Posted on 08/16/2002 11:22:11 AM PDT by ejdrapes
http://www.msnbc.com/news/788858.asp
Key figures involved in the Persian Gulf War have questioned America’s preparedness for another attack on Iraq. Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft say international support is critical for a campaign to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
SCHWARZKOPF, SPEAKING on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” also argued that the United States will need better intelligence before it attempts a “regime change” in Iraq. He noted that during the Persian Gulf War, when he led the international coalition that defeated Iraq, the military was never able to locate Saddam Hussein. Schwarzkopf commanded a force that involved more than 40 nations in 1991 and the general said a coalition in favor of ousting Saddam was essential. “We have to have that kind of support,” he said. Schwarzkopf told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Thursday that a military campaign without the assistance of Saudi Arabia would be difficult. More than 200,000 American troops were based in the desert kingdom during the 1991 war but the Saudi leaders have refused to help in a new attack on Iraq.
Separately, Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President Gerald Ford and former President George Bush, warned against moving on Baghdad while the war on terrorism in progress. In the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, he wrote there was little evidence linking Saddam to terrorist organizations and “he is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
I agree. My opinion is that it is the sabre rattling which is for Iraqi consumption, since we are nowhere near being ready to attack. I just hope that the loud threats don't become an unintended, self-fulfilling prophecy -- as the American public whips itself into a frenzied, war-feverish corner. Few thought WWI would ever come to pass...
Scowcroft wrote that the time mya come when we need to deal with Iraq but the time isn't now. How could he possibly offer an informed opinion on that?
General Shwarzkopf stated on Imus that his concern was the lack of froward basng. How does he know what deals have already been cut?
He further stated that if there was evidence that Iraq was close to nukes, then we would have to do it. Today, Israel announced that Hussein was either in possession of or close to nuclear capability.
Shwarzkopf's opinion on how to defeat the enemy on the battlefield should be welcomed and respected. His opinion on whether or not it is time to go is IMHO, uniformed.
Thats bullshit.
We were attacked on September 11 by Islamic extremists that are a part of an international Jihadist terrorist network, of which Iraq is a sponsor and a very real threat to the security of our country.
3,000 Americans died in an hour that day, that will NOT happen again, and towelheads will NEVER BE ALLOWED to get the bomb or any other chemical or biological weapons.
BUH BYE Saddam.
The next raghead who thinks he is going to support actions against the USA is going to think twice after Saddam and his country are DESTROYED.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Yes they left their flank open...as a direct result of the Marine forces offshore...but Schwarzkopf left the back door open. He had an opportunity to extend the conflict...when Powell asked, Schwarzkopf said we have them encircled and we can declare a cessation of hostilities, that he didnt need anymore time...It was only McCaffrey's savvy [After the declared cessation] that led to many fleeing Iraqis dying on that highway [save the air assaults].
If you argued that, you'd be calling General Shwazkopf a liar. He stated explicitly that he did not have a need to know and did, in fact, not know any intel.
If he and Scowcroft do know what they have no need to know, somebody needs to go to the stockade. Their time is over, they are civilians.
That could drag things out a bit after the election [If Conservatives do not exploit the current situation and maintain a majority].
Undoubtedly Saudi was involved but we have no evidence of a Saudi operative meeting with Atta in Prague. We do have evidence that Atta and al Ani, an Iraqui operative who was then deported, did meet in Prague.
And the House of Saud is not a clear and present danger to launch nukes at Tel Aviv or smallpox in Anywhere, USA. Hussien is crazy, it is not rational to assign rationality to an irrational asswipe like Saddam. His goal in life is to be spoken of in the same breath as Saladin.
...and understand your position...my calling Schwarzkopf a bafoon does not require disregard of other variables involved in being a Commanding General. However you give him credit for things that ultimately are requirements. What he lacked was leadership skills. He was a large loud Man with stars. Barry McCaffrey was far and away the best ground general involved in the conflict. Col Warden the architect of the Air campaign was smarter and comprehended the enemy better than Schwarzkopf.
Schwarzkopf's inability to recieve or acknowledge intel from the CIA & NSA is a dead giveaway.
He is self centered to a fault. His ego got in the way of being able to see the battlefield as well as his commanders saliently. Leaving Franks in command of the 7th was a good example of this. He [Franks] should've been relieved of his duty as commander.
His schizophrenic desire to hit the Republican Guard units en mass caused the delays that led directly to many Guard units being able to flee back to Iraq.
Other than being competent of the AO and the surrounding culture, Schwarzkopf offered nothing else that any other Army 4 star infantry general couldnt have. IMHO
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.