The US, The UN and Iraq

perception -- if you really were a guppie, you'd have been chewed up and swallowed several days ago. Guppies however are proficient in procreating and in a multitude of colors. Ah, well...I just won't go there.

War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off.

-Karl Kraus

dys

Schwartskoff(?) tends to stretch the truth some---I have just recently discovered the real genius behind his vaunted left hook during Gulf 1---of course he has taken credit for it. I think retired generals should do as MacAuthur did----fade away---quickly.

On the contrary -- I don't believe he did any truth stretching on those points.

L.W.

I'm sure glad you stopped when you did)))))))

Lots of folks here and elsewhere are talking about what other folks have said about what Hans Blix said. Its not all that long a read, so go a head, click the link, and read what Dr. Blix actually said. I found interesting his assessment of inadequate Iraqi cooperation, missing or altered required documentation, missing proscribed munitions, missing proscribed toxic and noxious agents and associated production capabilities, failure of Iraq to expedite the private interviewing of selected personnel, and that I find some very disturbing things in Dr. Blix's statement.




Link to TEXT of Blix Statement




timber

You can read my mind, perce.

Blatham wrote,



I don't believe the U.S. (or even the present administration) is claiming "world leadership'' - or even seeking it.

I do like Blatham's second sentence for its composition and balance - however, I know of no evidence to even suggest that the UN has any appetite whatever to deal in any way with Iraq. The inspection regime was meekly abandoned by the UN after several years of intransigent resistance by Iraq, leading finally to the expulsion of the inspectors. Leading powers in the UN were busily talking themselves into even abandoning the economic sanctions during the late 1990s. The ONLY thing that reversed this process was the bold threat by the U.S. to act unilaterally. The fact is the UN WILL NOT act unless it is pushed by the threat of unilateral action. There can be no doubt that, absent the willingness of the U.S. to "do it" the UN would do nothing.

Blatham and others outside this country who share similar views may regret that the United States is not acting as they wish and do what they wish to oppose us. However they should recognize that the U.S. has no obligation to serve their interests. That is the task of their governments.

In an interview on PBS Collin Powell stated that during the gulf war, when a general was bogged down and night fell, the general (i dont remember the name) halted the progress until the weather would clear and there was daylight. Powell called the general and told him that regardless of casualities lost Bush 41 needed something for the press within hours and that the general was to push on regardless of casualities. Fortunately the weather did clear and the general was able to proceed however this represents politics from Washington over ruling military battlefield knowledge. This episode was not hearsay or opinion, this was a direct interview with Powell.

Unsnap them garters, Lola! Quick!

General Schwarzkopf (that is the correct spelling), is a respected military leader, and his views should be given some weight. His opinion appears not to be that our military isn't capable of defeating Iraqi forces. General Schwarzkopf seems more concerned that the goal of the operation isn't sharply defined. I must admit that Schwarzkopf's reluctance to endorce the coming campaign is one of the strongest and most persuasive reasons I've yet heard to postpone the operation.

Perception,

General Schwarzkopf was in command, and he chose the staff to design the operation. He chose well, and followed their advice nicely. The Jeddi Knights were given their first opportunity to practice what had been discussed for a long time. The Hail Mary was executed over vast distances, but it wasn't really all that unique in strategic thinking. Suprise, and attacks from unexpected quarters on an enemies flanks is ancient in conception. Delegation downward to Corps and Division commands to take advantage of "on the ground" opportunities within the overall plan was taken from Blitzkrieg doctrine. The Gulf War was the testing ground for the combined forces doctrine that was initially developed to fight a soviet advance through the Fulda Gap. It was also a testbed for advanced munitions under combat conditions. Perhaps the most striking and valuable contribution to Allied victory was the triumph of logistics. All the parts worked as designed, and some elements so far exceeded expectations that even we were surprised. General Schwarzkoph deserve a lot of respect for his accomplishments, they were accomplised by superior leadership. General Franks may be even better than Schwarzkopf, he certainly has the proper credentials, training, experience and skill.

Asherman, The war might be the 'easy' part of the campaign. How will the allies take care of the "after war" scenario? The US does not have good history in the aftermath. c.i.

Post WWII Europe and Japan spring to mind.

Perhaps Colin Powell as Military Governor for a period while a new Iraqi Constitution and government is formed along similar lines as taken in Japan. Constitutional separation of Church and State, with religious freedom for all. The Constitution to be ratified by popular vote supervised by the UN. Borders guaranteed by UN Forces. American occupation forces supplemented by continguents from neighboring states with large Islamic populations, both uner the UN umbrella. Vigorous efforts to build democratic institutions. All oil revenues held in trust for rebuilding the country. Industrial development mentored by Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

Asherman, I would not be surprised by a stellar performance on the part of Gen. Franks. No field commander in history has been provided the capabilities afforded to Franks. He is well regarded for his own adminitrative skills, is a respected tactician in his own right, and he has assembled an extraordinary staff, heavy with direct operational experience in Desert Storm and in Afghanistan.
Absent Iraqi use of WMD, I imagine the military issue be resolved within hours of the first naval missle lauch, with astoundingly low casualties overall. Should Iraq deploy WMD, Iraqi casualties both civilian and military would be truly horrible while having insignificant effect on the outcome beyond embarrassment to some UN members. "The War" itself will be no problem. We can do that.


I fully agree with Dr. Blix that Iraq has performed in less than satisfactory manner, and that such cooperation as Iraq has afforded has been less than satisfactoy and has been made possible at all only by the clearly present credible threat of immenent overwhelming force.


The next few days will be critical. The Iraqi invitation to Dr Blix for direct talks with Saddam is interesting, but I suspect a dispute over "Conditions" or "Pre-Conditions" will arise. Powell's presentation to The UN will be of great interest, and could well have impact on any potential face-to-face talks. There is still time for Saddam to blink.

Something relatedly interesting is the developing tri-lateralism among Germany, France, and Russia ... a bemusing prospect.

LLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLAAAAA........!

georgebob For goodness sakes, Bush has said it himself and the documents say it (links earlier)...and is there a news cycle that goes by where someone from the administration doesn't use the phrase "the President's leadership" referring to a world context.

As regards the UN...this has been discussed before too. Sure, the UN has been ineffective in too many cases as in the inspections. But the US has put it's own interests senior to world community standards (world court, treaty of the seas, kyoto, etc) and wishes to continue such exceptional status, thus keeping the UN as a body not unlike NATO, helpful when needed. Imagine if the US were to have put the time, the diplomatic and financial effort of just this Iraq campaign into building an effective UN. There will never be an effective UN until the US loses its desire to act exceptionally.

As regards folks from outside the US speaking/acting against the US (to be clear, against certain specific policies) well there is nothing unusual here. The US itself is involved in how many other countries' affairs at present? If the US were just sitting at home doing the knitting, no problem.

By the way, this is what some of the women on a2k are saying about the war, about us menfolk arguing it, and about this thread... http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3533&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Asherman

The brilliant plan that was executed did not come from Schwartskoph or his staff-----I will send it to you byPM

Asherman, Yes, Japan and Germany are pretty good examples, but I'm talking about more recent history. We promised the Kurds support if they fought Saddam, but ignored them. Africa is another example of desertion with a more recent history than WWII. We have not been consistent during the past fifty years. How are we to know there will be a follow through in Iraq? On Bushies say so? c.i.

perception - Dr Stephen Pelletiere, the author of the NYT op ed article link, has been around - has not "suddenly come forward after 14 years." His credentials are well know, he is a recognized authority on that part of the world, has written several books, and the numerous entries about him in google can easily be looked up just by typing in his name. His story of the Iranians gassing the Kurds at Halabja is not new - he's been writing about that for a while. I can't believe you read the article if you think he was talking about the Iraqis doing the gassing. That is not what he says. And his emphasis on the water supply should not be taken lightly.

Amnesty International has quite often been shown to have quite partisan views - and quite often non-views.

And I also note that Dr Blix's statement is quoted. But the op ed Dr Blix wrote for the NYT, as linked above, refutes quite a bit of what Bush said. So, when quoting Dr Blix, it would be better to take into account also what he wrote. It is very convenient to take the side that suits one's own arguments, but when another version is there to read in print, by the very same person .....