U.S. letter to Arab leaders: 'There will be no turning back'

The decision is made
The plan is already made
Only the timing is in doubt: maybe that is known too!

Mike

I LOVE IT! If it's not a pentagon plant story, that is.

Imagine the look on the Saudi's face when this letter arrived.....:-)

Earlier thread HERE...

Heh, heh, heh.

The axis of evil is going up in smoke---blocks!

Mike, thanks!

Here is an excellent rebuttal to all of the nay sayers and doom and doomers who are probably on Saddam's payroll to try and keep him alive:

Defense Experts Challenge Arguments Against Attack On Iraq
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 8/15/02 | Patrick Goodenough

Posted on 08/15/2002 5:29 AM Pacific by kattracks

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - As debate rages about the wisdom of launching a military strike against Iraq, a leading defense publication Thursday called into question some of the key arguments against an attack, saying that many of the critics had been proven wrong in the past.

Jane's Foreign Report said its access to Bush administration thinking had led it to the view that opponents of an attack may be exaggerating the dangers while underestimating the advantages of a successful operation for the wider Middle East.

That assessment comes at a time politicians in the U.S. and key allies including Britain, Germany and Australia ponder the advisability of mounting a campaign to topple Saddam Hussein.

Arab governments have also expressed reservations about - and in many cases firm opposition to - any such move. Media opinion in the Western and Islamic worlds has been largely negative.

Iraq is accused of violating numerous U.N. resolutions and breaking undertakings to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program as a condition of peace at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, which followed its occupation of Kuwait.

The authoritative UK-based publication's authors listed the main arguments used by Western media commentators and "armchair generals" who say any war would be disastrous.

These include a detrimental effect on world markets and oil prices; the potential for heavy casualties among American ground troops; disintegration of Iraq, threatening regional instability; a future regime that is worse than the present one; a backlash that could topple pro-Western regimes in the region; and even the possibility that - like Osama bin Laden - Saddam may disappear.

Jane's authors pointed out that the same critics had been wrong before - in their predictions about the Gulf War, the conflict in Yugoslavia and the recent campaign in Afghanistan.

Ahead of the Gulf War, they claimed it would last "for decades," that large numbers of Western personnel would be killed, that Saddam's Republican Guards would fight until the end, and that pro-Western regional governments would be toppled.

None of these predictions came true, Jane's said.

Neither did the critics' dire warnings that a war in Afghanistan would last for years and necessitate a lengthy deployment of U.S. troops

"In fact, most American troops are to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban have run away," it observed.

"The doomsters were proven wrong in Iraq in 1991-1992, in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2002. Could the critics be wrong again?"

Saddam 'will be finished'

The oil price will rise, Jane's conceded, but said the U.S. was hugely expanding its strategic oil reserves and OPEC could do little to block it. It also noted that Russia wanted to sell more oil to the U.S.

Unlike bin Laden who had spent years operating effectively from hiding, Saddam was a despised dictator propped up by security forces who would be "finished" once his regime began to collapse.

"Dictatorial regimes are brittle: as long as the population fears them, they appear strong; but when the fear dissolves, they collapse."

With Western support - which had been missing last time -anti-Baghdad rebellions, once they start, may well prove fatal for Saddam, Jane's predicted.

It also doubted that Iraq would disintegrate into a Kurdish state in the north, a Sunni entity in the middle and a Shi'ite one in the south. "In similar circumstances in Afghanistan, the country held together."

Regional benefits

As far as the nature of any future government goes, Jane's acknowledged that the anti-Saddam opposition was "divided and ineffective." But the situation in Afghanistan had been worse, "yet a government of sorts was put together very quickly, and it is still holding together."

A new government may lack stability, but it would be pro-Western and "infinitely better than the present one." Oil wealth would make economic reconstruction much easier to achieve than in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan.

Jane's also dismissed the view that Islamic extremists could assume power, saying the chance of that happening was virtually nil.

"The population of Iraq is highly educated and resourceful ... a reborn Iraq will show it is possible to avoid the trap of Islamic fundamentalism, while reforming from inside."

This, in turn, would have a beneficial effect on the wider region.

Other dictators, like those leading Syria and Libya, would have been severely warned; Kuwait would emerge from the threat of a belligerent Baghdad; Jordan's stability would be assured; Iran would be kept in check by a pro-Western Iraq; and Saudi Arabia would be "cut down to size."

Taking into account these arguments, Jane's concluded, it "might be a suitable moment for the critics to take a second look at President Bush's ideas."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday that Iraqi opposition groups had agreed in talks last weekend that a post-Saddam Iraq should not be divided, should not have weapons of mass destruction, should be under the rule of law, and should "not impose its will on its neighbors" - thought to be a reference to the longstanding territorial claim to Kuwait.

The Administration has made it clear no decision has been taken on attacking Iraq.

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll released this week, 69 per cent of respondents said they approved of military action to overthrow Saddam.

Saddam's paid buddies and his butt buddies are doing the same old song and dance they did before Afghanistan.

I will believe Janes anytime over these maggots.

Kick Saddam's A$$ and Take his Gas!

The source said Egypt has signalled its readiness to help in any U.S.-led war against Saddam.

If true, it would appear that Mubarak understood what was written between the lines in the letter.

Anyone know when it cools down in Iraq as far as weather?

Even if it is a Pentagon plant, it's good news. If it is a planted story, then what would be the purpose?

Ans: To bait Sadaam into taking the first shot.

Either way Sadaam's denouement is coming. I suspect they're ratcheting up the heat to bait Sadaam into doing something, anything, in an aggressive way. That will shut up the leftists everywhere, who think you must wait and take hits before you're justified in acting against someone (it's a corrollary of their idea that before you can shoot at a murderer - or any criminal in the act - you must first let them take a shot at you).

(Leftists are all Darwin Award candidates, what can I say?).

Idiots. It is not a "regime change". They are not going to have the old thug, replaced by a new thug. They are going to be freed and liberated. Duh!

The only slack I can give them( State, aka Provincetown on the Potomac) is liberty, a republic, and laws are a threat to all the rest of the lying, murderous, thieving camel humping pork ribbed breathed fat boys, their whores, and footlings( kind of like a footman, but not honorable)

That will shut up the leftists everywhere, who think you must wait and take hits before you're justified in acting against someone

You way overestimate leftists by saying that. Being wrong has never kept them from gushing out their garbage!

What's more, I'm more and more convinced that they like Saddam. Even if he attacked first, they would continue to take his side. Pacifism only seems to apply to America in their twisted worldview; they don't mind Muslims using force. (Similar case with homosexuality, feminism, etc...)

The word annexation comes to mind... :)

Anyone know when it cools down in Iraq as far as weather?

I remember seeing my first puff of a cloud along with cooler weather on November 15, 1996, After almost 3 month at Al Kharg SA. A couple of days later it started to ran. So I'd say the invasion/attack starts in mid November.

You way overestimate leftists by saying that.

Yeah, you're probably right about that. They never shut up. And I'm pretty certain that they consider Bush the enemy, not Sadaam.

The United States has warned Arab leaders to prepare public opinion for a change in the Iraqi regime.

Is it just me, or is it rather presumptive of the US govt to assume that "public opinion" in any given society can be "prepared" according to the whims of said govt?

If so, then does it not suggest that all media in country in question is owned by the govt?

The real menace in this letter lies in that it was generated by mail-merge. Mubarak and the rest can see the next letter emerging from the printer.

does it not suggest that all media in country in question is owned by the govt?,

Yes, it is. Owned, operated, and guided by the government (read dictatorship) in question.

Only the timing is in doubt: maybe that is known too!

I expect there are several contingency opplans in place, ranging from a best-case long-lead buildup and intelligence gathering period after which the hammer can fall decisively, to plans for a more immediate strike should the development or use of new enemy weapons have to be forestalled...right down to an immediate retaliatory attack should there be a repeat of the 09/11 events or anything perceived to be similar.

But an invasion alone, even if successful, will accomplish little. There'll have to be an occupation to follow it, and yes, that'll be costly.

-archy-/-