Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best

The American Partisan ^ | August 16, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[Mr. Mojo]

As a USMC tank platoon commander in Gulf War I, I'd rather go back and finish the job so my son won't have to.

Well said.

[Dr. Frank fan]

What do you mean without provocation?!!

Tell me about it! Don't you just love these people who fall all over themselves to write huge counterfactual screeds bizarrely predicated on "if we attack Iraq without provocation"??

It's like saying, "If we start to distrust Bill Clinton for no good reason...." and then launching into some discussion over it. Or, "If we start to suggest that Tiger Woods is a good golfer before he wins anything...." Or, "If we decide that the stock market is doing poorly before stocks even start falling..." I mean, are these people living in an alternate universe or what?

[rightwing2]

I think the author was referring to the widely reported total of 50,000 ground troops being employed in Afghanistan, a large part of which were Special Forces, Rangers, airborne/air assault troopers.

[rightwing2]

Under widely-recognized provisions of customary international law, a country has the right to go to war in order to defend itself, to defend another country from attack. However, pre-emptive attacks and aggressive wars are explicitly outlawed under international law. That is what we tried the "war criminals" of Germany and Japan for doing at Nuremburg. I guess I wouldn't be overly surprised to see some US leaders hauled before the International Criminal Court for engaging in a pre-emptive war of aggression against Iraq.

[SEGUET]

"if Saddam is dumb enough to lash out in a first strike at Israel"

No he'll wait until we have 20,000 people in downtown Baghdad -then israel will be hell bent to nuke him & us because that would be an act of war on the US - wherein we'd have to "toast" Israel for the hell of it

[Dr. Frank fan]

Oh, great... so now the plan which the administration has been talking about for months doesn't exist.

You must be one of those "living in an alternate universe" people. In the universe where I live, the administration has not been "talking about" a plan to invade Iraq "for months". I don't even know where you get that. If this is what you believe, then tell me: When will the invasion take place? How will the invasion be handled? Who will be involved, where will the support come from, what countries will be used as staging areas, what is their exit strategy, what is their post-victory strategy, what contingency plans are they making?

After all, you seem to think the "administration" has been "talking about" this "plan" for "months". So presumably you know plenty of military details about their "plan" to invade Iraq. Well, spill it!

Please don't misunderstand me. It's not that I'm saying that We Won't Invade Iraq at all. I reckon that we will. But it's premature to talk about (and criticize) the "plan", whatever it is or isn't, without actually knowing any details whatsoever! I mean get real, all we have are a bunch of dubious leaks to the freakin' New York Times! You're telling me it makes sense to look at those leaks/planted stories and sniff, "I don't like their plan at all, it's so bad"? I really hope you understand what I'm trying to say because I'm really getting tired of saying it.

The administration may indeed attack Iraq, sometime, in some way. But neither you nor I nor this columnist know any solid facts about their "plan" for doing it (if, indeed, such a "plan" exists), and so it's just plain stupid to start carping about how Their Plan Is So Dubious and all that.

[Mr. Mojo]

The number of limp-wrists we have on the Right is amazing.

Yep, they're everywhere......but I don't find it amazing. The testosterone vacated the GOP a long, long time ago.

[ddodd3329]

I am not sure what big name Conservative’s “? ? ? rightwing2 ? ? ?” may be referring to but taking action against an individual or nation that threatens the security of the US is why the constitution grants the President the ability to Wage War. Saddam Hussein is clearly a threat to our security and developing biological and radiological weapons mass destruction. Weapons he has used against civilians and weapons that he will most certainly use again if given the opportunity.

Hussein is a man of terror and unlike liberals such as former President Clinton – President George W. Bush is brave enough to do his duty. Bush will justly wage war and prevent this tyrant from causing chaos and taking many more innocent lives.

Don Dodd – Editor www.radiofreewesthartford.com
Connecticut’s Original Source for Conservative Opinion

[rightwing2]

Fifth column? The only fifth column to which the author could be ascribed would be a fifth column that puts America's interests and in particular her national security interests first everywhere and all the time. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from his articles with which I almost always agree.

[Dr. Frank fan]

First, the 9/11 terrorists did not need the help of the Iraqi government.

And you know this how....?

Second, terrorists are not going to discuss their plans in the open in a restaurant in Prague.

Terrorists being such geniuses and all.

I guess in your mind terrorists always behave 100% rationally? (Except of course when they're doing all that terrorist stuff?) I love explanations like "no way, the crazy murderous psycho would never have done something so dumb!" Really cracks me up.

[rdb3]

No he'll wait until we have 20,000 people in downtown Baghdad -then israel will be hell bent to nuke him & us because that would be an act of war on the US - wherein we'd have to "toast" Israel for the hell of it

You're dillusional.

But I bet you'd like to "toast" Israel just for the heck of it.

[Bombard]

Hey nutwing get your facts straight. The 50,000 number should refer to the total troops involved in all aspects of the Afgan operation, most were support troops. Troops involved in combat were about 1000. Not bad for the results. The Iraqi Army is a shell if its 1990 self. The Republican Guards will be isolated and eliminated. It seems you folks know little about military affairs and such.

ON TO BAGHDAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SEGUET]

"....at Nuremburg...."

Glad sombody brought up Nuremberg - I thought that that little judiicial exercise would make archaic the term "neo"
forever more. I figured the world had seen enough neo-"anythings" - But I guess there will always be blind allegiance by some - and the not frequent enough Kool-Aid lines -

Gotta go, I see they just brought out the strawberry flavored punch bowl and I want to get some pictures.

[philosofy123]

I like your map

[rdb3]

But it's premature to talk about (and criticize) the "plan", whatever it is or isn't, without actually knowing any details whatsoever! I mean get real, all we have are a bunch of dubious leaks to the freakin' New York Times! You're telling me it makes sense to look at those leaks/planted stories and sniff, "I don't like their plan at all, it's so bad"? I really hope you understand what I'm trying to say because I'm really getting tired of saying it.

Isn't it painful to have to point out the obvious?

[SEGUET]

I got an idea -

being tired of always being on the debt side (as a taxpayer) for this little military incursions - I think I've found a way to get on the "Equity" side of this one -

1. Let's float an Iraqi Rebuilding IPO - we'll first let GW pick up all the expenses for the war (exploration & production, G&G costs, etc.) for short "lifting" cost -

2. We will come in after the surrender agreement is signed on the deck of the USS Missouri - (referred to in the oil industry as "at the tanks" -

3. Income to the new LLC will be derived from sale of the post-war Iraqi Oil and gas production - we can have Harken operate the fields for us. That's the upside

4. The downside is that we first must pay our "working interest" (25% in this case) for putting out the fires, redrilling the wells, rebuilding the gathering systems and the pipelines - we can let Halliburton handle that.

5. Then we just sit back and collect all that "mailbox money".

Now granted as taxpayers we do pay for GW's share (75% of the expenses and operting cost - but because we are receiving 25% of the income we actually net a 50% tax burden.

I think we can bring about 35 million shares to the market at $50/share - less investment banking charges, printing, etc. that should put about $100 million in the company coffers -

We'll pardon Michael Milken and get him back as the CFO, (Lon)Cheney can be CEO.

How's that - the share-holers end up on the equity side of the typical Beltway equation - we reduce our tax burden - impossible to have insider information because we are all insiders - and we bring civility to the coprorate board room.


(This is not a soliciation for the marketing/sale of non-existing securities - we'll tell you when it is) - that should handle the disclosure.

[rightwing2]

Care to cite the provision in the Constitution which grants the President the authority to "wage war?" You can't because such a provision doesn't exist. The founding fathers granted that authority to declare or initiate war as well as appropriate funds for it solely to Congress, not the President despite the penchant of the occupants of the Executive Branch to engage in flagrantly unconstitutional wars on a whim, the very thing the Founders sought to prevent.

[Bombard]

Nutwing your take on Nurremburg is a joke. The trials had very little to do with what you imply. In reality they involved crimes against humanity that were carried out by Hitler and his Nazi goons. Ole Sadam and his bunch are in the mold of such evil. It is necessary to eliminate such evil for the face of the earth before they can kill again.
ON TO BAGHDAD!!!!!!!!! DEATH TO SADDAM?????????

[ProudAmerican2]

And you know this how....?

Common sense. The information required for the attacks readily available and they used our own planes.

Terrorists being such geniuses and all.

The plan worked.

I guess in your mind terrorists always behave 100% rationally? (Except of course when they're doing all that terrorist stuff?) I love explanations like "no way, the crazy murderous psycho would never have done something so dumb!" Really cracks me up.

Never raised the issue of rationality. However, I have studied terrorist organizations. One common characteristic of terrorist organizations is a focus on secrecy. For example, most analysts believe that only the terrorists that flew the planes actually knew the plan.