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
I don't want the US to be a World Govt, an empire demanding access to every nation. Israel and India and, I assume, Pakistan, have WMD. So does Russia, and possibly the Urkraine and Turkey. Saddam is surrounded by nations with WMD. Let that region police itself.
Time to declare the Gulf War and "War On Terror" over, and go home. Back to being a republic, not an empire.
For example
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.
FYI the JCS is not responsible for war planning. That is a responsibility of the area CINC, in this case CENTCOM. JCS is charged with providing the men, materials, etc to support CINC requirements and interface with the executive branch and congress as the pentagon lobby for the services.
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.
Even a beginner student of military arts would not put a light infantry airborne unit against armor. Does Pyne think US planners would?
These articles lose credibility fast on statements like these. I am sure there will be defenders of Pyne, but I am not impressed. There is a professional organization running under Bush/Rumsfeld despite the deficit the military encountered during the Klintoon years. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to spin down that fact.
Thank you Pat Buchanan. We didn't start this dust up but we will finish it.
I support Isreal and will always. But to attack Iraq is insane. And it makes no sense. It may be gratifying in some cathartic sense but it will not solve Islamic terrorism. It will only ger worse. We are ppicking out Iraq because it is easy. Our elite doesn't have a relatinship with them. Our Foggy bottom diplomats are used to dealing with Saudis and not Iraqis. We don't have a press anymore but press handout readers. ANd our policy wonks have always wanted a war long before 9/11 with Iraq as a means of establishing their "mideast western Athens" in Islamic culture.
Where did I call him a traitor?
How would they be brought before a court in a city that the US would have nuked?
Seems to me that General Benedict Arnold was the hero of the Battle of Saratoga, and the heroic leader of the attack on Canada, and the defense of Lake Champlain. He was one of George Washington's closest friends in the Revolutionary army, but all of this did not prevent him from becomming a traitor.
In the war that is coming, you will either support your country at war, you will be neutral, or you will fight against your country. If you really are working for the military, they have ways of dealing with people in that last category.
Ture. But at Nuremberg, the US argued that sometimes is it morally and legally wrong to support one's country in war.
Yes, we would be living in a military dictatorship.
Fine, but for those who fight against it, who are in the military, there will be a firing squad.
True. Is it not so that Algeria had a free election about a decade ago. Radical Muslims won, and were shortly overthrown in a military coup. Rumor had it that MI6, the Mossad, and the oil interests supported the military coup. And that these same Western interests help the shieks and dictators maintain power all over the mideast.
I don't know how much of this is true, but I don't believe the West wants real democracy in the mideast. They only want democracy to the extent that the people elect "leaders" we approve.
I'm sick of being lied to by our govt. I'm sick of The State expanding at home and abroad. Every day we walk further down the path of Imperial Rome -- bread and circuses to keep the masses complacent, foreign wars in distant lands.
I prefer Browne over Buchanan, but Buchanan termed it right. We are exchanging our Constitutional Republic for a corrupt empire.
Why would we be reeling if we drop a few nukes on Iraq?
If it is true that Iraq in recent years has been purchasing materials for the use of making WMD then we can conclude that he does indeed have them. Intelligence sources can trace such acquisitions and piece them together with satellite images of activities in geographical areas along with the reports of Iraqi defectors. Saddam has threatened to use WMD against us. He should be taken a lot more seriously than an airline passenger who threatens he has a bomb aboard. Based on Saddams past performance his threats are credible. We've incurred a devastating surprise attack by the enemy and the threat of additional large scale terrorist attacks are imminent.
With his arsenal of WMD along with his threats of using them against us while we are in puruit of terrorist enemies Saddam is no different from a suspected crimminal who points his gun at cops and while threatening to shoot. I am aboard for taking him out. I differ on the method, however.
What are the risks involved? If we send in a full-scale force where large groups of combatants are concentrated in small geographical areas including urban areas they may be exposed to the risk of unheard of decimation from poison gas attacks.
War tactics tend to mutate in successive wars. A fact that war planners tend to miscalculate. This is the first time where the entire U.S. civilian population thousands of miles away is exposed to widespread devastation from bio- chemical agents. With this major risk looming over our heads why are we considering a full-scale attack while we leave our flanks exposed to bio-chemical destruction. Our borders along Canada and Mexico are wide open. Terrorists are known to have entered our country over our unprotected borders. This makes no sense at all.
We find ourselves alone in our war against terrorism. Our European friends don't share our sense of commitment to our war against terrorism. Our Middle Eastern allies fear a democratic Iraq or Palestine for that matter. This means we would have to bear the full cost of the war which could mire us into a deeper recession. We need to remain economically and militarily strong to deter our other enemies and to not encourage our potential enemies. Just as we have smart weapons, we need to develop equally smart strategic wars plans. We need our best military and intelligence minds to devise a new revolutionary style of action to rid Iraq of their existing maniacal ruling clique. I suggest we implement a major destablizing effort both economically and militarily. I would like to see an unrelenting ground terrorism effort put into effect targeting their government and military personnel and structures, and all war materials. If we can weaken their infrastructure enough we may be able to convince Iraqi citizens that the dictatorship is not invincible. It may entice the citizens to form resistance groups against the dictatorship.
I believe we can devise a plan of attack that will not expose our citizens to mass destruction or economically bankrupt us. I was amazed at all of the successful team work and strategies our government and allies concocted in the war against the Nazis. Why can't we devise an equally brilliant plan to rid the world of Saddam and all of the terrorist groups.
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.