Bush Uses "Strategery" Against Iraq, the U.N. and the Democrats

Imal's Vanity Press | January 10, 2003 | Imal

[Starboard]

I think it is extremely unlikely that Bush will invade Iraq without the hard evidence he needs to put egg on the face of the U.N. and the Democrats, both of whom he despises and both of whom will look like idiots once the truth comes out.

I think we about to witness the mother of all stings. Thanks for the excellent (and likely prescient) post.

[Reactionary]

I think you're exactly right about this.

We know where the weapons are. The song and dance with the UN merely gives us an opportunity to move our assets to the region.

The war is on, folks. It's been in the works from the beginning of this entire episode.

[FreeReign]

I find it extremely unlikely that Bush is lying about Iraq, but I notice that he has not been at all forthcoming about details. This is apparently deliberate. Those foolish enough to jump on the bandwagon against him without any real basis to do so will be utterly discredited when he lays his cards on the table.

(My Bold)

*Smack*

[Mustang]

Outstanding post!

It's refreshing to read a Vanity inwhich one's "little grey cells" have been adroitly implemented.

BTW, your supppsitions re: W's "Strategery" are on target.

Mustang sends.

[Imal]

Thanks! That is high praise, especially coming from a fellow Navy man, and a genuine mustang at that!

I can have only the highest regard for anyone who made O-4 "the hard way" and truly knows both ends of the command relationship, so please accept a crisp, heartfelt salute from a crusty old bubblehead snipe.

[The Great Satan]

The reason for the delay is that Saddam is quite capable of killing millions of Americans with the anthrax advertised in the letter to Daschle, and there is still nothing we can do about it. It has nothing to do with our ability to prove Saddam was behind 9/11 --- Bush is sitting on that evidence, and can release it any time he wants. The cost of saber-rattling is trivial for the United States, especially in the context of the absolute necessity of removing Saddam Hussein, no matter how difficult that may be and how long it will take. As far as the election is concerned, I don't think it's a problem. It may well be that Saddam Hussein will survive through the election. We have 25 million doses of a new civilian anthrax vaccine coming on line around the end of this year, so it is possible that we might feel emboldened to take Saddam out militarily by mid-2004. I'm not overly optimistic about that -- the vaccine stockpile will not, by itself, fix the problem, for a variety of reasons which we could talk about some other time. However, it may be possible to squeeze Saddam out by non-military means and, even if it isn't, there are many ways in which the whole situation can be escalated and the public perceptions managed to ensure that people still back Bush come election time. Bush can't hit Saddam, but, aside from that, he is holding an incredibly strong hand. I'm not worried about the political aspect, only the aspect of how the hell are we going to solve the problem of Saddam Hussein?

[Mustang]

Salute returned!

Mustang sends w/Best FReegards.

[Imal]

First off, it’s always a pleasure to talk politics with the Evil One himself.

Distributing enough anthrax to kill millions would be quite a trick, although the terror-by-mail campaign did give us a taste of the potential of well-crafted anthrax spores. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that Saddam is connected to past and potential anthrax attacks on U.S. civilians, but haven't seen anything that establishes this for sure. He does seem to have had it in the past, and may very well be the source of the nasty, expertly-weaponized stuff we saw unleashed in the mail. In any event, as experience shows, he doesn’t need to kill millions to bring this nation to a halt. A few thousand (or even a few dozen) would do it.

Assuming he does have this capability, it's unlikely he'll wait for us to get vaccines online before using it. He knows he's toast one way or the other, so I strongly doubt he would allow his ace in the hole to go down the drain. So if he’s got the virus in place, ready for distribution against us, then we’re screwed either way.

As grim as it is, we Americans are going to have to learn how to take a few punches, because they are coming. If we hit the mat every time we take casualties – however terrible they may be – then we will lose for sure. As bad as 9-11 was, it would take quite a few more of them to put us in the league of London during the blitz, or Israel every single day.

We’re definitely tough enough to take it, but we’re going to have to shake off the wimpiness and self-absorption that a decade of Clintonian hedonism has oozed into our society. That will come naturally enough, as each successful attack on U.S. soil will only make us that much meaner. Woe unto those who are stupid enough to stick their tallywhackers in America’s hornet’s nest. Nobody knows just how bad we can be if we have to.

As for parking our troops over there for another year, the meter’s going to run out a long time before then. Aside from the phenomenal costs of staging all those warriors and equipment over there, the host nations will only tolerate this “standoff” for so long, and not for another year.

If Bush doesn’t cough up proof before then, his support, both foreign and domestic, will evaporate and Congress will step in and pull the plug. Not that they’re very relevant, but the U.N. would also become uncooperative and belligerent, and may even try to impose sanctions on the U.S.

If he does lay out his case soon, he’ll be fully expected to act and act quickly. Time is not on our side. As Bush knows all too well, evidence worth going to war over is good only for that, not for buying time appear to be doing nothing (even if we are feverishly cranking out vaccines and other defensive countermeasures in the meantime).

As I repeatedly maintain, I could be dead wrong, but Bush’s actions are those of a strategic offense, and specifically, a pre-emptive offense. That suggests a potential, not current domestic threat. I don’t think Bush is bluffing, because Saddam is the only person such a bluff would mean anything to, and he knows what’s in his hand.

If Saddam truly had a deadly attack set up here in the U.S., provoking Saddam would be the worst possible thing to do. We’d be better off quietly countering the threat and not giving him any overt excuse for attacking. So I just don’t see the anthrax scenario factoring in here, either because it doesn’t exist, or we have decided we can’t take the time to take defensive action before taking out Saddam.

Israel, however, is another matter altogether. We and they both know they are in mortal peril, and it’s only getting worse as time goes by. Leaving the initiative to Saddam in this case is virtual suicide, hence we attack first.

As for Saddam leaving peacefully, it’s unlikely but possible, and would be the best case scenario for Bush, the U.S., Israel, the U.N., Iraq and, frankly, for Saddam as well. That would be a great happy ending. Either way, U.S. troops are going in to Iraq and secure the country, whether they have to fight their way in or not. And then Iraq will be our new best friend with lots of cheap oil and limitless gratitude for our glorious liberation of their country from that horrible tyrant. U.S. flags will be flying all over Iraq, and not just from U.S. installations. While many Iraqis won’t care too much for U.S. occupation, I do suspect they will prefer life without Saddam. And regular meals will be a big hit, too.

Anyway, we clearly see some different scenarios being played out. The action is big enough that we’ll know which way it’s going to go very soon. I expect the balloon to go up in February, and if Saddam doesn’t yield, I think we’re going to hit him very, very hard.

I hope you enjoyed this concise reply. >;^)

[The Great Satan]

He knows he's toast one way or the other

Really?

[Imal]

Hey, we all have to go sometime, but seriously, folks...

Saddam may indeed think he is untouchable, but his actions don't suggest that. Anyone with as many body doubles as he has and who is more paranoid than Josef Stalin about his sleeping arrangements obviously has some concerns about his own mortality.

He may think he can cower us into submission, but I have a hard time believing that even a raving psychotic like Saddam would think we aren't going to get him sooner or later.

He may be crazy, but he's not stupid.

[GallopingGhost]

"because Saddam is much craftier than Mullah Omar..."

Mullah Omar

[The Great Satan]

The anthrax attack was good for terror, but pretty weak on the killing front (5 isn't a very big number).

What attack are you talking about, Henry? I don't recall any attacks. I just recall some threatening letters, letters containing samples of highly weaponized, aerosolizable, dry-agent anthrax and warning: "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX," "THIS IS NEXT" and "YOU CAN NOT STOP US."