The Iraq Questions

First, let me say I abhor the very thought of war. I went to one once, and I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I've studied quite a few of them too, and there hasn't been a one that I can think of which didn't have unintended consequences.

That said, I differ on some points of discussion at hand regarding the current conflict. To begin with, the Cessation of Hostilities in The Gulf War was merely that ... a Cessation of Hostilities. No Formal Instrument of Surrender was executed. A number of conditions were imposed on Iraq at that time, all of which, apart from withdrawl of its forces from Kuwait, Iraq has flouted. In the mind of the Iraqi Ruling Military Elite, they have been and are still at war; they never capitulated. Sadaam claims victory of a sort in that he was not crushed by The Coalition ... a claim which has considerable currency in "The Arab Street", and which has played no small part in the subsequent development of events throughout the Middle East.

I agree it would have been "Wise" to get rid of Sadaam back in '91.
He is a madman who has without provocation invaded two of his neighbors, gassed his own citizens, maintains a vicious, totalitarian regime, and fosters terrorism and unrest world wide. However, the UN Mandate which resulted in The Gulf War had as its clearly stated objective nothing more or less than the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once that had been accomplished, there remained no basis for the further prosecution of war. That does not diminish the fact that hostilities were halted prematurely. The purpose of war is to destroy your enemy's will and ability to make war on you. In '91, Iraq's military was left with substantial forces and material assetts. The "100 Hour War" came to an end having not accomplished the total destruction of the Iraqi Military (which circumstance, as Iraq was and is a Military Dictatorship, would have had dire consequences for Sadaam himself and his ruling Ba'ath Party, but nevermind - it didn't happen). Mostly in deferrence to the cries of "Brutality and Violence" rising from the World Press resultant from images of the destruction being wreaked upon the Iraqi forces fleeing along Route 6, the so-called "Highway of Death", an Offensive Standdown was ordered.
Some days following the official cease-fire, elements of Iraq's Hammurabi Division fired on Coalition VII Corps forces, bringing about the ridiculous situation that one of the largest set-piece battles of the war ocurred after the supposed end of the war. Iraq has continued to fire on Coalition aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zones which were conditions agreed to by Iraq at the Cease Fire. Sadaam has continually stated he considers himself and his nation unbeaten and still at war.

By anology here, what happened in '91 is akin to a situation wherein someone broke into a neighbor's house, taking its occupants hostage. The neighbors banded together, went into the house, gave the intruder a sound thumping, then tossed him and his weapons into the street with a stern admonition to refrain from such activity in future. The results have been as might logically have been predicted.

There are other problems to be dealt with in the world than Iraq. None the less, Iraq is one of the major problems facing the world, and must be dealt with. While I have little reason to believe that once Iraq has been dealt with that appropriate, effective action will be taken regards other Rogue States and miscellaneous World Hotspots, I can hope. In cleaning up a mess, one must begin somewhere. If we do not begin to clean up the mess, however unpleasant and repulsive the task, we are stuck with the mess, as unpleasant and repulsive as it is. Which is the lesser ill?

All means possible should be explored, implemented and exhausted prior to resorting to the final expedient of war. However, once those means have proved unfruitful, it is time to define the mission to the military, get out of its way, and let it do the job. Unfortunately, Militaries merely fight the wars started, managed, and ended by politicians. The Military's agenda is clear; Destroy The Enemy. The motives of Politicians, however, are never so simple. Therein lies the rub.


timber.

Resolution 1441 will allow the US to attack Iraq at any time they want, but now with the added legal and moral authority of the UN.

Who said Colin Powell was irrelevant?

On the NPR news broadcast here at noon (eastern standard time), they spoke of Iraqi AAA shooting at coalition (ridiculous term, the Americans and the English) warplanes, and the Shrub commenting that this constitutes a breach of the resolution . . . won't take these bastards long, when they're ready to go in, they'll find a pretext pretty damned quickly. I believe that the only reason they've not gone in yet, is that they encountered resistance they didn't expect, and, given the criticism of their "it'll be a snap" attitude, they may actually have done some realistic operational planning. That would mean, of course, that they discovered they weren't really ready to roar in there . . . i do think it won't be long now . . .

I expect "Realistic Operational Planning" has been done. The intent no doubt IS to "Roar In" overwhelmingly, but it takes time to position forces adequate to the task. I would anticipate there will be over the next several weeks considerable posturing, "Claim-and-Counterclaim", threats and provocations, and much diplomatic hand-wringing and alarmist media coverage. Meanwhile, Coalition-Building negotiations will continue both overtly and covertly, additional Carrier Groups will be positioned, Reserves will be activated, ground forces will join pre-positioned hardware, additional hardware and forces will be sent to the Operational Theater, Land-Based Strategic and Tactical Aircraft will be pre-positioned, and an actual concerted Airwar will begin not earlier than late January but certainly by late February



timber

I dont' necessarily disagree with that, Timber, but i do think the boys at the Pentagon were surprised to find that they might not be able to just waltz into the air bases and naval bases in the Gulf which they used in 1990-91. I believe that the international reaction to the proposition has required them to make considerable adjustments to war plans which i am sure have been kicked around at the Pentagon for a decade.

The British Govt is feeling pretty good about the Iraq situation. In the unlikely event there is no war it will be down to forcing Bush to the UN by Powell and Blair.

If on the other hand when war stars (much more likely) Blair can say it is in defense of the UN and the rule of international law.

Re: The Iraq Questions


The Iraqis are starving while Saddam pockets oil revenues to build dozens of palaces for himself and weapons of mass destruction to spread his evil and bring more grief on his country.

Yes. Saddam is a bad leader.



You bet they do. WMD are power which is what Saddam is all about. As Saddam says, "You make people do what you want by hurting them." He wants WMD so that people will do what he wants.



I'm posting after the fact but I'm surprised that everyone buys the idea that the Iraqi Congress is an independent body from Saddam who are free to take a divergent stand. They are not. They do what Saddam tells them to do. Remember the video of Saddam taking power where he held his government in an auditorium as he read off a list of traitors? They were taken out and shot. Saddam made other people in that auditorium shoot their colleagues to compound the horror. None of those people are going to resist Saddam openly.

It's obvious Saddam told his people to reject the resolution so that he could play the good cop later. That way he projects a false image of a democracy and he also wastes a few days delaying the UN. Saddam's strategy is always to wear down his enemy's will by degrees.



Yup. The war is coming. Saddam says he has no WMD. He's lying. He has them squirrelled away somewhere. He can hide them better than the inspectors can find them. Saddam knows that, barring a bad break, he can succeed in hiding his weapons as he has before.

I think the crafty Bush administration knows where some of these weapons are and will sucker punch Saddam with the knowledge. The inspectors are likely to take a sharp turn one day and drive to a hole where the NBC weapons are hidden or stumble onto a warehouse full of Scuds mounted on their launchers, directions provided by the CIA.



Yup. The US military is going to cut through the Iraqi military like a hot chainsaw through butter. Most of the Iraqi military is going to sit it out. Only a few of Saddam's hard core supporters will resist, those for whom life without Saddam is a death sentence. Everyone else will flee the country or cut a deal with the Americans. Some of the Iraqi military units may have their surrenders pre-arranged before the war starts.



It won't be any day at the beach. I expect the occupation forces will be a magnet for Islamic radicals seeking to cut off an American head. The Iranian government will certainly sponsor terrorist operations against American forces. Scattered Al Qaeda will pick off a table of American GIs catching a burger in Baghdad.

Teaching the Iraqis how to work and play well with each other so that they can have a democracy is going to be the work of a generation.



Nope. The bad countries don't need an excuse. They do what they do. However, an America which will attack its enemies will inhibit countries like North Korea and Iran considerably. They respect force.



No. American oil companies will play a big part in developing Iraqi oil production but the Iraqis will reap the benefits of an exclusive arrangement to sell their oil to America.



Oh, yes. Big time.



Nope. It will all be over by March and the voters will forget about Bush's fabulous success by May. By the time they vote they will be asking what has he done for them lately.



A small temporary spike. Oil production suffers from a glut of supply.



Nope. The war in Iraq will hardly register. It is insignificant compared to our giant economy.



Yes. He absolutely tried to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, which certainly would have intimidated Clinton. He certainly was in the process of attacking Radio Free Europe in Prague, an American asset. Laurie Mylroie makes a reasonable case that Saddam sponsored the bombing attacks on the USS Cole and African embassies. Iraq definitely provided support to the 1993 bombing of the WTC. The FBI says it was probably an Iraqi operation. The Sep 11 attack may well have been sponsored by Iraq.



That precedent has already been set. The fact is that our way of life depends on men with guns and bombs to defend the perimeter of our country to allow freedom to survive. If an evil regime was mightier than us, our way of life would not survive. At the most basic level, might does make right. As Mao said, power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Tantor

I disagree. The goal of the Gulf War was to eject Iraq from Kuwait. We did so. It is a bad idea to add tasks to the mission once you've accomplished your goal. It will most likely end in failure. It's like bellying up to a blackjack table and refusing to leave while you're winnng. The only way such a strategy can end is in you walking away a loser.



The reason that the VII Corps commander went slower than Schwartzkopf wanted was that he thought that he would lose control of his corps if he pushed them faster. One of the problems with such loss of control is the increased risk of friendly fire incidents because you don't have as accurate information about the location of your fast moving troops. He advanced at a speed in which he could keep his troops in good order.

It's something like gathering a group of people together and running across a field in a straight row. You will probably keep your formation better, your line straighter, at a trot than at a run.




The Iraqi army is not a center of Saddam's power. They don't much like him. The Republican Guard was created to protect Saddam from the regular army. After the RG mounted attempted coups against Saddam, he created the Special Republican Guard to defend him from the Republican Guard.

The center of Saddam's power is his security apparatus. That is what we will attack with amazing precision and power. When they are neutralized, Saddam is finished.

There will be little urban warfare. There will be no Baghdad version of Stalingrad. Our business is not so much with the military, but with Saddam's secret police.



The air campaign is half done. We already have no fly zones over north and south Iraq. We have been dismantling the Iraqi air defenses there for weeks.

We don't need to fight our way through Baghdad. We can hop over the defenses and hit the secret police centers at will. With his security gone, the Iraqi military is more of a threat to Saddam than to us. We might just let the Iraqi military do our work for us and have them deliver Saddam to us to cut a deal.



You're refighting WWII. We don't need to bulldoze through Baghdad. The bigges threat to Saddam's tribe, once everyone realizes they have lost power, is the wrath of the Iraqi people. Baghdad will be much more dangerous for them than for us.

The centers of power in Iraq are not in the suburbs of Baghdad. All we have to do is take the airfields, electrical grid, water supply, railnet, and roadnet and wait for the surrender.

My guess is that we will be welcomed into Baghdad. It's likely that many Baghdadis will have American flags hidden away that they will fly out their windows when the Americans finally arrive.

Tantor

x
Tantor said...

No, Blatham, it isn't. The obvious difference between America and Iraq with regard to weapons of mass destruction is that Iraq uses it's weapons at every opportunity while America refrains from using them. Perhaps you have noticed that America, despite having a vast arsenal of nukes, has not used any since Nagasaki. Do you think that Saddam Hussein would should similiar restraint? If so, why?

The reason for the different behavior of the US and Iraq is fairly basic. The US is dedicated to a proposition that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a proposition fleshed out in the Constitution. Iraq is dedicated to Saddam Hussein, his pleasure and the expansion of his power.

The difference between America and Iraq is vast and obvious to the casual observer.

Tantor

Tantor

Please try to hold down your enthusiasm and be more careful with the truth. It is simply not possible to debate productively when you make a statement such as "Iraq uses it's weapons at every opportunity while America refrains from using them. " That's simply false.

To say "Iraq is dedicated to Saddam" is another simplistic falsehood. Iraq is mainly people trying to make a living. That sort of generalization is not only false, it's dangerous. It's not at all unlike the broad paintbrush sweep of "America is the Satan". These generalized comments are what make it justifiable to kill civilians in their office towers.

Clearly there are huge differences between Iraq and America, and America gets my vote as the good guy. But it isn't black and white. You talk as if the US is without fault, as if it's foreign policies have been without fault, neither of which are true. So your patriotism is very fine, but (I contend) it can give you a big blind spot. If you are unwilling to even consider that people or nations who disagree with US policy might have something valid to say, and then simply procede with your certainties and plans, then you become, ipso facto, a dictator yourself.

Once again blatham, Thank you!

Nearly all of the middle east, is one long rack of
torture. Financed, equipped, and refined by the U.S. government

Seems like you see things pretty clearly to me dyslexia.

dyslexia

As my previous posts must indicate, I'm not in agreement with a number of US policies regarding the middle east.

But your statement is far far too general and exaggerated to compel anyone who holds a different view to alter that view. I suggested to Tantor that he be more cautious regarding the truth of his statements, but that applies to your post as well. I think that unless we are careful and reflective about what we say, we aren't likely to learn from each other. We'll just be doing the Hatfields and McCoys thing, throwing insults across the crick.

just my opinon, i could be wrong.

It is short and humerous. I did take it as satire meself. But I understand that a CIA torture manual was found in Afganistan, can't remember if it was Taliban or Al Queda. Of course, that could be false reporting also. I did read on the same sight that the CIA was using local agents in Afganistan because all their old specialists had since retired from the Central and South American days of the 80's.

This was in today's NYTimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/14/opinion/14KELL.html

Kara, that particular article is really good. It goes all different ways and leaves you wondering what is it trying to conclude and how I should ultimately react. I think you selected an excellent one and I want to follow any replies you get.

Can I ask you to give me your synapsis and opinion first or is that not fair? I won't let my kids do this to me.

It is all too true, Blatham. The chemical attack on Halabja was a gratuitous use of chemical weapons, one of a couple dozen attacks within Iraq. America has indeed refrained from using weapons of mass destruction. I challenge you to cite one instance of using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against people other than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks.



You are speaking pure nonsense, Blatham. Iraq is indeed dedicated to Saddam. He owns it. Nothing happens without his permission. He pockets the revenues of the government and stashes them in secret bank accounts abroad. His security people can snatch women off the street who catch Saddam's eye and force them to have sex with him. His sons can kill anyone they please. He can kill, torture, or imprison anyone he pleases on his word alone. Nobody can speak their mind if it conflicts with Saddam. You can be killed simply for speaking ill of Saddam. Saddam's torturers can do anything they want with the people they are commanded to capture. In the memorable words of one former torturer, they could make a kebab of a prisoner if they wanted.

Tantor