Posted on 04/13/2003 6:04:55 PM PDT by Clive
America, if it so chooses, can now remove despots with pinpoint precision
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
VIENNA-- Looking back on the three-week war against Saddam Hussein, what was astonishing - as well as the speed and efficiency of the victory - was how so many commentators and "experts" were wrong about how the war would go.
While it's fair to say hindsight is 20/20, it should have been obvious the vaunted Republican Guard, with some inevitable exceptions, was mostly a sham.
They were not "crack" troops and, given how the homicidal Iraqi regime worked, would never be much good against real soldiers - which the Americans, British, Australians and Poles irrefutably are.
The one imponderable of the three-week war that neither "expert" nor amateur could predict, was whether Saddam had bio-chemical weapons, and if he would use them.
Even last week, speculation from some who should have known better was the Republican Guard would retreat into the rabbit warren streets of Baghdad and wage house-to-house warfare that would inflict horrendous casualties.
"Stalingrad" was a vision many who opposed the war invoked. They were as wrong in their way as the hordes of Soviet experts prior to communism's collapse who blamed the Cold War on the West for not trusting the good intentions and humanity of the Soviet system.
When the USSR collapsed, many who used to defend the system changed their tune and accepted that it was indeed an "evil empire" as former U.S. president Ronald Reagan had insisted. A succession of Russian foreign ministers has since agreed.
Those who once warned of American casualties in Iraq maybe reaching 50,000, plus hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, now insist the Iraqi army had no chance against the technological might of the U.S. military.
None are so blind as those who will not see, unless it's those whose hate for America clouds their judgment.
What we witnessed on TV was a war unlike any that's ever been fought. For the first time in history, an invading force was more concerned with saving civilian lives and not causing unnecessary damage than the defending troops.
Throughout the war, nightly air attacks avoided targeting Baghdad's water supply, its power plants and civilian areas. Coalition soldiers left buildings intact and risked their lives to spare civilians.
Life went on, more or less normally, until American tanks penetrated the heart of Baghdad.
Casualties were nothing compared to World War II. The precision of air attacks and the restraint and resolve of coalition troops made it clear Saddam would not bounce back as he did after 1991. When this was realized, the "invaders" were welcomed as liberators.
Yes, there was fighting, but total coalition casualties will likely be less than the 1991 Gulf war.
There is valid concern about what happens next. One hopes President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair mean it when they insist Iraqis are quite capable of running their own country now that Saddam is history.
Some "experts" who now worry about the effect of the war on the Arab or Muslim world - some 40 countries - tend to knee-jerk reactions.
As someone who has spent a large part of a career attending crises in the Third and Muslim Worlds, I'd argue there will be two overall effects of this astounding victory.
Misguided concerns
First, concerns about the Arab "street" are largely misguided. The Arab "street" is largely a myth - something generated and manipulated by demagogues with agendas.
The "street" will see the fall of Saddam on TV - even slanted Arab TV - is popular in Iraq. It will see American soldiers doling out their rations, being kissed and hugged by the people to chants of "Thank you Mr. Bush" and "Saddam an enemy of God." It will occur to Arabs in other countries that Iraqis may well be the lucky ones to be rid of a tyrant.
At the same time, leaders of Muslim countries and other dictators will be uneasy. Clearly, if America chooses, it has the capability to remove despots without inflicting horrendous casualties on the populace or destroying cities. Tyrants can be pin-pointed and eliminated.
That has got to give pause to tyrants everywhere - especially those who reside in Pyongyang, Damascus, even Riyadh. This reality may prove a greater incentive for reform than UN Security Council resolutions which have promoted appeasement and rhetoric more than peace and security.
The "new" world order, if that's not too strong a phrase, is likely to congeal around American, British and Australian leadership, supported by the likes of Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, Latvia, Holland and former communist countries of East Europe which understand that appeasement rarely deters dictators or promotes human rights.
France has proved itself irrelevant; Germany is weakly led; Russia is repairing relations with the U.S. As well as Saddam Hussein, the big losers in this war are the UN, which has lost prestige, and those who think dictators can be appeased.
But what would such a deal look like? I don't think it would consist merely of Saddam's promise not to use his WMD and our promise to let him live luxuriously in exile.
Here's the problem. Iraqi agents abroad may have anthrax ready for use. Wouldn't we demand that Saddam tell us where that anthrax is pre-positioned, so that we can remove the threat? Even admitting that he might not tell us about all of it, we could at least remove some of the threat.
If Saddam doesn't have anthrax pre-positioned abroad, then he couldn't make good on our demand -- but in that case, we could safely forgo a deal, since the WMD threat wouldn't actually exist.
In addition, we would demand that he tell us where his production facilities for weaponized anthrax are. Once again, if he doesn't have such production facilities, the deal's off, because we don't need it.
I'm aware of no hints that anything like this has transpired. The turning over of the location of the pre-positioned anthrax might be kept secret, but I think the inspection of the anthrax production facility would at least be the subject of rumor.
Moreover, any such agreement would leave us in a precarious position for a long time. After all, somebody other than Saddam has physical possession of the anthrax, and somebody other than Saddam knows the technical means of weaponization. Those people are not trustworthy, and they would not have any particular incentive not to use their knowledge. There are a number of reasons that they might choose to use the anthrax themselves, on their own.
The house arrest of Saddam (which is more or less what we're talking about) would, in fact, separate him from control of his WMD, leaving us with no leverage over the situation at all. We'd be holding him hostage, but he would no longer be the effective owner of the anthrax. The people who count would be those who inherited the anthrax, and they would not be part of the mutual deterrence arrangement.
So I do not believe that any such agreement has been reached. Whether Saddam is dead or whether he is alive and on the run, I don't know. But I don't think that a deal has been agreed to.
I keep getting the same feeling myself, that Bush and Putin have choreographed the strategy so that Putin can keep Russia out of the conflict on our behalf while staying out of trouble with his xenophobic Russian constitutency - while eventually cashing in on the spoils.
But then I wonder if I'm indulging in post-cold-war fantasizing... and have been reassured by various others on this forum that in fact I am, that nothing has changed in Russia, that Putin is Satan incarnate, etc. etc...
The problem in debating either way is that AFAIK we have no evidence either way, and can only speculate...
What we have just seen in the 3-Week War is Information-Tech,
( Some call it Hyperwarfare... )
or 21st Century warfare versus 20th Century...
What I would suggest, and call your attention to, is the fact that we, and Israel, are capable of waging 21st Century warfare, and the entire Arab world is not.
Proven fact, by recent events.
Believe me, lessons are being drawn, across the world...
While all three are annoying, none poses a threat to the US. We didn't go after Saddam because he irritated us. We went after him because he posed threat. The big-haired loon in Pyongyang is the next biggest threat, followed by the Ayatollahs in Iran.
The Iran problem may be taking care of itself. As neighboring Iraq gets back on its feet, the Iranian people will wonder why they shouldn't also share in liberty and prosperity. The further this progresses, the greater the chance that the Islamists may be pushed from power by a population that's grown weary of the poverty that stems from an all-consuming hatred of the US. In fact, the Ayatollahs are already exploring ways to normalize relations with "The Great Satan" as a way of heading off this development.
In North Korea, Hopefully, the mere threat of "Shock and Awe: Part II" will cause Kim to consider more peaceful ways to cling to power. (Perhaps he'll notice that Saddam would still be in power had he only swallowed his pride and given up his WMDs.)
Of course this is true. But Saddam Hussein is no longer the owner of the anthrax. He may once have been, I don't know. But he does not control the anthrax now, any more than he controls Baghdad or Gen. al-Saadi.
With Saddam's network of control by fear having unravelled, any anthrax he used to control is now owned by whoever has physical possession of it. What is deterring these new owners from using it for some purpose of their own?
As far as a deal with Saddam Hussein goes, what does he have to offer? He no longer has a card to play in the game.
Your theory has been that Saddam put a mechanism in place to ensure that somebody would inherit the anthrax if he were killed or incapacitated.
As you say, he would have picked people he trusted completely. But do these people really care what happens to Saddam at this point? Or would they be willing to sacrifice him for personal ambition or gain?
It's up to them. Therefore, they are in control of the anthrax, not Saddam.
Saddam is in no position to make a deal not to use his WMD, because he can't demonstrate that he can deliver on any such promise.
There is one kind of deal that Saddam could make. He could tell us the location of the stashed anthrax, the locations of the development and production facilities, and the identities of his trusted heirs. But that's the only card he has left to play in terms of making a deal with us.
I see no evidence that he has made such a deal.
[Needless to say, all of this is predicated on the anthrax originally being from Saddam. We don't know whether this is, in fact, the case.]
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.