The Boy Who Cried WMDs (Part 10): Does the US military stand between Iraq and civil

[gravitypunch]

war? As with fragmentation, the U.S. military's presence has, in fact, been a motor for civil war in that country. The invasion and subsequent chaos, as well as punitive acts against the Sunni minority, allowed extremists, some of whom took the name "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia," to establish themselves as a force in the country for the first time. Later, U.S. military operations in both Sunni and Shia areas regularly repressed local militias -- almost the only forces capable of bringing some semblance of security to urban neighborhoods -- opening the way for the most extreme members of the other community to attack.
It's worth remembering that it was in the surge months of 2007, when all those extra American troops hit Baghdad neighborhoods, that many of the city's mixed or Sunni neighborhoods were most definitively "cleansed" by death squads, producing a 75-80% Shia capital. Iraq is now embroiled in what Juan Cole has termed "three civil wars," two of which (in the south and the north) are largely beyond the reach of limited American ground forces and all of which could become far worse.

The still low-level struggle between Kurds and Arabs (with the Turks hovering nearby) for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in the north may be the true explosion point to come. The U.S. military sits precariously atop this mess, at best putting off to the future aspects of the present civil-war landscape, but more likely intensifying it.

[justgoodfolk]

Yes exactly

[VA-145 Swordsmen]

The Gallic Wars were a series of military campaigns waged by the Roman proconsul Julius Caesar against several Gallic tribes, lasting from 58 BC to 51 BC. The Romans would also raid Britannia and Germania, but these expeditions never developed into full-scale invasions. The Gallic Wars culminated in the decisive Battle of Alesia in 52 BC, in which a complete Roman victory resulted in the expansion of the Roman Republic over the whole of Gaul. The wars paved the way for Caesar's subsequent becoming the sole ruler of the Roman Republic.

Although Caesar portrayed this invasion as being a defensive pre-emptive action, most historians agree that the wars were fought primarily to boost Caesar's political career and to pay off his massive debts. Still, one can not lightly discard the military importance of Gaul for the Romans themselves, who had been attacked several times by barbarian tribes both indigenous to Gaul and further to the north. Conquering Gaul allowed Rome to secure the natural border of the river Rhine.

This military campaign is painstakingly described by Julius Caesar himself in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico, which still is the most important historical source. This book is also a masterwork of political propaganda, as Caesar was keenly interested in manipulating his readers in Rome.

In 58 BC, Julius Caesar ended his consulship in Rome, and was heavily indebted. However, being a member of the First Triumvirate — the political alliance composed of himself, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Pompey — he had secured for himself the governorship of two provinces, Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum. As Metellus Celer, governor of Transalpine Gaul, died unexpectedly, this province was also awarded to Caesar. Caesar's governorships were extended to an outstanding five-year period.

Under his direct command Caesar had initially four veteran legions: Legio VII, Legio VIII, Legio IX Hispana, and Legio X. Caesar knew personally most (perhaps even all) of these legions, as he had been governor of Hispania Ulterior in 61 BC and had campaigned successfully with them against the Lusitanians. Caesar also had the legal authority to levy additional legions and auxiliary units as he saw fit.

His ambition was clearly to conquer and to plunder some territories but it is likely that Gaul was not his initial target. It is very likely that he was planning a campaign into the Balkans against the kingdom of Dacia[1].

The Gallic tribes on the other hand were quite civilized, wealthy, and totally divided. Many of them had traded with Roman merchants, and had been already influenced by Roman culture. Some of them had even changed their political systems from tribal monarchies into Rome-inspired republics.

The Romans respected and feared the Gallic and the Germanic tribes. In 109 BC, only fifty years before, Italy had been invaded, and saved only after several bloody and costly battles by Gaius Marius. Very recently the Germanic Suebi tribe had migrated into Gaul with their leader Ariovistus. It seemed that the tribes were beginning to move again.

By 61 BC, the Helvetii began to plan and to organize a mass migration, instigated by Orgetorix. On the whole, the Helvetii were rather dissatisfied with the extent of their territory, hemmed by the Germanic tribes, the Celtic Sequani, and by the Romans in Gallia Narbonensis. As a diplomat Orgetorix negotiated with the Sequani and the Aeduians. Orgetorix also made personal contacts and an alliance with Casticus and Dumnorix. He would even marry his daughter to the latter. Caesar accused all three men of having royal ambitions. For three whole years the Helvetii planned and prepared themselves. Emissaries were sent out to various Gallic tribes seeking safe passages and alliances.

In 58 BC Orgetorix's ambition was revealed to his tribesmen, and he was put to trial. He escaped, but was only to die later and not without the suspicion that it was by his own hand. Nevertheless, this whole affair did not discourage the Helvetii from their efforts. They were a warhardy tribe due to their constant fighting and their distance from what were seen to be more civilized cultures, and were also very numerous. As they departed, which Caesar dated to the 28th of March, they burned all their towns and their villages so as to discourage the thought of retreat, and were joined by neighbouring tribes: the Rauraci, the Tulingi, the Latovici, and the Boii. There were two available routes for them: the first one was the difficult and dangerous Pas de l'Ecluse, located between the Jura mountains and the Rhône River. The second one, which was much easier, would lead them to the town of Geneva, where the Lake Geneva flows into the Rhône River. There a bridge allowed passage over the river. These lands belonged to the Allobroges, a tribe which had been subdued by Rome, and as such these lands were under the influence of the Roman republic.

Meanwhile, Caesar was in Rome, and only a single legion was in Transalpine Gaul, the endangered province. As he was informed of these developments, he immediately hurried to Geneva, and besides ordering a levy of several auxiliary units, ordered the destruction of the bridge. The Helvetii sent an embassy under the leadership of Nammeius and Verucloetius, to negotiate a peaceful passage, promising to do no harm. Caesar, gaining valuable time, stalled the negotiations as his troops fortified their positions behind the river through a sixteen feet high rampart and a parallel running trench.

[Y!A staff Nazi]

"cried WMD", like these people?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

"Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003