[Momaw Nadon]

FYI and discussion

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"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."

Now, not that the article is biased... but, being late to focus on "the day after the war begins" is not necessarily a bad thing, you have to plan out the phases that bring the forces into Iraq, step by step. And, I have no doubt that Saddam will stop supplying food and water to his people, so they will be starving when the war starts, and this he will blame on the Americans. But, to suggest that just because the administration is discussing this NOW, doesn't mean that they don't have plan A, B, and C, to work from. It just means they are discussing it now, and not three weeks ago!

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Objective Reality]

"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."

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.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Not much discussion here, after reading that terse article. It is quite a dilemma but I am sure the decision has been made.

For today, then, just an appropriate "Picture of the Day", perhaps:

[Savage Beast]

"Senior Bush administration officials are for the first time openly discussing...what could go wrong"

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.

[bonesmccoy]

I think the worst-case scenario is as follows:

1. Allies launch attack against Iraq.
2. North Korea launches attack against Japan and So. Korea.
3. PLA launches against Taiwan.
4. US forces get bogged down in Iraq. Fleet is tied up in Gulf.
5. Al Q. launches biological attack against US.

Solution:
1. Allies begin destruction of Iraqi infrastructure now (with on-going discussion at UN while whittling away at Iraqi infrastructure).
2. Japan & South Korea agree upon mutual security pact against NorKor.
3. Taiwan alerts for PLA attack and launches sub/cruiser defense fleets.
4. US centcom to create mechanism to control Bagdad without permitting units on outskirts of city to collapse in. Unified arab command to march on Baghdad.
5. Immunize US population.

[Man of the Right]

We've got the worst-case scenario now: Our French and German "allies" humilitating the U.S. and its allies daily.

[Nita Nuprez]

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?