The US, The UN and Iraq

I see a good deal of slightly shrill rhetoric directed at the propositions that "treaspassers Will' has put forward, but very little indeed of substance to refute them.

Hi, Joanlee ... Great to see ya here! If you've got questions or concerns, feel free to shout them out ... you'll be up to speed in no time, and the bells and whistles are great fun.

Allright, in no particular order, and without scrolling back and forth to determine and attribute specific items, I'd like to address some of the questions recently posed, from my own perspective.

First, the actual "Shooting War" will be brief, furious beyond parallel, and will be won cheaply in terms of US causualties and dearly in terms of capital outlay. Iraqi defensive capability will be overwhelmed as a bookmatch held to a waterfall.

Somalia-like misjudgement will be notably absent. The assets disposed in Somalia were inadequate to the task to which they found themselves diverted. They were under-equipped, under-manned, and under stupidly changed orders, further complicated by a confusing and lethargic heavy support infrastructure. The Force Structure we employed, and the manner in which it was deployed, begged the very sort of attack which occurred. In Iraq, any unit finding itself under heavy fire will be able to call up a nearly instant firestorm. Firing on our forces will be a hazardous endeavor, calling for foolhardy bravery and conscious disregard of certain consequences.

Intensive Urban Combat is unlikely to the point of near (but not total) disregard. Any Iraqi unit engaging US Ground or Air forces will find itself summarilly removed from the board. There will be no building-to-building, room-by-room fighting. Any structure or other position or emplacement seen to be harboring armed active resistors will be erased from its environs with situationally appropriate care taken to more or less minimize, if not alltogether avoid, collateral damage. A large portion of Freindly Casualties will again result from Freindly Fire. In war, fratricide is unfortunate, but unavoidable. It will happen. There will be far fewer incidents than were common in past wars, and their very scarcity, along with unprecedentedly low direct-combat enemy-caused casualties, will generate considerable, but unfounded, civilian concern. What used to be termed "Normal Wastage"- accidents, normal illnesses, non-combat injuries, and equipment failure - will account for more damage to our forces than will Enemy or Freindly Action. War is unpleasant. We have and will exersize the capability to make war far less pleasant for our foes than for ourselves.

In the event Saddam deploys Unconventional Weapons, he will gain thereby but little if any tactical advantage, and buy for himself a significant lessening of our restraint. I doubt our response would include air-burst tactical nukes. A Wing of B-52s can deliver a couple of megatons of conventional 750 pound dumb bombs into a very, very small area in a very, very short period of time. In operational effect, a megaton is a megaton, whether there is one crater or thousands of them.

Actually setting hands on Saddam and his close cohort will be problematic, and of little real importance. Dead, exiled, or imprisoned, they, and their influence, will be gone. Widespread popular support for their position will be nonexistant. a few diehards may be anticipated, but they are assured of dying ... hard.

The oilfields and associated infrastructure likely will suffer extensive Iraqi sabotage, but thanks to our experience in Kuwait, we will be able to deal with it, even if it calls for months of mine clearing, booby-trap defeating, and firefighting. In less than a year, Iraqi oil will be flowing into the market.

All of this presupposes we actually go in shooting. That yet may be avoided. I pray that it be avoided, but I am confident of rapid and economic success of military action should same prove necessary. Beating Iraq at relatively low human cost is no problem. That is not the question. The question is "Then What Do We Do?".



timber

The very core of the argument. War is a matter of pragmatic evaluation of myriad, interwoven complexities. An anti-war stance requires only emotion, and whether in this matter is the case or not, may be founded conveniently in absence of knowledge or consideration of mitigating circumstance, for all that it my be a matter of strong and honorable personal conviction. No sane person wants war. War is sometimes the only sane and humane way to reslove a matter, incongruous and inconvenient as that may seem. Our strength lies not in our eagerness for war, but in our willingness and ability to prosecute it effectively should it become unavoidably necessary.


timber

The History Channel last night rebroadcast a David Frost program called Lessons from the Gulf War Leaders. In it, Mr. Frost interviewed various leaders in that conflict during and soon after the war. One of the people he interviewed was George HW Bush. I only caught a few minutes of the broadcast, but it was an interesting few minutes because it dealt with the question of why we didn't go into Baghdad and remove Sadaam.

Poppy made many of the same arguments we have heard in recent months about how difficult it would be to do this. How it would involve a lot of dirty, house-to-house, street fighting. How it would likely result in the use of chemical weapons against our troops, etc., etc., etc.

Bush went on to say that not going in was a difficult decision to make but that he felt confident that history would prove it to have been the right one.

I wonder if he would still say that now?

timberlandko wrote:

War is sometimes the only sane and humane way to reslove a matter

Breathtaking.

Offered without editorial comment:

Although there is global consensus against the morality of sending children into battle, this terrible practice is now a regular facet of contemporary warfare. There are some 300,000 children under the age of 18 (both boys and girls) presently serving as combatants around the globe, fighting in approximately 75% of the world's conflicts. A war in Iraq would only boost these numbers.

Among the litany of human rights violations committed by Saddam Husayn is that his regime deliberately recruits children into its armed forces, in violation of both international law and widely accepted moral norms. As a result, U.S. and allied forces must prepare for the fact that they will likely face child soldiers in a potential war with Iraq. They must consider the costs and tough choices now, so that they do not later find themselves ill-equipped or untrained for the unique challenges that child soldiers present.

Facing Saddam's Child Soldiers

Splendid link, PDiddie. US operational planning includes consideration of the matter, have no doubt.

I might point out the valiant sacrifice of the students of VMI in our Civil War, and the innefectual mobilization of the Hitler Youth in WWII had no material effect on the outcome of either war, and were roundly denounced, blame for them falling on their originators, not on the troops or commanders faced with nuetralizing their effect.



timber

Blatham,

I need to be …"taken to task"? Is that opinion rendered as an individual, or as a site "Moderator"? Never mind, I withdraw the question. Unfair question, but I couldn't resist since you've led the way in criticizing my "loose" choice of words.

AS IF protests against your viewpoint are less considered that your own...do you get how conceited that is? I suppose you are referring to this sentence above, "I'm not setting policy, only giving you my considered opinion."

To put it into context, PDdie asked a series of questions on which most of the active participants here have already expressed themselves many times. I took the bother to reiterate my views, and in return what PDie made a snide remark not justified by what I wrote. What evidence is there in that sentence that I believe no other opinions are "considered"?

Your response was, "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." Is that your considered opinion? Is it less "trite and intellectually careless" than my remarks? Look back over your own postings; could not someone remark, "you might just as well have pasted it from any number of your other posts"? Glasshouses and all that.

The point is that our enemies dare not meet us in open battle, but rely instead upon our lack of Will and resolve try the issue in battle where people get hurt. That is the misapprehension that sustains the Saddam's and Kim's of the world. They cannot win in a contest of arms, so they hope for victory using the North Vietnamese model. You defeat the United States in the living rooms of it's people. We can be defeated only by our own lack of Will and resolve. I harp upon this, because it seems to have escaped the notice of a large segment of our People. Do our enemies use propaganda to achieve their ends? You betcha, Red Rider. Not the sort of propaganda that is obvious and blatant, but the subtle encouragement of the idea that the battle isn't worth fighting, that there will be massive casualties, that the war will go on forever costing billions upon billions in national treasure. They welcome the depiction of our national leadership as a crazed blood-thirsty elite driven by greed and a lust for power. Could this be a foolish notion on my part? Certainly, but do you have anything to offer in the way of disproving it?

I am not saying, nor have I ever said that no one should criticize our government. It remains an unresolved problem, as to how a free society can defend itself when it's own values are turned against it. I haven't an answer, but I strongly believe that we should be aware of our enemy's strategy.

I'm sure that many have more combat experience than I. I don't think that I am especially brave, certainly not when compared with those awarded medals for valor. There is probably some truth to the accusation that I find some pleasure in studying war. The study of strategy, tactics, and how nations organize to do battle is fascinating. I am an armchair "general", and a bit of Colonel Blimp. Am I the only one? Does that make me a monster? I do admire those who have shown courage, when the easier way might have been to shrink back from danger.

Courage is not necessarily limited to those who are good and true. I don't regard those who oppose our government and its policies as necessarily being afraid of what might happen to them personally. I apologize if I've gone to far in questioning the motives of those who seem to prefer believing that we should appease Saddam, Kim and others dedicated to our destruction.

Finally you say, "So knock off the pride...it's altogether unbecoming". Nope. I will not knockoff being proud of being an American, a product of Western Civilization, and a supporter of our young people in uniform. Never. I am proud of America's record of dealing with the world. Even recognizing that we have made mistakes along the way, our record shines with benevolence and generosity to those who have less. I am proud that this nation prevailed in all the wars of the 20th century, for they were all fought, every one, against tyranny.

Depends on who is deciding that war is the only sane and humane way to resolve a matter. The debate is about the who, why and how involved in the decision to go to war.

We didn't prevail in all the wars of the 20th century but if anyone want's to believe that, I'm wondering if they've recently returned from Mars. Vietnam. Korea. There's many who question if we actually prevailed in the Gulf War. Have we prevailed in Kosovo and Afghanistan? We had allies in the two World Wars and it's about time we realized that we couldn't have won those wars by ourselves. I guess the French resistance should be the first we could discount as non-essential to winning World War II then go from there. The pomposity of this illusion is striking.

"Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies."

-W. L. George

As long as war is looked upon as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular. -Oscar Wilde.

War is like love; it always finds a way.

-Bertolt Brecht

Without reading the 74 preceding pages, excuse me for not being there, the question is about the when or why not.

General MacARTHUR on WAR

" I pray that an omnipitent providence will summon all persons of goodwill to to the realization of the utter futility of war. We have known the bitterness of defeat, the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned that there is no turning back. We must preserve in peace, what we won in war.

The destructiveness of the war potential, through progressive advances in scientific discovery has in fact now reached a point that revises the traditional concept of war. War, the most malignant scourge, and greatest sin of mankind, can no longer be controlled, only ABOLISHED!

We are in a new era. If we do not devise some greater and more equitable means of settling disputes between nations, Armageddon will be at our door. We have had our last chance."

Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army

EISENHOWER on WAR

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." April 16, 1953

GOERING SPEAKS

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hitler's #2 Man, Hermann Goering

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in orderto whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. It emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (author unknown)

The wars of the 20th century were: WWI, WWII, and the Cold War (WWIII). Korea and Vietnam were both campaigns within the larger Cold War. One was a stalemate, and the other was won on the battlefield but lost on the homefront. In the end, both contributed to winning the larger war. The Gulf War was started by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The United States and its allies forcibly removed Saddam in one of the most brilliant campaigns in world history. In retrospect, it was a mistake not to take Saddam out while we were at it, but that was probably not feasible given the political situation of the time.

The UN prevailed in Kosovo, largely because of American involvement. Afghanistan wasn't fought in the 20th century, and unless I've missed something the Taliban are no longer in power and the Al Queda shadow government is in hidding.

That we had allies in all of these wars is undeniable. The Soviets were instrumental in defeating Hitler, but without the United States Britain and all of Europe may well have fallen. Without the assistance of the United States, the Soviet Union may also have crumbled. Without the United States, post-WWII Europe would have taken much longer to recover and rebuild. Without the United States, the Soviet Union would almost certainly have raised its Iron Curtain over all of Germany, Greece, Turkey, Italy, and the entire Korean peninsula. A Free World without the United States would have had no choice but to climb on the Soviet bandwagon or face annhilation.

Because the United States was strong and willing to engage the threat of Communism, the Free World rallied around us, and made us strong enough to prevail in the long run. Some of our Allies have been fickle, but we understand. Some of those we've sacrificed for have bitten the hand of friendship we extended. Those we have fed have grown strong and joined our enemies.

We all wish that an enduring peace might come about by negotiations. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. The decision to go to war will be made by the political leadership of the nation. Already the Congress has given that decision to the President. Unlike some, I don't believe that the President would prefer war over peace. I'm certain that the military would prefer staying at home with their families to going to risk their lives in a foriegn land. The final decision is in the hands of Saddam and Kim Jong Il. They can avert war, but will they if it seems that America is just bluffing?

Asherman wrote:

<Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't pine for the opportunity to send men into battle>

I wholeheartedly disagree.

<The wars of the 20th century were: WWI, WWII, and the Cold War (WWIII). Korea and Vietnam were both campaigns within the larger Cold War.>

You'd better get busy rewriting every history book in the land if that's accurate.

<The United States and its allies forcibly removed Saddam>

EXCUSE me?!?! Then how'd he get back in power? And why'd we let him?

<In retrospect, it was a mistake not to take Saddam out while we were at it, but that was probably not feasible given the political situation of the time.>

You're contradicting yourself in the previous sentence. And from what I understand (especially since they have the value of hindsight) you're contradicting several who were involved in the decision-making at the time.

I don't take issue with any of the rest of your history lesson, but you sure got off to a lousy start there.

BillW - excellent quotes. If you could provide links, I'd like to use them...

http://www.pegseeger.com/html/thenandnow.html

Sorry for the lack of clarity, a typo. The sentence should have read "... removed Saddam from Kuwait ... "

Our opinions do differ about the sort of man Mr. Rumsfeld is. I think he is tough, pragmatic and prepared to send our military into harms way inspite of his personal distaste for blood. You think otherwise. I hope I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't think in the end it matters much so long as we prevail.

Korea and Vietnam should not be taken out of context of the larger picture. The over-riding struggle from the late 1940's through the early 1990's was a struggle between two diametrically opposed superpowers for world dominion. In some struggles one side and its cliants might prevail, but in others they lost. The rest of the world looked on, and usually tried to accomodate the side that appeared to be winning the Cold War. Some Allies never wavered, others shifted their support with every breeze. Most of the world, I believe, in their heart-of-hearts wanted the Free World led by the United States to prevail. Trying to understand why the United States supported one regime over another, and adopted certain policies in Korea, Taiwan, and Indo-China is futile without understanding the larger Cold War struggle. BTW, not all history books will have to be rewritten, there are a number of serious works that have come to similar conclusions as those I've mentioned. Try reading Michael Lind's Vietnam: The Necessary War. Lind is a respected scholar who has based his book on many unclassified documents from both the Soviet Union and the United States that became available after the fall of the USSR.