The US, The UN and Iraq

It really has nothing to do with the US; only with GWBush (oil interests) and his father(family vendetta). The only problem now is that their propaganda have sold over sixty percent of Americans that we are in danger from Iraqi's WMD's and Saddam. This threat has really gotten out of hand. People are now buying plastic sheetings and duct tape to protect themselves from biological and chemical weapons. People's ignorance is staggering. c.i.

BTW, After WWII, we were told to hide under our desks at school to protect against any nuclear attack. Same mentality, I'm afraid. c.i.

Steve,

I think you're wrong about the date and time. Try 02MAR at around 0200 Baghdad time. That's optimal, but probablilities only rise to over 90% when the range is +/- 10 days, and given no unforeseen intervening event. Saddam could prevent any military conflict at all by stepping down and removing the foot of the Ba'ath Party from Iraqi necks. Unlikely, but possible if Saddam finally sees the light. A significant terrorist attack on American soil can greatly alter timetables. Tomorrow's UN meeting will be interesting, but substantive action one way or another may not happen before Tuesday of next week. There will then be a short pause, before operations begin.

Let's see whose analysis is more accurate.

Cicero,

You seem to have a pretty low opinion of anyone whose point of view doesn't agree with yours. It seems to me that some of the most reasoned opions given here are from some pretty bright, informed folks. Timber and George both are careful and try to remain objective in their remarks. I can't say the same for some of those who oppose the American military action. Wild, unsubstantiated charges are being made with seeming no other purpose but to undermine American efforts.

There are bright, well-informed people on both sides of this disagreement. It isn't necessary to use ad hominum attacks. Civility and respect for other peoples viewpoints isn't that hard.

Asherman, It's obvious you don't care for any opposing views. When you identify ad hominum attacks, you should challenge them right away - even when I'm guilty. When you make the claim that I have low opinions of anybody that doesn't agree with me is your opinion, alone. I've received PM's from the very people you claim I show disrepect, telling me otherwise. c.i.

Asherman, you and I are in agreement re: Mar 02/03. Personnel and equipment continue to enter the theater, but as near as I am able to make out, the pieces are all pretty much in place, or certainly will be by saturday at the latest. Logistic Support units will continue to arrive, but the combat element essentially is there, along with sufficient materiel and other support to mount and maintain a full-scale attack for the several days remaining for the arrival of en-route materiel. "The Gun" is more or less loaded and cocked, though on "Safe", and what is yet to arrive is pretty much just more ammunition. We can shoot for quite a while with what's already there before we'll need any more.

Friday's UN meeting will be critical, of course, but also critical is the decision expected from Turkey on the 18th. A few days ... I think at most three, maybe a few hours one way or the other, will allow for the positioning of ground and air elements in Turkey. That movement likely will not go unnoticed or unmentioned. Any time after about the 20th or 21st, "The Gun" comes off "Safe", and "The Trigger" might be pulled at any time.

I fully expect irregular forces to harass our forward-positioned ground elements over the next week to ten days, though I trust our combat security is already quite well honed. It is a daunting challenge to hold a combat force of any significant size at "Attack Ready" for any appreciable time, so such "pinprick attacks" will actually aid the effort of maintaining readiness. Irregular veterans of the recent Afghan Campaign are in for a rude shock should they attempt to harass or engage emplaced US Forces. Still, a couple weeks is about the limit to thyat. Any attack will most likely occur before the end of the first week of March, with the "New Moon" window of Mar 02/03 particularly attractive from a purely opreational perspective. Saddam has at least a week, but not much more than three.



timber

Steve, Tony Blair would have us believe that he is taking the high moral path of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and that it has nothing to do with his country's interest. Bush, too, is claiming that this strike is not about American interests but about saving the world and Iraq's peoples from Saddam. At least Blair makes a good fist of it; Bush's pieties are totally unconvincing. And if it weren't for Blair dragging him back by his coattails, Bush would have attacked before this. God save the Queen!

The very language used here has the cold, amoral tone which has been used continually by a cold, amoral administration. It divorces actions done in our name from blood and agony and repercussions -- which are bound to come. I don't want to be too hard on Timberlandko who may have learned this language at some personal cost. I just want to point out that when the possibility of our Logistic Support Units and Materiel striking at fully human, often civilian, people, is described in these terms, I feel in my gut the degree to which we have lost our "moral compass."

I had the same reaction, Tartarin, but hesitated to comment. At first, I thought that timber was speaking almost with relish, but then I decided that he was just doing the rote enumerating thing. Whichever it is, one is reminded of the euphemism "collateral damage" which hides dead mothers and fathers and children.

I've posted often enough that I don't relish war, rather that I abhor it. Unfortunately, I am far more familiar with it, and its sights, sounds, and smells than I would care to be.

I take notice of "The Civilian Cost" of which many are concerned. Civilians are in very little danger from US forces. Direct action against civilians simply won't happen. Significant US ground forces will be deeply and securely emplaced within Iraq, and may be expected to be quite successful in isolating the cities from such military as is not already in cities. Humanitarian efforts will be heroic, and Iraq's civilians will be bombarded with more food and medicine than they have seen in about a generation ... something which never before has happened. Unlike Gulf War I, there will be no protracted air campaign leading to a period of ground action. It will all happen essentially at once.

Iraq's CCC (Command, Communications, and Control) will be taken out immediately, and no Iraqi unit will be able to move from cover without drawing upon itself its own destruction. Geographically, I imagine half to 3/4 of Iraq's territory, and just about her entire transportation infrastructure, will be either under direct US control or under cover of US firepower within 24 hours of the onset of hostilities. Rooting Iraqi military out of the cities will be thorny, but should prove well within US capability and again involve little civilian cost. Even if significant Iraqi troops manage to withdraw into the cities in advance of US interdiction, they will be isolated not only from one another but from any support or resupply. Bagdhad will not be another Stalingrad.

Of course, that all presupposes Saddam does not employ any of those WMD he says he doesn't have. Should that happen, the toll among civilians could be appalling, but will be of Saddam's doing, and will have little if any real military effect on the forces opposing Saddam.

More damage will be done to Iraq's civilian population by expended Iraqi anti-aircraft munitions falling to ground than will be done by US action. It just isn't economic to target civilians ... far greater direct military advantage comes from directly engaging the military of one's opponent; one's enemy's civilians are generally of no military value whatsoever.

Refugees are sure to be something of a problem, especially in areas subject to Turkish or Iranian action. I would be unsurprised by an incident wherein US Forces interpose themselves between Kurds and Turks, for instance. Again, an Iranian grab is not to be unexpected. The War will have a few distractions.

The Iraqis, and The Third World in general, tend to be quite passionate and enthusiastic about war, at least so long as the perceive themselves to have advantage. The US wastes little energy on passion or enthusiasm on the battlefield. The matter of war is approached very coldly, analytically, and with great attention paid to efficiency. "Collateral Damage" just doesn't happen to be "efficient". We are VERY efficient. We will win The War, and The War will be short and relatively cheap ... given adherence to conventional weapons alone, of course.

The Peace is a much more complex issue than is The War. The greatest danger may lie in the weeks and months following The War.



timber

timber, One of the latest reports out of Baghdad is that the Republican Guard is now disbursing themselves into mosques. I'm not sure how our military will 'minimize' collateral damage, but let me stress that it's an impossible task. The unknowns are too many, even with the best of plans and intensions. c.i.

Anybody see this movie yet? c.i.

Can't read what you got there c.i.; but it looks like a sequel to "Dumb and Dumber" called "Dumbest".

No, my point was simply that the argument that war is worse than doing nothing may be one that lacks merit in light of these facts.

If I understand you, I'm inclined to agree. For my part, I find it necessary sometimes to make the same point again for someone who joined the discussion later or for another reason did not see it before.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president...or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong...is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt

Asherman

You used the phrase 'undermine the US', and it's a silly notion I'd really love to see you rethink. When half or more of your own population are in accord with the clear majority of the rest of the western world, then perhaps the US is being undermined by a different set of individuals than you suggest.

blatham - I love the quote but find fault with your math. The most recent polls of which I am aware indicate that 69% of Americans support war with Iraq. That does not leave 50% to agree with those in other countries who do not support it. (Not by a long shot.)

t w

Yes, those polls ...

Poll Finds Most in U.S. Support Delaying a War

Very good, Walter. Thanks for this much needed current poll to show "most" Americans wants to wait on war. That's good news, indeed! If the majority wants to wait for UN approval, I wonder what Bush will do after tomorrow's report from Blix? c.i.

56% saying the administration should wait for UN approval being perhaps the most relevant result....thank you Walter.

And let's acknowledge that the PR machine has been tumbling over itself to validate this war. For Powell to even attempt to suggest that the Usama tape was evidence of collusion was the most pathetic and sophmoric display I've witnessed in a long time.

Do these guys have the character to back down from a stupidly destructive position? I think it isn't likely.