Consequences Of War

King Features Syndicate ^ | 2.10.2003 | Charlie Reese

[stainlessbanner]

I have no doubt that George Bush will launch an attack on Iraq, with or without United Nations Security Council approval. I have no doubt that the United States will win the war, though some Iraqi defectors have said recently that it might not be as easy as American officials think. But we will win.

So let's look at what the consequences are likely to be:

1. American lives will be lost. I've heard some military brass refer to the 146 killed in the first Gulf War as "negligible." I personally don't think the loss of even one American life is negligible. I think the casualties will be much higher. The fact that Iraqi soldiers ran from Kuwait — whose invasion they didn't think much of in the first place — doesn't mean that they will run away from defending their homes, their wives and their children.

2. America will be morally discredited. We will have attacked a country with a population of 20 million that did not attack us. Nobody in the world except politicians in Washington and London (if them) believe that Iraq, so terribly weakened by the Gulf War and the sanctions, is a threat to anybody. How can President Bush keep saying Iraq is a threat to its neighbors, much less the world, when Iraq's neighbors keep saying, "No, it is not a threat"? Every one of Iraq's neighbors — Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and, most especially, Israel — is more powerful than Iraq.

3. The Islamic world will be enraged, and that's more than 1 billion people. Terrorism directed against the United States will be increased, not decreased. However we see it, the war will be seen as an attack against Islam, as an attempt by the United States to recolonize the Arab world and to establish between ourselves and Israel domination and hegemony.

4. The United States will be tied down in Iraq for a year or more. We should learn from the Israeli experience. They went into Lebanon like a hot knife through butter, but they found that they couldn't stay. We will find out the same thing in Iraq. Even if we install a puppet government, we'll have to prop it up or else it will be overthrown.

5. The war will cost us between $100 billion and $200 billion. The president has not budgeted for that expense. The war and its likely effect on oil prices will certainly damage and could wreck our economy. Nobody is going to help us pay for it. The Arabs in the Gulf States are already saying to America about Iraq, "You break it, you buy it."

6. The Middle East will be destabilized — to what extent, it's impossible to predict. Some now-friendly governments could be overthrown. Nearly all will be forced to change their attitude toward the United States to appease their people. The forces of extremism will be greatly strengthened, and the moderates will be greatly weakened and perhaps rendered completely ineffective. Again, we should learn from the Israelis. They have not been able to kill their way to security and peace. Every time they crush an enemy militarily, they generate more and more hatred. The Middle East is not a region where memories are short or where forgiveness has much of a standing. Revenge is deeply imbedded in the culture of that region.

7. Finally, the United States will have served notice on every other country in the world that it will launch a pre-emptive attack against any country it imagines might be a threat, directly or indirectly, in the future. If you want a formula for a dangerous, unstable world, that's it. No country in the world will trust us again.

[stainlessbanner]

It might be worthy to discuss the Consequences of not going to war, as well.

[Catspaw]

Interesting. It's the same or similar argument put forward by Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott and Scott Ritter.

[ricpic]

I am not at all sure that Iraq is the best target. Everything points to Iran as the home office of Islamic terrorism. That said, the Bush administration is far too commited to back down now. The loss of face would be immense. Arab terrorists would be hugely emboldened. My hope is that the fall of Saddam in Iraq will have a domino effect on Iran. It's a case of can't go back so we better go forward.

[ArGee]

The Islamic world will be enraged, and that's more than 1 billion people. Terrorism directed against the United States will be increased, not decreased.

The rest of this post is pretty easily answered, but I wanted to speak directly to this point.

When Ronald Reagan bombed Tripoli there were all sorts of dire warnings about the grave consequences and how Americans the world over would suffer from terrorism. The actual result was that Khadaffy became very concerned about his border dispute with Chad, and it wasn't until Reagan was gone that there were any terrorist actions out of Libya.

The Terrorists are cowards and the Arabic "street" respects power. If we cower in a corner we can expect more terrorism. If we hit hard and fast we can expect terrorists to find softer targets.

Shalom.

[Jim Noble]

>>6. The Middle East will be destabilized<<

Since this is our principal strategic goal, I would certainly hope so.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Terrorists are cowards and the Arabic "street" respects power. If we cower in a corner we can expect more terrorism. If we hit hard and fast we can expect terrorists to find softer targets.

Exactly right.

Walt

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I agree that Bush has crossed the Rubicon.

The question of "defending their homes, their wives and their children" begs the question of, from whom? If we are not being greiviously deceived, Iraqi's have enough to worry about the government they now have. That is the question, of course, that always must be turned for regime change to occur.

And again, the issue is the extent to which the US can organize a government which is respected inside Iraq.

[genefromjersey]

Much as I respect Charlie Reese, it's worth pointing out :

1. The Muslim world already hates us , in spite of the billions in aid we have poured into it.
2. The Muslim world is already an unstable ( think "nitroglycerine - warmed to room temperature " ).
3. A failure to act now will mean a loss by default.

I've been opposed to a war on Iraq in the past, but have changed my mind, in view of the limited evidence provided. I still hope our aims can be achieved without armed conflict; but doubt the ability of the UN to do anything but debate,ask for money, and promote the agendas of its self-serving delegates.

[sheltonmac]

BUMP for discussion. Have we thought through the possible consequences of (undeclared) war? Is it at all possible that the long-term consequences of war just might outweigh the consequences of restraint?

[sheltonmac]

You know, I never see any serious discussion on why Congress refuses to declare war. I continue to wonder why, if Iraq is such an imminent threat to the security of the U.S., Congress cannot simply declare war and make it constitutional. Instead, they have essentially given the president a blank check that he can cash whenever and however he wants. Somehow I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

[stainlessbanner]

Good point. Ron Paul brought it to the table, but there were no takers. The last time the US formally declared war was 1941.

"The Constitution supposes, what the History of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.”

--James Madison, in a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson

WND: Bill would restore Congress' war powers

[JimRed]

Everything points to Iran as the home office of Islamic terrorism.

(in my best "bored civil servant calling out to a long line" voice) NEXT!

[Let's Roll]

And for the consequences of appeasement see non-revisionist European history 1939-1945 AD.

[stainlessbanner]

Another article on FR: Bush Does Not Need a Declaration of War

[Paleo Conservative]

'If we hit hard and fast we can expect terrorists to find softer targets'.

Like France?

[WhiskeyPapa]

'If we hit hard and fast we can expect terrorists to find softer targets'.

Like France?

No. Not worth the effort.

France was recently conquered by a high school band from Aldine, Texas.

Walt

[Catspaw]

Ron Paul won't be introducing any declaration of war.  He's in agreement with the lefties.  If you review the list of co-sponsors of this legislation, Paul is in fascinating company, including one of the Baghdad Three.

DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH’S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR

February 05, 2003

Press Release | Contact: Kristie Greco (202) 225-6416


WASHINGTON, DC— Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last fall. Following is DeFazio’s statement:

“I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.

“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.

“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.

“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.

“The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our resolution allows him that option.”

The legislation introduced today would repeal Public Law 107-243. The bill text reads in total:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."

The legislation repeals the broad delegation of authority Congress gave to the President in October, to launch military action against Iraq. Under this legally-binding resolution, the President would have to return to Congress to seek authority to launch a preventive attack on Iraq.

-30-

[ Release | Bill Text ]

 

H.J.RES.20
Sponsor: Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] (introduced 2/5/2003)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Title: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

H.J.RES.20
Sponsor: Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] (introduced 2/5/2003)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Title: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

---

COSPONSORS(29), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

 

Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 2/5/2003 [WI-2]	Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 2/5/2003 [MA-8]
Rep Carson, Julia - 2/5/2003 [IN-7]	Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 2/5/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 2/5/2003 [IL-7]	Rep Farr, Sam - 2/5/2003 [CA-17]
Rep Filner, Bob - 2/5/2003 [CA-51]	Rep Frank, Barney - 2/5/2003 [MA-4]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 2/5/2003 [AZ-7]	Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 2/5/2003 [IL-2]
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 2/5/2003 [OH-11]	Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. - 2/5/2003 [WI-4]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/5/2003 [OH-10]	Rep Lee, Barbara - 2/5/2003 [CA-9]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 2/5/2003 [WA-7]	Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 2/5/2003 [DC]
Rep Oberstar, James L. - 2/5/2003 [MN-8]	Rep Olver, John W. - 2/5/2003 [MA-1]
Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/5/2003 [NY-11]	Rep Paul, Ron - 2/5/2003 [TX-14]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 2/5/2003 [IL-1]	Rep Sanders, Bernard - 2/5/2003 [VT]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 2/5/2003 [IL-9]	Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 2/5/2003 [NY-16]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 2/5/2003 [CA-13]	Rep Towns, Edolphus - 2/5/2003 [NY-10]
Rep Waters, Maxine - 2/5/2003 [CA-35]	Rep Watson, Diane E. - 2/5/2003 [CA-33]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 2/5/2003 [CA-6]

[philosofy123]

Vive La France

The danger of not disarming Iraq is incalculable. The world would have understood our position easier if we discussed the subject rationally. Having the Neocons calling our allies insulting names does not resenbles the diplomatic norms!

[Catspaw]

This could have been said without using 48 pt. type.