From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Bush giving up? (Colin Powell)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:34:45 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

I can never fault Bush for stopping the war too soon even though I think it
was the wrong decision. A president must consider political, PR, moral, as
well as military issues when making such a decision. The war aim, for the
most part, were viewed as achieved. The number of US casualties was *very*
small. Since wars, even cake-walk wars, are inherently dangerous things;
every hour the war continued there is a chance for a catastrophy that
would *proportionally* increase the casualty list substaintially. The "lucky
Scud" is an example of what could have happened. If, say, during the pursuit
phase a major U.S. ship was sank with thousands of deads, Bush and the US
would have not emerged from the war so gloriously. Bush would have been 
accused of continuing the war too long for goals beyond the original aims
at massive cost in lives.
Given all those considerations, and the TIME PRESSURE under which a decision
had to be made (with perhaps incompleate or inaccurate information), I can
never fault a leader for making the wrong call.


HOWEVER, since the ceasefire the situation was handled all wrong. After a few
days to assess the situation and think, and with popularity at home and
abroad sky-high; Bush had no excuse to make bad decisions.
The failure to aid the Kurds and Shiites or at least provide them with air
cover has been (over)studied here and elsewhere so I will not repeat it.

The error that bugged me the most was the decision to withdraw from southern
Iraq as quickly as possible. The oft-stated fear of being bogged down in a
protracted guerilla war flies in the face of the terrain (desert) and the
population (sparse, and not too friendly to Saddam & co.). The area of Iraq
that was occupied is the HEART of Iraqi oil-country (some additional oil
in the Kirkuk area). Continued occupation of it would have provided real
pressure on Iraq after the war. This is the plan that should have been
followed:
Set up (with UN approval, if desired) a multinational committe to administer
the occupied land. The committe may pump oil and sell it on the international
market with proceed divided according to some formula among:
1.	The committe's operating expenses
2.	The inhabitants under the committe's jurisdiction (including the
	Shiite refugees from the revolt that were abandoned during the withdrawl)
3.	A fund for humaniterean aid to Iraqis (so we won't have to plead for
	them to sell $1.6B of oil to feed their own people)
4.	The costs of weapon inspections and destructions.
5.	The war damages reperations assessed against Iraq by the security council.
	Mostly for Kuwait, but Israel should also be able to get some. (As it
	is, does anyone seriously think Iraq will EVER pay for those damages, 
	like the burning oil fields).
6.	Iraq's prewar debt. (That would help out Russia, Kuwait, and the West.
	as it is this debt is essentially uncollectable)
7.	Refund the cost of the war to the contributing allies (if this looks to
	tacky, we could drop this one).
8.	Other uses the Security Council may approve. (say, if the SC wants to
	impose a no-fly zone, it may designate the committe funds to finance it).
9.	The rest would be reserved in a special fund to be made available to Iraq
	once sanctions were lifted.

Items 1-4 are basically small change and should be taken of the top. Items 5-7 are
major, and should be set up on a fund basis (i.e. 25% of revenues are used to pay
into the prewar debt fund, until - if ever - it is all paid.  The funds fiduciaries
then pay to debtors with valid claims. etc.). By allowing the SC to add more users
to the fund (if Iraq misbehaves) and by leaving the reminder to (frozen) Iraqi
accounts, hopefully, Iraq will be discourged from naughtiness. Even if Iraq is
not discourged, the rest of the world won't mind so much if Iraqi money is used to
pay for dealing with Iraqi games.

And if the West really wanted to get devious, they could have pumped those wells
like mad driving world oil prices down and end the world recession while Bush's
aproval ratings where still sky high. The Kuwaiti wouldn't have minded (they were
not producing any, their wells were burning) and the Saudi would have setteled
for a period of less profits (they made out like bandits in the DS/DS days 
with high prices and tripples quota). Anyway, even if they did mind, they were
in no position to oppose Bush. (Of course, what the other OPEC members think is
not relevent - anything to annoy Libya, Iran, and friends).


Well, it was not done. TOO BAD. I doubt such a thing could still be implemented,
maybe after the next major Iraqi flare-up (I am allowed to dream, am I not?)

Any thoughts?

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc