[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Scary stuff!

[Cold Heat]

Nice site! Bookmarked for later reading and reference.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Isn't the northest area where the Al-Queda are relocating?

[Mike Darancette]

I wonder what is really going on here. We fiddle around while our recognized enemy (Iraq) ramps up WMD. Iraq's historical enemy Iran gears up WMD. Russia signs a trade pact with Iraq.

This sounds like the late 1930's all over again. Will Iraq attack Iran, taking the Western Part while Russia Takes the East? This would give Russia an oil pipeline path from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea.

[DBtoo]

Does anyone know how much oil Iran has? Iraq has the second largest supply next to Saudi Arabia. But I would like to know how oil-rich Iran is.

[defenderSD]

This article is way out in left field, which isn't surprising considering the author quotes Debka as a source. Iraq is not going to invade Jordan and Israel because they can't move mechanized infantry across the open desert with the US and Israeli air forces attacking them from the air. Their tanks would be turned into smoking wrecks just as in the first Gulf War. They might be able to pull off some kind of end run around US forces into Kuwait and harass the Kuwaitees for a few days until we kick them out again with air power. But this idea of Iraq conquering the Middle East is rediculous.

[Joe Boucher]

No, the U.S. shouldn't go after Sadam and his, they should just let Iraq go and wipe Israel off the map and then bully the rest of the mid-east and world. STUPID LIBERALS.

[hflynn]

Saddam cannot win a war with the US, if the US has the will to win. However, if he attacks first and achieves military control over much of the middle east, he can reach a position of strength to negotiate from and may not only maintain his power but extend it.

ROTFLMAO!!

Attacks first? Whom? How? and most impotantly why? Saddam has been playing the victim game since Desert Storm. If he attacks anyone he loses the only safeguard he has left, being the victim. Use WMD? What do you think Israel is going to respond with if WMD is used on them. This whole column is ludicrous.

[SamAdams76]

This article is preposterous. Sadaam will never be in a position of power in which the U.S. would have to "negotiate" peace. The U.S. already has enough military resources in the region to lay waste to any offensive movement that Sadaam might have in mind. And that does not even take into consideration the massive military might of Israel that would likely be drawn into the action as well as the not insignificant military muscle of Turkey. There is simply no chance in hell that Sadaam can "take over" the Middle East and force us to negotiate with him. And if Sadaam does decide to use WMD, it will be the last thing he ever does along with a few million of his people.

[Jackie222]

Bump and bookmark.......

[kinghorse]

If he moves his armies it'll be a duck shoot. He won't. Iraq is going the WMD route against the US. It'll consign his land to utter destruction but oh well. Better now than 5 years from now when he can calmly call the President and discuss our surrender (blackmail).

[cake_crumb]

Great article. BUMP.

[VaBthang4]

You can stop reading after the first sentence...

"Saddam cannot win a war with the US, if the US has the will to win. However, if he attacks first and achieves military control over much of the middle east, he can reach a position of strength to negotiate from and may not only maintain his power but extend it."

Implies and requires that the US military would not be able to a stop a seriously weakened and poorply supplied Iraqi Military from taking "much of the middle east"....and goes on to imply and require that even if by some miracle of fog of war osmosis Iraq did extend its military out and took control of a large part of middle eastern oil, G.W. Bush and the American people would then pull a European rule of life out of its hat and negotiate with Saddam Hussein as opposed to completely unleashing the US Military on him.

Fundementally flawed, laughable scenario. [That in my mind only a liberal or someone without military competence could think up.]

...Next.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Most likely, the real reason for the deployment is to protect Jordan’s main highways between the port of Aqaba, Amman and the northern air bases as well as highways directly into Israel to the west; to protect against the Iraqi invasion of Jordan, and Israel.

Agreed. But the author overlooks the prospect of full retaliatory strikes by the USA, US allies, and Israel. Iraq, along with any other active particpants, would be annihilated in short order. Yes, it would be messy, and there would be many casualties. But this is the worst case scenario. There are many other possibilities.

[TheBattman]

I was just starting to believe this story until the author quoted DEBKA- totally ruining any credibility...

[DaGman]

I don't know who Jonathan Rhodes is but I wonder who the guy thinks he is. Apparently he sees his self as more informed and insightful than the likes of Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, Stormin' Norman, Dick Armey and even Zbigniew Brzenski.

His "out of the mainstream" venue of publication appears to serve little more of a purpose than to appeal to and motivate those who would support a war that has virtually no public support in this country and much less worldwide.

Rhodes speaks of disinformation by Iraq but it appears he is engaging in the same... quoting Debka? C'mon, really.