long
term negative position because of world over-production and increased
competition from lower wage countries. The loss of value to the Euro may
lead to a large shift towards the Euro as the international currency of
choice. This would put dollar values and foreign storing of money in the
US, in markets and Treasuries, at risk.
15.    Halliburton is the contractor of choice to rebuild the Turkish
sites now, and to redo the oilfields after an attack. Why does the press
not follow up these leads?
16.    Why is the press so weak on exploring the human casualties that
would result from the initial bombing? Who, when, how?
17.    Why does Bush - Rove look like Wilson - Colonel House (another
Protestant -  Texas axis). What does it tell us about the culture of the
United States?

The whole sense of confusion that arises from not being methodical could
be avoided, it seems, if method were applied. Here are some links to
show how people are trying.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/34322/1/.html
Saudi Arabia asks Iraq to propose a faster timetable than Blix's.

Bush focuses on Blix to avoid ElBaradei and the nuclear issue
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/068/oped/How_Bush_fudges_the_N_arms_is
sue+.shtml 

Analysis of Blix weakness
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,175969,00.html

London Times on report details and confusion sown by Blix.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html

Detailed report on today's inspections. (Why not the drone?)  Iraq says
needn't go faster.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/sprj.irq.missiles/

London Times this afternoon on the drone.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605538,00.html

Just as in y2k, where wisdom was that no one knew for sure, with enough
evidence to be so sure, yet most people easily took sides. In Iraq it is
important to not get hooked into any perspective without openness to
alternatives. For example, if the war happens, there is a chance the
general world feeling would be relief, and move rapidly towards solving
lots of previously intractable problems, and the US would revert to a
more civilized approach to just about everything. I don't believe it,
but that doesn't mean I am right. Just be aware. Unrealistic righteous
indignation is not a good way to be reasonable.

Douglass Carmichael
email doug () bigmindmedia com
home page www.dougcarmichael.com
blog www.dougcarmichael.com/roughcut.html
360-221-6127
Whidbey Island, Washington
 




------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/