[efnwriter]

Thank you for reading my article and your comments. IMHO I have not compared myself to any of the men you mentioned and do not seek to elevate myself to their level of knowlege or expertise. I happen to disagree with Scocroft that Saddam can be contained. Remember that Scocroft was Bush Sr.'s National Security Advisor - and probably advised not finishing the job against Saddam back in '91. I have not read that Schwartzkopf is against invading Iraq - I have not read anything by him on the subject. If you have a reference please let me know.

You are absolutely correct that I support a military operation to remove Saddam Hussein and his regimen from the face of the earth. You apparantly disagree and you are welcome to your opinion. Please post it.

The article was written looking at the situation from Saddam's military point of view. In general, as several other commentators have said, Sadam has no chance straight up against the US armed forces. I believe he will not back down and therefore has few options. The scenario I posted is one option.

One last item - there is very little regard for DEBKAfile out there, but I still think their take on why Iran would be involved is not, IMHO, far fetched. Iran has been trying to go nuclear and has a relatively advanced missile program operating out of Khorramabad. See
http://www..fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/khorramabad.htm and http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:yNUR3ddf3AsC:cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/64/db64.pdf+KhorramAbad+nuclear&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

[DaGman]

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your attention enlightened response.

As for Norman Schwartzkopf's opinion, check this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-387997,00.html. It is believed that Schwartzkopf is speaking not only for his self but for the senior military leadership in the Pentagon who cannot speak out.

And I also appreciate your humbleness. But I believe Scocroft is correct that any WMD that Hussein were to export would have "Baghdad as a return address". Absent any other apparent substantial evidence that Hussein is an imminent threat, this act alone would provide all that is needed to take out Hussein and do it with just about unanimous consent of the world and the nation. As Scocroft points out, Hussein is a survivor first.

I do not oppose military action to remove Hussein. I do oppose a unilateral approach. People have banded together since the beginning of time for mutual aid and support. Attacking Iraq without the support of the rest of the world would make the U.S. appear to be "rogue" to the rest of the world. We don't need that from not only a political but an economic perspective.

As much as many people do not like it, reality is that we are interdependent on the rest of the world in order to maintain our standard of living and to secure peace for ourselves and our friends. We need to demand immediate access for U.N. inspectors and complete transparency in Iraq. Once Iraq fails to comply we should push hard for a U.N. resolution supporting force against Iraq. Then its "Katy, bar the door!"

. One more thing, I read somewhere that the cost of Gulf I was upwards of $600 million in 1991. An operation against Iraq today would likely exceed $1 billion. In 1991 most of the tab was picked up by our allies. Today that's a $1 billion hit that we're going to absorb alone. Why not a little patience here? Do the smart thing by getting international support and spreading the cost around. After all, if terrorists would fly a plane into the WTC, why not the Eiffel Tower or any other Euro landmark. Islamic terrorists have no love for Europe either. Our allies would have as much to gain as we do from removing Hussein. Why pay for it ourselves?