The US, The UN and Iraq

(timber...my response was 'cooool...how's the bugger doing that!?')

Here is a very interesting take on the conservative/neo con divergence (think Scowcroft/Perle) from Ian Baruma. Though I don't agree with certain traditional conservative ideas, I at least consider that folks like Scowcroft and George Shultz are from the same planet as myself. Neo cons as Trotskyites...and it is why blind partisanship (anytime) is so dangerous - though YOU might not be changing, the movement to which you have signed your soul over to just might be changing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,874256,00.html
(will move this to a separate discussion, but relevant here)

Pardon me if these questions have been addressed earlier:

--If our intention is to topple Saddam, and we blow him up in his bunker, and do not have proof of his demise, will we have the commitment to fight the leftover rogue elements of the Iraqi regime? For years to come? In other words, continue to police the nation as we did Viet Nam, and Afghanistan now?

--Will the ground war in Baghdad be a guerrilla war, in the streets, house to house, building to building? a la Mogadishu?

--What happens if Saddam uses a WMD? Do we use one back? (I suppose we must, musn't we? Does that mean we're better, or right and just..or just bigger and tougher? That's why they call it 'war', right? Because it's hell?)

--Prevailing wisdom suggests that we will win quickly (some things I've read suggest this will be a 10-day war, since the last one only took 100 and Saddam is much weaker now).

What if it drags out? Or we don't find Saddam (or as suggested above, no proof he's dead)? What if American soldiers being slaughtered in urban combat rapidly turns public opinion negative?

What will the administration do if this war goes like Afghanistan went (and by that I mean, no capture of the bad guys, no proof of their extinction, rogue elements still on the loose, etc.)?

(Please don't respond with, "It won't. We will win. This war is just", blah, blah, blah. We'll all be marching in the same parade, together, as Americans united, if you're right. I'd like to know what you think would happen if you should NOT be right, simply as a matter of discussion.)

In short, and to generalize, "What happens if the war in Iraq goes badly?", beyond "It'll be bad."...

Pdiddle,

I think you will find most of our opinions on the questions raised by reading back through the posts on this, and similar threads.

The rational for the coming struggle is complex. There is no single purpose, but rather a complex jumble of reasons and justifications pushing us to act. It is not necessary to kill, or even determine Saddam's fate for Allied forces to achieve the objective: the removal of unconventional weapons from the Iraqi arsenal. The length of our stay in Iraq is a political question, rather than a military one. I believe the military will be substantially withdrawn rather quickly, though some elements may remain for a long time. Iraq is not Vietnam, nor is it Afghanistan.

I expect that the Republican Guard will be broken without too much blood. The remaining Iraqi elements should surrender again in droves. I believe that most Iraqi citizens will not support guerilla tactics, though some die-hard Iraqi's may go down fighting. I don't believe that intense urban warfare requiring extensive house-to-house fighting will be necessary to win.

If Saddam unleashes chemical weapons, the most likely of the unconventional weapons we are convinced that he has, the pressure will be very great to respond in kind. I don't believe that nuclear, biological or chemical munitions will be utilized by our forces. Our response to chemical attack would most likely be to increase the intensity of our effort, and the possible use of weapons of extreme lethality not generally talked about in civilian circles. iraqi casualties, if Saddam uses his unconventional weapons, will be much greater than those suffered by our troops by several orders of magnitude.

It is difficult to predict how long the war will last. Saddam's military probably can not maintain effective operations for very long. The time taken will be dependant upon how effective we can be, and we can be very effective indeed. Different battle plans take different amounts of time. Will we attack on multiple fronts, or only one? Will the cutting edge of the attack be wide, or narrow? Once the bullets begin to fly, plans most often go out the window. Things rarely go according to plan. Sometimes an attack goes faster than expected, other times an easy assault might turn into a bloody repulse. No one can honestly say, though all indications are that this campaign should be shorter, rather than longer.

You ask about public opinion. This is what Saddam is counting on; the unwillingness of the Allies, especially the Americans, to sustain casualties. He is betting that our Will will evaporate, if he can just kill enough Americans, or Israelis. If our resolve begins to weaken, Saddam hopes that his Arab neighbors will come to his rescue by pressuring us to desist. Our reluctance to harm civilians is a stronger weapon in Saddam's arsenal than his unconventional weapons.

Asherman said: Right! That's what is wrong with moral codes and with assuming people are humans with grandchildren...it just gets too awkward to blow them all into burning pieces. That Sadaam is a tricky guy, putting those ideas in our heads...evil man, evil ideas. Good bit of thinking, Asherman.

Blatham,

Would you rather that the only ones capable of sowing death and destruction be our enemies? Has there ever been an aggressive tyrant who was detered from aggression because his neighbor was unwilling to resist? You have the luxury of being tenderhearted, because there are soldiers willing to kill and die to protect your gentle nature. That's alright, it is those human values that we fight for, and if necessary will willingly die for. Our military leaders are not bloodthirsty, they would far rather have a world where noone ever died an un-natural death, just like you. The difference is that they must be able to kill and destroy if our way of life is to continue. Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't pine for the opportunity to send men into battle, but if he must, he will. You may not have what it takes to order men into Harms Way, but you should appreciate those who can do so on your behalf.

<It is not necessary to kill, or even determine Saddam's fate for Allied forces to achieve the objective: the removal of unconventional weapons from the Iraqi arsenal.>

So 'regime change ' is no longer an objective?

Did I miss the policy meeting that removed this as a goal?

I did say the reasons, etc. for this campaign are numberous, and complex. The regime will change. I'm not setting policy, only giving you my considered opinion.

Asherman...you and I haven't tangled much before, but I think the time is ripe. Your posts are often well considered in certain aspects, but in other aspects, you put language to inexcusable abuses, and you need to be taken to task.

The sentence you wrote which I just poked fun at is a prime example. It is trite and intellectually careless and you might just as well have pasted it from any number of your other posts. AS IF protests against your viewpoint are less considered that your own...do you get how conceited that is? AS IF disagreements against initiating this war are made by people who have weaker constitutional fortitude than yourself and are merely mouthing enemy PR...do you get how blindly foolish that assumption might be? There are people in these discussions who have served as bravely as you and think you are too happy by half to play soldier now. So knock off the pride...it's altogether unbecoming.

Since JoanLee has set this as the place to do this, I'd like to encourage anyone who is for taking whatever necessary military action is required in Iraq to likewise gather and march in Washington tomorrow, but in the opposite direction from those who are marching in support of Saddam's regime.

"In support of Saddam's regime?" Where in tarnation did that come from? c.i.

JoanLee, Welcome aboard - A2K is much gentler and nicer with more bells and whistles.

JoanLee says:



Wish I could make it but it is to far. I heart and spirit will be there!

I think you know that war is sometimes necessary, and I think you know that if we do attack it will be because those who make those decisions think it is necessary. Disagreeing about the necessity is fine, and useful. Complaining of the unfortunate realities of war when war is necessary, is an empty gesture.

Saddam would hide behind those humans with grandchildren today, and gas them tomorrow, as suits his whim. We would do neither intentionally.

When police negotiators in a hostage crisis are convinced that the hostage-takers intend to kill hostages, they move in, even though doing so often means incurring casualties among the hostages. Likewise, you could argue that Saddam is holding his people and those of other nations hostage. If the police think they have reason to believe he will harm others, the choice to risk some lives now to protect more lives later, is one that they may have to make.

trespassers will -

[/quote]but in the opposite direction from those who are marching in support of Saddam's regime

tresspasser:

[/quote]Complaining of the unfortunate realities of war when war is necessary, is an empty gesture.

I'd say being horrified at the realities of war is a rational human response whether the war is justified or not.

tres

If the statement read, "Sometimes war is necessary, and I think this is such a time", then fine. But this sentence is loaded to the gunnels with the worst sort of abuses of language. Not excuseable.

This "war" that GW wants is not justified in terms of humanity.

Complaining of the unfortunate realities of war when war is necessary, is an empty gesture.
Uh, he said a dirty word! :wink:

Bill, got any actual thoughts on why you disagree with my comment?

I'm curious, for instance, to know if you believe the world would be a better place had the US not fought in WWII. (I'm hopeful that your response will be an answer to my question, rather than just a critique thereof.) :wink:

That is your opinion. Others believe it may be, depending upon Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. (Sadly, there seems to be little question that he has not complied, nor even made a cursory show of trying to do so.)

*Nobody (or so few people as to be statistically insignificant) wants war.* Sometimes a desired result necessitates war. Never in the history of man have all people agreed that the desired result was a necessary thing, and we never will.

I agree that there are valid arguments for not attacking Iraq at this time, and unanswered questions within the arguments for doing so. I also recognize--as some who are against the war seem not to do--that I may never have all of those answers, even if those making the decision do in fact have them.

(* = My opinion, so please don't challenge me to show numbers.)

What if its conventional war now or nuclear war later?

I heard today that the Israelis will not give Saddam time to aim nuclear missiles at them, but will lauch a pre emptive nuclear strike against Baghdad and Damascus as soon as they are sure Iraq has nuclear weapons.

So Israel is blackmailing the US and UK to do something about Iraq or risk a nuclear war.