War with Iraq

Shoutin' Across the Pacific ^ | 09-08-02 | chuck watson

[john bell hood]

I am opposed to overt, armed intervention ("invasion") of Iraq. Unfortunately, we've painted ourselves into a corner not by events or facts, but with rhetoric, and created a situation where we probably have to do it. But I'm not happy about it. Here's a few reasons why (and why not). First, conquering Iraq will not be trivial, but it will be as "easy" as things get when it comes to this sort of thing. We will have kill ratios in the 500:1 or higher range if they actually face us in battle, which they won't. I would be very surprised and disappointed if we have more than a 500 casualties. Our technology and, more importantly, tactics, are so much superior to the Iraqi's that it will be overwhelming. The Iraqi army will fold up not so much because they hate Saddam or want democracy, but for the simple reason that they don't want to be slaughtered. And I'm hard pressed to see how the region can be more unstable after than before. I love it when Arab leaders say stuff like "an invasion will open the Gates of Hell". As if you don't have to cross the river Styx to get to the Middle East already.

So those are not reasons to oppose the war. The primary reason I oppose this thing is that I have seen no case made that the continuation of the current Iraqi government represents a threat to the vital national interests of the United States. The only reason I can see for the thing is that the President has by now pretty much staked our reputation on it - and that's nothing to laugh off.

Excerpt. Rest of article.

[john bell hood]

The author argues that we are using a hammer where we should be using a scalpel. And we are going after a nation that should be low on our list of priorities simply because it's an easy target.

His first point makes a lot of sense. But I'm not sure we shouldn't take the low-hanging fuit first, then go after the bigger threats, which he identifies as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Uncle Miltie]

It was recently said by the WSJ that nukes, nuts, and terrorists cannot be allowed in the same country. Saddam qualifies. He is crazy, will use nukes, and has many ties with terrorists (Hamas, Al-Quaida, Abu Nidal, etc.)

Bush Doctrine II is preemption against terrorist nuts with nukes. I agree. That is the basis for invasion. All else is ancillary (freedom for Iraq; U.N. Sanctions; Congressional Resolutions, oil, jihadism, etc.)

Failure to intervene now runs a substantial risk of nuclear terrorism within months.

LET'S ROLL!

[palmer]

nukes, nuts, and terrorists cannot be allowed in the same country.

Pakistan

[rbv]

Did Not someone say "Your either with us or against us"
.....Other nations best start getting in line....

[madvlad]

Agreed!

Iraqi will fold like a bad poker hand once the
shit hits the fan. Kill ratios of 500:1!!!
Hell it was closer to 700:1 in the Gulf War
if you exclude accidents and friendly fire events.

And in terms of armor and armored vehics, the kill
ratio was maybe 1000:1.

Mad Vlad

[MrBambaLaMamba]

Amen.

The best way to end terrorism and ensure peace is to kill terrorists.

The best way to end war and ensure peace is to kill the enemy.

[marron]

The reason for taking Saddam down is simply that we have been forced to sit on him for 10 years now. Our pilots have had to face daily missile fire, and his people have had to endure daily bombardment, for a decade.

We have been forced to keep a sizeable force in the region, just to keep him inside of his borders, and to keep him from slaughtering his people, or his neighbors' people.

He's getting old now, but he has sons who are crazier than he is.

So, the choice is a two week effort to take him down, along with his sons, or war without end, for how many decades to come.

And how many more millions of kids born to grow up in this twisted hell...

I vote to take him down. Lets do it and do it now.

[Uncle Miltie]

Re Pakistan:

Nukes, check.
Terrorists, well, on the wrong side of the law (so far).
Nuts, no. Musharraf is so far not nuts. The face off with India showed that he's no hair trigger on his WMD. Saddam in a similar circumstance would have an unacceptably high probability of launch.

Were Pakistan to go jihaddist instead of military dictatorship (odious enough), the I would agree, and preemption would be required.

[zarf]

Do you not see that Iraq is the easiest access point for our military to enter the Mid East....which will give us a large scale foothold to establish our influence on the Western Iranian border (we are on Iran's eastern via Afganistan)and the Syrian border.

The war on terror involves introducing the Democratic ideal into the region in order to attack the ROOT CAUSES of terror......theocratic totalitarianism/fascism!!!!.

[palmer]

What makes Saddam more hair triggery than Musharraf. They both seem to be strong on rhetoric, all talk and no action. If anything Saddam's lead footed experiment in Kuwait was a lot more predictable than anything Musharraf might do covertly in Kashmir.

[Uncle Miltie]

Saddam's hair trigger record:

Invading Iran, thinking they were weak.
Invading Kuwait, thinking he had clearance from our ambassador.
Lobbing Scuds at Israel (a non-combatant) and Saudi Arabia.
Brutal suppression of internal dissidents (well, more brutal, anyway)

In one way, I agree with you, though. Musharraf & Co. probably have had more truck with terrorists over time. Fortunately, he came down on the right side of the War On Terror at the right time. Saddam did not, and he stands with the terrorists against us.