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
Whoa there Burkeman1! Again, I do not want to invade Iraq. I (along with the president) believe it's necessary to protect American lives. I (or he) could be wrong, but it's an honest assessment of the situation. And I don't use beer drinking Americans who watch Fox News as a slur. I respect them, more than I respect the judgment (or integrity) of certain others.
Yes.
Because we were trying to get him to live up to his inspections agreements - which he did not.
Yes, you're right!!! The neo-conservatives who have infiltrated this administration have secretly harbored a desire to colonize Iraq - in line with the long colonial history of the United States. And that would be only the beginning. Imagine, colonies in Libya and Sudan!!! I think you're on the right track. An amazing and gifted mind.
This will be my last post to you, Burkeman1. I think you're off in the deep end somewhere. No pole will reach you, I fear.
Do you really think that Iraq poses more of a threat to us than the Saudi families that make up the ruling Saud family in Saudi Arabia? Do you really think that Sadaam is more of a threat to us as an isolated secular dictator than the Wahabist fundamenmentalist psychos that rule Saudi Arabia and the Emirate states?
Something about many of these posts smell even more funny. What additional provocation do we need? Madman Hussein performs continual provocations, and has made it clear that our nation is in his sights. Walter Williams recently wrote a common sense response to such provocation: "I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it. But then again, I'm not a member of America's sissified generation.
I have read the entire thread, up to this point. Your posts are well written. You put up a good arguement for not entering into conflict with Iraq.
You just agreed that going with my shoot the snake before it bites you, that Irag was indeed a snake, but you assert it is the wrong snake to shoot.
Indeed, there are many poisonous snakes in that area of the world. It's a veritable snake den.
In my opinion, our greatest enemy is Islam....from without and within. As you have pointed out, Iraq does not treat diligent Islamists kindly, then there must be some other reason, that many in our government are giving special attention to Iraq.
The key, must be to the character and nature of Saddam himself. He is aging. He has not attained what he has always wanted. He has demonstrated a complete lack of restraint in his efforts to get what he wants.
Now, if the most dangerous snake was Saudi. What effect would shooting the Iraqi snake have?
In this area of the world, it all comes down to two things.
Oil
Religion. This religion openly states it wants world dominion.
A defeat of Iraq, that left the oil fields still usable, would hurt the house of Saud more than anyone. This hurt would come in two ways.
Millions of barrels of oil on the market would have an immediate economical effect on an already economically floundering Saudi.
It would be demonstrated to the Islamic world that Saudi's much vaunted oil choke hold on the US, was not enough to prevent a US military victory against an "Islamic" nation. OK, we know it's not, but THEY put it under that umbrella.
So, perhaps the Iraqi snake is the right one to shoot first, while we contemplate our defense against the other snakes in the snake den.
But unlike Clinton I believe he really tortures himself over such decisions of war and peace. He is amn of integrity and so is his administration. I just think on foreign policy they are letting old play books call the shots. But whatever the outcome. When the first bomb drops on Iraq and we are at war I support the President and the troops. But I know he is making a mistake in the long run.
We have to wait for winter.
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.