Posted on 08/06/2002 2:28:04 PM PDT by ARCADIA
I've been reading all the newspapers about the possible war with Iraq. I've noticed that many of the British pagers are constantly searching for clues to determine if "war is comming." They are always reporting this or that detail and saying it signifies military preparations.
For example, they claim that trucks Okhave recently received paint jobs in desert tan, that the US is making inquiries about the availability of tankers, that the US is building up it's strategic oil reserve, etc.
Many Freepers have knowledge of military matters. What signs should one look for? What should start happening and in what order?
I am just looking for general concepts -- not "loose lips" type stuff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same here.
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.
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.
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.
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.