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 suspect that though in many ways Osama bin Laden (when alive) disdained Saddam Hussein, there has been significant cooperation between them (particularly with regard to human resources). Each is united to the other by a hatred for America; each knows that they might have to call on the other for support in the future. The 9/11 attacks could easily have brought forth an attack on Iraq. (It was considered by the president at the time - and it has indeed led to a likely confrontation with Iraq.) I imagine that bin Laden may have wished to inform Hussein beforehand, as a gesture of 'respect' (i.e., potential future need), so that Hussein would be ready for any immediate American response.
Since I am no longer in the military, I could protest against the war. If I oppose the war, then voicing my opposition is my responsibility and is not treasonous behavior.
Evidence of cooperation?
I imagine that bin Laden may have wished to inform Hussein beforehand, as a gesture of 'respect' (i.e., potential future need), so that Hussein would be ready for any immediate American response.
So bin Laden tells Hussein of his plot and fails to inform some of the 9/11 terrorists. You do not know much about terrorists.
Or he has a diiferent job description and is being asked a different question...
In my mind it's a black and white issue ... either you honor your oath as an officer, or you don't. End of story.
As I remember learning it, there were two criminal charges at Nuremberg: (1) Crimes against humanity (i.e., genocide), and (2) Waging aggressive war (something like that, which mainly meant being the aggressor, i.e., the Nazi invasion of Poland and other nations).
Violating either of the above constitutes a war crime. Not just genocide.
Are you any braver, sitting behind a computer posting pro-war comments?
For that matter, the Gulf War was described by US troops as "a turkey shoot." Most US causalties were from traffic accidents. And I don't think this one will be any different. So you know what -- Bill Maher was right. US troops may be brave, but courage won't be a requirement for the upcoming turkey shoot.
However, it will set a dangerous precedent -- yet another step eroding national sovereignty. If we don't respect Iraqi sovereignty, why should anyone respect ours, other than that we can bully everyone for the moment? (Not that the Bushies care about US sovereignty.)
I have nothing left to prove. The Gulf War was a turkey-shoot. But the primary objective was not achieved. This madman is still in power, and it appears that some of you boa clad limp-wrists will want to see NBC used in our country from Saddam before you make a move. There would be your so-called "proof," at the expense of what, a million American lives?
Some deal.
Sovereignty? So, was Israel wrong when it bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981? Did it violate Iraq's "sovereignty?" It has intelligence that showed the Iraqis were trying to develop weapons there.
We have intelligence that Hussein is developing WMD again, but that's not proof enough for you.
There's just cause here. All you have is your precious but inept ideology.
I agree that Scowcroft is typical of the folks we have had in policymaking. It doesn't dawn on them that some things have to be done decisively and completely. The popular solutions which they offer are ultimately ineffectual--what I would call "earnest windowdressing."
They hit things with "a lick and a promise," and this often does work, but they are too short-sighted to notice when they really need to use a well-aimed and very large sledgehammer.
Their cursory, containment-oriented approach to problems definitely tends to leave huge holes (loopholes). The probability terms in the risk calculation formula remain unacceptably large.
So, by their windowdressing "solutions," they pass off the problems to the next year, the next officeholder, the next generation. It worked during the cold war, but so what? One of these days, their approach to policy is gonna get us burned very badly.
My point is that Saddam is not as reasonable as, say, a Russian premiere. Our success in winning the cold war is likely to mislead us.
Besides, who wants another cold war?
(Besides, the terrorist mess we are in is no cold war anyway.)
We have a dangerous problem on our hand. We need to fix it. And we need to realize that we are in new territory for the world and for the United States. The fact that we have never struck first in a situation like this is irrelevant, I'm afraid.
Bush and Rumsfeld are doing their job pretty well. As Ann Coulter would say, the grown-ups are in charge now.
The reason why most Americans in the polls agree with Bush and Rumsfeld is because most Americans don't live within the beltway. They don't have the ineffectual, pass-the-buck mentality of the typical bureaucrat. They specifically realize that "statesmanship" is not the important issue at hand. (A lot of high-ranking military types, including even Colin Powell, have been conditioned to misapprehend their own roles.)
It's stunning.
I think it goes back to which I was trying to say in #274. But I now propose a simpler summary: The terrorist mess which we have on our hands is not a cold war, but it definitely is a confusing war.
We are in uncharted waters. We need leaders who will understand this. We need leaders who will prosecute this war all the way to a decisive victory--which means eliminating the really serious terrorist threats.
(The Israelis are in no position to do what they really need to do in Palestine for their own national security. But the U.S. is not Israel. And we do have a window of opportunity for doing what we need to do practically all over the world.)
"Which" should have been "what," of course.
Burke, the Islam world is already united against the United States. All, so called "friends" are openly known by both sides to be phony symbiotic, use and be used, friends, for as long as it can be stood by either side.
Can there be any doubt in a thinking person's mind, that the hereto, mostly silent invasion of Islamists against the west has escalated into an open declaration that they desire nothing more than eliminating our "decadent", "ungodly" way of life? They have openly stated that they intend to accomplish this through violence, immigration, refusal to assimilate, and conversion of the host country.
The old status quo that was before Sept 11, is no longer viable.
As to Iraq being the most "innocent." Innocent in what way? Innocent of directly flying the planes? Innocent of being active in encouraging agression against the United States and Israel? Innocent of funding terrorism? Innocent of possibly supplying WMD to terrorists?
Since most of the Islamic world see's Saddam as very secular, there may be some hot rhetoric, but privatly, most of them will probably be in the streets celebrating his death....except the Palestinians. They will probably be the main ones in the streets calling for revenge.
The corrupt leaders of the other Islamic/Arab nations will probably only mourn the big gifts not coming to them anymore from Saddam.
Do you not realize that we are the Soviet Union in that region? We support and prop up corrupt regimes all over the Arab world to stave off Radical Islam rule. We support the Mullahs of the house of Suad, the corrupt leaders of Eygpt, and the rest because the popular opinion is totally against us. We are like the Soviets in Eastern Europe. We support an elite and repressive structure in the Mideast that Al QUeada and the rest of Radial Islam capiralizes on. They love the fact that we support the House of Saud, or Jordan, Or Murbarhak. To Islamic radicals- we prop up oppressive governments with aid all throughout their lands. And they are right. And to top it off we support "jews" and Isreal.
Though these governments may be corrupt, and are not democracies, they still are easier to live with than the hard line strict Islamic regimes, which have zero tolerance for anything or anyone, not of Islam. They have demonstrated time and again, such as in Iran, that they will just as soon kill their own people, if they don't toe the hard line Islamic line. Their hatred of non Muslims and Jews, knows no bounds. To me, it is a good thing, to encourage the less strict Muslim governments as long as we can.
If I went by simply my own inclination, I would probably be an isolationist. Leave us alone, and we will let you be alone. Realistically, I know that they will never leave us alone. Thus, we must use the resources available to create the best possible climate for our citizens, at home and abroad.
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.
I agree that our diplomats are most "used to" dealing with Saudi. However, though our intelligence structure was damaged during the Clinton era, I don't think the CIA would ever totally stop looking at Irag. We know that close contact was kept with the Saddam opposition.
As to the press. As one who watched daily the White House, Pentagon, and DOD briefings, I know for a fact that the press might get a read out, but they are like hungry sharks in the follow up questioning. Thus, I disagree with you that the press are essentially government lapdogs. In fact, they often made me wince with that demands for answers on some questions that would only harm our military in the field.
Burke, you have strongly presented the case for what we should not do. You have posted many posts for the case of not engaging Iraq. What do you believe should be the ongoing policy of the US, in the war against terror?
If I may offer my two cents, I support a policy of massive retaliation. If the Iraqis use a single WMD against us, we respond with a massive nuclear counter-attack.
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.