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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"....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.

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?

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.

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.

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?????????

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.

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.