Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Invading Iraq: Would the public go along?
Christian Science Monitor | Wednesday, July 17, 2002 | By Ann Scott Tyson | Special Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Posted on 07/17/2002 4:33:44 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

WASHINGTON - Plans for a US invasion of Iraq are being drawn and redrawn. News reports of a likely military push against Saddam Hussein unfold daily. And the American public almost uniformly agrees with President Bush in viewing the Iraqi regime as "evil." In fact, many believe Mr. Hussein poses a greater danger than Osama bin Laden.

But the effort to unseat Hussein faces important hurdles with the American public, with prospective allies overseas, and even in some quarters of the military. In recent polls, when weighing whether Washington should use military force to unseat Hussein, the public becomes more tentative in its backing, diverging from the drum-beating rhetoric of Mr. Bush.

Indeed, opinion polls suggest that the Bush administration must put forward a more powerful case than it has so far to mobilize the public fully behind a military invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Bush must offer more proof of threats posed by Iraq's links to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terrorism – and use such evidence to build an international military coalition.

In essence, Bush needs to lay the political and diplomatic groundwork for a military campaign against Iraq, much as his father did in the six months prior to launching the Gulf War in 1991, say analysts.

"He is making threatening statements to warn Saddam Hussein and rattling swords, but in terms of the international community, he doesn't have the support or a place to launch the invasion. He does not have deep public support," says James Thurber, a professor of government at American University.

A gung-ho public?

Still, mobilizing public opinion is a task clearly within The White House's reach. A June 21 Gallup poll found that 59 percent of respondents favor sending American troops to the Persian Gulf to topple Hussein.

But more detailed questions by pollsters indicate that many people have caveats to add. A little more than half of Americans say that if the US wins some allied support, they would approve of military action against Iraq, according to another June Gallup poll. That number shrinks to a minority, however, in a scenario where the United States would go it alone – an option administration officials have not ruled out.

"The public wants the company of our friends in dealing with global bad guys, and would be much more comfortable doing this with our allies," says Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

Solidifying such support, among major European allies will be contingent upon clear evidence of Iraqi transgressions. For example, large majorities of people polled in the United States as well as Britain, Germany, Italy, and France, say that an important – or very important – criterion to justify the use of military force would be the certainty that Iraq is now developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Also important – although more so to the Americans than to the Europeans – would be proof that Baghdad helped terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, according to an April poll by the Pew Research Center.

The US government will have to lay out the case against Hussein, says Kenneth Katzman, an Iraq expert at the Congressional Research Service.

"If there is not a clear and present danger on Iraq, I think public support is going to be slow to come around," he says.

Moreover, the US public appears to lack President Bush's sense of urgency. Polls show the public is willing to wait for an international alliance and for a quieting down of the Mideast crisis.

Hesitations over strategy

In terms of military strategy, Bush is considering a war plan that reportedly would involve up to 250,000 US troops in a three-pronged, air, land, and sea assault on Iraq. Yet the public remains ambivalent about dispatching US ground troops, with 7 out of 10 preferring only airstrikes in one March poll.

Indeed, some Americans and members of the armed forces question whether Washington has a well-thought-out plan, including clear objectives for Iraq's future.

"I think there is enormous reluctance in many circles up to the highest levels in the US military about taking on Iraq," says Col. David Tretler, a strategist at the National War College here. He expresses concern that the military would not have be given a sufficiently free hand or adequate resources to overthrow the regime, thus resulting in a sizable cost.

Colonel Tretler and others in the military stress that a political vision for Iraq is a vital prerequisite to waging war. "The time to declare a desired end state for Iraq is now, before we consider how best to use the military tool to fashion and consolidate what is essentially a political outcome," writes Roger Carstens, a member of the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs.

All of these reservations make it likely that Bush will postpone a potentially messy military campaign against Iraq until at least after the US general elections in November, says Fred Greenstein, an expert on the presidency at Princeton University in New Jersey. In coming months, however, a continued refusal by Iraq to allow in UN weapons inspectors could foster an international coalition to topple Hussein.

Alternatively, Bush may initially attempt to use the less-controversial tool of covert action. He reportedly has authorized CIA agents and elite US troops to use lethal force to oust Hussein.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Wednesday, July 17, 2002

Quote of the Day posted by Alias Sandman

1 posted on 07/17/2002 4:33:44 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Morning, John......much of this stuff is disinformation, including perhaps, Rumsfeld's temper tantrum at the DoD press briefing. We'll never know until after it's over, but it wouldn't surprise me if the "leaks" to the NY Times weren't orchestrated to some extent....Remember, we had a MEU sailing in circles offshore from Kuwait, in a successful effort to convince the Iraqis that were were staging an amphibious landing, while the main units were swinging hundreds of miles to the west, in the end around...

I wrote here several months earlier that military action will be delayed until we, and the Israelis, have conclusively identified ALL the Iraqi WMD sights and plants. THis isn't easy, and there is NO margin for error, because in my mind, there is NO doubt whatsoever that when the Iraqi regime collapses, Saddam will order a "gotterdammerung" type launch against Israel. WE have to be able to take out and neutralize, without killing our own troops, ALL the Iraqi WMDs....

2 posted on 07/17/2002 4:43:17 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Would the public go along?

Damn skippy they would.

3 posted on 07/17/2002 4:47:05 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Goodmorningbackatya, friend.

Remember, we had a MEU sailing in circles offshore from Kuwait, in a successful effort to convince the Iraqis that were were staging an amphibious landing, while the main units were swinging hundreds of miles to the west, in the end around...

Indeed -- 18,000 Marines successfully diverted 10s, if not 100s of thousands of Iraqi troops, allowing our troops to do a Hail Mary pass, totally surprising the enemy, with mininal loss for we and our allies.

4 posted on 07/17/2002 4:50:58 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
”…military action will be delayed until we, and the Israelis, have conclusively identified ALL the Iraqi WMD sights and plants.”

I agree with your post. Iraq will attempt to use all the weapons they have, including biological and chemical. These weapons will be used against our troops and against Israel, and if he has managed to get agents into this country, against us within our borders.

The only question is who will attack first, us or him?

5 posted on 07/17/2002 4:56:16 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Isn't Saudi Arabia the real problem? Are we too dependent on them to 'make them mad at us?'.
God I hope not.
6 posted on 07/17/2002 4:57:07 AM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
Knocking Saddam off eases our dependence on the Saudis for oil; moreover, liberating Iraq could trigger political changes throughout the region.
7 posted on 07/17/2002 4:59:53 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
When (not if) it begins, the US needs to be completely resolved to a fast, furious and decisive war. Saddam, when he thinks his demise is imminent, will release every WMD at his command against any and every objective (Middle East and elsewhere) available. He has sleepers, too, so it might get messy in the ME and here (US) as well.

Is it worth the threat? As scary as it may be now, yes, it is--for the future. Otherwise, Saddam and those like him will continue to develop and eventually use WMD's. They are bent on destruction, not building. They are interested in conquest and subjugation.

Two keys are important. First, GWB must show determined resolve to complete the mission (taking Saddam out of power) and not stop short--this time. That could activate the second key, which is the determination of Iraqi's to free themselves of Saddam. Without the first, we won't have the second, the mission will be a failure, and Saddam/sons will be even more powerful, politically.
8 posted on 07/17/2002 5:11:47 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
In my town, everyone I know recognizes the peril from Saddam Hussein. We'd be crazy to wait for it to materialize. When our offensive begins, we're sadly going to lose brave men and women, perhaps many. But the alternative is far worse.
9 posted on 07/17/2002 6:00:19 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"There is no tyranny so despotic as that of public opinion among a free people." anon.
10 posted on 07/17/2002 6:22:48 AM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
In my town, everyone I know recognizes the peril from Saddam Hussein. We'd be crazy to wait for it to materialize. When our offensive begins, we're sadly going to lose brave men and women, perhaps many. But the alternative is far worse.

I hear the same "Saddam is a threat" conversations here. However, we have very capable leadership and I believe our losses in attacking Saddam & company will be minimized.

11 posted on 07/17/2002 6:28:10 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: toddst
What is being hidden here is the role that the IDF will play, especially when Saddam fires off a few SCUD's at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

This is being negotiated right now. It is masked so as to present the Arab League with a faits accomplis when the war commences. In for a penny, in for a pound, if you know what I mean.

All those exercises the Israelis have been having with the Turks? There's a reason for that, you know. Just think of the SAM suppression/ground attack/anti-SCUD roles that the IAF could perform.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

12 posted on 07/17/2002 6:41:45 AM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: toddst
I hear the same "Saddam is a threat" conversations here. However, we have very capable leadership and I believe our losses in attacking Saddam & company will be minimized.

I agree. And I believe that Americans will rally behind our leadership wholeheartedly.

13 posted on 07/17/2002 6:50:19 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gaspar
"There is no tyranny so despotic as that of public opinion among a free people." anon.

Well, it is a tyranny that you freely subject yourself to if you decide you want to live in this country. Sort of like Winston Churchill's insight that: "Democracy is the worst sort of government - except for all the others."

14 posted on 07/17/2002 6:52:22 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: section9
All those exercises the Israelis have been having with the Turks? There's a reason for that, you know. Just think of the SAM suppression/ground attack/anti-SCUD roles that the IAF could perform.

Interesting and makes sense. I missed it - thanks. Perhaps I'm being too optomistic but this war could be over very quickly. Saddam's boys will likely cut and run at the first sign of serious trouble. Most have no interest in dying for that scum IMHO.

15 posted on 07/17/2002 8:40:20 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"There is no tyranny so despotic as that of public opinion among a free people." anon.


Well, it is a tyranny that you freely subject yourself to if you decide you want to live in this country. Sort of like Winston Churchill's insight that: "Democracy is the worst sort of government - except for all the others." - YB -


This country is a constitutional republic, not a democracy ruled by a tyranny of the majority.
--- Nearly every post of yours demonstrates your 'democratic' convictions. - You advocate that a religious majority be recognized by our government, - and that the political majority of the day be obeyed 'if you want to live here'.

--- You sir, are NOT a constitutional conservative. What is your agenda here at free republic? Seeing that you don't really believe in one, why are you here?

16 posted on 07/17/2002 10:01:10 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson