Posted on 08/01/2002 1:10:59 PM PDT by SJackson
The greatest strategic deception since Eisenhower convinced Hitler the Allies were going to land at the Pas de Calais?
We may find out soon whether all this talk of invading Iraq has been part of the greatest strategic deception since Eisenhower convinced Hitler the Allies were going to land at the Pas de Calais.
Rumors of war have been rife in the news media of late, and they've been contradictory. On July 5, the New York Times published a front page story on a ground heavy invasion plan for Iraq. On July 29, the Times had another, very different, invasion plan - this one involving a quick strike on Baghdad - on its front page.
Meanwhile, the British press has been reporting both a "rift" between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush about invading Iraq, and that Blair has presented to Parliament the case for taking part in a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The London Evening Standard and Pravda report that U.S. and British special forces already are staging in countries surrounding Iraq. A "massive assault" could be likely at short notice, said the London Observer. But unidentified congressional sources say unidentified administration officials told them there will be no invasion before next year.
Confused? That may be the point. Not to confuse you, but to confuse Saddam. If he does not know when and how we will strike, he will be less able to defend himself. And if Saddam isn't quite sure whether we will strike, his guard might slip a bit. That a lot of journalists may wind up with egg on their faces is lagniappe.
The first thing to note about the conflicting war plans reported in the New York Times is that both could be true, and neither deserved the play the Times gave them. The Times breathlessly implies these are THE plans, when in all likelihood they are just a couple of dozens of contingencies prepared by mid-level military bureaucrats. The real plans, if they've been formulated, will be very close hold. It should not be difficult for the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, to whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has assigned the responsibility of finding the leakers, if Rumsfeld really wants them found.
The second is that there are two powerful physical constraints on the timing of an attack on Iraq. The Kosovo and Afghan wars drained our supply of JDAMs, the satellite guidance system that makes dumb bombs smart. It would be imprudent to initiate hostilities until the supply has been replenished.
The other constraint is weather. Saddam is all but certain to use chemical and biological weapons against U.S. troops. It's too hot in Iraq in the summer and early fall to be running around in chemical protective suits.
Instability in Saudi Arabia and instability in Iran could affect the timing and nature of war plans for Iraq. Three Saudi princes had died recently under mysterious circumstances. Canada's National Post reported July 31 what the London Observer had reported earlier, that extremists linked to al Qaeda are plotting a coup against the Saudi royal family. The trigger for a coup attempt could be the death of Saudi King Fahd, who is wasting away in a Swiss hospital.
Instability in Iran could provide a sudden opportunity. The country is on the brink of civil war. Anti-regime protests have become more bold, and the mullahs are cracking down hard. They've had to import Muslim extremists from other lands to do much of the dirty work, because of doubts about the loyalty to the regime of large elements of the army and the police.
There is a fair possibility Iran, not Iraq, will be the next target in the war on terror.
....snip....
The U.S. wouldn't attack Iran out of the blue. But U.S. intervention in support of a popular uprising could be in the cards. Iran ahead of Iraq. That would be a strategic deception to rival the phantom "First Patton Army" of WWII.
I had to look that one up. It refers to something given free, especially with a purchase. Just a little extra bonus.
is not worthy of consideration. British Intelligence MI5 controlled the entire German spy network from mid 1940. By the time we entered the war the Germans were already tracking two fictitous British divisions in the Middle East. At the end of the war the FHW thought there were still 14 active divisions of the British Army still in England. MI5 through its 'network of German spies' effectively aimed the V2 rockets of the Germans so that they fell in the sparsely populated suburbs rather than the East End of London.
Eisenhower may have been consulted but "BODYGUARD" was a British Affair.
This guy has hit the nail right on the head. Until the weather cooperates (i.e. winter in the Northern Hemisphere), and until we have replaced the weapons wasted on Serbia and the aspirin factory by the CinC of the hollow military, there's no need to fret about the Iraq invasion. Meanwhile, let Saddam stew by feeding him every conceivable operations plan and variant. That way, even if some traitorous rat tried to hand him the actual plans, he wouldn't know if he was getting the real deal or a Trojan Horse. Mr. Kelly obviously understands strategy and operational art better than the op-ed "journalists" at the New York Times.
1. Southern U.S. Caribbean present given to customer: a small present given by a store to somebody who has just purchased something in the store.
2. Southern U.S. unexpected bonus: an unexpected bonus or extra
3. Houston, Tx. A bunch of Crazy Cajuns: A group of friends who love to cook and have a good time doing it!
[Mid-19th century. Via Louisiana French from American Spanish la ñapa "the gift," from, ultimately, Quechua yapay , literally "to give more."]
.Thanks for clarifying. I read the title too and thought, Whoa, that's not right!
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.