Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best

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

[EternalHope]

...the weighty issues of war are too important to leave to civilians who are at present excluding our highest ranking generals--the Joint Chiefs of Staff--from planning for the coming war on Iraq because they oppose it as militarily and perhaps ethically unwise and imprudent.

Way back when I was in the military we sorta thought it was subject to civilian control. Guess that was just right wing BS they pounded into me at the Air Force Academy.

[bernie_g]

I'd tend to agree that it's premature to start critiquing the 'plan' before it's actually appeared.

I'd also suggest though, that there are a number of other seriously worrying scenarios that we might consider.

All this Iraq fuss is a trifle premature when Iraq is really just one threat among many, and not everybody thinks it's at the top of the list. Here's a quick list of sample risks.

WMD from the Soviet Union or the satellites sold to A-Q

Pakistan goes fundamentalist, gives nukes or etc to A-Q

Pakistan goes fundamentalist, India attacks, nukes used

Pakistan goes fundamentalist, supports Afghans in anti-US actions, provides safe havens and professional support to irregulars operating out of the tribal territories ...

Saudi goes fundamentalist, oil crisis and global recession

China waits until US invades Iraq, then attacks Taiwan

Iraq waits until US engaged in Baghdad, nukes Israel

Iraq actually does have WMD and gives them to terrorists

Anthrax attack on EU city happens, this time it's a pro job

Israel decides it needs to nuke one or more of its neighbours

Those are just ones I've heard mentioned recently as matters of concern by people who also accept that Saddam is a genuine menace and are prepared to at least seriously consider supporting action to remove him.

Anyhow, what about a quick straw poll? I don't claim originality for the scenarios above, I picked some up from this very thread. The questions I would like to answer are: given that we hear that the White House has no plan on Iraq yet, what should their priorities be in your opinion?

[BlueNgold]

Personally, I am tired of all the "we need proof, we need provocation" talk.
Does funding and actively supporting the 1993 WTC attack count as provocation?
Or perhaps the known meetings between Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials is provocation?
Or perhaps some of you may actually consider standing in defiance of the weapons inspections provocation?
Consider the folly of demanding that we be FURTHER provoked: if we take that stand as a national policy we are doing several things:
First we would be daring Saddam to attack us,
Second, we would be telling Saddam in very plain words that as long as he can keep one or two degrees of seperation between himself and those whom he sends to do his dirty work that he and his oil empire are safe.
I would also like to make the point that when we do finally move on Iraq that our Commander in Chief will announce the beginning of the offensive (shortly after it begins as is the norm) and that he will lay out his rational in clear and concise terms. Let me assure you that his reasoning will be clear and that it will not be flippant or thin.
I applaud the Secretary for taking a stance that is long overdue. The Pentagon is no place for political games. In my not-quite-so-humble opinion the members of the DoD and DoS who have been leeking information in a clear effort to derail strategic and tactical planning are nothing short of cowards and traitors. Hang 'Em All.

[ProudAmerican2]

Anti-war types disgust me to no end. What makes you different than those on the Left, newbie?

Kind of hart for me to be an anti-war type when I served my country in the army for four years and supported the war in Afghanistan.

By the way, look traitor up in the dictionary yet? Read the First Amendment yet?

[rdb3]

...who are too cowardly to serve their country, wear the proud uniform of the US Army and fight for their country.

Physician, heal thyself. A quick glance at my home page proves otherwise.

[rdb3]

By the way, look traitor up in the dictionary yet? Read the First Amendment yet?

Forward and backwards. I've already given you your evidence, but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[ProudAmerican2]

Forward and backwards. I've already given you your evidence, but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

I saw your evidence. I read a lot of "if" and "probably" in the testimony. Not very convincing given the question has changed from "Should UN weapons inspectors have access" to "should the United States invade Iraq"? No one was asking Ritter that question in 1998.

[rdb3]

I saw your evidence. I read a lot of "if" and "probably" in the testimony. Not very convincing given the question has changed from "Should UN weapons inspectors have access" to "should the United States invade Iraq"? No one was asking Ritter that question in 1998.

Read it, rephrased the question, still say that you rely upon the words of this man that have mysteriously changed, and now you're walking between the raindrops.

Poof! Be gone.

[Kermit]

Check out this article: Iraq: In all but name, the war's on

[ProudAmerican2]

Poof! Be gone.

Not your call.

[KainIV]

Scott Ritter made a documentary about Iraq after resigning as an inspector. Guess who financed $400,000.00 of it? Yep, an Iraqi who wanted Ritters help in removing sanctions on Iraq. Guess that explains the about face in his postion on Iraq. Ritter is a traitor. End of discussion.

here is a link to the truth:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/000731.htm

[demlosers]

I agree with much of what you say:
Yes, implementing the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force is the safest known way. And yes, never underestimate your enemy even though you may have clear evidence to the contrary, assuming gets you killed. A good General and on down the ranks will always fight to have the most and the best he can field. It would be absolute stupidity otherwise.

But I think you are against Bush's policy against pre-emptive strikes against an nations that would cause our nation harm. As President, his highest duty is to protect our national security and defent the Constitution. In an era of Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, I do not think we have the luxury to wait for an attack on our shore. We do not need absolute proof to attack evil governments who scheme to do us harm. A propensity of evidence will suffice. Waiting for Americans to die at home and knowingly you could have prevented it, is not acceptable. I am sure the Bush Administration and the Pentagon Brass will come to an agreement.

[rdb3]

That wasn't for you. It was for me.

In my mind, "Poof! So-called "ProudAmerican2" is gone."

[ProudAmerican2]

Scott Ritter made a documentary about Iraq after resigning as an inspector. Guess who financed $400,000.00 of it? Yep, an Iraqi who wanted Ritters help in removing sanctions on Iraq. Guess that explains the about face in his postion on Iraq. Ritter is a traitor. End of discussion.

$400,000 to film a documentary does not leave much money for Ritter. Try again...

You need to look traitor up in the dictionary.

[ProudAmerican2]

In my mind, "Poof! So-called "ProudAmerican2" is gone."

Making things disappear from your mind shouldn't be too tough of a task.

[KainIV]

Read the link

[KainIV]

Maybe sellout is a better term? or political mercenary? or
belief prostitute?

[rdb3]

Things like you? Very easy. Requires absolutely no effort at all to make you just "disappear."