The War arguments

[GePap]

I know there already are various Iraq threads up, but I honestly do not think such a long statement fits as a post (to Ming). I also hope it leads to, if for a few posts, a good arguments about Iraq, instead of the tired tirades. Finally, I can use this a s reference next time someone asks me about Iraq. So lets go:

As I see it, there are 4 main arguments about going to war with Iraq right now. They are 1) The Saddam-Osama WMD axis. 2) The UN's honor argument 3) the Kinght of Freedom arguemnt 4) The New WM's Burden argument.

1. This argument is probalby by far the one most Americans use to suport this war. The lastest NYTimes poll found that 42% of those answering believed Saddam had some connection himself to 9/11. NOw, the basic arguemtn goes as follows: a) WMD, even bio-chem, in the hands of terrorist can kill hundreads of thousands of Americans. b) Osama and Saddam both hate us, so they will work in concert c) The cost of not acting (hundread of thosands of Americans dead form a WMD attack) is much higher than inaction.
I must say I find this argument the least compelling of all by far So lets start: a) What about the worst case scenerio of going to war? Let me use a plausible one:
The war goes longer than expected, perhaps 3 months. IN that time, strong Iraqi resistance in key cities lead to massive Iraqi casualties, and heavy American ones. The lenght of the war cause mass protests around the world, and in pro-US muslim states the regimes come to the brink of collapse, and this is most likely in Pakistan. Al Qaeda uses the chaos to launch more attacks and still gets it's hand on Iraqi WMD, either cause the Iraqi regime in its last days gives them to Al qaeda, or they get it in the chaos. Hundreads fo thousands of Americans still die in an attack., but this time world sympathy is zip, since people will state you reap what you sow. Now, is this plausible outcome probable? NO, it isn't, but neither is the worst case scenerion given to us to justify this war. first, read onefootinthegrave's post about WMD and the difficulty in using them, and then look at history. The world has already seen a WMD terrorist attack, in Tokyo 1995. 11 people died. Then take the instances Iraq itself used WMD: can any tell the the date when an Iraqi SCUD full of VX landed in the middle of Tehran and killed 100,000 Iranians? No, you can't cause it didn't happen. During 8 years of bloody conflict in which iraq did fire SCUD's at Tehran and used chemical weapons against Iranians, such a "worst case scenerio" never came up. Or take the use of WMD against the kurds. How many Kurds die? 100,000, one million? no, about 5000 for the most publiziced attack, and attack carried out by a professional military with years of experience in the use of WMD, that waited for the best possible circumstances, and used military grade equipment, such as especially made munitions and aircraft.
Where then does the idea that Al Qaeda, lacking all the experience, equipment, and frankly, quantities Iraq had will somehow carry out an attack orders of magintude more detructive than any use of the weapons ever had? Hell, you can hardly point to 100,000 killed by chem weapons in WW1. And as for Biological weapons: the most deadly atatck using them in the alst 50 years was the anthrax mail attack: 8 killed. The next worst in modernity were Japanese experiements against the Chinese, but just as with the case of Iraq, these were attacks carried out by professional militaries with the resources and equipment to maximize the effectiveness. No, biological attacks with the hope of causing tens fo thousands of deaths at once are even less plausible than atatcks with Chemicals, and we have just gone oevr the plausibility of that.

As for the Saddam-Osama links: we are given 2, the Zarqawi cell, and Ansar Al-Islam. Now, on Zarqawi: the best I have heard is that he might have been involved in the killing of the US diplomat in jordan, and may, or may not, still be in Baghdad. Hardly a causus belli in my book. The there is Ansar. How is anser different from the Kashmir seperatist groups trained by Al Qaeda and given direct aid by Pakistan? I mean that in this way: such groups do have links with Al Qaeda, but there has never been any intelligence about these gorups either being able or willing to attack targets outside their area, ie. Kashmir. Ansar has attacked enemies in its area, the Kurds, but no intelliegnce has been shown that this groups has ever planned, or has the capability to carry out attacks against the US or Europe. Much the same could be said of the Chechens. How many attacks against US and EU tagerts have the Chechens, with extensive ties to Al Qaeda, carried out? A link to Al Qaeda does not make you part of it, or mean that you share their capabilities. Another case of "not enough"

2. The seocnd most popular argument is that the UN's honor is at stake if it does not back its previous words with actions, since then its words will be empty. I feel a slight bit of agreement with this, but many other facts more than overcome that. The UN is bypurpose a slo, deliberate body. MOst of the conflicts of the world today have seen little UN actions, and that is because for most of these, the 5 great powers felt no need to get involved, or where on opposite sides and cancelled each other out. Is this an dieal outcome? NO, but it is the way the system is set up and the only reason why the US senate approved, as compared to the League. If no action has been taken against Iraq for 12 years it is because for 12 years no one saw the expense of war beign worth it. Sad but true. NOw, many veto members till hold that view, and as such, have all the power, and legitimacy in slowing the system. Thin of it as the Senate fillibuster. It is there for a reason, so nothing too radical, one way or another, is done. The other reason i ahve against this argument is this: the UN charter does not allow for "posses": the only legitimate source of action is the UN Sec Council Actions outside this authority may be sucessful, but of questionable legitmacy. If the US goes along without the suport of the council (which actually means, the support fo the five veto powers) then its action is a detrimental to the "honor of the UN" as the Iraqi actions.

3. I feel deep symapthy for this arguement, that of freeing the people of Iraq form a dictatorship. To me this is the most valid. But it is still not enough. All governments rest on legitimacy, the mandate of heaven,a s the Chinese would say. Iraq's regime has lost that mandate. But what mandate does the Us ahve to come in and put another one in? What lies in question is the legitimacy of whatever we out in power. Without legitimacy, sucha governemnt may have a very short life. The argument then for freein Iraq rest on our ablity to replace dictatorship wwith somehting better, not something worst, the worst being anarchy. The cost of this, in money and probalby lives will behigh, and they course must be steady, But I don;t feel the Amercian people yet knw this. everyoen said the Us would stay the course in afghanistan. Its beena year sicne we won there: when did you last hear a report on Karzai and what he is doing? Without firm, long etrm, and expensive support, the situation in Iraq may, in 10 years, e as bad, or worst. Can we make it better? Yes, I think we can, but I don't think, that at this point, even with all the forces in place or coming into place, the US population is aware of what will be asked of them, and to ask after they have been thurst into a situation they might not have wanted is a dangerous thing to do.

4. The last agrument, the one least talked about, and the one i think most drives the admin. Back in 1992 Cheney, with the help of lowe echelon staffers, such as Wolfowitz, Perle, and Armitage (all of them now high echelon staffers) put together a policy and startegy revwie in which they set out their view of how the US should act after the Cold War. In it they basically state that the uS should always be "proactive", 'taking out issues befor ethey start". They also felt that US military might can be used to shift political balances out way, and "fix' entire araes, such as the ME. In this argument, once we amke Iraq a shining democracy, Egypt, Syria, Lybia, and Saudi Arabia will all follow, as local democrats, bouyed with our success, drive away the corrupt rules. A fine dream, but is it real? Who are our enemies today? Today our enemies are Islamic militants. We are told democracy will stamp them out. Did this happen in Iran? Back in 1979, when the corrupt Shah feel, the government that took over immidiately was a huge mixed bag of revolutionaries, some Communists, socialists, liberals, free marketeers, and the clerics. The clerics had the strongest following and were able to bring all the toher groups in line, or drive them out of the coolition. Today, liberals and democracts in the ME are weak, much weaker than fundamentalists. Why would a revoltuion in Saudi Arabi aply any different? If liberals are able to bring down the regimes, what stops conservativce clerics from bringing them down in the first few months of the revolution? Back in the early fifties, the emergence of a ofreign military force that reshaped the Arab world came in, Israel. The failure of the old regimes to deal with the situation and the new changes head to their downfall, the Hashemite king in Iraq, the Khadive in Egypt. Did democracy take hold? No, it didn't. If the Us uses it miliatry force to place a democracy within, does that not make democracy a foreign import brought about only by foreign force, thus de-legitimizing the value of it? An attack on Iraq "makes true" all the fears of the fundamanetalist, and noe of the hopes of the liberals anywhere outside of Iraq. Now, could the Cheney view still coem true? It is plausible, but the opposite is also plausible. Given that the conseuqnces will be immense either way, should the war be driven by phases of the moon and weather reports?

[Sava]

deja vu

[Velociryx]

Put me down for reasons 2-4.

If the UN doesn't mean what it says, then perhaps it should get out of the business of writing "resolutions" altogether. It amazes me to think that this "August Body" would hammer out a resolution, and then have to be dragged kicking and screaming to its enforcement. Mean what you say, or say nothing.

As for the liberation of the Iraqi people and unmaking the little monster we thrust upon them, this, for me, is the most compelling reason to act of all. And, we have the opportunity to go in and do it right (meaning, we stay as long as needed, and we let the Iraqi people make their own decisions regarding their leadership).

Will this happen? I have scant faith in the present administration, and sadly, scant faith in their committment to seeing it through properly. Nonetheless, current events have flowed in such a way that the decision is in the here and now, and even though I'd rather see better men leading the way, my hope is that in 2004, better men will be in a position to carry on.

-=Vel=-

[Az]

I am not nitpicking, but why so many mistakes?


and your no. 3 arguement is rather poor. The country has a solid financial foundation, Oil.

[monkspider]

Great post GeGap.

[Sava]

I'd rather see better men leading the way, my hope is that in 2004, better men will be in a position to carry on.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course, I hope then, the one we elect actually makes it in to office.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
I am not nitpicking, but why so many mistakes?


and your no. 3 arguement is rather poor. The country has a solid financial foundation, Oil.

Cause I had a lot to write, and I am a very bad typist. As for ther second point: can you point out to me a single Oil rich third world state that has stable democratic politics, little corruption, and a history of such?

Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, so forth and so on: they all in theory have solid finantial foundations. Venezuela was a democracy once. Now look at it. Oil (as with any single commodity asset) is a terrible things for political stability: once one gorup gets its hands on it, they are almost omnipotent within. If you control the purse strings, why should you negotiate with your internal rivals? NO, as far as politics are concerned, Oil is notan asset: at best, it is neasutral, at worst, a great liability.

[Az]

Cause I had a lot to write, and I am a very bad typist. As for ther second point: can you point out to me a single Oil rich third world state that has stable democratic politics, little corruption, and a history of such?

that's unfair. You said "stable democratic politics, little corruption anda history of such", AND "third world state" .

I wouldn't be able to cope with that with or without the Oil condition.
If a country would have stable democratic politics and little corruption, and a history of such, it wouldn't have been 3rd world.

[GePap]

It sin't unfair. Places such as Mozambique, ghana, and until recently the Ivory coast were stable democracies, poor and certainly third world, but less corrupt and violent places than their neghbors, and in the case of Mozambique, all this achieved after many years fo horrible wars. Take Equitorial guine or the neighboring microstates of the westenr coast of Africa, places whcih , after oil was found, ahve turned very corrupt, and the government gained mroe and mroe power and crushed all opposition.

Poverty of states have many reasons, Being stable and democratic do not make you intanstly rich, anymore then being hardworking and law abbidng in real life make you instantly rich either.

Oil is like winning a huge lottery: for some, it makes thier lives much better, for most, but for many, you end up broke, being sued by family and friends, and in debt because yo spent wildly outside the limits of reason. venezuela is a great exmaple of that.

[Az]

It sin't unfair. Places such as Mozambique, ghana, and until recently the Ivory coast were stable democracies, poor and certainly third world, but less corrupt and violent places than their neghbors,

Well, that's hardly tells me anything. (We're less corrupt than another sub-saharan african state! Hurray! )

and in the case of Mozambique, all this achieved after many years fo horrible wars.

Well there goes your "historically" arguement.

A country that is democratic, not corrupt and stable for a long time, will succeed.

And yes, I know that natural resources can be a psychological burdain on the leadership of the country. But that's why I used the words "foundation", to counter your argument that it will take a truckload of US cash to finance.

[GePap]

Azazel:

1. ON the issue fo third world: what about Costa Rica? Fine, peaceful, third world state. You can be stable and peaceful and democratic and still no be rich.

2. Even with all its oil (assuming the oil fields are not damaged) the recosntruction of Iraq after so many years of war and sanction will take billions of US dollars, many billions.

[Az]

1. It hasn't got the oil.
2. BAM! ( in the hope you know what that means )

[skye820]

2. Even with all its oil (assuming the oil fields are not damaged) the recosntruction of Iraq after so many years of war and sanction will take billions of US dollars, many billions. [/QUOTE]




First Post on this Forum!


Perhaps these events will spur on the development of alternative fuel machines to lessen the dependence on such nonrenewable resources (oil). To financially break the back of this beast...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
1. It hasn't got the oil.
2. BAM! ( in the hope you know what that means )

No, i don't know what BAM means. I am also done with this minor arguemnt. I will restate my point, take it or leave it: Oil is at best a neutral thing. Having lots of oil does not in any way guarntee a sucessful political future and in fact, if you look at most states that had weak or authoritarian political systems, the finding and exploitation of oil only made their political maters worse. Oil in iraq may cut he costs to the US in a minor way, but the fact of oil by itelf is not a positive one for the future political development of Iraq.

[Az]

To put a long story short, BAM means that you've made a Blatant Assertion.


And please, don't trouble yourself with this minor argument, that represents the pillar of your refutal to one of the POVs you've posted to which I subscribe.

[GePap]

Azazel: first, go to the NYtimes: they had a nice piece in their op ed about the cot of the war and aftermath: Maybe it won; show online (i get the paper version) so let me tell you two numbers: 127 billion, which according to the methodology of the study, was the lowest case scenerio cost of the Iraq war and occupation. Then 640 billion, the high end estimate of the cost. I guess that doesn't count as bucketfulls, in your neighborhood, right?

Second: read up on the modern hisotires of places like Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Equatoria guinea, Angola, and even Iran's and Suaid Arabiabs, so you can get a fine picture of the wonders large amaounts of oil do to politics. its a wonderful, cheery picture.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by GePap
I know there already are various Iraq threads up, but I honestly do not think such a long statement fits as a post (to Ming). I also hope it leads to, if for a few posts, a good arguments about Iraq, instead of the tired tirades. Finally, I can use this a s reference next time someone asks me about Iraq. So lets go:

A good post. But you forgot number 5.

That Ba$tard tried to kill my DAD, and now I'm the President. Guess what Sadam? I'm coming for your a$$.

[Az]

Azazel: first, go to the NYtimes: they had a nice piece in their op ed about the cot of the war and aftermath: Maybe it won; show online (i get the paper version) so let me tell you two numbers: 127 billion, which according to the methodology of the study, was the lowest case scenerio cost of the Iraq war and occupation. Then 640 billion, the high end estimate of the cost. I guess that doesn't count as bucketfulls, in your neighborhood, right?

Show me the study, and if I am convinced I'll change my opinion.

[Velociryx]

Been thinking about this some more, and at the core of it, in my head at least, is this:

Saddam is a player. He's done the brinkmanship game before, and he knows how the game works.

He *also* knows that if he can "foot-drag" enough....make the inspections go on long enough, it'll cost America a pretty penny (troops mobilized for war and in the field are more expensive than troops left at home).

Further, he knows that if he can "foot drag" long enough, then public sentiment will begin to shift against this war. ("oh look! The Iraqis ARE cooperating....we should give them more time....")

It's working.

I say Saddam is playing us....again.

Same song and dance as 12 years ago, and we're falling for it....again.

I know GePap doesn't believe in, or put much stock in the patterns of history, but....does this line of "wait till the last minute and then make some concessions to drag the process out a bit longer" look a bit....familiar?

One need only look at the divisions we face now, the anti-war rallies and such, to see that Saddam is, in fact, winning. Every day that goes by, every day he continues to play his game successfully, offering up "just enough" additional cooperation to keep the troops from landing, it becomes harder to effect that, which means that, in the end, it becomes harder to ultimately enforce the resolution when Saddam refuses to give further and fully cooperate.

I think that's his game.

Drag it out so long that, when he finally stops giving a little more....when he finally starts thumbing his nose at the UN, kicks out the inspectors again, world sentiment will be so dead-set against the war that it'd be political suicide in western countries to go ahead with it.

Saddam wins.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further, per the latest Blix report, we *know* that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because there are 50,000 litres of Anthrax and a variety of other items *named* in the Blix report as being unaccounted for.

Now....this says one of two things:

Either Iraq has destroyed them already, in which case, it would be in his best interest to provide the documentation of that to resolve the question and diffuse one of the major reasons constantly claimed to go to war against him, OR, he has not, in which case, one might expect....rather what we're seeing now...."foot dragging" on the issue to buy time.

Time for what?

Time to either hide them away so well that they'll NEVER be discovered, or time to farm them to areas outside Iraqi borders till the boogey men go away.

And we're giving him that time....KNOWING that these items were in Iraqi possession, and knowing that he has not come forward with any documentation that proves he is no longer in posession of them.

Why are we doing that, exactly? How long should it take to provide this proof? The original document he provided (with the missing information) was given in ....November 2002, IIRC.

Four months, and he still can't scare up the paperwork for where the Anthrax went?

I find that.....difficult to believe.

At best.

-=Vel=-

[skye820]

Hans Blix and Co. were shown empty rooms! Therefore, what else could his report reveal? He was hired to report on what he was shown, not question what he was shown.

I am not surprised by his report to the UN Security Council.

The western world is being played....yet again

[PLATO]

I have been loathe to weigh in on this debate as I have been reading the OT threads. GePap seems to have summarized the available arguments. These arguments got us to resolution 1441. Since then the power struggle has shifted and so has the prize. Here is why the USA MUST AND WILL go to war with Iraq:

1.) Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has set the agenda in the Security Council. The other four "veto members" role was to modify that agenda to best suit their National Interest. (Please do not believe that they are slow and deliberative for a third world countries sake...their sole purpose is to protect their countries positions.) This has allowed the US to push its agenda. Weather this is a good or bad thing is for you to decide...it is not relevant to the argument. The US will do whatever is in its power to protect this position.

Is this the reason for war...not by itself. read on,

2.) For the 1st time in ages new economies are coming on the scene in Europe. Eastern Europe. For 50 years these countries were focused totally toward the eastern block to develop and sustain their economies. Not only do they provide new markets for developed economies, they also provide a vast source of new production and ideas. These countries will end up with a major western partner in critical industries. France wants it to be them, the US wants it to be them. Both countries are economically positioned well to take advantage of this opportunity. These emerging economies will go with the country that can exert the most political clout in order to serve their own best interest. No war= France wins, Successful war = USA wins, Unsuccessful war= France wins. Conclusion USA will win successful war.

Is this then the reason for war?...We are getting closer. read on.

3.) For decades the US has been doing whatever it could to help support stable regimes in the middle east. Since the early 1970's the progress that the US has made in relations with middle eastern countries is astounding. Certainly their are some failures as well as the successes. As the ties get closer and closer, the US is able to exert more pressure to help achieve its goals in the middle east. For example, if anyone is old enough to remember, it would have been totally impossible for Syria or The Palestinians to even consider peace talks with the Israeli's. US pressure at least got the people to the table. Continued pressure in Iran is beginning to show some small signs of sucess. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi are all examples of US political success (absolutely there are major problems with these relationships...the victory is in having even got them to the point they are today compared to just a few decades ago.).

The bottom line is this...We have made commitments to some regimes in the middle east to get rid of Saddam. He is bad for their own power base. He indirectly provides many opportunities for fundamentalist movements to gain strength in their countries. They want him gone and have no ability to accomplish this. We have told them we would do it and they have opened their countries to tens of thousands of our troops and millions of pounds of equipment. If we do not follow through with these commitments then decades of work will be undone. A power vacuum will form (which, BTW France is eager to attempt to fill) and the regions best chance for stability in the foreseeable future will be lost. Arab/Israeli peace talks will collapse and the situation will be far worse than any post war scenario other than a US defeat on the battlefield.

This is the reason that the US MUST AND WILL go to war. Thanks for reading through it all.

[Velociryx]

Well spoken and insightful, Plato. I can't help but agree.

-=Vel=-

[skye820]

And here I though France was opposing a war with Iraq due to the embarassment of the discovery that the VX gas canisters are stamped with a Made in France label.

[PLATO]

Well spoken and insightful, Plato. I can't help but agree

Thanks Vel !

I also believe that you have nailed Sadams strategy. It is actually the sucess of this strategy that has given the French strategy its chance for sucess (although I do not think that it will be successful. It will incrementally increase their stature in many parts of the world however)

[Ramo]

Gepap, regarding argument 3, which is really the only legitimate argument for agressive war, I have to say that the premises behind it are totally wrong. It isn't in the US' best interests to implement a free, democracy, given primarily the interest of Turkey, Iran, and the elements of authority, besides Saddam, within Iraq.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by skye820
Hans Blix and Co. were shown empty rooms! Therefore, what else could his report reveal? He was hired to report on what he was shown, not question what he was shown.

I am not surprised by his report to the UN Security Council.

The western world is being played....yet again

DL!

[Kramerman]

good posts Vel, plato, and skye

[GePap]

First:
Vel:

"Saddam is playing us" you say: I don't disagree. Of course he has not disarmed and inspectors won't disarm him. That is not the point. Yes, for 12 years he has done nothing: that emans not only that he ahs not disarmed, but that he has not threatened his neighbors either. This campaign against Iraq was not initiated by Iran and Kuwait (two states actually invaded by Saddam) or SA and Israel (the two hit by SCUDS) or by Jordan, Syria, or Turkey. This was brought up by the US, and given your first post, in which you say your support of this war is not based on the first case, you don't see Iraq as a physical threat to the US. So the most basic an important question is: even is Saddam is paying us, WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD WE CARE. This sutiation is 12 years old, and for all I care, it could sucessfully go on another 12, without the US ever coming into danger, the US or Iraq's neighbors.
The game Saddam is playing is "keep the Sarin", we are playing "Keep Saddam in his room". Even if Saddam wins his game, if we win ours, then we are ahead, as we have been for 12 years.
The basic problem I have understanding your logic is that you make several basic assumptions, assumptions you never seem to question, assumptions which i find highly debatable.

3.) For decades the US has been doing whatever it could to help support stable regimes in the middle east. Since the early 1970's the progress that the US has made in relations with middle eastern countries is astounding. Certainly their are some failures as well as the successes. As the ties get closer and closer, the US is able to exert more pressure to help achieve its goals in the middle east. For example, if anyone is old enough to remember, it would have been totally impossible for Syria or The Palestinians to even consider peace talks with the Israeli's. US pressure at least got the people to the table. Continued pressure in Iran is beginning to show some small signs of sucess. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi are all examples of US political success (absolutely there are major problems with these relationships...the victory is in having even got them to the point they are today compared to just a few decades ago.).

The bottom line is this...We have made commitments to some regimes in the middle east to get rid of Saddam. He is bad for their own power base. He indirectly provides many opportunities for fundamentalist movements to gain strength in their countries. They want him gone and have no ability to accomplish this. We have told them we would do it and they have opened their countries to tens of thousands of our troops and millions of pounds of equipment. If we do not follow through with these commitments then decades of work will be undone. A power vacuum will form (which, BTW France is eager to attempt to fill) and the regions best chance for stability in the foreseeable future will be lost. Arab/Israeli peace talks will collapse and the situation will be far worse than any post war scenario other than a US defeat on the battlefield.

This is the reason that the US MUST AND WILL go to war. Thanks for reading through it all.

This is a finely made arguement PLATO, but I find it deeply unsatisfying for many reasons:

The first problem is your notion that Saddam somehow encourages moveemnts versus his neighbors. This is highly incorrect. For SA and the Gulf states, thier greatest worry lies in thier Shia minorities: this is why they so geenrously funded Saddam in the 1980's against the threat of Shia fundamentalism coming from Iran. Iraq is, as you know, majority Shia, and Saddam has never done anything to stir Shias up since that would be as dangerous to his regime as to that of his neighbors. A similar relation but with the Kurds tie Iraq and turkey. If the US, as it prepared for this coming campaign, puts heavy pressure on Shia and Kurdish opposition forces within Iraq to stay out of any conflict and not cause trouble is because SA and the turks are anxious to keep the ethnic situation in Iraq as is. Iraq's issues with Syria lie within a split of the Baathist paryt that rules both regimes, and Iraq and Jordan still have somewhat close ties. The only state in the region against Which Saddam aides fundies/ is Israel, with his money to Plaestinian groups.

The fact that talks between Palestinaisn and Israelis, or Israelis and Syrians currently, speak to the inability of this current admin. to spend the political capitol to egt them going. The there is your pciture of what is happening in Iran and saudi Arabia: i both cases, I think you grosely overestimate the effects the US has had in the process. US pressure since the coming to power of Bush in 2001 is one of the reasons the reformist campaign in Iran, while always mpore popular, ahs met with increasingly sucessful hard-liner pressure. Irabn's reformist moveemnt grew out of internal presure aaginst the failures of the revolutionary movement, disagreements which begun before the first gulf war, and could be seen by the internal struggles in Iran's high clergy levels( I also guess one could say Iran was the greatest failure of the US in keeping stable regimes)
As for SA: the large precense of US troops has, as we know now, only strenghtened the hands of fundamentalists there, and that, along with the failure of the Saud's to maintain a worthwhile economy (with the PCI of the kingdom having gone down 75% since the mid-80's) is the main reason the Saud's are thinking of political reform. In fact, some reports have been coming outt hat the Sauds may, after the war on Iraq, ask the US to leave, in order to make vital internal reforms that they don't wnat to be seen as just "caving" to the US.

There is a reason most regimes in the gulf, before they saw war as inevitable, did not want a war with Iraq. For 12 years Saddam was contained, no longer a threat. We had our forces in the region as our gurantee not that we would topple Saddam, but that we would protect them: toppling Saddam is the last thing they wanted: why do you think in 1991 we didn't go to Baghdad? One reason was the the gulf rulers did not want us to go there, because going to Baghdad and chaning regimes might lead to unknowable consequences. The situation in Iraq suited them, and what they fear most is not Saddam, but instability, and nothing creates more instability than the fall of a decades old regime.

So, I agree with you PLATO that the US has, for decades sought stability in the ME: but that stability is not the aim today. RTead what the thinkthanks and ideologues behind this war want. Their aim is not to remove a source of instability, but in fact, to create instability, because they see the stogy current situation as the great evil that fosters fundamentalism. They want democracy to battle the fundies: none of the gulf states are democracies, and their ules don;t wan to tobeocme that either. Today they are bracing for an inevitable storm, doing all they can to keep steady. NO, they did not call for this war: right now, they will try to make the best of it they can.