The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear listmembers, I'd like to add to the useful article by Bob Allen and suggest that US pronouncements about required troop numbers be treated cautiously. Milan Rai of Voices UK has argued, convincingly in my opinion, that the preferred US policy option is probably ``leadership change'' rather than ``regime change.'' Bob Allen's article supports that view with its analysis of US policy towards the Kurds and Shia etc. If that's true, then it's possible that the US does not seriously intend to commit 200,000 troops to Iraq but feels it can achieve its goal with massive bombing/covert action/bribery/threats/military coup etc. instead. The effect of the figure of 200,000 troops being bandied about might be that people who think only of US/British lives feel relieved when ``only'' bombing turns out to be ``enough'' (for leadership change). Bombing then appeals to liberal sensibilities as the ``moderate'' policy option compared to the ``extreme'' option of committing huge numbers of troops (the usual tactic of framing debate within very narrow boundaries). We've already seen this attitude emerging in commentary in the Independent and Guardian. I'm not claiming that the figure of 200,000 troops is deliberately put about by the US Government to make a huge bombing campaign seem more palatable (maybe it is, maybe it isn't) but it can have that effect and we should be aware of it. Fay Dowker >Regime Change Update >The Bush administration has defined a war on Iraq as its second phase of the >war on terrorism. It pledges a campaign far beyond the British and US air war >institutionalized in the Clinton presidency. In May, for example US planes >bombed Iraq four times. This new plan also goes beyond the twelve-year >economic siege of Iraq maintained by US dominance over a cooperative United >Nations Security Council. The sanctions have claimed the lives of hundreds of >thousands of Iraqis. With its "Regime Change" strategy Bush administration >officials have expressed a willingness to commit as many as 200,000 US troops >for a full-scale invasion of Iraq. After several months of commitment to this >course, how goes the planning for the new war on Iraq? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Fay Dowker Physics Department + + Queen Mary, University of London + + E-mail: f.dowker@qmul.ac.uk Mile End Road, + + Phone: +44-(0)20-7882-5047 London E1 4NS. + + Fax: +44-(0)20-8981-9465 + + Homepage: http://monopole.ph.qmw.ac.uk/~dowker/home.html + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk