"Peace" is possible in the Middle East.
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
Many made the same claim in early January of 1991. Iraq will fold like a house of cards yet again. People forget it took those inept clowns eight years to fight Iran to a draw.
I'm unfamiliar with his writings, but if this is part-and-parcel of what he says, I would have to say that he is a part of the Fifth Column.
America Firstish isn't it. Check this out.
"Kirk Lyons for ANV Commander"?
Sort of like Babe Ruth pointing at where his home run is going...
Anonymous sources have been talking about a plan. The administration hasn't.
There is a difference...
"Peace" is possible in the Middle East.
We wound up with a civilized Germany and Japan because, first we beat the pants off of them, and then we rebuilt them more or less in our image.
I don't think we had it all thought out on December 8, or even on D-Day. Job one was "beating the pants off of them". Job two, rebuilding them, sort of took care of itself when the time came.
We have Iraqi military and science defectors telling us that this megalomaniac is feverishly working to develop WMD. Intel has confirmed that Muhammed Atta visted Hussein linking him to 9/11. He is blatantly violating the terms of the Gulf War's end by now allowing U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs, and yet we still have those on the Left and Right who say that we're not provoked and/or have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong.
Like I said, what a bunch of panty-waist limp-wrists.
It's disgusting!
There's a time for peace and a time for war.
Lock and load.
This alleged link has no credibility. First, the 9/11 terrorists did not need the help of the Iraqi government. Second, terrorists are not going to discuss their plans in the open in a restaurant in Prague.
The "50,000 special forces" figure is bogus, which renders the rest of his commentary somewhat questionable. It is not clear that he is simply engaging in hyperbole, which would be forgiveable, but still off the mark.
If the 50,000 refers to all naval and air force and army personnel assigned to the task, it is probably close to accurate.
I am not particularly worried about Saddam's 500,000 man army. Once the Republican Guard is neutralized, the remainder will sieze power and be the basis of the post-Saddam government. Within two months we will be sending Iraqi officers to the US for advanced management seminars.
And I was worried that you were going to cite a discredited source. By the way, Scott Ritter claims that Iraq does not represent a threat to our security.
"We" would not be controlling a damn thing. The best we could hope for is quasi-US companies (really multi-nationals, Exxon, Chevron being the prime examples) gaining contracts to produce and sell the oil. This would be a benefit as long as they keep it flowing, no matter what the remaining OPEC members demand, but corporations have been known to restrict supply to increase profits. And those profits (aside from whatever taxes the Treasury does collect) won't be going to the US, but to *surprise* the same elites that made this whole thing necessary in the first place by placing the US in defense of the House of Saud in 1991. So, unless we create a national oil company to exploit our new-found spoils, with the spigots unfettered and all profits going into the Treasury, young Americans will be in harm's way for corporate profits.
Thus, a bullet in Saddam's head is the cleanest and most just means of achieving our stated goal. Invasion serves only a select few.
LTS
"...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. " Try 1,500 SF.
As an aside and kudos to Vietnam Vets, During the battle of Hue, the Marines took on 6,000 NVA, killed 5,500 and lost 150 Marines. At Khe Sanh, over 10,000 enemy dead, maybe 15,000, at a cost of 200. The same working and middle class Americans that brought you mass production farming, auto assembly will now bring you, as in the past, death. Enemies never learn.
Scott Ritter. You talk about a traitor.
And we dismiss it for good reason. The members of my local gun club could probably destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard in less than a week.
Listening to the Novaks and Buchanans of the world spout off a decade ago about how we shouldn't undersestimate the Iraqi war machine was laughable, and they (of course) were shown to be dead wrong. Now, a decade later, the Iraqi forces are at a fraction of the "strength" the were then, so what makes (some) people think that things will be more difficult for us this time? The fact that Saddam probably has a lot more WMD's and is mad enough to use them? Well, that's precisely why it's in our best interest to destroy whatever is left of their army and overthrow their regime. And as a bonus, other regional repressive regimes might just decide to change their crimminal behavior after seeing the ease with which we conduct and conclude our campaign.
Yep, and a rich traitor at that. That schmuck is being paid off in a big way.
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.