Free Republic

<p>ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, THE CAPITAL GANG. MARK SHIELDS, HOST: Welcome to CAPITAL GANG.</p> <p>I'm Mark Shields, with Al Hunt, Robert Novak, and Kate O'Beirne.</p> <p>Our guest is former ambassador Ken Adelman, a member of the Defense Department's Policy Board.</p> <p>Thanks for coming in, Ken.</p>

Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire warnings were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime. Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost surely" need "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec. 26, 2001]. Worse: "Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the Arab-Israeli wars suggest that . . . the United States could lose thousands of troops in the process." I agree that taking down Hussein would differ from taking down the Taliban. And no ...

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. hawk on Friday defended an article in which he said a war with Iraq would be a "cakewalk" but said he underestimated the extent to which Iraq would use guerrilla tactics against U.S. forces. Kenneth Adelman, a former Pentagon aide, U.S envoy to the United Nations and arms control negotiator, said he stood by the February 2002 article written to counter critics who believed a war could lead to thousands of U.S. casualties. "They said that Scud missiles would obliterate Israel and American troops in...