High-risk dash - Baghdad by Wednesday?

Asia Times ^ | 3.24.03 | Marc Erikson

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

We are after Saddam specifically.

Not a good strategy to keep such a narrow focus. If you take out Saddam but leave the Baathist power structure intact, you'll have a thousand Saddams waiting in the wings. This is little better than the unfinished job of 1991.

It stinks to have to do this, but we need to stick around long enough to eliminate the Baathists from the political equation permanently.

[Goodman26]

we need to stick around long enough to eliminate the Baathists from the political equation permanently

That's too tricky and we're not qualified to do that, and besides, it goes beyond the agenda stated by Bush, which did include "regime change" but not necessarily elimination of all Baathists from the power structure.

In any event, ensuring good behavior by a new regime depends less on whether the leaders were ever affliated with the Baath party and more on whether they respect the US's ability to personally punish them (read blow the out of their bunkers) if they misbehave.

Remember that Reagan effected regime change in Libya without even changing the leader, let alone eliminating all affliated with the leader, by blowing away the tent Quadaffi might have been sleeping in. That shaped him up pretty well for a while. We're dealing with animals here; we have to treat them that way, and not overestimate our ability to control their complicated politics.

[Jesse]

"Pick a better source next time. I don't think the Chinese Communists can be relied on for objective reporting."



You know, I think this article did a decent job.

Better than some of our own sources, such as National Pathetic radio. :)

[Trust but Verify]

I'm starting to think there are some MAJOR, MAJOR surprises coming. The 4th Cav is out there somewhere. And the 82nd Airborne and others have gone silent. It will be very interesting to see where the pop up. One thing is for sure. We have got to keep the RG from falling back into Baghdad.

[samtheman]

You're right. The resistance is not unexpected. I just indulged a fantasy of instant success.

I stand corrected.

[samtheman]

You do realize that whatever your objects, US policy is that we will stick around in Iraq for awhile. It's the stated policy to normalize the situation before we leave. You can argue against that policy if you want, but I don't think you're going to get very far with the administration.

I personally agree with Bush on this. It would be folly to knock off a few top leaders, dig up a few thousand gallons of VX and Anthrax, and then turn tail and run.

As in Afghanistan, our presence is needed for some period of post-war rebuilding.

[samtheman]

I just heard talk on the tube of a Red Line around Baghdad which, when crossed, will trigger a chem-bio response.

[dfwgator]

I will say the one thing that does concern me is the fact that throughout the Arab world, they clearly are supporting Iraq. This is even with the knowledge that Saddam is a bad guy. These people mostly live in countries with governments friendly to the US so it is not as if anyone is putting a gun to their head to support Saddam. Why is it inconceivable that most Iraqis who have been fed a steady diet of anti-US propaganda can hate BOTH Saddam and hate the US at the same time?

[Trust but Verify]

Ou guys are ready for it. Their own people may die. I'm sure that's of no nonsequence for them.