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
Further, in the long run, we could open up ANWR for oil exploration and build Nuke power plants and develop a bigger natural gas infrastructure xso we could buy more from Russia- to reduce our dependence on these whacked out nations entirely.
If the UN kidnaps US officials, and the Netherlands intends to take illegal custody of them, I expect that will be treated as a direct act of war against the US. We will then respond accordingly, against the UN or any member which cooperates in this war against the US.
Does the phrase 'Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war' ring a bell with you.
Why is that? Because they've been proven correct by the fact that we actually have invaded Iraq with a three-pronged attack (or whatever the latest "plan" is supposed to be)?
That's news to me.
Money.
Did he supply the box cutters?
No, money. Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Seriously, what could he have provided that OBL didn't already give them?
Money. If OBL gave them X dollars then he didn't "already" give them X+Y dollars, so if Saddam gave them Y dollars, that would increase their dollars.
Why do I have to explain things on such a simple level? Are you simple? You're trying to argue with reality. CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING! Either give me some reason to doubt them (i.e. actual evidence), or remain silent, but cut it out with this "why would they have?" stuff. "Why would they have?" is not an argument for anything. THEY DID. Ok?
Besides, if this story had any credibility at all,
So you think it doesn't? Please explain why. Use some facts.
don't you think the Bush administration would be shoving it in everyone's faces as the smoking gun?
Maybe, maybe not. They know more than your or I do about all of what's going on. Maybe it's not even a "smoking gun" per se. But it's still a fact which is out there and it's bizarre to me that so many of you are trying to shut your eyes to it because "why would they have?"
Considering flack we're getting for wanting to attack for "no reason", why wouldn't they want to use it if it was credible?
Maybe they will "use" it, WHEN WE ACTUALLY ATTACK. (We haven't attacked Iraq yet, you may have noticed.)
Better to focus on the WMD thing and forget about folk tales.
What "folk tale"? CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING!!!! Do you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE indicating that this is a lie to share with us yet, or are you just blowing smoke out of your you-know-where? Let me know. Best,
You have that exactly right, Budge.
What drives me nuts, is the fact that the US hawks, never mention what could be happening here.
They should realize that this country is not invulnerable against attacks similiar to 9-11.
The hawks never mention, in all there great plans, how they will protect any US city from a terrorist action.
Although they do have a defence system in place, that is able to take a plastic crochret hook and a ball of wool away from my 81 year old sister, I am not sure if this would cut it.
Sorry, that is a settled question. For more than 50 years the US has used the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which calls for us to totally exterminate the population of our nuclear enemy. This is still our strategy.
In any case, if it was good enough for Truman, it is good enough for me!
Actually, it is. You see, some witnesses are better than others. If Czech intelligence is telling me about something they observed in Prague (which is a city in the Czech Republic), and then after the fact some FBI PR hacks who live in Baltimore and work in DC chime in with their opinion that it "didn't happen", I tend to place more weight on the former evidence (lacking any factual counter-evidence, of course). Call me crazy.
Why aren't you asking the Washington Times where their evidence that it didn't happen is?
Interesting story:
U.S. intelligence officials say they have not seen evidence from the Czech government to confirm reports accepted by the State Department [....] The senior U.S. intelligence official said analysts have not dismissed the meeting completely. The lack of evidence does not mean it didn't take place. "We're kind of agnostic on it," the senior official said.
Not even a denial of it happening in the first place, the way I read it.
Our intelligence people apparently don't think the evidence is enough to link al-Quada to Hussein, but you've decided to accept the reports at face value and draw your own conclusions.
Actually, I'm not sure whether I think the Prague story is 100% true myself, or whether Saddam is "linked" to The Foundation (oh sorry, "Al Qaeda"). For one thing, it doesn't affect my opinion of a war with Iraq (which is not based on whether Saddam is "linked" to 9/11 per se). What I do think is true is that the Czech government thinks it's true, and I was just responding to people who argue with this reality based on mental considerations such as "why would they have?"
But until our people publicly confirm it, it's just conjecture.
No, not "conjecture"; until our people publicly confirm it, it's a statement by the Czech intelligence which our State Department flunkies aren't willing to stand behind, for whatever reason. I don't see where you get the idea that all statements made by foreigners can be characterized as "conjecture". It's perfectly fair that you don't trust this statement as much as you would if our government confirmed it, of course; but in any case, whether the Czechs are right or wrong about this meeting, I don't really think they're guessing. (That's what "conjecture" means, you see.)
Look, you believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same.
Heh, you said a mouthful. I don't believe "what I want to believe" in the first place. Perhaps you do, but I believe facts and reality.
But don't go shoving this in my face like I'm an idiot, when it's still unsubstantiated.
I agree that it's still unsubstantiated. I didn't mean to "shove in your face" the notion that the meeting definitely, positively took place. What I was "shoving in your face", so to speak, was the fact that we have witness accounts before us saying that there is a meeting, and you chose to doubt/deny them - not based on actual evidence or reasons to doubt the witness, mind you - but because you couldn't think of a good reason, yourself, for that meeting to have taken place. It really bothers me, this "Why would they have?" reasoning, you see.
Why would Atta have met with Iraqi intelligence, why would he ask for money from Saddam? I don't know, but WE HAVE SOME INDICATION THAT HE DID. So, to ask "why would he have?" is just silly. One may as well ask, "Why would Jeffrey Dahmer have killed all those people?" After all, that was pretty irrational and non-understandable too! But, WE HAVE SOME INDICATION THAT HE DID. So it would just be silly to say "I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer really killed all those people - why would he have?" And so your statements bother me for the exact same reason. You are implicitly saying that reality is constrained and guided by what you can understand and imagine, rather than vice versa.
Just because you can't think of a comprehensible reason for this meeting doesn't mean it didn't take place. The world doesn't, and people don't, conform to your imaginings and ruminations about peoples' actions and motives. People do lots of things for which you won't be able to think of reasons, and if you deny the existence of those actions based solely on your inability to think of reasons, you are denying reality.
Are you sure? And what if our 007 licensed-to-kill types fail to get Saddam with that exploding cigar or poisoned hummous? Could an angry, still-alive Saddam subsequently kill more people than would have died in any war to take him out?
Wars kill people, yes, but so do crazy dictators. Especially if they are given years and years to do their thing. So it's not as clear which will kill fewer people, and fewer Americans in particular, as you seem to think.
Those who disagree with a possible invasion and "change of regime" in Iraq are not traitors, in my mind, but they have not yet presented a significant plan or option to such an attack. If today were 9/10, I'd oppose a direct invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, it is not pre-9/11. It is now. It is here. It is a different scenario and a different circumstance. It is one thing to have political and/or military targets attacked by adversaries. It is quite another to have your soil and citizenry murdered by political, religious and militant extremists. In the overused vernacular, "everything is different, now."
We stood by and did relatively nothing when militant Islamists attacked the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, numerous US Embassies, and US government officials. These attacks brought death and destruction to our shores. The previous administration was ineffectual and presented a weak and impotent face to the militant Islamists. Undoubtedly, that spurred them on to greater audacity. It is now time that the madness stopped and those who foment hatred, murder and the assaults on civilians be stopped. Starting somewhere is the first step to ridding the civilized world of barbarians cloaked in self righteous politico-religious extremism.
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.