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 my knowledge, other than posters, the current debate on Iraq revolves NOT around 9/11, but the threat of WMD. Now as to the War on Terror, which is supposed to be on all terror, Iraq did not really come into it UNTIL Saddam brought it to the table himself. How? By his very public pay off to families of homicide bombers.
Looking at what evidence I can see, I ask myself, does Iraq indeed have WMD? Very probable.
Next, would Iraq use such weapons? I believe that Saddam would very much LIKE to use them. He obviously has put great time, energy and resources into them.
Who are his most likely targets? American and Israeli interests and people.
What would set him off? Ahh...now that is the wild card. His public behavior is indicating that it would not take much to set him off.
Consider this, if the American people become convinced that Saddam has WMD and would use them against us, or Israel, then would it not look downright irresponsible of the government to attempt to eliminate that threat?
Thus it would not be a lie, unless you are not convinced that his WMD poses no threat to the US or Israel.
As to Sept 11. Americans know full well, who the majority of the hijackers were. They know full well who were the deadliest fighters in Afghanistan. They know full well who is pumping out the money as protection for themselves, and to the injury or death of others.
It would be insane to take on Saudi head on, at this time though. If it is a true theat from Iraq though...it would be taking out one bird, and severly weakening the big bird.
It would be in the best interests of our national security, we would remove a threat of insane destruction in that area of the world, we would reduce Saudi power and it's flow of money to terrorists. All in all, I still see it as the right and responsible thing to do.
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Eygpt- these are our enemies- Islam is the enemy. But we want to placate both the corrupt dictators of these lands seething with Islamic radicalism and our own population wich demands blood. Thus- we have Iraq - which had less to do with 9/11 than did your local Arab 7/11 cashier.
Toss in ideology uber alles and it's a done deal.
I am amazed by the number of caricature right-wingers on FR -- people who talk as though their scripts were written by Norman Lear and are auditioning for Archie Bunker 2002.
A true right-winger respects the Constitution thinks for himself.
A caricature right-winger is a knee-jerk warmonger huntin' for Ruskies and ragheads. I thought these caricature right-wingers were invented by the Left. I am amazed to see so many actually exist.
To the armchair generals and warmongers: stop modeling yourself on Archie Bunker. You don't have to promote war to be a patriot and true conservative.
Try reading fopr comprehension. Ritter had different standards with his two jobs.
Yeah, whatever...
Have you heard of the economic sanctions? How do you think Iraq is importing the material necessary for a WMD program?
I stopped discussing the issue with him shortly after he started the personal attacks.
Perhaps you can explain why Atta would share the details of a top-secret terrorist act with an Iraqi government when he did not need his support.
Exactly!
Right....
Many countries have WMD. The whole thrust of your arguement is that we are picking on Iraq, when you say that Iraq is not a threat. Tell, me why the United States government would single out Iraq to pick on, in your opinion.
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Eygpt- these are our enemies- Islam is the enemy. But we want to placate both the corrupt dictators of these lands seething with Islamic radicalism and our own population wich demands blood. Thus- we have Iraq - which had less to do with 9/11 than did your local Arab 7/11 cashier.
You would have us take on all the Islamic nations at the same time? Not me. The area needs to be destablized, yes, divided. This is a war that truely needs to be played on all fronts...using psychological, rhetorical, financial and military. A head on collision in an all out war with all the Islamic is not in our interest today.
You also do not avoid when it is necessary and letting the situation fester. Afghanistan was the first battle of this war. It is now in Iraq's court to prove that it has really changed its spots. Let United States military personnel have country wide free access to all facilities capable of hiding or producing WMD. Saddam’s past actions do not warrant an "innocent until proven guilty" defense.
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.