From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 23 Aug 92 13:36:02 GMT
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: bzs@ussr.std.com's message of 23 Aug 92 09:02:01 GMT

In article <BZS.92Aug23040201@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> >	The US has set itself up as policeman to the world, with that
> >sort of hubris why wouldn't the US be able to invite an Iraqi invasion.

> If this is true then why didn't Hussein pull out when we told him to?
> You keep arguing yourself into corners.

	Because he didn't want to.  There's a difference between
accepting an invitation and following an order from someone lacking
in authority.

> I don't see your reasoning why you think it makes us wrong in the end,
> is this supposed to be accepted on faith? Because you said so?
> We gave Hussein six months to pull out, do you believe there were no
> diplomatic efforts (not just by the US, by countries Hussein would
> feel more comfortable with, Qaddaffi warned him to withdraw for
> example tho I have no idea what Hussein really thinks of Qaddaffi.)

	Ah, you take the position that diplomacy is anything a
diplomat does.  Issue orders, make toast, have sex, etc.,.
"WE" told Hussein to leave, Qaddafi TOLD Hussein to leave, that's
diplomacy.  No discussion, no room for difference of view point.
Talk among "diplomats" IS diplomacy.  Bosh.  The Algerians DID
make an effort at true diplomacy and were dissuaded and ignored
by the Americans.  Diplomacy is not doing what the US says
because they have the might and say their right.

> The Saudis and the Egyptians were obviously displeased with the
> situation and expressed that. Etc. It's hard to think of a country who
> might have advised Hussein that staying put was a good idea in the
> face of the resistance he had six months to assess.

	Of course the Saudis were displeased, they are no more
legitimate rulers than the Kuwaiti royals.  The Egyptians only
get several billion dollars a year from Uncle Sam.  The USSR 
did not object to blatant imperialism because they were trying to
get loans/aid and World Bank membership.  How could Hussein be
so insolent as to not do what the US wanted, how the US wanted
after the US told him to do it.

> Who was supposed to get through to Hussein?

	I don't know.  I don't know how to get through to Bush.

> Has it occurred to you that it's just possible he is a murderous
> bastard and didn't care? I mean, it sure fits the facts.

	Has it occurred to you that the US has so much blood on
its hands that:  1. it has no moral authority to police the
world.  2.  Hussein looks like Mother Theresa in comparison.

> >	It wasn't my claim, in fact I think it's ludicrous.  The
> >national and international merits of going to war, at least for
> >Bush and his cronies, far outweighed any other option.

> Another "proof by assertion".

	Well, its pretty obvious that no other option was tried.

> I'm not sure I understand this paragraph, too many antecedents. Are
> the 250K Iraqi troops? An invasion by which side would have needed
> longer supply lines...I'll not comment as I'm 99% sure I don't
> understand what you're saying here.

	The US's original "justification" for sending troops to
the area was to defend Saudi Arabia.  If the US knew the Iraqis
had only 250,000 troops in Kuwait there is no defensive reason
to send 400,000 and later (just after the US elections) 800,000
troops.  An Iraqi invasion was implausible also for the fact
that the supply lines they would have needed to reach significant
Saudi oil fields were far longer than those they managed in
Iran.  A better reason for the US to send a larger number of
troops was that they would be necessary for an invasion of
Kuwait/Iraq.  800K to 250K easily makes the three to one
ratio that students of war say is usually necessary to overcome
defensive forces.

> >	Hussein "backed off" by August 9 with his first effort
> >to settle the dispute diplomatically.  The US systematically
> >refused to engage in diplomacy and impeded/scuttled attempts by
> >others (notably the Algerians) to do so.  If diplomacy works
> >what good is our military-industrial complex?

> What do you mean by "backed off"? You mean he offered to withdraw his
> troops? You mean he withdrew his troops? As I remember he didn't
> really offer much anything, certainly nothing that involved removing
> troops and undoing the invasion.

	Your memory is only as good as the original reporting.
Hussein made the first offer to negotiate a settlement of the
border dispute and withdrawal of Iraqi troops on August 9, merely
one week after the invasion.  This offer was met, as all subsequent
attempts at real diplomacy were met, by total refusal on the part
of Bush to discuss any such thing.  If Hussein didn't totally
prostrate himself to American whims and interest, the US (Bush)
wasn't interested.

> Had Hussein simply withdrawn do you really think much would have
> happened to him? Perhaps something, I won't discount that, but I doubt
> the world could have justified broad military action if he withdrew.

	"The world" had precious little justification as it was.

> Diplomacy works when diplomacy works. I don't understand what you
> think diplomacy is capable of. If one side is intransigent and doesn't
> care about the leverage used in diplomacy (economic sanctions, etc)
> then how can it work? It takes two to tango.

	I know that, we seem to disagree on which side was intransigent.

> I never attempted to justify what occurred in Panama, and I don't feel
> at all comfortable with it.

	Well how do you think the Panamanians feel?  Uncomfortable?

> But that does not prove that we were wrong in Iraq. Unless all you
> think that is to be considered is consistency.

	If you insist that moral correctness is THE reason we
invaded Iraq then examples of lack of same on the part of the
US should be held as counter-evidence.

> Given that as the only standard could we ever do the right thing?
> It doesn't seem possible, does it?

	Have "we" ever tried?

> >	If diplomacy cannot settle problems then US military might
> >is still important on the world stage and we might even be able to
> >get our "allies" to finance it.  And we definitely still need to have
> >the American people finance it.  We won this one for the generals and
> >the MIC.

> That's a nice hypothesis. Does the current trend in defense spending
> back up your hypothesis? I don't think so.

	It may have been a short-lived victory in that regard,
or things might have been worse without it.  It certainly removed
much of the stigma from America's military interventionism and gave
Bush a shot in the popularity arm.

					--Jeff Turner