Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best

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?

Saddam has not been credibly provent to have neen involved or linked to the 9/11 attacks in any way. Iran has BIG TIME! Their intelligence apparatus helped found Al Queda. They have supported Bin Laden from the outset. Even today they provide sanctuary weapons and training to Al Queda terrorists. Iraq has no 9/11 terrorist links, but rather than bomb the culprits in Iran and Saudi Arabia, you would have us bomb a country that had nothing to do with it. That is why we are getting no international support from any country save one--Israel. Not even the Brits are ready to support an illegal strike against Iraq without even the slightest pretense or provocation. My question is if you are truly supportive of going after the 9/11 culprits, why don't you support a US bombing campaign and/or invasion of Iran for their part in the 9/11 attacks and support of Al Queda??? Why won't you support a move against Saudi Arabia for their 9/11 terrorist support?

I hope you realize that OBL is a very wealthy man and the 9/11 attacks cost very little money.

So therefore these guys would turn down all money from all other sources. Riiiight. Got it.

OBL did not need Iraqi financial or technical support.

If by "OBL" you mean Foundation terrorists, then you might be correct. It may be true that they "did not need" Iraqi support.

However, it may also be true that they sought and/or obtained such support regardless. Both things can be true at the same time; you don't seem to realize this. (Bill Gates "doesn't need" money, but he still seeks it. Or do you also think this isn't true, because "Why would Bill Gates try to get more money, he doesn't need any"?) In particular, we have evidence of a link, which you still haven't said Thing One to discredit: CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. By contrast, we have no evidence whatsoever of your whole "they didn't need any money and would therefore refuse all money and help from anyone besides OBL" theory, because it's all based on a mental model of terrorists which exists inside your own head, projected out into the real world. Terrorists behave exactly the way you imagine they behave, yup, they sure do. And if you Can't Think Of a reason for them to have met with an Iraqi agent, why, then it must not have happened at all! Reality depends on your ability to understand it!

Just keep telling yourself that. Ta-ta,

However, it may also be true that they sought and/or obtained such support regardless. Both things can be true at the same time; you don't seem to realize this.

If you are going to present a compelling argument that the Iraqi government supported the 9/11 attack, then you are going to have to do more than argue that Atta met with an Iraqi government agent. The Bush administration is going to have to present evidence of fund transfers from the Iraqi government to Al Queda.

In particular, we have evidence of a link, which you still haven't said Thing One to discredit: CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING.

Because a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi government official could have taken place. I can not prove or disprove that assertion.

By contrast, we have no evidence whatsoever of your whole "they didn't need any money and would therefore refuse all money and help from anyone besides OBL" theory, because it's all based on a mental model of terrorists which exists inside your own head, projected out into the real world. Terrorists behave exactly the way you imagine they behave, yup, they sure do. And if you Can't Think Of a reason for them to have met with an Iraqi agent, why, then it must not have happened at all! Reality depends on your ability to understand it!

I have studied terorrist groups extensively. Terrorist groups are extremely secretive about their plans. In fact, terrorist groups are usually divided into cells, with one cell completely ignorant of the operations planned by other cells (i.e., Leaderless Resistance strategy). With this strategy, penetrating one cell does not put the entire organization or leaders at risk. Most analysts believe that only the terrorists that piloted the planes knew the entire plan. This is not a "mental model of terrorists" that exists only in my head. This is how terrorist groups act.

The way things are going, we will be at war with China also. Things change, but at this time China is building up it's military and I doubt it's to provide employment for it's masses of unemployed. Yes, China is pugnacious too. They will attack if they stay on the road they are on. Saddam is something entirely different as he cannot wait to attack Israel and America. Maybe your town or city. Every country has their Neville Chamberlains and every country has their cowards. If we wait for him to attack first, when it happens, I hope it lands right on top of you!

You are absolutely correct. Every country has their cowards and unfortunately for this country, America has YOU! While you call me an appeaser and a coward, I have served my country as a member of the armed forces and continue to do so as a staff officer for the Department of the Army. While, I align myself with several conservatives who oppose Bush’s mad rush to invade Iraq, I support immediate and direct military action of Iran, Communist China, North Korea, and a US military occupation of all of Cuba. You on the other hand are too wimpy to support attacking Communist China, North Korea or Iran and you probably have bought the Commie-lib lie that free trade with Communist tyrant Fidel Castro and Communist China will somehow liberate those countries from Communism, so it looks like the only real cowardly appeaser here is you.

Saddam is a tin-pot dictator who will always bluster in response to US bombing strikes and overheated rhetoric against him condemning him as some kind of modern-day Hitler. The truth is he will never attack his neighbors or the US again unless we first attack him. Don’t buy all the liberal internationalist propaganda that he has nukes and is going to send them airmail to kill you. While you would have my family and I killed in the most horrible fashion imaginable along with the residents of our nation’s capitol where I reside, I have no such murderous wishes for you and yours. I sincerely hope you stop blinding yourself and embrace the truth wherever you find it as I have always sought to do as a radical right-wing conservative.

At last here is something we agree on. In regards to the issue of war, it's time stop being a bunch of liberals and cut off the head of our enemy Saddam. I have no respect for fools and cowards that insist on keeping America subjugated by a bunch of third world punks. What are you people afraid of, success? Perhaps a demonstration by you peace freaks is in order. May I suggest Kent State campus.

America subjugated by a bunch of third world punks? Man, you must live in a drug induced dreamworld to believe that kind of crapola. The mighty American Empire rules supreme over their third world punk subjects, not vice versa so it looks like it is you who is the fool. I support an end to the US war in Iraq which has been waged continuously since your favorite Commie scum President was impeached in December 1998. However, I support bombing Iran and North Korea and invading Cuba today, but you are too cowardly to support these robust actions to contain the Communist/terrorist threat. Instead, all you can talk about is how you want to kill the leader of non-nuclear, non-threat Iraq and nuke its cities killing millions of innocent civilians in a modern-day repeat of Hitler’s Holocaust, which would perhaps be the most cowardly and terroristic action imaginable. If you can’t beat them, join them right? Wrong!

If you are going to present a compelling argument that the Iraqi government supported the 9/11 attack, then you are going to have to do more than argue that Atta met with an Iraqi government agent.

But that's all I've been trying to say at this point: Atta met with an Iraqi government agent. You see, you were denying even this (based on your imagined model of how terrorists behave). But I'm glad you've stopped and we're now on the same page.

I have studied terorrist groups extensively.[...] This is not a "mental model of terrorists" that exists only in my head. This is how terrorist groups act.

CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. If you're going to doubt this based on no evidence whatsoever, but rather based on your "studies" of how "terrorists behave", then you most definitely are projecting your mental model of terrorists out onto the real world. Remember, CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. It's good to keep facts in mind when trying to apply your "studies" to the real world.

Hopefully we are not planning to attack Iraq because Atta allegedly met with an Iraqi government official.

Fair enough. For the record, I don't support war with Hussein "because Atta met with an Iraqi" or even because of supposed links to 9/11. 9/11 has nothing to do with why I support war with Hussein.

It's good to keep in mind what our discussion actually was. You're all over the map, and let me just try to bring your focus back: you said that you doubted the meeting took place not because you have evidence to the contrary, but simply because of your "studies" and other theoretical considerations (i.e. the terrorists "didn't need" money in your opinion). My only point to you is that this is illogical. It is illogical and foolhardy to put your mental models of how people behave ahead of actual witness testimony regarding how people behaved. OK?

As I have said repeatedly, I highly doubt that Atta shared any information about the 9/11 attack with the Iraqi government official.

Doubt away. Meanwhile, CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. For the umpteenth time, your internal feelings and hunches do not change reality. Reality exists independent of your thoughts, and CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. Either explain away this piece of data with actual facts (i.e. prove that the Czechs are lying, explain why they would lie, or something...), or don't, but don't expect anyone to be swayed by your personal feelings of "doubt" about the subject just 'cuz you've read some boo.... er, sorry, "studied terrorism".

If he did not share the information with some of the 9/11 terrorists, then he most assuredly would not discuss the operation with the Iraqi government.

If pigs had wings, they would fly. What the heck are you talking about?

You mean, if your personal hunch is correct, then under that hypothetical combined with your mental model of how terrorists behave, then such-and-such would be true? Uh, why is anyone supposed to care?

Furthermore, the Bush administration needs to show some evidence that the Iraqi government supported the attacks.

Bullcrap. No, they don't. Says who? They don't "need" to show any such evidence. There may be such evidence, and there may not, and if there were, it would be interesting to see it, but the case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

The case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. The case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. The case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se.

Do you understand what I am saying yet? It's very annoying that you keep pretending I said things I didn't say and arguing against positions I never even took (such as the idea that whether we should have a war with Iraq depends crucially on whether there's a "link" from Hussein to 9/11, which I have never said because I don't think it's true. After all, the case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se, remember?)

It's good to keep in mind what our discussion actually was. You're all over the map, and let me just try to bring your focus back: you said that you doubted the meeting took place not because you have evidence to the contrary, but simply because of your "studies" and other theoretical considerations (i.e. the terrorists "didn't need" money in your opinion). My only point to you is that this is illogical. It is illogical and foolhardy to put your mental models of how people behave ahead of actual witness testimony regarding how people behaved. OK?

I never said that Atta did not meet with an Iraqi government official. I have repeatedly said that he would not have shared operational details with the government agent. This is not my personal opinion. Every reputable terrorist expert will tell you the same thing.

Doubt away. Meanwhile, CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. For the umpteenth time, your internal feelings and hunches do not change reality. Reality exists independent of your thoughts, and CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. Either explain away this piece of data with actual facts (i.e. prove that the Czechs are lying, explain why they would lie, or something...), or don't, but don't expect anyone to be swayed by your personal feelings of "doubt" about the subject just 'cuz you've read some boo.... er, sorry, "studied terrorism".

Not me personal feelings, see above.

Repeat after me: Not my personal hunch or mental model, but the commonly accepted view of how terrorist groups operate.

Why attack Iraq now and not before the 9/11 attacks?

I never said that Atta did not meet with an Iraqi government official.

Post #32: "This alleged link has no credibility. First, the 9/11 terrorists did not need the help of the Iraqi government. Second, terrorists are not going to discuss their plans in the open in a restaurant in Prague." Repeated in Post #121. Which is referred to in Post #123. In Post #223 you take a slightly different tack, "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." You were so impressed with this sentence you crafted that you cut 'n pasted it for Post #224.

Finally you admit in Post #309, "a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi government official could have taken place. I can not prove or disprove that assertion." Three-hundred-and-nine posts to get to this epiphany.

Till then, sorry, but it appeared like you were casting doubt on the meeting itself. Your whole line was "why would they need to meet?" "why would the terrorists need help from Saddam?" "the terrorists I've read about don't behave like that!" Well, evidently they did, because CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING, and I'm now glad I was misinterpreting all those posts in which you poo-poo'ed the whole thing as if it was just a date for some friendly conversation and shop talk. Like I said, I'm glad we're now on the same page.

I have repeatedly said that he would not have shared operational details with the government agent.

"Would not have"? What does that even mean? He either did, or he didn't. He is a human being with vocal cords, so it is at least possible that they did discuss something other than soccer and girls. You don't think so? Why not, because You've Read A Lot About Terrorists and They Never Do That?

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're projecting your mental model of how terrorists behave out on the real world. You don't even realize you're doing it, either. It's just sad. What if somehow some audio tape comes out that records them talking about a terrorist attack? What would you say then? "The tape must be faked because I've read about terrorists and he "would not have" talked about that stuff"? It's pathetic. CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. You admit that you have nothing whatsoever to disprove this. So then, what did they talk about, Mr. Terrorist expert? Life? Philosophy? Alternative Rock? Suppose this meeting took place (we have evidence to this effect, and you have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary). Now then, what "would have" they talked about at this meeting, according to your Time-Life books on Terrorism? Enlighten us.

This is not my personal opinion.

Yes, it is. You're telling me that you "doubt" that such-and-such happened. What is an expression of "doubt", if not an opinion? Maybe you need to look the word "opinion" up in a dictionary.

Not me personal feelings, see above.

Oh, right, "above", where you asserted that your personal opinion (Atta "would not have" talked about terrorism with the Iraqi) is not your personal opinion. I see, it's not your personal opinion because you said so two paragraphs earlier. That really clears it up, thanks.

Why attack Iraq now and not before the 9/11 attacks?

Maybe we should've. Next dumb argument?

"Would not have"? What does that even mean? He either did, or he didn't. He is a human being with vocal cords, so it is at least possible that they did discuss something other than soccer and girls. You don't think so? Why not, because You've Read A Lot About Terrorists and They Never Do That?

We don't know what they talk about. However, terrorist groups are very secretive...

Oh, no! Not going to repeat myself... You appear to have a comprehension problem.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're projecting your mental model of how terrorists behave out on the real world. You don't even realize you're doing it, either. It's just sad.

Are just plain stupid or really anal? THIS IS NOT MY MENTAL MODEL. Ask ANY terrorist expert and he will agree with me.

What if somehow some audio tape comes out that records them talking about a terrorist attack? What would you say then? "The tape must be faked because I've read about terrorists and he "would not have" talked about that stuff"? It's pathetic.

Uh, no. If we could authenticate the tape, then I would believe its content.

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.