for his pets, in Iraq, Uday Hussein (right) hits on younger bro Qusai,
who was shot and wounded a few weeks ago. [file photo]
Posted on 08/19/2002 5:24:54 AM PDT by Gopblond
Wouldn't it be marvelous if some US Special Forces could clandestinely move into Iraq and whack not only Saddam and his body guards, but the prominent heirs of the emerging Baath Party dynasty, his two brutal, power-driven sons, Uday and Qusay? But, alas, self-preservation is paramount to this heinous clan, which is highly mobile and often utilizes body doubles to fend off assassination attempts. This is a bunch that also hides out in bunkers, and covets and invades neighboring lands, a modus operandi somewhat reminiscent of the tyrant Hitler. Saddam heads up a "rogue regime" that, by definition utilizes terrorists as proxies to perpetrate deadly violence against those deemed enemies. He is one evil dude. If maniacal Saddam and his sons could actually be whacked, it probably would have already been done by the highly adept Israeli Mossad agents who specialize in these types of hits.
Interestingly, Qusay, the younger of the two brothers, survived an assassination attempt only weeks ago, having suffered a bullet wound to his arm as he was driven with his entourage in a convoy through the Mansour district of Baghdad (Associated Press). Obviously, other people are thinking along similar lines. As my Italian mother would say, these bad guys "gotta go". And there you have it; I don't need Brent Scowcroft to tell me otherwise.
It doesn't take much to figure out that Saddam is the progenitor of one rancid gene pool. According to reports from ABC News and the Kurdistan Observer, Uday was shot-up and initially left for dead in 1996 by "unknown assailants" at the directive of his own father, Saddam. Could you imagine a father such as Saddam? Apparently, in defense of his mother's honor, Uday had foolishly confronted Saddam regarding his new favorite mistress, soon to be added to his harem of wives.
But Uday is no day-at-the-beach himself, pegged as a flamboyant womanizer and gambler with a history of violence, who has murdered one of his father's bodyguards, and even shot his own uncle in the foot during the course of an argument. He is also said to ruthlessly rule the Black Market in Iraq. It has been noted that Uday's "former body double and his ex-secretary both defected to Europe with lurid tales of his rampages" (Kurdistan Observer). The ex-secretary indicated that "he witnessed his former boss kill four men and torture others". Uday is now back in the good graces of his father, and is a member of the Iraqi Parliament. In comparison, his brother Qusay is relatively low-key in demeanor, and in charge of both the elite Republican Guard troops and his father's security detail. Noteworthy, Qusay is linked to violent crackdowns that target dissidents. These two brothers, Uday and Qusay, are reportedly enmeshed in a cogent rivalry to succeed Saddam, which is the gossip of Baghdad. Saddam's progeny are indeed a lovely bunch of coconuts!
In warfare, it's axiomatic that you must neutralize your enemies before they overwhelm you. "Kill or be Killed" is the rubric in play. Certainly an attack upon the nation of Iraq is a classic case of "preemption" involving "first strike" against a "rogue regime" that not only possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), but is poised to assault western democracies (including Israel), as well. Intelligence analysis leads us to believe that Saddam will not hesitate to use any weapons that are contained in his arsenal. Therefore, here the notion of "preemptive defense" is deemed justifiable, certainly within the American repertoire of warfare as long as we have significant reason to believe that an enemy assault is imminent. Moreover, the "targeted killing" or assassination of an individual who represents a "clear and present danger" is really just another form of "preemptive defense", although considerably more controversial and distasteful, to be sure. And President Bush has already given the CIA permission to engage in necessary assassination activities, in effect overturning the legal constraints set in place during the 1970's.
Which categories of individuals could possibly be subjected to "targeted killings"? Known terrorists and leaders of "rogue regimes" that harbor Weapons of Mass Destruction and have demonstrated clear intent to use them. Compelling evidence, which stems from reliable intelligence sources, is crucial in determining whether a preemptive strike is a valid course of action. To paraphrase Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, it's better to rid the world of a few murderous thugs than to make war on an entire nation. If it could be successfully accomplished, "targeted killings" of Saddam and a few of his significant relatives/cohorts would be desirable instead of waging a full- fledged military campaign to oust them. But that's not realistic by any stretch, and it would be all but impossible to effectuate assassinations such as these. This is not Hollywood, and we're not talking about Godfather Michael Corleone who was capable of killing off his enemies and consolidating power in just one afternoon.
As former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft rightly articulates in his recent piece for the "Wall Street Journal", an invasion of Iraq will be an expensive endeavor, and possibly even "bloody" rather than a "cakewalk". But his other assertions, including the claim that "an attack on Iraq would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken", are quite wrong-headed. In fact, "regime change" in Iraq is an integral aspect of the "war on terrorism", which would dislodge a despotic government that: a) aids and abets terrorist organizations, and, b) is willing to furnish these same militant groups with access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just last week, the media noted that Saddam was planning to provide Palestinian terrorist groups with biological weaponry, ostensibly to be utilized against Israel and the United States. And "regime change" in Iraq would surely be propitious, improving the dynamic in the Middle East and aptly encouraging other peoples, such as the Iranians already teetering on the brink of revolt against the Mullahs, to cast off their oppressive, old-style Islamic governance in favor of embracing democratic reforms.
Moreover, Scowcroft is fearful of escalation in the region, an ensuing tit-for-tat that would unduly provoke Israel to "go-nuclear", thereby "unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East". Oh, so America will inadvertently trigger a series of events that will cause Iraq and the rest of the Middle East to be reduced to a smoldering heap of pixie dust? What twaddle! I personally think that's pure demagoguery aimed at frightening America and its allies into inaction. There is actually greater risk of regional warfare if we sit back and do nothing about Saddam.
As I see it, there is quite a vocal contingent on FR that is convinced a winnable war would be both politically and economically beneficial to this administration. I am also quite convinced the same crowd would state that, an assassination would only lead to further instability and chaos in the region and provide little domestic advantage.
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.