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
The best available numbers of Gulf War casualties are:
The United States suffered 148 killed in action, 458 wounded, 121 killed in nonhostile actions and 11 female combat deaths.
In June 1991 the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted, and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher numbers of Iraqi killed in action.
The stops are out to save Saddam's ass. Why? There is more to this "Save Saddam" movement than claims of Constitutionality and legal rights to get him.
Now Saddam knows that if we go to war with Iraq, we are going after him personally. From his standpoint he will have nothing to lose by using every weapon in his arsenal because he will die regardless.
Perhaps, but you can apply the same reasoning to his age. When he has nukes and deployable CB weapons, what prevents a pyschopath with a Saldin complex from going out with the big bang?
So thatt begs the question, do we wait or do we act.
You also presuppose that we are going to reenact the Gulf War scenario. I'm not convinced we will go that route.
The problem we face with Iraq is what an engineer calls "risk managment." The "risk" represented by an adverse scenario has to be compared with the cost of eliminating it (or, in turn, with any other risks which might be generated by a proposed solution, etc.).
The "limp wrists" of whom you speak have apparently never sat down and gone through the disciplined thought processes of assessing the risks in a brutally honest way. The article at the top of this thread is a good example of talking about the issues while completely evading the necessary decisionmaking exercise.
The risk is defined by:
[the magnitude of the seriousness of an adverse scenario] x [the probability of that adverse scenario]
It is important to look at the numbers! It is especially important to notice that:
1) The first term in the risk formula is HUGE. Suitcase nukes and/or Ebola virus (if Saddam ever gets them) could kill literally MILLIONS of Americans.
2) The second term is not zero. If we stretch out the timetable very much longer, it is going to become HUGE, TOO.
That being the case, we don't have any choice other than a proactive, pre-emptive strike to remove Saddam. We must make a decisive strike to eliminate the risk. We should choose the kind of strike which minimizes the fall-out (other "risks"), but we don't have time to study it to death to decide whether the "costs" are too "risky" themselves.
My point is that even if the model is a little more involved than the assessment of a single risk term, we already have an argumentative framework for our decision to strike. (Bush has figured this much out, but the geese on Capitol Hill haven't. I guess that's why they aren't Presidential material.)
As I indicated above, a quick assessment of other terms in the larger equation might change how we decide to take Saddam out, but the nature of the problem is such that it can't change the basic decision. Heck, what we have staring at us right now is already too great a risk.
Tying the whole thing to proving Iraqi complicity in 9/11 is a big mistake. It misses the point of what we are facing as a nation.
The Dick Armeys and the other footdraggers are just typical of what today's Republicans have become. They are afraid to fight. Fighting is not nice. Someone might get hurt.
(This is one of the reasons for the ascendancy of the Dems in our day. Dick Armey hasn't thought about the risks to the Republic if the conservatives don't start fighting the Dems tooth-and-toenail, by the way!)
Yeah, the US has never ever gotten criticized for or accused of secret covert ops to mess around with other countries' governments. As long as our meddling isn't overtly militaristic we'll be insulated from the criticism that we are a bully. < /sarcasm >
It's not the Iraqi people that are the problem, it is Saddam. Doesn't eveyone agree on that, so let's get rid of him and see what happens.
I think that would be the point of any war with Iraq, yes.
Not so simple. You have to take him out and his thousands of Republic Guard supporters (who together control the country). That will, of course, be the objective. But it will not be a piece of cake. Once they're out, we'll have won.
For the sake of the Lord- we prodded him into invading Iran in 1980 to contain Radical Islam remember! He was our good guy then! And when he went off the farm and invaded Kuwait we swatted him down but left him in place because we feared the Shites would take over (and we wept alot of crocodile tears over that when we allowed the Republican Guards to crush the revolt we had encouraged.)
Sadaam is not a major supporter of terrorism (The money he gives to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine is propaganda designed to negate the growing Islamic Radicalism in his own coutnry. Does anyone care about the nature of his regime and why we valued it in the first place as a friend just 12 years ago? Invading Iraq has zero to do with defeating Radical Islam, Al Queda, or 9/11 and everything to do with some policy wonk notions of "national greatness". I don't think even Isreal really wants to see Sadaam go.
The only reason for the necessity of showing such a link is to appease who can't think for themselves. Saddam's WMD machine is a huge threat to the United States and its citizens, as well as other countries who are on the same path (North Korea, Iran). THAT's the reason he needs to be taken out. Otherwise, we just wait for those weapons to be used. As president, Bush is risking all (American lives, his presidency, world condemnation, etc. etc.) to do what he (correctly) believes to be necessary for the safety and protection of American citizens. He is right, and he is brave. We have a common sense man and a leader for a change in the White House. We are a thousand times safer with Bush in that spot, than with appease-a-terrorist-Clinton - the man who set us up for 9/11.
They are heros to me too. But they have chosen to serve, voluntarily, in our military and to subject themselves to civilian rule. They know what that means.
It's quite credible, given all the failed but serious attempts to disprove it. For a number of reasons, it's quite likely that Saddam was informed of 9/11 before it happened. And, really, terrorists and spies operate frequently in the open. Information can be passed or transferred quite readily without an open conversation.
Well said.
But - hey- let's forget the mountains of evidence that point to factions within Saudi Arabia and Eygpt and go after the boogeyman that is popular in the American beer swilling moron mind- even though his regime is diametrically opposed and threatened by and hated by the same Islamo fascists that crashed three planes into our soul on 9/11. What I find obscene is your willingness to ignore this and go after the wrong man and wrong country.
You want me to support a war? I support a war against Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and Syria before Iraq. To see one soldier die fighting Iraq in the name of 9/11 will be a lie.
That's about it for me.
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.