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
To point to this one meeting (if it ever happened) as proof of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 given all the evidence against our own allies is obscene.
Yes, Lydon Johnson really screwed us over,on that we can certainly agree. Ultimately, it is the ground pounder who spills his blood. I am not in a favor of a rush to war witrh Iraq, but I am not convinced we shouldn't either. How much time should we give Saddam? Don't know about that either. Who knows, maybe Israel will take them out first. This is a tough call, but I did not want to do this kind of stuff, so I was USAF. We let the pilots do it.
Nope, Bush 41 left Saddam in power because the coalition demanded it. They were wrong.
The current coalition is also demanding we leave Saddam until he nukes somebody or lets loose some camelpox in Bigtown, America. IMO, they are wrong again.
You obviously didn't read it. The meeting was never "denied". The Czechs have maintained from the gitgo that Atta met al Ani in Prague in April of 2001 and all the wishing in the world isn't going to change that fact. al Ani was expelled shortly afterward.
Whats obscene to me is your willingness to simply avoid truth because it conflicts with your opinion of what Bush should do.
Why did Atta fly to Prague, risking discovery of the most horrendous terroist act ever, to meet with al Ani and then return the next day? Give me a rational explanantion for that and you will have done what nobody else has been able to.
Yes, it seems kind of ironic, that now I am wearing the green and those other dudes are wearing the blue, and I am getting paid to watch them.
See post #122
Boy, it's really easy to get you defensive, isn't it?
DO you know why he didn't use it the first time? He was told in no uncertain terms what would happen if he did.
Huh? You do realize that I was inwardly chuckling at the fact that you misspelled the word "idiot", right? Hmm, apparently not. Oh boy.
By the way, thanks for ignoring the substance of my post and failing to respond to it completely; that was your most intelligent contribution to its thread. Best,
???
Let you tell it, I guess.
Chamberlain was a pacifist (if that's who you mean). I'm a razor-sharp taloned hawk.
Israel's opinion is instructive. They know for a fact that they will be the first on the receiving end if we attack and yet they are satunchly in favor of that attack. I heard on the radio today that Mossad has more evidence of Husseins WMD program and the news is not good.
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.