Posted on 09/16/2002 12:30:06 PM PDT by EternalHope
Given the inevitability of a U.S. attack, will Saddam wait until we attack him, or will he strike us first?
The public is clearly being prepared for the possibility of a major attack on the American homeland with weapons of mass destruction. But we are being told very little about what the odds of an attack might be, or when it might occur.
The time has come to ask:
1. What are the ODDS of a major attack by Saddam Hussein on the American homeland?
2. WHEN is such an attack most likely to occur?
1. Personally, I think the odds of an eventual attack on our homeland are very high.
We know Saddam HAS weapons of mass destruction, and that he is willing to use them. The only question is whether he has been able to smuggle them into our country. We all know this is possible, and my guess is that he has.
If they are here, sooner or later they will be used. The question becomes: When?
2. It seems obvious that he will attack us no later than when we attack him, and possibly before. In other words, will he strike first?
The argument in favor of waiting is that we may be frightened into not attacking at all. Although he may have been able to deter attack in the past, it seems obvious that we are not deterred now. His deterence ability has ended.
He may still decide to wait, in the hope that we will be delayed by our own politicians (Dasshole comes to mind), or by the U.N. This possibility is less likely now than even one week ago.
If he decides to wait he also runs the risk that his own people will find a way to do away with him. He also knows that, if we know where he is, we will kill him at the start of the attack.
Since he is quite interested in his own survival, he may conclude that a first strike is his best shot.
A first strike with weapons of mass destruction is certain to result in the retaliatory destruction of Iraq, but not necessarily in Saddam's personal destruction.
A first strike could save him if:
A. It unified all Islam against us, thus denying us the bases needed to support the ground attacks we may need to finish the job;
B. Or, he could make his blow so strong that we would lose the ability to support a follow-up ground attack regardless of whether we lose our bases or not.
Neither of these seem likely to us, but it is his perception that counts, not ours. He is a megalomanic, likely to see the odds differently than would a normal person.
News reports indicate he will have nukes by Christmas, so he may decide to wait in hopes of even stronger weapons in the near future. However, there are also some reports that he already has nukes, making this a moot point.
An additional possibility is that he has access to pre-positioned sleeper cells, but that he has not yet delivered weapons of mass destruction to them. If so, intercepting these shipments is our best hope against attack. It would mean even more is riding on our homeland security program than we have been told.
What say you Freepers? What are the odds, and when?
If he thinks he is dead either way, then I suspect he will strike first in an attempt to bring as many of us down with him as possible. He would want to revel in the spectacle.
ODDS: All in all, I rate the odds of a major attack against us as very high: Say, 85%.
WHEN: My guess is a first strike. I suspect it will come right after Congress passes a resolution authorizing an attack against Iraq.
Other possibilities exist, such as a public threat first, coupled with a demand that we back off.
Hmm, if I was Saddam what would I do, hmmm. I got it, blackmail. Yep that's the ticket. He may very well already have his pieces in place and now simply waits for the moment of truth to make the ultimatum. I think the probability of this scenario playing out is very high. He seems to placid not to be holding a high card or two.
Interesting times indeed.
I agree. He has what he thinks is a strong hand or he would be playing his cards differently.
You saw what I did to you on 9-11, using a handful of men armed with box cutters. You have the analysis of that powder I sent to Daschle. You understand what a few more such men could do with that powder. So, you have to ask yourself: "Do I feel lucky?"Your predecessor, President Clinton, was smart. He understood: what people don't know won't hurt them. Listen to him now.
I'm happy with 9-11: I got my revenge, and it was a gas. So let's call it Even Stevens, okay? Because, if you point the finger at me, you'll have to kill me. And if you kill me, you'll regret it for the rest of your days. Got the picture? How about it?
Care to venture a guess at what Bush is now saying to Saddam?
I don't think Saddam has too many sleeper agents in the USA willing to commit suicide as a gesture to mark his downfall.
Smallpox is an outside threat.
And 3. What weapon(s) will be used in the attack? Biological (anthrax, small pox, etc.)? A conventional (fission) nuke? A stolen (or bought) thermonulear fusion bomb from the Russians? A "dirty" bomb? VX or sarin gas?
To attempt to answer your two main questions, I'd suspect that an eventual WMD attack on our shores is very high. However, Saddam Hussein doesn't necessarily have to be behind such an attack. There are multitudes of Islamic terrorist orgs (aside from al Qaeda), and a lot of them are well financed. So the attack can originate from almost anywhere in the radical Islamic world.
When is the attack most likely to occur, you ask? If Saddam is behind it, expect it very shortly (within a couple of months). If it's an Al Qaeda operation, the answer is .....when we least expect it.
They don't have to be willing to do it for Saddam. These al-Qaeda people are like attack dogs, straining at the leash. They want those codes (locker combinations, whatever). That's the beauty of this setup, from Saddam's point of view. It's golden.
Saddam clearly thinks he has some very high cards, and I believe he does.
Care to venture a guess at what Bush is now saying to Saddam?
That's the million dollar question. You can bet it includes an explanation of what will happen to Iraq/Saddam if weapons of mass destruction are used against us.
It looks to me like President Bush thinks we are ready, and has decided to take the next step. Alternatively, he knows we are not ready, but believes waiting will only make it worse.
BTW: It looks to me like neither side will back down. If this is a game of chicken, my guess is that we are about to crash. We live in perilous times.
He does not NEED many agents of his own. He can attack us directly, of simply make sure it gets into the "right" hands. His people do even have to do the dying. Radical Islam has lots of volunteers.
He can do this any time he chooses to.
So, there are plenty of levers to pull. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this will be enough to get Saddam out without a catastrophe. If it isn't, we could be in for a very long stand-off, because Bush isn't going to gamble losing New York or Washington, DC by attacking Saddam directly, not IMHO.
This is a nightmare situation, no question about it. Thanks, Bubba.
What's Bush saying? Probably something akin to:
I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?
His people do not even have to do the dieing.
(post in haste, repent at leisure...)
Before the UN speech, I would have agreed with you, but I have to wonder if Bush has forged ahead in the "upper hand" department of late...
If we can pull this off, fantastic. We are certainly making progress.
But I do not think this will be sufficient to dislodge Saddam.
We are in a position that REQUIRES us to act if something does not change. President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, and cannot back down without losing all credibility forever.
I agree, it seems highly unlikely our President would risk losing New York or DC unless the alternative was even worse. We may be there.
Well, of course that depends on what the risk level is, and whether the alternative is really worse, and what our confidence level is about that. We were here, forty years ago, with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Only trouble is, Russia hadn't already pulled off a 9-11, its ICBM placement could be verified by our satellites, and Nikita Kruschev wasn't Saddam Hussein.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.