Why not a containment policy?
With all the sabre-rattling, one might ask if there are any alternatives to war with Iraq. We could ignore them. We can continue with sanctions, which have been partially effective in crippling the economy of Iraq and providing an economic brake on the rebuilding of the Iraqi military. We could formalize the defacto partition of the country into Kurdistan and a new Shiite eastern state with a moderate armed force. This may piss off the Turks, but if they have hegemony over the new (oil-rich) state and its pipeline, the objections would be muted. The Saudis would really be pissed of by a new Shiite state on their border, but that is an advantage to this plan.
Or, we could fall back on a strategy which served us well for 50 years with a much more dangerous, militarily capable foe - containment. The attributes for Iraq currently are compared for those for the Soviet Union at the time of the Cold War and the elaboration of the containment policy by John Foster Dulles and others. Those for our other pet pariah, but not charter member of the "axis of evil," Cuba, are provided for a comparison to a current containment target.
Attribute |
|
Country |
|
|
Iraq |
USSR |
Cuba |
Military Capability |
Two divisions (if that) |
Several full armies and General Winter |
One division? |
Industrial Capability |
Crippled |
Substantial |
Defunct |
Oil supplies |
Coveted |
Perhaps the largest untapped reserves in the world |
Nil |
Natural resources, except oil |
Pitiable, but self-sufficient in food |
Everything else |
Sugar and salsa |
Unpredictable dangerous dictator |
Crazy like a fox. But seriously, Saddam has shown no tendencies to self-destruction; maintaining power is his goal. |
From psychos (Stalin) to Republicans (Gorbachev) |
Only according to certain right-wing ideologues and Miami Cubans |
Support for terrorists |
Questionable for Al Qu'eda; yes for certain Palestinian groups |
Well-documented (Red Brigades, PFLP, etc., as well as various "liberation movements") |
After Ché, doubtful. |
Weapons of Mass Destruction |
Chemical and biologic |
The gamut |
None since 1962 |
Nuclear weapons |
Only WMDs (weapons of mass distraction) |
Thermonuclear |
None |
Delivery systems |
A limited number of SCUDs with ranges <500 nm |
MIRVed ICBMs & nuclear subs |
Nada |
Economic stability |
Incipient collapse |
Initially robust |
Incipient collapse |
Effects of embargo |
Further collapsing |
No formal embargo, but economy collapsed anyway |
Economy near death |
Threat to neighbors |
Yes (Kuwait, Iran) |
Yes (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) |
Grenada? |
Economic benefits of embargo |
Smuggling relieves us from need to support Kurdish economy ( and provides a subsidy to Turkey) |
n/a |
Cheap vacations (via Canada, Mexico, etc.) |
Casualties of containment |
Containment and embargo may, over years, kill more Iraqi citizens than an invasion. |
Certainly starvation, pogroms and the gulag killed millions, but that was not due to any external embargo. |
Hunger is occurring in Cuba, but due as much (or more) to economic mismanagement than embargo |
Costs of policy |
Continued enforcement of embargo and "no-fly" zones is expensive but less than full scale invasion |
The majority of our current national debt |
Minimal at present, as embargo is being winked at |
I'm sure there are other points in favor of the containment. There's nothing about Iraq that the USSR didn't have in spades. The cost in dollars and in American lives should make us consider this carefully.
Oh, I almost forgot some of the other points in favor of containment.
Good campaign fodder |
Yes, pull it out anytime |
Good buddies now |
Only when campaigning in Florida |
"Tried to kill my daddy" |
Are you still seriously harping on that old canard? |
|
|
Posted by Gordon at December 20, 2002 09:40 PM
| E-mail Author
| Back to main page
