Posted on 09/16/2002 4:41:39 PM PDT by ArcLight
That door was left cracked open for him when the U.N. was brought into the equation. The moment this was placed in the U.N.'s lap (by the Bush speech), something like this became inevitable -- if Sadaam would put down his hubris for just a moment to grasp it. This is Kofi Annan's double-cross, which could also be expected since Bush pounded him with the irrelevancy hammer.
I believe that the Administration knew all of this would ensue (they'd have to, we could see it here) and I really doubt that they gambled on Sadaam being ignorant and stubborn and not taking the out by running to deal with the friendly and gullible Kofi Annan. They had to know Sadaam would try and outflank them in this way -- it was too easy for him to see and do not to take it. That's why Bush said "with you or without you" to the U.N.
The problem that I see with Sadaam's flanking maneuver here is that it also gives Daschle and the appeasing Democrats a reason to forestall. I think this was more aimed at the Democrats -- Sadaam must know that they hate Bush as much as he does. And the problem it causes is more internal than external. Bush said he wants Congress to take a stand and they said "why hurry?" Now Sadaam has given the veneer of substance to their protest.
That's a tough one to crack, and I hope the big brains have a plan to deal with it, because my smaller brain is stumped. Jim Jeffords switch strikes again. I hope we don't all pay for it over and over again.
I'm not sure about all this strategery...but I have to question why so many people think you could bomb the WMD's out of existence in a coupla weeks, but it'd be impossible for inspectors to even find "sites of interest" on the ground in months.
Bush has already said he will act unilaterally, and bi-laterally with a few allies, whether the UN supports us or not.
This new offer and the EU/UN/Demo/Media splash are ALREADY irrelevent.
The military build-up continues. I believe we will strike 24hrs after the commanding general says "we're ready".
This administration has made that fact perfectly clear.
At this point only the US Congress can stop the assault, though they dare not.
Daschle will huff and puff, but then he'll bring the resolution up for a vote before they recess in Oct......and he'll vote yes.
They'll just play cat and mouse, once Iraq succeeds in getting an inspection protocol from the U.N. Once inspectors are in, Sadaam doesn't need to take them hostage -- they're already protecting him. Then the equation has changed from a military one to a diplomatic one -- with the U.N. in the position of diplomatic primacy.
Once that has obtained, then the military option has been removed from immediate consideration. Sadaam is far weaker than us militarily, but diplomatically -- particular in the venue of the U.N. -- the affair is much more evenly drawn, with Sadaam enjoying some advantages (not the least of which is a sympathizer like Kofi Annan in the Secretary General position.
Sadaam can succeed with nearly indefinite delay without ever having to take an aggressive action.
That is, if the Bush Administration is willing to let the U.N. into the game on these terms, or if the Democrats can now force him to.
The first reaction (formal one) from the Bush Administration will be telling -- if they leave the door open to accepting this "offer", then there's lots of trouble ahead, if they close the door quickly and in no uncertain terms, then all may be made right yet.
It's more than that. Should we "forget" again that Iraqis (most of them) are waiting for the US strike in trepidation, that it's their last hope to get rid of their cannibal of a tyrant?
Or they'll be betrayed once again to appease "the world (liberal) opinion"?
Hear, hear.
A conservative wouldn't even consider that a political advisor would be driving foreign policy.
Therefore, I conclude you are a Rat.
Up is down.
Black is white.
Left is right.
Norvokov is Vokovron.
You are a disruptor, and a Rat.
Well, that is a statement that I do not agree with.
Nonetheless, the Bush Administration's first mistake with Afghanastan, is that they personalized the war and centered it around one person--Osama Bin Laden, who we do not conclusively know is dead or still alive yet.
They better not make the same mistake with Iraq and center it around Sadaam Hussein. Most Americans are frustrated that we don't have Bin Laden, and I do not believe they will tolerate not conclusively getting Hussein, if we are going to center this whole campaign around him.
Although I do support an invasion upon Iraq, there are a few considerations that everyone should probably ponder. This isn't going to be some flat-land desert war, it is going to be urban. Sadaam Hussein is going to hole himself up in some bunker that even bombs and missiles may not be able to affect. We do know that Sadaam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons, will Hussein hesitate to use these weapons against those who would invade his country? I think not. War is certainly not for the squeamish, I suppose.
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.