October 29, 2002

Of course, they're completely impartial....

A British group has analyzed the probable course and consequences of a war with Saddam Hussein, and declared that it simply isn't worth the cost.

LONDON - A U.S.-led war on Iraq would heighten the risk of regional conflict and increase support for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network, researchers warned Monday.

The independent Oxford Research Group said conventional war would kill 10,000 civilians in Iraq, and could trigger a desperate and destructive response from Saddam Hussein's regime.

The Baghdad regime was bent on survival at any cost and would retaliate using "all available military means," including chemical and biological weapons, which could in turn trigger a nuclear response from the United States and Britain, the group warned in a new report.


Isn't it interesting that the peace movement tells us over and over that there are no links between Iraq and alQuaeda, but that if we attack Iraq, al Quaeda will respond.
Fascinating stuff.

Anyway, I went to the group's website, and found their mission statement

O.R.G combines rigorous research into nuclear and international security decisions with an understanding of the people who make those decisions. Since O.R.G.’s foundation in 1982, we have contacted key decision-makers worldwide and developed a personal dialogue with them on global security issues. We bring together government officials, senior military officers and diplomats with nuclear physicists, independent defence analysts and non-government organisation (NGO) representatives to debate steps towards building a more secure world through the elimination of nuclear weapons, reduction and control of the arms trade and effective non-violent resolution of conflict.

It comes as no surprise that any report commisioned and executed by this organization will be opposed to war. But maybe they did a real review of the facts, and just happened to get the conclusion they wanted. Let's look at the report itself.
We'll start with the executive summary
Regime termination is thought necessary, in part, because of Iraq's likely development of weapons of mass destruction, but the control of the region's oil resources is also a major factor.

It will be interesting to see how well Rogers proves this contention. Off hand, if we had wanted control of the oil fields, we could have taken it the first time around.
Conflict in Baghdad will involve the use of area-impact munitions as well as precision-guided munitions and the civilian casualties will be high. A civilian death toll of at least 10,000 should be expected but this may be a low estimate, given the experience of urban warfare in Beirut and elsewhere.

We've been here before. In Afghanistan, it was the brutal winters, and urban fighting that were going to lead us into an unwinnable quagmire. Instead, superior tactics and weapons kept civilian casualties to a bare minimum. And Beirut is probably not a good comparison as the mission objectives are completely different.
Evidence from the 1991 war indicates that it is highly likely that the regime will use all available military means, including chemical and biological weapons, if its very survival is threatened. Such weapons may be used in tactical warfare to hinder invading forces but may, in extreme circumstances, be used strategically against forces in other countries.

This is called "cowardice." In effect Professor Rogers is admitting that Hussein is holding Israel and the peace of the region hostage. This is terrorism by proxy, and warrants intervention, not restraint.
In such circumstances, and especially if high casualties result, there is a possibility of a nuclear response.

What's the probability, and how do you evalute it? Should make for some interesting reading. Again off hand, why would the US use nukes if they want the oil? Wouldn't crapping up the entire country sort of defeat the "major factor" driving the US intervention?
The United States has sufficient forces to ensure regime destruction but the regime's replacement by occupying forces or by a client regime, even if the war is not greatly destructive, should be expected to increase regional opposition to the US presence. It is likely, in particular, to increase support for organisations such as al-Qaida and to prove counter-productive to peace and stability in the region.

If the US went in and took over Iraq, then yes, that could be a problem. But that isn't the plan, and it is disingenuous to claim it is. If the US goes in, gets rid of Hussein and the Baath party, then withdraws and allows the UN to oversee the building of a new Iraqi gov't, as they did in Bosnia, then this concern should be alleviated. Unless Rogers assumes that any state friendly to the US will be perceived as a client state.

OK. Those are his main points. Next step is to read the report itself and see if he backs up his claims. The report is available here as a pdf file. After I get a chance to read through it, I'll see if the good professor makes his case or not.

Posted by Rich at October 29, 2002 3:42 PM