How do I know that war is coming?

August 8, 2002 | ARCADIA

[kaktuskid]

We are still in a state of war with Iraq..they never surrendered (Saddam, that is)

[The Great Satan]

"Soon" could be six months or it could be tomorrow. My sense is it's not going to be a year, even though I don't think we'll be in a position to attack Iraq with impunity even then. However, that LA Times story and the due diligence search of Barbara Rosenberg's favorite anthrax suspect, along with the general tenor of events here and in Israel, gives me the feeling that the strategy will not be to wait until we are fully protected from Saddam's deterrent.

I think Dubya's strategy is going to be a surprise. I can't really guess what it is going to be. Remember his interview with the BBC a few months back, where they asked about such-and-such with respect to Iraq, and he just said "I have a different plan," and left it at that? Not exactly cocky, but like: I know what I'm going to do, and I'm not telling you.

I cannot resist speculating though. I don't think we're going to invade Iraq any time soon. I think, once the evidence is layed out on the table regarding Saddam's authorship of 9-11 and the subsequent anthrax threats, Saddam is going to be in an untenable situation -- even if people understand that his deterrent is good enough to keep us from striking back for now. People will understand that that situation will change eventually -- maybe in a year, maybe in two or three years. And, sooner or later, the conflict will be resolved in our favor. The only question is, how many people are going to die, on both sides, before Saddam is out. Even without making any sudden, dangerous moves, this will create the right incentive structure for a resolution. The resolution will involve a military coup in Iraq, and the handing over of Saddam Hussein, alive, to the United States.

The downside of explicitly naming Saddam Hussein as the mastermind of 9-11 before we are able to safely move against him is that we will have to endure a period of great economic uncertainty and generalized anxiety, which might last for years if the crisis cannot be resolved quickly. That is why everything has been kept ambiguous up to now -- hypotheticals do not way heavily on the public consciousness. However, at some point there is a trade-off between the benefits of facing up to reality, and the economic and psychological costs of same. Bush will calibrate this as carefully as he can, but it looks like we're inching towards the reality side of the equation.

So, that's currently my best guess as how we are going to extract ourselves from this nightmarish situation. Asked about Saddam during his last press conference, Bush's key remark was "Everybody better remember -- I'm a very patient man." Think back to the Florida election debacle, and you have a perfect model for how Bush handles things, for what qualities of character he leverages in a difficult situation. No fireworks, no hysterics, just calm resolution and unwavering commitment to a rationally-calculated objective. Expect more of the same.

[Mike Darancette]

If you're watching Sadam --- Just move on, nothing to read here.

[stuartcr]

Can you remember all the way back to Kuwait?

[pfflier]

The government was monitoring a series of electronic attacks launched early Tuesday against U.S. Internet providers, hours after European authorities passed warnings to the FBI predicting the attacks.

Just a personal observation but this occurred and became more intense just prior to 9/11. The attacks were of Chinese origin using worms that nearly stalled out AOL as well as other providers. If the attacks become more prevalent and some providers are severly affected I would go to the next DEFCON state.

[stuartcr]

It also happened when the Chinese forced our spy plane down, and during the Balkan thing.

[stuartcr]

In the US, 'war-fever' doesn't last too long with the majority. Most people just want to get on with their lives.

[VOA]

Pizza deliveries to the Pentagon.

Ah, the fond memories of Desert Storm.
And one case in which eating pizza has TERRIBLE health effects for people who didn't consume it!

[Paulus Invictus]

It didn't take two years for the Nazis to realize that lots of their troops were not ever coming home. The first signs of serious Russian resistance were the thousands of German casualties. The Nazis tried to hide the numbers, but people knew that things were going wrong in Russia.

I met a guy who had been in the Africa Corps and later sent to Russia with his tank regiment. He was wounded twice and nearly killed. His take on the huge tank battles against the Ruskies was that the Nazis were annihilated by the thousands.

[mamelukesabre]

I would support any war effort anywhere from the scale of the recent action in afghanistan all the way up to the scale of the invasion forces of D-DAY, and even beyond that! I wouldn't mind it one bit if we took on iran, iraq, syria, the palis, and saudi all at once.

I'd expect them all to surrender in under 24 months even if we did take them all on at the same time with no help from the world whatsoever.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Interesting question. I see the responses have been all over the board from jokes to serious, with predictions from soon to next year.

I have already made my prediction that we will be attacking Iraq before the end of September.

I believe the men and machinery are already in place.

The problem for us is how do you gain surprise, when you have told everyone in the world what you are going to do?

One thing is you attempt to confuse your enemy. There have been so many leaks on what our plans are, that if someone had the 100% true invasion plans and published them, they would be lost amoung the hundreds of untrue plans. What we are going to do may already be out there but how do you tell which is the real one. I don't know.

After 9/11 up until recently, the administration had down played Iraq's involvement in the attack, but recently stories are coming out connecting the dots, with one big dot being Saddam.

As the date of the attack against Iraq you will see more stories about their involvement, but the truth is, very few will know when it will occur until it is already in progress.

Keep in mind a lot of what you read is untrue.

I do know this is going to make an interesting book when it is all over.

[jenny65]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If an attack happens before November, the dems will be all over it like flies on sh*t, sreaming "Wag the Dog!". I might even tend to agree, unless there is an air-tight reason why it has to be done now.

There's also the remote possibility that it'll go to hell in a handbasket and the voters will rebel. Again, too risky.

While I know it will be done eventually, I am 100 percent against risking our soldiers' lives to benefit a political party. That's what it boils down to for me. It's also what some of you (not necessarily Aliska) seem to be condoning. If we're gonna commit, then it'd better be for the right reasons dammit!

Better to do it AFTER the elections when there are no other distractions. Again, if it makes tactical sense to do it now, fine. Just be prepared for the onslaught from the left regardless of the reasons. That's the political world we live in now unfortunately.

[RightWhale]

Following Stalingrad the war was lost. That was the time to get out of Berlin and then out of Germany. Up to Stalingrad everything was relatively fine on the war front even though Moscow still stood. Kursk and Kursk Part Deux were horrible disasters for the panzers. Possibly Kursk wouldn't have happened at all if the spearhead of the German army hadn't been lost at Stalingrad. Stalingrad was simply a military blunder on the part of the Germans, and a godsend for the Russians. It changed the course of the war and everyone on earth knew it at the time. Headlines!

[det dweller too]

I would look for a sudden rise in real estate prices in Tierra del Fuego

[Aliska]

I am 100 percent against risking our soldiers' lives to benefit a political party.

Same here.

[aBootes]

You have FReepmail

[El Gato]

What's the difference?

One is what to look for, the other is what you see or know about. One is general, the other specific, too specific to be posting, if you know what I mean.

[El Gato]

just before Britain went to war with Argentina

I believe you've got that backwards, it was Argentina that intiated hostilities, the Brits were just hopping mad about it and didn't waste much time in striking back.

[El Gato]

Professional soldiers want a war - of course they do.

Sure they do, they are only the ones that get to do the fighting and such dieing as can't be avoided. Actually, IF there is a war, they want in. But want the war? Not many, an even smaller fraction of thsoe who've already seen the elephant.