Stardate 20021024.1542

(On Screen): After more than five weeks of wrangling and negotiation, the US (and the UK) have gotten fed up and have put their last proposal formally into play at the UN Security Council. I found an actual copy of the proposed resolution and have put a highlighted copy of it here. It's written in diplo-speak and some parts of it are a bit thick going, but it isn't all that long and as such things go it's actually rather lucid, and I urge everyone to actually read it.

France and Russia are still resisting it. Neither nation is happy. But if you make the assumption that you're trying to actually eliminate any possibility of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction, it is quite frankly difficult to understand why anyone would object to what's here. So what's their beef?

Let's clear the air. There is a lot of contradictory rhetoric going around, what with people demanding proof and raising doubts and projecting wishes and in general doing their best to cloud the situation. So let me describe reality.

I can't prove what follows; a lot of the proof is classified. But this is the playing field which everyone is on, and all the players involved know all of this, and they all know that the others know. (Any public comments to the contrary by the governments involved are deliberate lies.)

Iraq has chemical weapons and biological weapons, and it has active and well-advanced programs in process to develop more of each and to develop nuclear weapons. It is certain that Iraq now has substantial quantities of mustard gas, nerve gas and anthrax. It also has programs to develop various ways of delivering each kind of weapon, current and planned. The government of Iraq has every intention of proceeding on all of this, and no interest whatever in cooperating with any effort to end it.

The intelligence agencies of the US and UK know what a lot of these programs are, know where they are, and know what they're trying to make. Those agencies can't be certain, however, that they've spotted them all or that they are actually correct about all the locations. They know a lot but they probably don't know everything.

Iraq owes France and Russia billions of dollars each. If Saddam is deposed, the chance of those debts being paid is nil. Both nations also have made various sweetheart deals for future trade with Iraq which would be worth even more, and those deals will become scrap paper if the US invades. (Update: more on this here.)

Saddam's hold on power in Iraq is shakey, and his hold on power could collapse. Some of those who serve him most loyally are doing so out of personal ambition, because they think they themselves can become very powerful, and the key to all of this is the Iraqi political ambition to unite the Arab world into a new empire with its capitol in Baghdad. Iraq can only do that if it has the ability to threaten use of WMDs, both to force other Arab nations to surrender and to hold off external interference. If Iraq's WMD programs are truly eradicated, then all hope of such future greatness will be gone, Saddam will be shamed, his closest supporters will lose confidence in him, and he will face revolt. If there is a coup, then either the coup leaders will invite US occupation, or America will invade and occupy Iraq anyway. If we attack, our victory is certain. (The cost and time involved cannot be predicted but there can be no doubt that we will win.) Either way, the US will end up occupying Iraq.

The US will rule Iraq militarily for a while (1-5 years) and then set up a friendly government there. The US will maintain substantial military forces in Iraq possibly for decades (similar to the American military presence in Japan and Germany). French and Russian debt will be repudiated and all existing commercial agreements with French and Russian corporations will be nullified, and they will largely get frozen out of any future negotiations.

Therefore the only way France and Russia can hope to be paid is to keep Saddam in power (which Saddam knows, which is why he's made all those deals), and the only way Saddam can stay in power is if his development programs for WMDs are not eradicated, so that he doesn't face coup. From their point of view, the ideal outcome is partially-effective weapons inspections, where the programs continue in Iraq (maintaining Saddam's political support) but they're found and destroyed at a rate sufficient to prevent them from actually succeeding in giving Saddam sufficient military ability to carry out his ambition to form a greater Arabia. What they want is stalemate, a continuation of the status quo. They want Saddam in power without WMDs and want that to continue forever.

They're no more enthused about Saddam getting nukes than anyone else is, but the only way they can win is to dance close to the fire without the fire being put out. Iraqi nukes are the worst case for France and Russia, but an American invasion is nearly as bad. (A US invasion with UN sanction is bad enough; a US invasion without UN support is worse because it destroys the UN as an effective organization, meaning they both lose not only a lot of money but also a lot of political power and influence when their vetos become moot.)

Which brings us to