Posted on 09/25/2002 6:00:43 PM PDT by HAL9000
Heehhheeeeee
I think the administration is still waiting, gearing up, letting the dems hang themselves. Trust GW, he knows what he is doing.
What do you make of the recent tendency of history shows to present Russia much more valiant in WW2 than previously ever discussed?
While not completely convinced, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know of any "mainstream" media analysts that take this position, except Andrew Sullivan and possibly Stan Kurtz at NRO. But I think this is what's likely going on.
Assuming this is true, why the elevated Iraq talk now? If Bush is genuinely open to not moving against Saddam for another year, the current Administration campaign to increase the attention on him doesn't seem to make sense. How can, for example, Bush make another SOU Address without there having been any visible move against the "Axis of Evil"?
I think, for whatever reason, Bush has decided to move against Iraq very soon, and is going to try to ride out the possible terrorist counterattack. Perhaps because the intelligence is clear that Saddam is not going to allow us to root out his deterrent that is already in position in America, or that he might even be able to augment it. And what civil defense measures can prevent - rather than just mitigate - a massive bioterror attack anyway? We know we're not going to see sealed borders or mass deportations. We won't find the caches, or at least all of them - and it seems reasonable that if this plan has been building for 10 years there's more than enough in place as a contingency.
I think we're looking at an attack on Iraq, and poised internal security ready to pounce on terrorist perpetrators in the act. This would mitigate, hopefully, the worst damage from the attack. But it sure won't prevent massive civilian deaths.
Bastards.
I've been fooled before, and you're getting fooled right now -- these things take much longer to play out than you think. Talk now is necessary to keep up the Big Mo, after a summer of saying nothing. If I had a dollar for every post I've seen over the last year predicting an attack on the next full moon....
Militarily, nothing is going to happen until the new year. It will be jaw-jaw in Congress and the UN for the next few months. Bush's opening position is he wants an answer in "weeks" -- but you know how opening positions work. My guess is we'll get congessional authorizations and a UN resolution towards the end of this year, and we'll dick around with Iraq over the resolution for a few months.
In the face of Iraqi "intransigence," Bush will launch a military camapign next spring. There will be token strikes on alleged WMD facilities, but the main push will probably be on the periphery of Iraq. My guess is that the military strategy will be a mixture of what we've seen put into play against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Arafat in Ramallah. We'll slowly and methodically isolate Hussein, while we work with local opposition to gradually take over the country. Again, I would guess we are going to put him in a vice, tearing off the territory under the Northern and Southern no-fly zones, where his ability to project power is already limited. We'll set up interim governments and forward bases as we conquer the territory.
All this will be the work of 2003 and 2004. It will amply fill the time we need to build up our civil defenses. Bush will look strong. Saddam will look weak, just like Arafat does now, as his dominion shrinks to a strip of land around Baghdad. At the same time, he'll still have an incentive to stay in the game. If he doesn't take exile by late 2004, that's when I'd push it to the brink, assuming we have our defenses in place domestically. If necessary, he could be flushed at that time by the simple expedient of parking a B52 nuclear bomber over Baghdad and going public on the anthrax. That will clear the place out in no time. Game over.
I sincerely hope that all the hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals in Ann Arbor, who submit their weekly whiney-mouth anti-war/anti-Bush editorials to the local paper and preach "diplomatic negotiations" with Saddam Hussein, sit up and take notice. You can't even negotiate a marshmallow roast with this psychotic liar.
I sincerely hope that all the hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals in Ann Arbor, who submit their weekly whiney-mouth anti-war/anti-Bush editorials to the local paper and preach "diplomatic negotiations" with Saddam Hussein, sit up and take notice. You can't even negotiate a marshmallow roast with this psychotic liar.
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.