For today, then, just an appropriate "Picture of the Day", perhaps:
Posted on 02/17/2003 8:18:20 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
(WASHINGTON) Senior Bush administration officials are for the first time openly discussing a subject they have sidestepped during the massive buildup of forces around Iraq: what could go wrong not only during an attack, but especially in the aftermath of an invasion.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has a four-to-five-page typewritten catalog of risks he keeps in his desk drawer. He refers to it constantly, updates it regularly and has incorporated suggestions from senior military commanders into it and discussed it with President George W. Bush.
The list includes a "concern about Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and blaming it on us, which would fit a pattern," Rumsfeld said. The document also notes "that he could do what he did to the Kuwaiti oil fields and explode them, detonate, in a way that lost that important revenue for the Iraqi people," Rumsfeld said.
That item is of particular concern to the administration teams planning postwar reconstruction, as Iraqi oil revenues would be required for speedily rebuilding the nation.
A senior Bush administration official confirmed that fundamental uncertainties remain even after months of internal studies, advance planning and the insertion of Central Intelligence Agency officers and Special Operations Forces into some corners of Iraq.
"We still do not know how U.S. forces will be received - will it be cheers, jeers or shots?" the senior official said. "And the fact is, we won't know until we get there."
In an administration that strives to sound bold and optimistic - especially when discussing the political, economic and military power of the United States and its ideas - such cautionary notes being sounded from the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence community may well be intended for political inoculation. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, according to one military maxim that is no less accurate for its being a cliché. It is better to warn the American public of these dangers in advance, officials note.
According to his aides, Bush has to prepare the country for what one senior official calls "the very real possibility that this will not look like Afghanistan," a military victory that came with greater speed than any had predicted, and with fewer casualties.
And if Bush decides to begin military action without explicit United Nations approval, it is very possible that other nations will withhold support for what promises to be the far more complex operation: stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq, while preventing religious and political score-settling, seeking out well-hidden weapons stores before others find them, keeping the lid on Taliban activity in Afghanistan and pre-empting acts of terror against American targets at home and abroad.
"There is a lot to keep us awake at night," said one senior administration official.
The level of uncertainty over the length of the battle in Iraq is high, the senior administration official said, despite the confident assertions of some enthusiasts for military action that the resistance will be over in a flash.
"How long will this go on?" the official asked. "Three days, three weeks, three months, three years?"
Even some of this senior official's aides winced as they contemplated the last time frame on the list.
As America's intelligence assets focus on Iraq and tracking terrorist activity worldwide, senior officials worry that they may be less thorough in tracking threats to the United States elsewhere around the globe.
Just last week on Capitol Hill, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said that his ability to detect the proliferation of nuclear weapons or missiles around the world was being "stretched thin," leaving vast swaths of the world, including South Asia and North Korea, with less coverage than he would like.
And the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, hinted at one of the deepest worries heard in the hallways of the intelligence agency, the Pentagon and the White House: that a successful removal of Saddam Hussein could be followed by a scramble for the tools he wielded to remain in power, including his military arsenal.
"The country cannot be carved up," Tenet said of Iraq. "The country gets carved up and people believe they have license to take parts of the country for themselves.
"That will make this a heck of a lot harder," Tenet said.
At the White House, officials acknowledge that they have been late in focusing on the question of how to bring enough aid to the region in the days after an attack begins, which could mean that even those celebrating liberation could quickly turn against the liberators.
Bush's political aides are acutely aware that if Iraq turns into a lengthy military operation, or if stabilization efforts are viewed by the Iraqi people as foreign occupation, those events will quickly be seized upon by Bush's opponents.
I swear to God this is true:
Towards the wind-down of the ground phase of Gulf War I, I heard this news report on the radio of a platoon of Iraqi regulars who surrendered, as many did, to a Western news crew.
"George Bush Yes! Saddam Hussen NO!" shouted one of the Iraqi soldiers. Immediately prompting a loud, repetitive chant, as Muslims are often inclined to perform when gathered in groups:
"George Bush! George Bush! George Bush! GEORGE BUSH!!!"
I immediately thought then, and still believe now, that the Gulf War I memorial should consist of a statue of an American soldier handing a canteen of water to a grateful, disarmed, simultaneously-defeated-and-liberated Iraqi soldier. It was the most poignant image of the war that I recall, and it happened a lot.
In the years since, I've sometimes wondered whatever became of those poor bastards, who were convinced that Saddam's days were over. I imagine every one of them was tortured to death. Bush 41 will always have my respect, but I don't think much of the way his administration elected to abandon the Iraqi insurrection. What was the issue, really? Greater Kurdistan?
So, to answer the pondering, I have no idea how the Iraqi people would react this time, but I expect it would be with less enthusiasm than the first time.
For today, then, just an appropriate "Picture of the Day", perhaps:
The chance that this could be true is between zilch and none. They've been discussing it from the beginning.
"those events will quickly be seized upon by Bush's opponents."
And if Iraq does not turn into a lengthy military operation, or if stabilization efforts are not viewed by the Iraqi people as foreign occupation, Bush's opponents will invent something to seize upon.
"I think it's a big mistake to underestimate him."--Tom Daschle, November 10, 2002.
They are discussing pacification stabilization worst-case scenario not World War Three.
Once Saddam is disposed there will be a power vacuum.
The worst case scenario is that splinter groups will rise up demanding the right to secede from Iraq Proper.
Other groups will start fighting for the Iraqi leadership.
Such a scenario will mean the placing of large numbers of Troops mainly Americans in a pacification stabilization role.
The longer American troops are based there as peace keepers the more embroiled they would become in local politics/grievance, the more of a target they will become from breakaway splinter groups, pan Arab Nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists.
Tony
Better to use them than lose them.
Then he announces that he has a nuclear device in the heart of Baghdad. He uses what poison SCUDS he has left on the Turkish border.
This scenario is not for the weak of heart!
| Bush's political aides are acutely aware that if Iraq turns into a lengthy military operation, or if stabilization efforts are viewed by the Iraqi people as foreign occupation, those events will quickly be seized upon by Bush's opponents. |
| What a stark contrast to Clinton's "leadership." Is there anyone here who thinks for one minute that William Jefferson Clinton would have taken such a political risk to protect United States citizens from terrorist attacks? |
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.