Posted on 08/16/2002 12:37:18 PM PDT by rightwing2
Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best
First of Three Parts
by David T. Pyne
August 16, 2002
Recent news reports indicate that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an unprecedented move, has locked out the Joint Chiefs of Staff from further planning for the planned US invasion of Iraq. This action was reportedly taken due to recent leaks by some of our highest-ranking general officers of US war plans, who remain wary of fighting another war against Iraq this time without provocation or justification. While our top generals are not convinced that war with Iraq is a prudent course of action, those of our top policymakers who have never fought in a war are leading the charge to invade Iraq. The only combat veteran among them, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been wisely urging that caution be exercised by the President in getting the US into another war with Iraq and informing the President of all of the undesirable consequences that would likely result from such an unprovoked unilateral US invasion of Iraq.
According to polls, two thirds of the American people would support another US invasion of Iraq. Too many Americans dismiss the Iraqi military machine after the seemingly easy victory of 1991 during Operation Desert Storm achieved at the cost of only a few hundred US soldiers killed in action. Over the past few months, the news reports have been blaring with headlines announcing the Administration's secret plans to invade Iraq. Such planning has ranged from a full-scale 250,000 man invasion which would come closest to ensuring victory though at a potentially high cost in casualties during the war and ensuing occupation to one which would involve as few as 50,000 airborne and special operations troops. This contingency plan is based on the likely erroneous presumption that effective organized and well-armed opposition to Saddam exists and would take action if only the US 82nd Airborne Division were only to appear outside Baghdad to support it.
This last plan would likely result in total disaster for the US forces participating in it. The reason is that even after the destruction wrought upon it by the US armed forces during Operation Desert Storm, Iraq retains a large Army consisting of 424,000 men in 23 divisions including 2200 main-battle tanks, 3700 other assorted armored vehicles, 2400 major artillery weapons and up to 300 operational combat aircraft. It also has another 120,000 men in its internal security forces, which could be expected to defend Saddam from capture. After recent upgrades with help from the Communist China, North Korea and Yugoslavia, Iraq now boasts one of the best air defense systems in the world according to national security experts.
If anyone seriously believes that the nearly 550,000 defenders of Iraq are going to give up the fight at the sight of a mere 20,000 US light infantry troops landing near Baghdad, they are in for a big surprise. While the first US-Iraqi war did prove that much of the Iraqi military lacks the will to fight, it also proved that the tens of thousands of well-trained and well-equipped Republican Guard troops would likely to mount an effective and determined resistance to a US invasion. These Iraqi forces would outnumber US invading troops by over eight to one and could conceivably surround and capture large numbers of US troops before they could safely be extricated and before US reinforcements could be sent in to save them. In short, if the US were to commit the 82nd Airborne to the capture of Baghdad unassisted by heavier armor and artillery formations, it would undoubtedly result in the highest number of combat casualties since the Vietnam War.
Top policymakers in the Administration appear to have forgotten the lesson of Desert Storm which is that large numbers of troops with heavy tanks win wars in their desire to repeat the successes of Afghanistan in which 50,000 US Special Forces troops were able to beat a ragtag and poorly equipped Army of 47,000 Taleban and assorted Al Queda irregulars. A word of warning-Iraq is no Afghanistan. It would take at least 200,000 well supported and well-equipped US ground troops with plenty of tanks and tracked armored vehicles to win another war against Iraq. Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official, now a senior fellow and Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies cautioned, "I think it is incredibly dangerous to be dismissive" of the Iraqi military. "To be careless about this war, to me, would be a disaster."
The grand coalition which former President George HW Bush organized to challenge the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait has long since been broken thanks to the polarization of the Arab world with the US-led war on terror and the Israeli war against Palestinian terror. If the US were to invade Iraq, it would likely do so virtually alone without any coalition allies. Even America's closest ally, the UK has voiced opposition to the US plan to invade Iraq. Only Israel would support such a war even though Israeli intelligence publicized the fact that Iraq has no discernable connections to the 9-11 terrorists. However, any Israeli military intervention against Iraq would further anger the entire Arab world against the US and possibly even risk an enlargement of the conflict.
It seems that the Bush Administration has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past and will embark on a course of regime change with the intention to kill or capture Saddam Hussein, which will ensure a no holds bar conflict that is most likely to maximize casualties on both sides. It would be far wiser to come to an accommodation with Saddam whereby he steps down in favor of another more acceptable successor and agrees to go into exile with immunity from prosecution. That would maximize the prospect for another victory at low cost in blood and treasure and might well eliminate the perceived "need" for the US to invade Iraq in the first place. It was recently reported that Hussein was considering formally stepping down from power in a bid to end UN sanctions on his country so such a development is not out of the question. It would be more sensible for the US to restrain itself to fighting one war at a time. An invasion of Iraq would not be prudent before the war in Afghanistan is finished. The Iraq warhawks in the Bush Administration would do well to consider why they have been unable to persuade any of their allies to support their planned unprovoked aggressive war against Iraq. ***
Next up: Part 2--Would another invasion of Iraq be justified?
© 2002 David T. Pyne
What is a legal war?
War of self-defense
I see. Well, good thing that if we invaded it wouldn't be "without provocation", then.
Never ceases to amaze me how many articles come out (and they really are a dime a dozen) criticizing the so-called "plan to invade Iraq", a "plan" which doesn't even exist as far as we know, except of course in the ever-more-fantastic and mutually-contradictory stories leaked to the New York Times. This article ought to really be titled, "The bogus stories leaked to and planted in the New York Times about this or that 'plan to invade Iraq' are dubious". The real story here, after all, is the fact that the NYT and people like the author of this piece are so damn gullible.
Stupid is a better word.
Dubya's? Dubya claims no plan.
Anyway, what plan? Everybody has a plan. These plans are all other peoples' plans. This is Friday. Is this referring to today's NYT plan or last Friday's Newsweek plan? Or maybe next week's NPR plan?
Uh ... I think it was more like 500, if even that many. Here we go again with the "mother of all battles" talk. I actually like the inside-out approach. We'll have spies and SF teams crawling all over Baghdad before we go in. Saddam will have a bullet in his head by then.
If we don't have a plan to win the peace, we won't win the 'war'. Bush needs to think beyond the next election and to think the strategy about how in some 50 years we end up with friendly nations like Germany and Japan. That's why this area has been warring for 4000 years. Generals know more about saving American lives long-term than pundits and neo 'con-men' with their own timetable.
Call it whatever you want, it won't happen anyway.
(Now, an invasion with provocation - that's another story.)
If you ask me there is greater moral imperative to invade and take this guy out now than we had in the Gulf War, for God's sake!! What would you suggest that we wait around and have him hit us again? I bet these same guys would be sitting on their hands then as they are now!
I don't mind a little thoughtful consideration but Sadam, the Mullah's in Iran, House of Saud, Hosni Mubarek, and Syria need to be shown that terrorism is a loosing form of warfare. I persoannly feel that if we took him out the first time, Sept 11 would have never happenned. Why, you ask? Because We would be controlling those Iraqi oil fields and the Saudi's would have been exposed for the thugs they are long ago. Faced with competition for oil they would be shaking down OPEC and terrorising their other customers. We would have also sent a message thoughout the Middle East that says "Don't you dare mess with the US or you WILL loose your country". These thugs only respect one thing: Force and Power. Its time they were shown what REAL power is in the hands of a commited, enraged, courageous and freedom loving people. We HAVE been provolked. The time for action is now!
Oh, great... so now the plan which the administration has been talking about for months doesn't exist. Now how am I to believe that one?
Absolutely amazing.
I think the relentless psy-ops campaign against Iraq is aimed at precipitating the provocation necessary thus making our planned invasion legal.
Furthermore, if Saddam is dumb enough to lash out in a first strike at Israel, which I feel is the unstated aim of this psy-ops campaign, no US invasion will be necessary. All that will be left for us is radiation containment and nation/government rebuilding.
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.