Stardate 20021222.1508

(Captain's log): Steve Green has a list of links to news articles showing the process of preparation for war in Iraq. Others, most notably Bill Quick, are trying to say that the Bush administration is backing down. For a long time I have been saying that combat would begin by the end of December, but it became clear a week ago that this was not correct, and others, most notably Donald Sensing, were correct when they said that late January or February was a more realistic timeframe. I still agree that it's true, and in addition to Steve's list I've seen several things lately which make clear that, public statements to the contrary, there is a clear schedule and the preparations for war will all come together in about a month.

In my opinion, at that point only one of two things will happen. Either there will be a coup in Iraq which deposes Saddam and then invites us in to occupy the nation, or else we'll invade. In any scenario where there is no invitation following a coup, we invade. It's as simple as that.

And there are other indications from the press that things are coming together nicely:

"Israeli media reported Israel would go on high alert from January 15 in anticipation that hostilities would erupt in the Gulf some time between January 27 and February 26."

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair has put the country's armed forces on a war footing."

"The U.S. military is poised to begin a rapid and visible buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf early next month involving 50,000 combat troops, aircraft, armor and tens of thousands of reservists."

"Washington has asked Germany to provide 2,000 troops to guard U.S. bases in the country at the end of January, a government source said on Friday, as speculation mounted of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq early next year."

"Britain's Ministry of Defense Thursday ordered four more large merchant ships to haul armor in preparation for a possible military assault on Iraq, shipping sources said."

"President Bush, preparing for a possible war with Iraq, on Friday postponed a planned trip to Africa next month, citing domestic and international considerations."

At this point, I do not think there is any conceivable concession Saddam could make which would actually prevent American occupation of Iraq. If we're not invited in, we'll come anyway, but we will occupy Iraq, and soon. One of the big reasons why is that it's too late to do anything else.

Though there's a feeling in some quarters that diplomacy can be entered into in a spirit of friendly cooperation with the intent to find a mutually-satisfactory solution to a disagreement, such cases are all too rare in the real history of international diplomacy and politics, and the vast majority of cases of diplomacy involve mutually-exclusive goals by the parties involved, such that at least someone has to give up something they hoped to get or to keep which they value. The basic idea is that I give up some things, you give up some things, and we get an agreement that we both hate. It may be that it works pretty well for both of us, or more likely that we both hate it equally, or it may be that one side does most of the giving-up and the other side mostly benefits, but either way someone is going to have to make concessions, and they're not going to want to do so willingly.

If neither side is willing to make concessions, or not enough, then you get stalemate with endless negotiating sessions which seem to accomplish nothing whatever. Such negotiations can go on for years or even decades with no progress.

That is the reason for the famous dictum from Clausewitz that "war is diplomacy by other means". In cases where no one is willing to make any concessions, then if an agreement is needed and years of stalemate are not acceptable, then each side will start trying to apply pressure to the other side. This can take many forms; but all the most effective forms involved coercion, otherwise known as "war".

At its deepest level, war is the use of force against an opponent to cause him to make a political concession to you that you think is valuable which he would not voluntarily cede. Let's be clear on this: you are forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do, by presenting him with alternatives which are even less palatable. This has nothing to do with cooperation or universal brotherhood; it's entirely naked display of power and it hurts. And like it or not, it's the norm, and few important treaties in history were negotiated without at least some coercion.

As such, "war" doesn't necessarily involve armies advancing into the other nation; war can happen in many ways. "Trade war" is properly named, because in terms of how it fits into the overall way that diplomacy is handled, things like punitive tariffs or trade sanctions are a way of applying pressu