What is a legal war?
I see. Well, good thing that if we invaded it wouldn't be "without provocation", then.
Never ceases to amaze me how many articles come out (and they really are a dime a dozen) criticizing the so-called "plan to invade Iraq", a "plan" which doesn't even exist as far as we know, except of course in the ever-more-fantastic and mutually-contradictory stories leaked to the New York Times. This article ought to really be titled, "The bogus stories leaked to and planted in the New York Times about this or that 'plan to invade Iraq' are dubious". The real story here, after all, is the fact that the NYT and people like the author of this piece are so damn gullible.
Dubya's? Dubya claims no plan.
Anyway, what plan? Everybody has a plan. These plans are all other peoples' plans. This is Friday. Is this referring to today's NYT plan or last Friday's Newsweek plan? Or maybe next week's NPR plan?
Uh ... I think it was more like 500, if even that many. Here we go again with the "mother of all battles" talk. I actually like the inside-out approach. We'll have spies and SF teams crawling all over Baghdad before we go in. Saddam will have a bullet in his head by then.
If we don't have a plan to win the peace, we won't win the 'war'. Bush needs to think beyond the next election and to think the strategy about how in some 50 years we end up with friendly nations like Germany and Japan. That's why this area has been warring for 4000 years. Generals know more about saving American lives long-term than pundits and neo 'con-men' with their own timetable.
If you ask me there is greater moral imperative to invade and take this guy out now than we had in the Gulf War, for God's sake!! What would you suggest that we wait around and have him hit us again? I bet these same guys would be sitting on their hands then as they are now!
I don't mind a little thoughtful consideration but Sadam, the Mullah's in Iran, House of Saud, Hosni Mubarek, and Syria need to be shown that terrorism is a loosing form of warfare. I persoannly feel that if we took him out the first time, Sept 11 would have never happenned. Why, you ask? Because We would be controlling those Iraqi oil fields and the Saudi's would have been exposed for the thugs they are long ago. Faced with competition for oil they would be shaking down OPEC and terrorising their other customers. We would have also sent a message thoughout the Middle East that says "Don't you dare mess with the US or you WILL loose your country". These thugs only respect one thing: Force and Power. Its time they were shown what REAL power is in the hands of a commited, enraged, courageous and freedom loving people. We HAVE been provolked. The time for action is now!
Absolutely amazing.
I think the relentless psy-ops campaign against Iraq is aimed at precipitating the provocation necessary thus making our planned invasion legal.
Furthermore, if Saddam is dumb enough to lash out in a first strike at Israel, which I feel is the unstated aim of this psy-ops campaign, no US invasion will be necessary. All that will be left for us is radiation containment and nation/government rebuilding.
Many made the same claim in early January of 1991. Iraq will fold like a house of cards yet again. People forget it took those inept clowns eight years to fight Iran to a draw.
Sort of like Babe Ruth pointing at where his home run is going...
The "50,000 special forces" figure is bogus, which renders the rest of his commentary somewhat questionable. It is not clear that he is simply engaging in hyperbole, which would be forgiveable, but still off the mark.
If the 50,000 refers to all naval and air force and army personnel assigned to the task, it is probably close to accurate.
I am not particularly worried about Saddam's 500,000 man army. Once the Republican Guard is neutralized, the remainder will sieze power and be the basis of the post-Saddam government. Within two months we will be sending Iraqi officers to the US for advanced management seminars.
"...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. " Try 1,500 SF.
As an aside and kudos to Vietnam Vets, During the battle of Hue, the Marines took on 6,000 NVA, killed 5,500 and lost 150 Marines. At Khe Sanh, over 10,000 enemy dead, maybe 15,000, at a cost of 200. The same working and middle class Americans that brought you mass production farming, auto assembly will now bring you, as in the past, death. Enemies never learn.
And we dismiss it for good reason. The members of my local gun club could probably destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard in less than a week.
Listening to the Novaks and Buchanans of the world spout off a decade ago about how we shouldn't undersestimate the Iraqi war machine was laughable, and they (of course) were shown to be dead wrong. Now, a decade later, the Iraqi forces are at a fraction of the "strength" the were then, so what makes (some) people think that things will be more difficult for us this time? The fact that Saddam probably has a lot more WMD's and is mad enough to use them? Well, that's precisely why it's in our best interest to destroy whatever is left of their army and overthrow their regime. And as a bonus, other regional repressive regimes might just decide to change their crimminal behavior after seeing the ease with which we conduct and conclude our campaign.
Or one B-52 with one nuclear bomb.