Other explanations for saber-rattling

THE WASHINGTON POST /Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ^ | September 2, 2002 | WILLIAM RASPBERRY

[Jagdgewehr]

Here's an explanation for the anti-Iraq saber-rattling now building in Washington:

The Bush administration, though it would dearly love to have Saddam Hussein out of power, has no intention of taking unilateral military action against him. The sword-rattling is designed to make Saddam's military leadership see him as too dangerous for their own good.

Remember, this is no pre-1990 Iraqi army harboring thoughts of invincibility. The Iraqi military, including its crack (supposedly) Republican Guard, was routed in Desert Storm. The remnants, the generals know, exist only because the American-led allies allowed them to walk away. They know also that they wouldn't be allowed to walk away again.

Ergo: If the Iraqi generals believe an American attack is imminent, they will stage a coup to depose or kill Saddam. And all will live happily ever after.

Here's another explanation: The Iraqi president has been so determined to go forward with his biological and other terroristic weapons, and so unreliable regarding his commitment to permit international inspections of his efforts, that the only thing left is to put him in realistic fear of an American military unrestrained by the limp hands of our allies.

Once he understands that another cavalier promise to allow United Nations inspectors back in Iraq won't stop the impending assault (and he already understands that the next assault will be total) he'll be positively begging not just for U.N. inspectors but for American inspectors with full authority to look wherever they choose. We will – reluctantly, of course – accept the offer, voicing whatever misgivings seem appropriate, and the international community will come to see Saddam as the weakling, us as the good guys, and the world as a safer place.

I could offer other possible explanations, and so could you. But why?

My reason is simple. It is to convince myself that there's no reason to believe our government really intends to do what it says it intends to do, or that our leaders, elected and appointed, would move forward on such a brutish and lawless course on such a thin rationale. Let's just say it comforts me to believe that the people we look to for guidance in these perilous times have the brains and the patience to play a deep game.

I'm like Spike Lee in that years-ago TV commercial for Nike, watching some incredible gravity-defying, I-can't-believe-I'm-seeing-this move by a basketball genius, and reaching for a non-obvious explanation. "It's got to be the shoes," he concluded.

Same here. The alternative is to take Vice President Cheney literally when he calls for a pre-emptive strike against a regime that, apart from breaking his promise regarding inspections, really hasn't done anything to us in the last dozen years – certainly not during the tenure of the present administration. But, says Cheney, the Iraqi president doesn't like us; might, now or in the future, have links to anti-American terrorist organizations, and might someday have the weaponry to do us serious harm.

"What he wants," Cheney suggested, "is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons. Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Don't you see, we have to take him out.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, similarly made the case for unilateral attack during an interview with the BBC. But the best she could come up with was (1) Saddam's interest in acquiring nuclear capability, (2) his use of chemical weapons against other Iraqis, (3) his invasion of his neighbors, and (4) his pot shots at U.S. planes attempting to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq.

All of it is true. But none of it is recent, and none of it seems to put America in imminent danger. It cannot possibly be the basis for an attack on Baghdad.

It's gotta be the shoes.

[uncbob]

I do seem to remember he tried to assassinate Bush's father

[31R1O]

All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable of attacking, feign incapacity; when active in moving troops, feign inactivity. When near the enemy, make it seem that you are far away; when far away, make it seem that you are near. Hold out baits to lure the enemy. Strike the enemy when he is in disorder. Prepare against the enemy when he is secure at all points. Avoid the enemy for the time being when he is stronger. If your opponent is of choleric temper, try to irritate him. If he is arrogant, try to encourage his egotism. If the enemy troops are well prepared after reorganization, try to wear them down. If they are united, try to sow dissension among them. Attack the enemy where he is unprepared, and appear where you are not expected. These are the keys to victory for a strategist. It is not possible to formulate them in detail beforehand.

Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

[evad]

Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

Very good "grasshopper"..I hope the prez knows this.
It appears that he does.

[Jeff Chandler]

our leaders, elected and appointed

Interesting choice of words. Is he still brooding over Florida?