| Subject: WP Flawed Contentions |
Author:
Melody Berry
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:52:30 02/14/02 Thu
In reply to:
MikeKnight
's message, "More Reliable Source" on 19:22:10 02/13/02 Wed
Strictly in response to the Washington Post article (my actual answer to the original topic will be on another post at a later time), I offer the following:
Adelman claims expanding the terror war to Iraq would be a cakewalk, because "(1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps." So, logically, I'll present my arguments against each of these contentions.
(1) It was a cakewalk last time
>The first contention made by Adelman is contradicted by another point in the article. He states "In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a domestic coalition...This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as 'coalition partners' to convince the Washington establishment that we're right." Unfortunately this attitude parallels what will greatly damage US relations with those 'rinky-dink nations'. It is debatable whether the US can successfully oust Hussein from power in Iraq through military power. But to do this without the support of the general global community is extremely dangerous. In light of Bush's bold statements against Iraq, other governments have expressed strong opposition to plans of attacking Iraq. Is the US willing to walk into Iraq alone? Domestic support will be a military gain. Yet, expecting a similar positive outcome as achieved ten years ago will be impossible because of the change in support internationally.
(2) They've become much weaker
>The second contention is once again countered, this time by the common reasoning as to why Iraq is a threat. Adelman believes "Iraqi forces have received scant spare parts and no weapons upgrades. They have undertaken little operational training since Desert Storm." Bush, however, warns of the "increasing likelihood that Iraq will use WMDs against the United States and our allies." While, I acknowledge the difference between military forces and WMDs, it is unfair to assume Hussein's administration has become weaker simply because of an unknown military status. If the US were to attack Iraq, the threat of retaliation through the use of a chemical or biological attack proves just the opposite of Adelman's second contention.
(3) We've become much stronger
>I will not deny the US military strength. Still, the negative impact of this is a rising fear that the US will use its military strength as the only way to combat terrorism and defeat "rogue states". As the EU's external affairs commissioner, Chris Patten believes, "The stunning and unexpected rapid success of the military campaign in Afghanistan was a tribute to American Capacity. But it has perhaps reinforced some dangerous instincts; that the projection of military power is the only basis of true security; that the US can rely on no one but itself; and that allies may be useful as an optional extra."
(4) now we're playing for keeps
>Adelman's final contention points out the largest threat the US would encounter if it were to attack Hussein. In order to have complete victory in Iraq, the US would have to successfully oust Saddam out of power. Analysts admit the actions of Hussein would be unpredictable, if the US were to attack him. As in every past war, the defending party has the advantage, knowing as long as they can hold the opposition back, they will remain in power. The longer they hold the army, the weaker it becomes. The US, in the attacking position, would not only have to gain control of an unfamiliar ground, but maintain security against potential attacks. There is no proper estimate on exactly how long operations within Iraq would take; how many armies and weapons it would require; or how Iraq will counter our attempts. Bush and the rest of the world, perhaps even Saddam himself do not know. Therefore, this contention, as a reason why attacking Iraq would be a cakewalk, has no justification or evidence of a positive outcome in extending the terror war to Iraq.
Adelman's final thoughts suggest measuring "by any cost-benefit analysis". So, it is only appropriate to use this same method to measure the flaws within his own contentions and vote NEG (meaning Melody was right to defend Iraq, because it is the coolest).
PS- Again, please bear in mind that I have not yet posted my response as to whether or not I believe we should attack Iraq. Although these arguments can be considered reasons not to attack, I have focused mainly on answering views brought up in the Washington Post article.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 