Replies

a) confidence that the White House has a coherent plan and won't screw it up, thereby causing an oil crisis and global recession.

b) that the US is willing to listen to the views and consider the interests of other nations who might be affected by any such action - especially the one major ally that might support the idea of removing Saddam.

Yes, I agree that these conditions would have to be met. Britain would be more damaged by a 1973 style oil crisis than the USA, hence the US government must sweeten the Arab countries before taking any action, if it wants to get the support of the British people.

The anti-war crowd aren't persuadable IMO.

No they aren't, but they are a tiny minority.

Most of the UK isn't in that group though but rather look on war as an extension of soccer and take great pride when our 'team' wins. These folks are generally revolted by Saddam and would be quite content to go after him under most circumstances.

The majority of Britons are peaceful people who are appalled by the prospect of a bloody war. Only a small proportion, (usually those who are not at any risk from military conscription if the war spreads), see fighting a war overseas more like a patriotic game.

The average Brit, IMO is concerned because there are so many different stories leaking out of Washington, some of them quite obvious disinformation aimed at allies...

Regardless of what Washingtom says it seems clear that if Iraq is involved with Al Qaeda then it is a serious threat to the USA and Britain and should be sorted out. Have you read any of the reports on Hussein's regime by Khidir Hamza, (the Iraqi nuclear defector)? Do you think it is safe to leave Saddam Hussein running Iraq any longer?

...it looks like the US doesn't know what it's doing and is rather clumsily trying to hide the fact that the military wants a risk-free plan involving local bases (ie pesky allies) and massive heavy forces while their civilian bosses want a financially and politically cheaper approach based on air-power, special forces and local allies, that would be much riskier...

The USA is the only country in the World which can sort out Iraq. It must utilise at least as much military might as it did during Desert Storm. Relying on Iraqi rebels or other 'local allies' would be a serious mistake, since that scenario could backfire terribly.

Based on analogy with the first mainland IRA incidents, it won't be ready to hear that stuff for some years, so I don't really think that there *are* any arguments that can help with the situation we find in this morning's UK papers.

If Iraq is providing material support to Al Qaeda and is developing an Atomic bomb, then don't you think that would convince most British people to support a plan to depose Saddam? After all, the threat of an A-bomb attack on Britain or America organised by Iraq and carried out by Al Qaeda must be a distinct possibility once Iraq obtains a nuclear capability. A Biological weapons attack put together by Iraq could come before Saddam gets a nuclear capability.

I think Blair has to back away from his stance of unconditional support for the US or be scragged by his own party.

If there is evidence of Iraqi complicity in the September 11th attacks and/or an ongoing cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then I think the Labour party would have to give grudging support to any Military action to resolve the situation.

If the argument is based on the risks posed by access to WMD by terrorists, then I have yet to talk with anyone who doesn't accept that this isn't a matter of grave concern.

The problem I think, is that people have differing views on how to measure and balance the risks of various scenarios that they can imagine in this context.

For example, one comeback I've had over the last week (I've been doing a bit of informal 'research' on friends and relatives) is that yes, Saddam is a creep and may have WMD of some kind, but Pakistan has them also and seems to many a more likely source of them, for extreme Islamic terrorists at least. Plenty of other examples occurred, including some 'tin foil hat' ones which I'll leave to one side for now.

They also tend to point out that this is a complex situation where any action can have unpredictable side effects from one risk scenario to another. E.G. Iraq is invaded pretty successfully, but Pakistan goes Islamic as part of the subsequent evens and we all get nuked anyhow.

Most people, unless they're completely nuts, can agree that some such non-Iraq risks exist too without any problem, the place they start to disagree, is when it comes to balancing these risks, and various potential nasty interactions, against each other.

For example, it's pretty easy to discuss the risks of driving quickly vs being late. You might disagree with someone's priorities, but we all know how to balance that stuff.

These aren't risks like the risk you take when crossing the road, or even the risks measured by a body of accepted, well understood science like that around the dangers of smoking.

This is the kind of risk where people disagree on far more fundamental stuff. They can't agree about how to measure it, so it's more like a discussion of the risks of say global warming, where even the experts don't all agree, than it is like discussing whether it's safe to cross at a traffic light, where we all know how to judge the risks involved from an early age, with no reliance on experts or spin-doctors of whatever persuasion.

This is when people get angry with each other, because they are balancing the risks differently, depending if they have a libertarian, egalitarian, hierarchical or cyncial view of the way the world works. So what they are saying either sounds like loony nonsense or downright evil, depending who is looking at who on that occasion.

I think the BIG problem here then, is that many people simply don't trust any of those who are appointed by the present circumstances as the incumbent experts. This is compounded by the usual transatlantic prejudices, but there are some particular issues too.

I take the White House approach to be informed by a strong awareness that if you allow complexities to exist in the public mind, then that public will very soon be divided on whether the risks should be measured and balanced against each other precisely as their government measures them.

That immediately creates a situation where many people who can see the complexities clearly, start violently shouting about them. I.E. this approach has the opposite of the intended result, because it fundamentally insults peoples intelligence, which many people rather resent. This is also I suspect, the basis of the 'stupidity' charge often heard.

It makes the libertarians and egalitarians angry and determined to get everybody to notice the complexities and adopt their way of balancing the risks (if they can agree on one, which they almost certainly can't)

It makes the cynics even more bitter and twisted and leaves the hierarchical folks yelling "traitor' at the people who won't accept the US government's word unconditionally and keep pointing out inconvenient alternative scenarios and/or trying to balance the risks another way.

I'm not sure one fixes this exactly.

Historically, I think that's exactly *why* so many countries have ended up passing some sort of rule that parliament or whover must approve of any proposed war.

The principle being, if you can't get 500 or so of those folks to agree to do it, it's probably going to be so hugely divisive that public opinion ends up crippling your forces.