U.S. Sends Message to Iraq Military

Yahoo News ^ | 9/23/02 | Robert Burns

[The Great Satan]

getting more explicit now

[The Great Satan]

btt

[The Great Satan]

ping

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[Travis McGee]

It's not going to be the Battle of Stalingrad, it's going to be the liberation of a giant Dachau.

[Chemist_Geek]

"They would be nominating themselves as part of the regime that ought to get special attention," he told reporters Sept. 16.

I love that turn of phrase... "special attention." Heh heh heh. Special attention from the United States is likely to be very unhealthy for the recipients...

[Poohbah]

They would be nominating themselves as part of the regime that ought to get special attention

Translation: "Goombahs, y'all can kiss your Biblical Beasts of Burden g'bye if y'all try anything silly."

[okie01]

The administration continues to follow a very wise course, in my opinion.

The only serious concern we should have in this operation is Saddam's use of CBW, in three very different contexts:

1. On the battlefield, where it's effectiveness would be very problematic and would involve very nasty -- and very certain -- consequences for the perpetrators. Rumsfeld's message to them is very clear, indeed. When the time comes, I'll be surprised if actual CBW use on the battlefield doesn't turn out to be somewhere between slim-and-none.

2. An attack on Israel, probably employing Scuds or drones. Again, the success of such an attack would be, at best, limited. And it might be completely forestalled by air defense systems and on-the-ground surveillance. Rumsfeld's message is aimed at these low level commanders, too. And, again, I'll be surprised if any real damage is done to Israel.

3. An attack inside the U.S., by "sleeper" agents. If Saddam and his al-Qaeda surrogates have a network inside the U.S. and they have both the CBW and the means and knowledge to deliver them effectively -- all likely circumstances -- it is going to be very difficult to restrain them. They need not necessarily reveal their presence to deploy their weapons. And these are likely to be the most ideologically-driven "troops" in the chain-of-command.

Effective counter-terrorism action, plus counter-CBW measures, are our only defenses in this regard. "Amnesty" isn't going to be an attraction, I don't think. In my view, a citizen of Chicago is more likely to suffer a CBW attack in this war than an American soldier on the outskirts of Tikrit.

[kjam22]

Asked whether those who now profess complete loyalty to Saddam will stick with him and help launch an attack with a weapon of mass destruction, Rumsfeld replied: "One will not know until one gets to that moment."

That is an unacceptable answer to an unacceptable possibility. Sending our troops into combat against someone who may use weapons of mass destruction on them. Not an option we should even consider. We have tatical nukes that can take Saddam out of power immediately with no risk to our people.

[okie01]

Too quick with the "post" button...

"Effective counter-terrorism action, plus counter-CBW measures, are our only defenses in this regard. "Amnesty" isn't going to be an attraction, I don't think. In my view, a citizen of Chicago is more likely to suffer a CBW attack in this war than an American soldier on the outskirts of Tikrit."

To continue. Thus...

4. Giving Saddam the out. Safety in exile. Maybe, it will keep him from pulling the plug. Maybe, it won't. But it costs nothing to try...

[aristeides]

If the weapons are already in the U.S., they are in the hands either of agents of Saddam or of terrorist surrogates. But I think we can exclude the surrogates, as they would already have used them. That leaves agents of Saddam. But what reason would they have to follow orders and actually use the weapons when the time comes?

[aristeides]

Sending our troops into combat against someone who may use weapons of mass destruction on them. Not an option we should even consider.

Didn't we already do that during the Gulf War?

[Mark17]

"The people (to whom) he says, `Go do it,' better think very carefully about whether that's how they want to handle their lives,"

Or deaths, as the case may be.

[RightWhale]

We have tatical nukes

Maybe you do. I traded mine in for downpayment on a red Dodge Durango.

[cmsgop]

Nice Truck! Good Choice!

[kjam22]

LOL

[RightWhale]

I'll tell you, maintenance costs on the tac nuke were killing the household budget. The Dodge should be much better in that respect, although it is quite a bit heavier and lacks that raw power.

[The Great Satan]

If the weapons are already in the U.S., they are in the hands either of agents of Saddam or of terrorist surrogates. But I think we can exclude the surrogates, as they would already have used them. That leaves agents of Saddam. But what reason would they have to follow orders and actually use the weapons when the time comes?

Not a problem. A simple dual-key solution will suffice. Pre-place the anthrax in undisclosed locations and e-mail the martyrdom boys the locations, locker combinations, etc. when the time comes. These martyrdom boys are attack dogs straining at the leash. When the time comes, they won't need persuading. From Saddam's point of view, this al-Qaeda partnership thing is absolutely golden.

Building a doomsday deterrent using low-tech pieces like al-Qaeda wackos and aerosolized anthrax isn't that different from building one based on ICBMs and thermonuclear bombs. The control problems are pretty similar, and as readily solved.

[okie01]

"But I think we can exclude the surrogates, as they would already have used them. That leaves agents of Saddam. But what reason would they have to follow orders and actually use the weapons when the time comes?"

I don't know that we can discount the terrorist surrogates so quickly. There may well be more terrorists and more anthrax already in place. And it could well be in reserve until it can be employed in a devastating attack -- and it may not necessarily be connected with Saddam's downfall.

As you note, though, Saddam's agents are subject to the same temptations that Rumsfeld is putting out there for the battlefield soldiers. It is conceivable, in fact, that an agent of Saddam, with sufficient cover, might just walk away and make for himself a new life in the land of capitalist plenty.

There is also a possibility that the people chosen for this particular task are among the most devoted and fanatic.

While I believe the CBW threat can be defused at home and abroad by the dialogue Rumsfeld is offering, I still believe it likely that the home front will suffer more casualties via CBW than the battlefield.