Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Contents may be not!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Iraq Compromise(?)

(good thing I still have a few croissants in the cupboard -- I doubt I'll survive the winter on this idea)
  [vote for,

Yeah, I have my opinions, too, about who's right ane wrong in all this talk about war with Iraq. But I hope I have removed them from this idea, which is not about who is or isnt an idiot/madman, but about how we might arrive at a better place than where we are now.

I begin by taking both sides at their word. Of course there are layers upon layers of subordinate motives, but having declared an official motive, each side will feel some obligation to back it up.

The "hawks" say that we must remove Saddam from power, now and not later, because every additional day is an additional risk that he will do something horribly regrettable (e.g., delivering a WMD to New York City's harbor, or acquiring the technology to hold the entire Middle East hostage, etc.). It is taken for granted by both sides, I think, that removing Saddam will require a military intervention. These hawks believe the "doves" are engaging in risky wishful thinking and Chamberlain-style appeasement.

The doves say that a realistic assessment of the risks leads one to conclude that military intervention in Iraq is a much riskier move than continued efforts at containment. They say they can point to several years of successful containment, some recent progress by UNMOVIC, and the lack of any "smoking guns" as a rational basis for their position.

Obviously, somebody's right and somebody's wrong -- either Saddam poses the bigger risk as head of Iraq, or the consequences of miltary action poses the bigger risk. There may well be many fools involved, but it is also possible to find rational, responsible, intelligent people pushing either side of the debate.

So I wonder if the responsible people on either side would consider this a fair compromise:

1) In response to the seriousness of purpose indicated by the doves in no. 2, below, the hawks agree not to engage in any military action in Iraq (short of continuing enforcement of the no-fly zones) fo the duration of the agreement.
2) In respect for the seriousness of the fears of the hawks, and as assurance against their pledge in no. 1 above, the dove nations agree to indemnify any nation that suffers any terrorist or military attack that can be conclusively linked to elements within Iraq.
3) Prior to signing the agreement, both sides agree, by arbitration if necessary, on a reasonable estimate of the cost of a war in Iraq. If, at the end of some appointed time (say, 10 years?) or the end of Saddam's regime (including his sons or other like-minded successors), there has been no attack that could be conclusively linked to elements within Iraq, then the hawk nations will pay the dove nations an agreed-upon portion of the estimated cost of the war ("peace dividends" in return for their saving the hawk nations from incurring the expense).
4) Nations may switch their status from hawk to dove or vice versa at any time during the agreement, depending on the course of events. Switching from dove to hawk means trading your responsibility for your share of the indemnification, if any, for a shared responsibility in paying peace dividends (if any). The reverse is true of switching from hawk to dove, except that nations may not escape liability for a share of peace dividends by switching from hawk to dove in the last year of the agreement.
5) If all nations eventually become hawks, war is declared, after which no nation is responsible for any indemnification. If all nations eventually become doves, the agreement is ended and all nations holding hawk status during the previous 365 days are responsible for paying peace dividends to the dove nations. 6) If events warrant (e.g., Iran attacks Iraq, Iraq invades Saudi Arabia, etc.), signatory nations may re-convene to void or re-negotiate the agreement.

I can't imagine this wouldn't be full of problems, but do you think it could be a way of approaching the impasse that could at least be more productive than the way things are going now?

N.B. Please, this is not a call for comments mindlessly bashing one side or the other. There are plenty of other forums for that. I would, however appreciate comments about problems or possibilities associated with the idea.

Also, I do not mean to suggest that lost lives can ever be indemnified by cash payments. It's only a way to make sure the doves take their responsibility seriously, and to assure the hawks know that they do.

beauxeault, Feb 18 2003

WWII in Europe http://www.historyp...imeline/ww2time.htm
Timeline [thumbwax, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]

Historians comparing Iraq to WWII and Suez http://www.guardian...2763,898414,00.html
For balance's sake. [Aristotle, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]

Idea for flag for Doves Faction http://www.tntie.co...s4jc/herculoids.jpg
[bungston, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]


       The key objection is that this is not a court of law any more than it is a parliament in a civilized country.   

       As with WWII, if the hawks are right, the consequences will not be amenable to indemnification - there might easily be no government to do the indemnifying and no population to indemnify.   

       And, if we invade and the doves were right, well, the victors get to (re)write history.
DrCurry, Feb 18 2003

       Generally we are like minded about such topics, beaux. But I certainly cannot agree with the concept of peace dividends. Under no circumstances should the 'dove' nations profit from their stance.   

       (The solution to this whole problem is the Nov. '04 election.)
waugsqueke, Feb 18 2003

       "In the news today, the French immigration service has reported a massive influx of US citizens applying for dual-citizenship; the government theorizes that the influx has to do with their wanting to hedge their bets against the "Hawk-Dove" tax dollar gambling...
RayfordSteele, Feb 18 2003

       : )
beauxeault, Feb 18 2003

       See link for WWII Timeline in Europe. When one looks at such a timeline - and compares it to the here and now, and bears in mind that a great many specific events are chosen and planned well in advance by those who roll the dice. And, in turn, one realizes that those who who stand the most to lose, are surprised, to say the least. Loo-hoo-hoosers
thumbwax, Feb 19 2003

       // If, at the end of some appointed time (say, 10 years?) or the end of Saddam's regime (including his sons or other like-minded successors), there has been no attack that could be conclusively linked to elements within Iraq //   

       Considering the potential severity of attacks, would people really be prepared to sit back and take this risk?
sild, Feb 19 2003

       //Obviously, somebody's right and somebody's wrong -- either Saddam poses the bigger risk as head of Iraq, or the consequences of miltary action poses the bigger risk.//   

       If you truly believe this then the idea you suggest makes good reading. It does rely on a particular understanding of truth - it is singular, it is self-evident and it doesn't change over time.   

       I subscribe to the view that truth is plural, it has to be described and it is constantly re-negotiated by different people at different times. We shouldn't be looking for a mathematical formula - I think a common language would be more useful.
Ludwig, Feb 19 2003

       Plan is well thought out... however, what if the doves are wrong in their assessment of Saddam, such that keeping him in power actually poses a higher risk?
LoneRifle, Mar 18 2003

       ...Hawk ...Dove. They're all vultures I say.
Trodden, Mar 18 2003

       If I roll high enough can I move my little Risk pieces into Sweden? And if I do how does that effect my roll on the compensation table at the end of my next turn?
Freelancer, Mar 18 2003

       Hawks, Doves - surely that kind of talk means nothing to the average Iraqi. We're just playing games with language here, whilst the real decisions have already been taken.   

       Fact is - the troops are already there. The decision has (effectively) already been made. The US (and the UK) have already made up their minds - they both seem to think that they can win the war of words over here after the fact of the war itself. It's already a done deal. Here in Britain we've just had a crucial vote - but the timing is so last-minute that if a Labour MP votes according to his conscience (against war) then he's effectively voting against his entire party. If MPs here voted with their conscience, then Tony Blair would have had to resign, and a general election would have had to be called - and so, in order to prevent this extreme eventuality, most Labour MPs towed the party line. But they voted under duress, if that's how you spell it
lostdog, Mar 18 2003

       "duress" is spelled perfectly, "towed" hoever leaves a bit to be desired. "Towed is for cars, boats and skiers whilst "toed" is for Labour Party lines.   

       <mindlessly bashes head on corner of one side of the monitor but takes care not to bash on the other side>
bristolz, Mar 18 2003

       What about punitive measures against this dictator??
kwkwkw, Mar 18 2003

       ...still looking for the abstract...
pluterday, Mar 18 2003

       Sorry, stoat. I had to delete your annotation because it was the kind of "who's right and who's wrong" comment I was specifically trying to avoid in response to this idea. Be assured the deletion did not arise from any animosity toward you personally.
beauxeault, Mar 19 2003

       Let me see if I understand your idea: You swim around in a shark tank and spectators [hawks and doves] bet on whether you get torn to pieces or not. If thats cool with you, it's ok by me. However, you are really proposing that we all swim in the tank. If I get eaten, you give me money. If I dont get eaten, I give you money. Why didnt I think of this idea?   

       The problem with your idea is that it avoids real problem is how many sharks are in the water. Evolution says that if being a shark succeeds there will be more sharks. If it fails there will be less.   

       In fact we are all bobbing in the ocean and it is no time for making bets about our fate. I suggest swimming gently and dont provoke the sharks. If something that looks like a shark comes your way baring its teeth, try to scare it off. If it comes closer use a bang stick. If this doesnt change its behavior, kill it.   

       Moral of the story, before you start attacking be sure youre the biggest shark, if not...dont bare you teeth unless youre smiling.
xint, Apr 07 2003

       //The solution to this whole problem is the Nov. '04 election//

<Family Fortunes buzzer> Uh-oh! </FFb>
DrBob, Nov 05 2004


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle