Posted on 04/10/2003 9:53:52 AM PDT by AAABEST
While I was reading this article, something dawned on me; Iraq never was the endgame, AND THAT'S a BEAUTIFUL THING!
Think about it. The two main reasons for going into Iraq were WMDs and to "liberate the Iraqi people".
Well, those of you who have scientific knowledge of chemical weapons know that even the most effective types, such as V-nerve (which most think Saddam doesn't have) simply couldn’t kill enough Americans to justify this huge undertaking. Even if you vector them into a confined area such as a subway (Remember Japan).
The "liberation" and removing a psycho dick-tator would be a nice by-product, but that was never a-1 motivational material for starting a huge military operation. I think even the simple amongst us realize this.
Some of you know that I had major mixed feelings about starting up with Iraq. I wasn't against it per se, but I was troubled by many aspects, such as setting the "preemptive" precedent. Also the main reasons given above didn't make sense if you shut out the warmongers on one side, the smelly leftists on the other and just viewed the situation objectively.
I'm a tech type and a vet. To me it's all about simple logic, how to get from point a to point b and accomplish the mission in the most efficient and effective way possible. I know there are smarter many people than me in the administration who think in the same way, and nearly all lifers at the Pentagon think in this fashion. You must, especially if you're an officer.
It's been driving me nuts. I knew WMD and liberation aspect were not the real motivation. Neither was the pathetic pacifists' contention that it was "about oil". Did not compute, did not justify, illogical Captain.
I hate to sound so arrogant, but again, I know how military, logic-based hawks think and it just didn't add up. My natural distrust of politicians (and some career-orientated generals) led me to entertain the possibility that there were nefarious or political motives for this incursion.
The first crack of light was when I thought "why the 4th INF." Then after reading the article linked above, it hit me like a ton of bricks.... Literally. IRAQ WAS THE TOE IN THE DOOR, the excuse we needed to go after the real crazies that have been driving everyone nuts for years.
Holy $**t, I feel like I just took a giant crap, a new man. It all makes sense now and I can sleep soundly again. We are going to go after the real terrorists, which is what we needed to do the whole time. HOW KOOL IS THAT! It's a bold plan with many risks, but it's beautiful and brilliant.
If anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'll bet the first 5 FReepers who dare, $100 each - to go to FR - that we will be either invading or using our military to directly cause the downfall of another ME regime within the next 18 months. That's a total of $500 liability on my part. Be forewarned I never make a bet of that size unless I'm sure I'm going to win, and I've never been so sure of something that I didn't have first hand knowledge of in my life. Think Syria, Lebanon, Iran.
I'm seriously thinking about re-enlisting again.
Hey John, what happened to my mom's account? Her screenname is "bethel".
Never bring a pick-up truck to a tank fight.
cough cough "I doubt it" LOL
Oh, and by the way, your bet vocalizes what will be the next Democrat attack line on President Bush, and no doubt the argument they will use against him in 2004. Already we hear it being pushed: "Bush will go after Syria, then Iran"...I've heard Democrat Talking Heads say this, and claim it's always been Wolfiwitz's (sp) goal, that Bush is just the unwitting dupe of Wolf and Rummy imperialistic goal to rule the world.
Of course these same democrat voices claimed before the election, that George W. was clueless on foreign affairs, didn't know rulers' names, hadn't been out of the country, and that he would be an isolationist president.
President Bush has clearly identified our enemies. They include Iraq neighbors and North Korea, and he openly vowed to protect America from them. But I predict his threat will be enough. We won't have to attack. These countries, (and France) must be in shock that an American president kept his word to Saddam. They were counting on another paper tiger president like Clinton.
been there
Bro', you sure have a way with words. $;-)
So who are ya talking about exactly? Iran? Syria?
Inquiring minds wanna know...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.