The Case against Containment.

FReeper Talking Point ^ | 2/6/03 | ez

[ez]

A major talking point of the left in these pre-Iraq War days is that we don't have to remove Saddam because we have him "contained." By this, they mean to insinuate that he cannot hurt us because of our military presence in the area.

There are several things wrong with this theory, and one major way to counteract it.

First, the flaws. Flaw One...Terrorists networks Defeat Military Strength. Even a full blockade of Iraq could not keep Islamofascist terrorists from taking small amounts of bio-chem agents out of the country. As Sec. Powell noted, a teaspoon of Anthrax was enough to shut down the Senate building for months and kill two Postal Workers in NJ. Our military will not stop motivated individuals from slipping out with these agents and using them to harm hundreds of innocent people.

Flaw Two...Even if we do keep Saddam in a box for now, what's he doing in there? If he is left alone and develops a nuke, and then drops that nuke amidst our forces in the Gulf, he could take out a carrier, or worse. Would we lose more soldiers to a preemptive battle or an eventual nuke strike?

Flaw Three...Human Rights Abuses. Allowing Saddam to stay in power allows him to continue his beheadings, torture, rape, amputation, and murder of political enemies as well as their families. Read the UN report on Saddam's atrocities, and then try to justify allowing him to stay in power.

So we see that a containment strategy has many flaws, and relatively little benefit, except to the French and the American Democratic Socialists Party.

The counter to this approach lies in investigating the Risk/Reward ratio of the two scenarios...Regime Change v. Containment.

If Regime Change is pursued, should a good outcome be realized, Saddam is gone, his people are liberated from a tyrannical dictatorship, and we hopefully find the WMDs and destroy them.

A Bad Outcome pursuing Regime Change could result in dead or poisoned American soldiers. There is little thought that we would lose in the end, however, and worse case, we succeed but pay a heavy price.

Should we pursue Containment, and it works, then Saddam will stay in power, but not be able to attack anyone...for now. However, he would be free to work in the shadows developing his nuke.

A failure in the Containment strategy, however, would be catastrophic. Failure to contain means bio/chem agents getting delivered to targets in Israel, allies, and around the world by terrorists.

Looking at risk reward, it seems that if we follow George W. Bush's strategery of Regime Change, we can achieve ultimate victory with a worse case scenario of losing a large number of US troops. Troops, however, that volunteered to accept the risks in order to serve their fellow countrymen.

If we follow the policy of containment, we CANNOT achieve ultimate victory over the threat, and best case could only delay it, Worst case yields the nightmare of Iraqi WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists AND the development of a nuke. Failure to contain gives us "Mass Destruction" of innocent lives who are supposed to be kept secure by Fedgov.

Through this prism, it becomes clear that we must follow the path which may lead to success and minimizes civilian attacks...Regime Change, and reject the call for Containment, since it cannot achieve success and exposes us to the greates risk...another 9/11.

[ez]

The argument for containment should be eliminated in a short time.

[ez]

Inertial bump...

[Puppage]

Ya know...ya can't keep every bug out of your home yet you still put screens on your windows. Perhaps, they'd care to DEFINE containment?

[ez]

Ya know...ya can't keep every bug out of your home yet you still put screens on your windows.

Problem is, if even one bug gets into THIS house, people die.

[Puppage]

Sadly.....that's quite true.

[Man of the Right]

The case against containment is that we'd better win and redeploy our heavy forces to Korea right away.

[ez]

The case against containment is that we'd better win and redeploy our heavy forces to Korea right away.

Roger that...I met a guy yesterday, First Sargent he said, worked for General Dynamics and NASA, and showed me his WELL-decorated cover. He said we are definitely going to "drop an egg" on NK, and I'm not about to argue with that.

Actually, I don't see the need to deploy the heavy forces...I might leave them in place considering the event sin the Gulf. I read here that one Trident Sub with 24 empty tubes should pretty much take care of NK's threat.

[VMI70]

Exactly...

...and let me add that containment implies a long term stay of a large force in order to effectively keep SH surrounded. From a practical standpoint, that would be a very expensive proposition.

In addition, over time, our forces will lose their "edge" no matter how deadly the threat. It's the nature of the beast. Therefore, SH can afford to wait until our guard is down and then make his move.

No, containment is not the way to go. When we are in place and practiced, we ought to strike. The Iraqi field commanders know the scope of our current buildup, and they remember the results of Desert Storm. Because of that, I think there is a good chance that when SH orders the use of WMD, they will not comply.

Infiltrators carrying the bugs will cause damage of an unspeakable nature, but it would be nowhere nearly as horrendous as an all out military strike using CB agents.

[Man of the Right]

The casus belli is selling nukes, plutonium or nuclear technology. Unfortunately, this can be done through China with China's connivance. However, if they're dumb enough to ship it by sea, there's a good chance they'll be stopped by the U.S. or coalition (Japan, Australia, India) navies in international waters. Proof that nuclear materials have been shipped could trigger an all-out U.S. pre-emptive nuclear strike. I don't think Bush would have a chance, and I don't think he'd shrink from his responsibility. Every one's eyes are focused on Iraq, but North Korea poses a greater threat of the big one. Once nukes or plutonium are in terrorist hands, it would be next to impossible to prevent a nuclear strike in the U.S. without turning the country into a perfect police state. The American people do not understand the consequences of such a detonation. The experience would turn even some Democrats into Jacksonian nuke-'em-until-they-glow-then-shoot-'em advocates. Our various enemies are skating on thin ice. They should study our Civil War and the 1944-45 strategic bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan if they're in doubt how Americans react if faced with an implacable threat.

[Man of the Right]

If I were a Special Republican Guard or Republican Guard commander, I would be in touch with the U.S. regarding a possible coup or stand down on the outbreak of hostilities. The bulk of the Iraqi army will desert, remain in barracks (I don't think they're that well disciplined), or resist briefly to maintain their "honor" (though having lost wars to an out-numbered British force in 1941, the Israelis in 1948, 1967 & 1973) and had their ass thrown out of Iran by the Iranians in 1982 and Kuwait by us in 1991, it's hard to say what the source of that "honor" is).

[ez]

Proof that nuclear materials have been shipped could trigger an all-out U.S. pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Hope we got some smallish ones...we're downwind.

FReegards...

[jpl]

Anyone with any sense knows that "containment" is the policy you adopt toward a country that has already become a nuclear power, like North Korea, and that you do whatever it takes to prevent a madman from becoming a nuclear power. We're going to war for the very reason that we don't want Iraq to become another North Korea.

[ez]

Exactly... ...and let me add that containment implies a long term stay of a large force in order to effectively keep SH surrounded. From a practical standpoint, that would be a very expensive proposition.

In addition, over time, our forces will lose their "edge" no matter how deadly the threat. It's the nature of the beast. Therefore, SH can afford to wait until our guard is down and then make his move.

Good point, we can't maintain that buildup indefinitely.

Meanwhile, while Saddam waits for us to lower troop strength, in the deepest, darkest bunker in Iraq, his scientists work on his nuke.

[ez]

Moderate rewrite...

The counter to this approach lies in investigating the Risk/Reward ratio of the two scenarios...Regime Change v. Containment.

If Regime Change is pursued, the possible Reward is Saddam is gone, his people are liberated from a tyrannical dictatorship, and we hopefully find the WMDs and destroy them. The Risk is dead or poisoned American soldiers, and years of occupation. There is little thought that we would lose in the end, however, and worst case, we succeed but pay a heavy price.

Should we pursue Containment, Reward is that Saddam will not be able to attack anyone...for now. Further reward is the prevention of American casualities. However, Saddam would be free to work in the shadows developing his nuke. The Risk, however, would be catastrophic. Failure to contain means bio/chem agents getting delivered to targets in Israel, allies, and around the world by terrorists.

[VMI70]

"He said we are definitely going to "drop an egg" on NK"

Well, I hope that it is a neutron egg because considering the prevailing winds, I think the Japanese might have a few objections to the use of anything else nuclear. The aftereffects on them of a nuclear strike is unacceptable. A ground burst or air burst of even a small nuke, not to mention the ludicrous idea of emptying the tubes of a Trident on NK, would cause them great harm.

It would seem to me that the best way to go about neutralizing NK would be to attack with a combination of the new "flying microwave" cruise missles to disable the NK nuke electronics, and neutron bombs to kill a lot of people. The result would enable SK to immediately take over with most of the NK infrastructure, such that it is, in place.

I seriously doubt that your First Sargent [sic] has access to the war plans for dealing with NK, and if he did, I would imagine that his days outside the gray bar hotel would be limited if he revealed them to you. Also, I am having a hard time making the connection between our plans for NK and NASA.

I think this fellow is passing on the results of the barracks rumor mill.

[ez]

I think this fellow is passing on the results of the barracks rumor mill.

My post at number 11 will show that I mainly agree with you wrt smaller tactical ordinance and radiation dispersal. The dude was probably trying to get a rise out of me.

And it was FReepers that mentioned emptying a Trident on them, but in retrospect, that seems harsh.

I like your neutron scenario, and I'm glad the real actors for our side don't operate with the emotionalism of FReepers or retired Korean vets.

[Mike Darancette]

The argument for containment should be eliminated in a short time.

The only reason that the current inspections are even allowed by Iraq is because there are about 100,000 hostile troops on the Iraqi border, armed to the teeth and 5 aircraft carriers within striking distance.

[VMI70]

"The only reason that the current inspections are even allowed by Iraq is because there are about 100,000 hostile troops on the Iraqi border, armed to the teeth and 5 aircraft carriers within striking distance."

Bump!

[VMI70]

"And it was FReepers that mentioned emptying a Trident on them..."

I know. I have read the posts. It sounds good, but they are not thinking about the ramifications. They are probably young, so the idea of devastating Iraq and NK with big, powerful weapons has a certain appeal, not to mention the element of morbid curiosity.

What they need to understand is that the damage done by CB agents, while horrific and psychologically much scarier, is a veritable walk in the park compared to the results of nuclear strikes.

If at all possible, it is best to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.

[TankerKC]

Good stuff!