Support ebbs for U.S. war plans [HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO ALERT]

PMSNBC ^ | 01/19/2003 | Karen DeYoung

[Publius Maximus]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - As the Bush administration heads toward a crucial United Nations Security Council meeting at the end of this month, a strong council majority appears less willing than ever to agree that early military action against Iraq is justified.

Snip

There is widespread international appreciation of the fact that inspectors would not be in Iraq today if the United States had not used its overwhelming military and diplomatic power, the official said. Bush could easily declare victory now and save himself a potential debacle. He's shown seriousness, and Saddam caved, the official said. If you ask whether the world is in a better position vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein than it was a year ago, the answer is Absolutely. Is that victory Yes, if you want it to be.

[Donna Lee Nardo]

I am tired of hearing about the anti-war movement, that's what. The movement is giving the wrong impression because they are not addressing why we are coming down hard on saddam and they are not admitting that nearly 12 years have passed and not much has changed favorably in Iraq. I hate that saddam is actually using the movement for his p.r. The lamestream media is giving the the protestors too much air time, surprise, surprise.

[angkor]

In our (unarticulated) war against Islamism, we are going to destabilize the entire Middle East. That is the plan, even though the White House won't dare say it. I consider this a good thing.

The dithering in the Security Council has nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq per se, but rather about the consequences of removing him, and how to contain and manage the regional chaos that will certainly ensue.

Problem is, we want the destabilization, because that's the only practical way to defuse the slide toward Islamism in the Middle East. And in particular that's the only way to upset the logistics (recruiting, communications, money) of the Islamists, which are partly dependent upon tacit state sponsorship by Iran, Iraq, Saudi, and Pakistan.

This is only tangentially about Saddam.

[areafiftyone]

I see a poll that was put out Thursday which asked the following question:

21. Do you support or oppose U.S. military action TO DISARM IRAQ AND REMOVE Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?

	Support	Oppose	(Not sure)
14-15 Jan 03**	67%	25	8
17-18 Dec 02**	65%	23	12
19-20 Nov 02**	68%	18	14
22-23 Oct 02 LV**	62%	27	11
8-9 Oct 02 LV**	72%	17	11
24-25 Sep 02	58%	27	15
8-9 Sep 02	66%	22	12
6-7 Aug 02	69%	22	9
9-10 Jul 02	72%	18	10
30 Apr-1 May 02	70%	20	10
30-31 Jan 02	74%	15	11
28-29 Nov 01*	77%	22	11

That could be what they are talking about. It has gone up 2% since December. The link for the poll is here: CLICK

[MeekOneGOP]

Tagline: Hillary and Pelosi are Raelian clones

LOL ! Yep, twin clones...

Separated at 'birth'?...

[WOSG]

"and Saddam caved, the official said."

When did Saddam "cave"? What kind of idiot is this official? So far, Bush and Saddam are both hanging outgh and the issue is not yet joined.


"Cave" would be when Saddam leaves his palace FOR a cave.

Then we know Saddam "caved" - not before.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Send this to the next pro-peacenik mainstream promoter, or brainwashed student Chomsky-ite: CHEW ON THIS. J

[Truth29]

A major problem with going to the UN is that the UN seems to be serving as a rallying point for all of the countries trying to stop us. We are in great peril of being condemed as the aggressor by much of the world and, to the extent we care, a majority of the security council will publicly oppose any military action we take without a further UN resolution.

Going to the UN has allowed our enemies to organize. Now if we attack without a further UN resolution the UN will give aid and comfort to those who will portray Saddam as the victim and the US as the threat to world peace We would have been far better served by attacking and ending it quickly, just as we would have been better served by quicker and more decisive action against the Taliban. Swift, sure and fearsome victory are the best deterents against further terrorism.

[LS]

I think our President knows exactly when, and why, he wants to move troops. For one thing, four months ago, we did NOT have the support of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Turkey to BASE THEM on. That was one reason for the Resolution, to give them cover.

[LS]

We absolutely have NOT done so. We said on multiple occasions, if they did NOT act, we would. That settles that.

[LS]

Again, I disagree. I am on a college campus, and in fact, what this long delay MIGHT have done is to totally negate any serious protest. For months they have been trying to mobilize, but could NOT against the UN---their "love" child. So by waiting and dragging it out, he has to some degree diluted it so much that we will not see significant protests. I don't consider these piddly little things going on now as serious.

[LS]

NATO's time is over, and Bush is finishing it off by including everyone. No great loss at this point. W. Germany signed the NATO charter saying an "attack on one is an attack on all" but now isn't sending troops. So who needs 'em?

[LS]

Wrong. The Duke of Wellington said "there is always a time to cut cards with the devil." If we are not (and we weren't) ready to go to war; did not have the bases; did not have the men in place; then the UN was a useful foil to make us appear "reasonable" and "concerned" until we ARE ready to strike. We can learn a lot from the Iron Duke.

[LS]

Probably right. This all goes back to the "whoever is not with us is against us" speech from Bush. I have no problem with that, but HOW we present it is important to placate our "Muslim allies" where we need bases. And anyone who thinks we don't need them and their bases is crazy.

[LS]

I agree with your assessment of the timetable. It was funny: Rush said it would happen at exactly that time because he is on a two-week break. But if you do the math from the time the carrier groups left SD, we are in the first week of Feb.

[Howlin]

As usual, you are right on the money.

[Howlin]

I suspect some of the countries who are most reluctant to back us in the Security Council might also be those who've been secretly, and in defiance of UN resolutions, shipping missile and other weapon parts to Iraq.

And I think we have a RIGHT to know who those countries are; if they insist that we let the inspectors in before WE go, we should have the right to tell everybody just whose side everybody is on.

[Iscool]

Initially I too felt that going to the U.N. was a mistake...

But absent the capability for a surprise attack, I now see that George needed time for planning and logistics...And as much as it sickens me, International politics is important in a war...We have to know where our bases will be safe...

And, although we are known as the Bully of the World, this "stall" may help us look like the compassionate Bully that we are...

IF this stall has allowed S.H. to move his "bad" weapons to Syria to hide them, conceivably they won't be able to be used on our boys and girls when this thing starts, at least this time...

The question for me is, if S.H. goes into exhile, how will we continue the effort amidst public opinion??? We need to go in whether he claims to be gone or not...

[johnb838]

in two years we'll feel like we're living in the sixties and seventies all over again

Remember the hard hats? I would have to be a hard hat this time.

[Man of the Right]

I agree totally, plus I'll add a point. On the U.N. Security Council, Syria is unfriendly to the U.S., China and Angola are generally unfriendly, and the majority of the other members play a double game. Only the U.K., Spain, Chile and Bulgaria are reliable friends, and of course only the U.K. is there for us as a significant military ally. With the exception of the U.K. and Israel, the nations of the world have reduced themselves to irrelevance due to their societies' unwillingness to fund militarily effective armed forces. Finally, realistically the U.S. will be the principal target of WMDs, because only the U.S. has the material and moral resources to oppose terrorism. Killing Germans, French, Canadians, Swedes and Swiss is pointless, because they are non-entities.

If countries like Germany, France and Japan are unwilling to contribute meaningfully to the collective defense, we should expect less of the rest of the world. These countries have nothing to offer us except conversation and unsolicited advice, nearly all of it bad.

[angkor]

but HOW we present it is important to placate our "Muslim allies" where we need bases.

Well, yes, I'd agree with that.

I'd love to know what is being said in backdoor diplomacy efforts with the Saudis, Pakistanis, etc.

Some of the Arabic commentators appear to understand the strategic implications of removing Saddam (e.g., "It will destablize the entire region."). I would suspect their governments do as well. And, in my view, that's exactly what we intend to happen. Very specifically, to intimidate the Saudis and the Pakistanis to stop supporting Islamism, and to inspire Iranians to overthrow their hated mullah government.

But you can't really say those things to "our Muslim allies."

So I wonder what our diplomats are saying.