Hunting The Muse: Refined Iraq Thoughts

March 09, 2003

Refined Iraq Thoughts

In my previous Iraq entry I was trying to put my finger on what was bugging me about our approach. I have it now.

The reason Bush has a credibility problem here is because he's putting on a charade, and people sense it even if they can't put words to it.

The problem is he's asking Iraq to prove that they have no weapons of mass destruction. Or to fully disarm, but the end result of that is that they prove they don't have the weapons.

This is a logical impossibility. Iraq will never be able to do that. It doesn't have to do with them being unwilling, it's simply impossible.

You can't prove a negative, unless the negative has a contrapositive you can prove the presence of. If you ask me to prove I'm not dead, I can do so only because I can prove I am alive. But if you ask me to prove I have never seen a hedgehog, or eaten ostrich, or run the 440 hurdles, I can't, because they have no positive opposite.

Iraq can't prove there aren't any WMD in their borders for this reason. They only way they'd be able to prove it is if they got a million satellites (that could see through concrete, lead, and into underground bunkers) to take pictures of their entire country all at the same time, at high enough resolution that they'd be able to positively identify every object as Not WMD.

The meaning of the word "proof" has been blurred here. Proof means that you don't have to rely on someone else's subjective interpretation for it to be accepted as true.

But no matter what Iraq brings forward, Bush can interpret it however he pleases. "That's not enough. I'm sure you're hiding more. Prove you don't."

This is why Bush has low credibility; it's transparent to some (at least translucent to others). He's so clearly trying to manipulate his way into justification for war.

For him to have credibility, he'd really have to do one of three things:

Give Iraq something they would legitimately be able to prove
Provide proof (see above) that Iraq has the WMD
Make his case to the U.N. by pleading suspicions, track record, and history. Just friggin admit he wanted to go to war from the beginning and try to convince everyone he has good reasons.

There are plenty of other reasons, I'm sure, for me to be opposed to this whole mess, but this is the crust of it for me. He's false. I can't even judge the credibility of anything else he claims or says when he pulls this kind of crap that is just false.

(What's silly about this is that the U.N. diplomats, were they to read this, would probably roll their eyes and thing, "Duh, we're fifty steps ahead of you... this talk about the integrity of the U.N.? We're just trying to get another fifty million barrels out of the U.S. before we sign off.")

Posted by Curt at March 9, 2003 03:36 AM

Comments

Curt, it might just be that it's 6:15am and I haven't had coffee yet, but I'm not following your logic. During the December deadline, Iraq was able to produce a 1200 page document concerning their chemicals and weapons as well as 12 cds with supporting data. On the day before the deadline I might add. What on earth makes you think they don't have have what we need to convince us that they don't have illegal weapons or chemicals? You're forgetting that Bush isn't in charge of the inspections. You might be on the right track if the head inspector was saying, "I think they've cooperated fully and have turned over all documentation and there are no remaining illegal WMD". They would have a degree of certainty of this by their visits, documentation, and interviews they have done. It's not Bush who is saying that they are not cooperating fully.

I'm not a Bush fan either, but I don't know that I would go as far as you to think he is making it impossible for Iraq to get in compliance. Irag HAS a track record. They HAVE a history of non compliance, they LIED about what weapons they have.

I question Bush's motives sometimes too, but I don't doubt that Iraq is a potential threat. I question why Bush wants Sadaam out of power even if he disarms. That is the part that makes me think that Bush wants the oil, but I don't think he's quite dumb enough to wage war for it. I think that is just a side benefit of it in his mind. You can bet that if we don't get the support of other countries, that we are definitely going to make sure we get the oil as a way of balancing off the debt it is going to take to rebuild Iraq after we bomb it. Now, if other countries went into this with us, I bet they would have more power over us in not throwing Sadaam out of power.

Have you ever given thought to the fact that the reason, say France and Germany, won't go to war is the oil?

Posted by: at March 9, 2003 06:40 AM

Sorry, that is my post up above. I forgot to add my name. Also, I was looking through some articles from the past...look at this..back in 1992!

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992/index.html

Posted by: Deborah at March 9, 2003 07:05 AM

Here is an example of what I was talking about...I forgot that it includes Russia as well...this is from a publication called Russia weekly. From what I can tell, not influenced by Americans. http://www.cdi.org/russia/246-3.cfm

"So what does Russia want?

As one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, it wants the institution to continue to be taken seriously. It wants the UN Security Council, not the United States, to be the one to authorize the use of force.

Of more immediate importance, Russia wants to maintain its economic presence in Iraq if Saddam Hussein's regime is ousted. It should ask for and receive guarantees from Washington that its oil contracts will be honored. Considering the billions of dollars that Turkey got for going along with U.S. war plans, this does not seem like too much to ask.

Putin may be playing a smart game by joining the French and Germans in posing a threat to the passage of the U.S.-British resolution for now. In this way he can try to extract as much as possible from the United States.

But he should not let his head be turned by unrealistic thoughts of an alliance with the French and Germans being a real global counterweight and risk doing irreparable damage to relations with the United States, where Russia's real interests lie."

Posted by: Deborah at March 9, 2003 07:16 AM

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992/920304-218167.htm

Posted by: Deborah at March 9, 2003 07:48 AM

I don't really see how your points relate to mine at all. You're giving insights about why France/Germany/Russia aren't going along with the U.N., and offering theoretical justification about why some people believe they ultimately will.

All I'm saying is this: America has no proof that Iraq has WMD. We're asking Iraq to prove they don't. That's impossible for Iraq to do (even if they don't have any). Bush hasn't named or even admitted one explicit scenario that would lead to him saying, "Ok, I guess you have fully disarmed." There isn't one. And it's because Bush is certain that they have them. And yes, MAYBE FOR GOOD REASON. But all this stuff about giving them a final chance to disarm, it's a charade.

This whole thing is just stupid because WMD are like ideas. Once you have the knowledge to make them, actually making them is not hard. That's not true for all cases, of course, but chemical weapons? If Iraq had papers, or scientists displaying in-detail knowledge, or dual-purpose materials that could be used for manufacture of WMD, they'd be declared in breach.

It's been a charade from the beginning, the goal has always been at least full regime change, but probably accompanied by invasion/occupation.

Posted by: Curt at March 9, 2003 02:00 PM

I will respond to this very soon. I just spent 3 hours gardening and I'm tired at the moment. I disagree with you on this point..We KNOW (and they have admitted) that they have WMD. They haven't admitted to everything we suspect them to be guilty of, but what do you think about long range missles and anthrax? Does that count?

Posted by: at March 9, 2003 05:10 PM

The al Samoud missiles aren't categorized as WMD, not that I've ever heard. They would be if they had a nuclear payload, of course. I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the anthrax - what, evidence that they've made it before? This is the exact lack of clear standards that makes this such a sham. There isn't an identified anthrax-manufacturing (or storage) facility in Iraq, not that has been made public. I was reading an article today that quoted an air force official as being frustrated that while they had the weapons to somehow neutralize chemical stockpiles (vaporize them I guess), they didn't have any identified chemical stockpile targets.

Posted by: Curt at March 9, 2003 09:31 PM

Let's see, in 1995 Iraq admitted, after denying it initially of course, that they made 8500 liters of anthrax. They told UN inspectors they destroyed it, but have not offered any evidence of it.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021108-712686.htm

Posted by: Deborah at March 9, 2003 09:53 PM

Another source...

http://breaking.tcm.ie/2003/02/09/story87619.html

"Blix said that the inspectors had also been given a number of papers over anthrax and missile issues and on VX, a chemical nerve agent."

Posted by: Deborah at March 9, 2003 09:59 PM