Posted on 03/07/2003 3:16:39 PM PST by MadIvan
Although we can also potentially spin it as sweet reasonableness and long-sufferingness, just as we successfuly did last September. Again, most people (outside of FR) aren't foaming at the mouth to attack Iraq this minute, and, given that we still haven't pointed the finger at Saddam for 9/11, the matter doesn't appear that urgent to most people. Again, as the whole thing creeps towards April, the "blazing heat of the Iraqi summer" provides an increasingly convenient excuse for saying, "well, let's just table this for now." So, yeah, I think it could easily go that way. I really think only Team Bush understands the Grand Strategy. The only thing I'm really confident of is that we aren't about to attack Iraq. That one's a no-brainer, just based on consideration of the weaponry at the disposal of our adversary and our level of preparedness to counter it.
Good conversation. Now, I'm going to call it a night.
And you're right, it's getting late -- good night.
It has been on Fox News and it has been in the Wall Street Journal. Likewise parts for French Gazelle attack Helicopters and Mirage F1's seem to have made it to Iraq per Fox News. As to why Peter, Dan and Tom have not mentioned it, I can only speculate that it is information that shows those who hate America in a bad light.
How could the headlines speak of cooperation from Iraq? The UN has become an instrument for proliferation of Socialist political bureaucratic horse trading.
Why would we allow Britain to tack on a deadline that makes an already unpopular resolution even more unpalatable -- unless we wanted it to fail?
Why do people like Laurie Mylroie, Woolsey and others present such a credible argument for Iraqi backing (or control) of al Quaeda, while the administration frets that it doesn't have "evidence," even when the evidence already out there would bolster its case for war?
Why did we totally drop the ball on the Turkish vote, when I believe one call from Rumsfeld to the head of the Turkish military -- which rendered a "no decision" before the parliamentary vote -- would have sealed a positive outcome? I read that the pro-Islamist party voted 3 to 1 in favor of the resolution; how odd.
Why are the Dems and Dem hacks who are totally opposed to war -- judging from comments by Ellen Ratner (ugh) this AM on FNC, and another hack last night -- now beginning to say that we must get this over with "for the sake of our troops?" and that we are now putting our troops in harm's way by making them wait? Are they perhaps correctly guessing that we are not going into Iraq right now, and that advocating war is now a safe gamble?
Your theory covers all of the above. If you are not correct, then the only alternative scenario is that Bush and his advisors are blithering idiots, and I'm not ready to believe that.
We face a serious danger, and the stakes couldn't be higher in your "chess game" scenario.
Of course. We have to pay the troops anyway. The extra cost for gas, etc. is peanuts to the US, and can only be properly evaluated in light of the full context of the situation and the alternatives available to us. This is a hostage situation. We are the hostages. The sheriff has stationed all his cruisers around the hostage taker's hideout, but all the squad cars and snipers and SWAT teams in the world aren't going to resolve the crisis by themselves. That doesn't mean they are going to go away, of course. They'll be there for the duration.
Thanks for the ping.
An utter defeat of Iraq, with its biological weapons threat, is the best way of neutralizing the risk from North Korea, Iran, etc.
The reason there is a risk at all is that the world thinks that the U.S. is a paper tiger, that we do not have the political will to respond appropriately to threats of weapons of mass destruction until it is too late.
The only way to deal with this issue is to prove that we do have the requisite political will, via action.
Would you propose proving this via a war with a nuclear power? I submit that Iraq is a far safer choice, and just as effective (in fact, more effective, because there's less that can go wrong).
Everything is on hold until the US takes care of Iraq.
Waiting a year or two
until the US has adequate safeguards
against an attack on its own territory
(if that ever would be possible, which I doubt)
would have disastrous results.
I do not believe that that is what we are waiting for. Civil defense is a nice plus, and I guess it's part of it, but it's not really the point.
Right now, public support for the war within the U.S. is insufficient for the level of action that is needed. All one can say right now is that the public is willing to go along with war as long as the fortunes of war don't turn against us at all. But it would be considered Bush's war.
The U.S. government is waiting for tension and fear to escalate to the point where the American public demands war.
Keep in mind that the purpose of the war is not merely the defeat of Iraq; it is to put all other states on notice as to what kind of response they can expect from us if they so much as think of threatening the U.S. with WMD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.