Comments on: Question

By: Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Good point. The North Korea situation pretty clearly indicates that the capability to destroy a major allied city will deter Bush, but I suppose the real question here is whether it would be reasonable for Saddam to think that there’s any course of action available to him that will prevent an American invasion. One option that would would be for Saddam to accept Saudi Arabia’s offer of exile (the US has already agreed to that) thereby allowing him to escape at least with his life. More relevant, I suppose, is whether if Saddam dragged a giant pile of chemical and biological weapons into the Baghdad town square, got Hans Blix & co. together and said “here, look, these are my weapons, do with them what you will” that would prevent Bush from invading. I tend to think that it would, but it’s hard to know how I could prove that, and I could see why others (including, perhaps, Saddam) might think that it wouldn’t work.

By: Bob Webber

Bob Webber — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Saddam Hussein is said to be extremely suspicious of all his associates, even his bodyguards. Accepting exile would strip him of many layers of defences, including the world’s general acquiescence to the UN Charter and desire not to set a precedent of violating sovereignty. Many people in the world are also unhappy with the idea of killing civilian bystanders in the process of ousting him. I think that he could easily believe that exile would be just a way to get him away from his defences so that he could be assassinated, and that he might even be correct in that thought.

Chemical and biological weapons would really not be very effective for stopping an invasion by the US or by any coalition put together under the auspices of the UN, but they are potentially very effective against Kurds, Shiites, and other local enemies. CBW agents are probably very important to Saddam Hussein’s drive for self preservation and, like a hostage-holding convenience store robber, he is likely to give them up only reluctantly for the sake of their deterrence value against his neighbours.

In answer to your question, I think that Saddam Hussein believes that George W. Bush ultimately cannot be deterred from taking Saddam Hussein’s life, and that the end will come quickly if he stops hiding behind the whole country of Iraq. I think that he also believes that giving up his CBW and attempts to procure nuclear weapons will lead to the end of his life at the hands of his neighbours.

If he gets time for final words as he dies, I expect them to be, “Mother of mercy! Is this the end of Saddam?”

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Bob—I wouldn’t expect that giving up CBW would lead to Saddam’s death at the hands of his neighbors (or that he makes this calculation)—they’d still have to invade, it would be bloody, and probably unpopular.

I think rather that Saddam sees his options as “US invades and I have no CBW” versus “US invades and I have CBW, which I use to inflict maximum suffering as I go down.” And prefers the latter.

Arguably it’s irrational to want to take your enemies out as you go down—it hurts a lot of people and doesn’t make things anything better for you. But it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of irrationality (if it be such) on which deterrence is premised.

Of course, someone who loved picky distinctions would say that the question isn’t strictly whether Bush is deterrable, but whether he’s dissuadable. The idea is that Bush would invade even if Saddam made good-faith efforts to give up his CBW, which would be a question of being deterred by a retaliatory strike, but of not carrying out a threat once the threat has successfully produced concessions. Not that this difference affects Saddam’s choices at all.

So good point Kieran, I don’t think this proves that Saddam is irrational and undeterrable.

And Matt, I’m not sure that Bush is being deterred from taking out N. Korea by N. Korea’s horrific retaliatory capacities. I don’t think he’s inclined to go after N. Korea in the first place. Another picky distinction, but that’s what makes the world go round….

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Also, always remember that Saddam has a record of shooting cabinet ministers who say things he doesn’t like.

This means it is highly unlikely that anyone would contradict him when he wants to do something stupid, which greatly increases the odds of him doing stupid things.