From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Somaila & The Gulf War
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:59:52 GMT

awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:

>This is a more detailed rebuttal to those who are trying to
>claim that the US was justified in what it did in the
>Gulf "war" just under two years ago, and what it is doing
>now, the military occupation of Somalia.

Fair enough.


>Yes, I do think that war is profoundly immoral. However, I do believe
>that people have the right to defend themselves against an aggressor,
>and perhaps you agree with this also. So the basic disagreement
>we have is: was the US defending itself against a dangerous
>aggressor in the gulf war (and in Somalia), or was 
>(and is) something else going on? 

Sounds like Oliver Stone to me:)


>   Let's examine the assumption that Iraq was in fact a 
>dangerous aggressor, bent on taking over the whole
>Mid East. 

Well, Saddam Hussein repeatedly had made the statement that he intended to
rule the Middle East.  He invisioned a greater Iraq much in the same 
fashion as Nazi Germany.  He wanted to lead the Arab world to crush Israel
once and for all.  Now that sounds like a meglomaniac to me.  I believe
the analogy to Hitler is not so much a tight correlation, but rather the
closest thing that he could be compared to.


>There are two facts on which I'm 
>sure we both agree that bare on this assumption: 
>(1) Iraq was "defeated" in less than six
>weeks; and (2) very few US military personel were killed. 
>Moreover, Schwartzkopt himself characterized the action
>as a "Turkey Shoot," apparently refering to the ease with
>which they "defeated" Iraq. So if Iraq was really so dangerous, 
>as dangerous as Nazi Germany like the mass media and Bush claimed,
>then why was it so easy to "defeat" Iraq? It took the 
>combined powers of the US Britain and Soviet Union 4 years
>to defeat Nazi Germany, not six weeks!


Did you forget that we bombed the hell out of Iraq?  I can't remember 
exactly, but wasn't it the largest bombing campaign in history?  This is
only magnified by the fact that we limited our activities to military
targets.

I dunno 'bout you, but 40-some-odd-days of bombing tends to demoralize
an army.  Imagine, also, being afraid to turn on you radar to be able
to see us coming for fear of a HARM missile following the signal right 
back to you.

Please remember that we confronted Hussein early.  We kept appeasing
Hitler 'till it was too late.  I hope that ends the discussion comparing
Hussein to Hitler, because that is as far as the analogy goes.  Back to
Iraq.  If you have been keeping up with current events, I'm sure you know 
how close Iraq was to building a nuclear device.  Yes, significant amounts
of weapons grade plutonium were found by UN inspectors.  Hussein was not
close to making a crude atomic device as we were led to believe, rather he
was on the verge of building a thermonuclear weapon's program.  I'm not
saying that he wasn't a number of years off, but just good thing we stopped
him now.  Incidently, CIA estimates are that were it not for the GULF war,
Iraq was actually just about ONE year away from nuclear capability.


>  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do have
>plenty of questions:
>(1) Bush originally claimed that they were fighting 
>this "war" to get rid of Hussein, but he is still in power
>even after the US declared "victory". So just what were
>Bush's true motivations then? 

As I recall, we (as in the whole world united against Iraq) were sent over
under UN mandate to specifically expell Iraq from Kuwait by any means 
necessary.

I would also rexamine what you consider as Hussein still being in power.
He can't sell oil, so he's not spending billions of dollars a year on
his military.  His air force is now part of Iran's air force.  His assets
are frozen overseas.  Saddam is in solitary confinement.  I'm not saying
that it is a sound strategy on our part, but hs is no longer the threat that
he oonce was.  Remember one of the news briefings where ret. General Kelly
made the announcement that Iraq no longer posessed the world's 4th largest
army?


>(2)  Hussein was an ally
>of the US for about 10 years prior to the Gulf "war,"
>receiving all kinds of trade credits and bank loans
>(on a very large scale- billions of dollars worth)
>to buy military hardware and other stuff from the US.
>Both Reagan and Bush fought Congress hard to allow Hussein
>to do this from 1980-90. Given this, don't the Reagan 
>and Bush administrations bare at least some responsibility 
>for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait?

Well, sorta.  It was the old the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-ally situation.
Currently, there is no indication that Hussein used U.S. military
hardware against us.  The vast majority of his armaments came from the
former USSR and from China.


>(3)  There is apparently one other thing we disagree on. You
>say the majority of people in the US supported US actions
>in the Gulf "war".  But this support was very very thin.
>There were polls taken that said that if a thousand or more
>US military personel were killed, people would no longer
>support the action. In addition, opposition to the war
>was very strong and obvious before the bombing started
>(Dec.90 to early Jan. 91). But even if most people did
>support it, that doesn't justify it. If people are
>profoundly misinformed, they can be made to support just 
>about anything. One thing we probably agree on is that
>you can't trust the mass media because of its bias. So
>why should we trust the mass media when it was so
>obviously in favor of the Gulf "war"?  And since the
>mass media was so obviously biased in favor of the gulf
>war, it must follow that they were consciously misinforming
>the public to get them to support it also.

I'd say that the simple fact that Bush enjoyed the highest approval rating
of any President ever would help support the fact that most people
supported his actions.  The feeling at the time seemed to be "Nobody likes
war, but this job has to be done, so let's do it as well and as quickly as
we can."

There is no doubt that the Gulf War had support unparalled since WWII.


>(4)  I read recently that US troops in Somalia have been
>ordered to "shoot at anything they want to."  This 
>is certainly not consistent with a supposed humanitarian
>mission. And just how much food aid was the US sending
>to Somalia since the famine began many months ago? Very
>little, in fact. Why does Bush only become concerned
>about humanitarian causes when he decides to deploy 
>troops?  Why didn't he start a big campaign to send
>food aid over there a long time ago? And is he
>really sending large amounts food now? And why should
>a foreign occupying army (the US army) be able to
>more effectively distribute food, when the main
>effect of sending troops there is to greatly
>escalate the military conflict? There's no question
>that whatever local military forces are already in 
>Somalia are going to react to the newly arriving US
>troops in a hostile way, escalating the
>conflict. And even if more fighting doesn't take
>place, the presence of a large foreign army certainly
>increases tensions to an extreme degree. All of
>this makes it even MORE difficult to distribute
>food. And as a long term solution, the Somalians
>need a situation in which they can feed themselves,
>and escalating the military confrontation makes 
>this even more impossible.

You, sir, have been brainwashed by the media.  The U.S.led intervention in
Somalia amounts to nothing more than a great humanitarian gesture on the
part of the world.  That incident on the beach at the first Marine landing
was a disgrace to the media.  They want a good story, and they will 
overdramatize anything.  I wish they'd just let our boys do their job.

Back to your question.  I think it's great that our soldiers have the
right to defend themselves.  Wouldn't make much sense if they couln't, now
would it?

The reason that combat troops were needed is that Somalia was in total
anarchy.  There was no government in control at the time.  The wackos using
our intervention in Somalia as grounds for intervention in the Balkans are
totally off base.  The latter is a Ethnic War, and cannot be compared to
the humanitarian disaster that is occurring in Somalia.  80% of the food we
shipped wasn't even getting to people because of looters.  The "Mad Max"
gangs shooting defenseless civilians at will didn't help matters.  Also,
this drought is far worse than the droughts of the recent past in the
region.  

Your fears of an escalating military conflict are definately way out in left
field.  There is no army to offer a fight to begin with.  We hopelessly
out-firepower anybody there.  We are not an occupying force as the thousands
of starving people that greeted the Marines in Mogadishu will attest to. 

I am really rambling now.  I have to get my laundry, so feel free to respond
...I'll get back to you.
(sorry I didn't have time to go over what I just wrote...I hope I didn't
say anything I didn't mean to)
 

*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush