Replies

There is no "window of opportunity" for removing Saddam -- Saddam's removal is militarily a trivial exercise for the United States. What isn't trivial is ensuring that Saddam doesn't kill millions of Americans with anthrax during the end game.

While not completely convinced, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know of any "mainstream" media analysts that take this position, except Andrew Sullivan and possibly Stan Kurtz at NRO. But I think this is what's likely going on.

Assuming this is true, why the elevated Iraq talk now? If Bush is genuinely open to not moving against Saddam for another year, the current Administration campaign to increase the attention on him doesn't seem to make sense. How can, for example, Bush make another SOU Address without there having been any visible move against the "Axis of Evil"?

I think, for whatever reason, Bush has decided to move against Iraq very soon, and is going to try to ride out the possible terrorist counterattack. Perhaps because the intelligence is clear that Saddam is not going to allow us to root out his deterrent that is already in position in America, or that he might even be able to augment it. And what civil defense measures can prevent - rather than just mitigate - a massive bioterror attack anyway? We know we're not going to see sealed borders or mass deportations. We won't find the caches, or at least all of them - and it seems reasonable that if this plan has been building for 10 years there's more than enough in place as a contingency.

I think we're looking at an attack on Iraq, and poised internal security ready to pounce on terrorist perpetrators in the act. This would mitigate, hopefully, the worst damage from the attack. But it sure won't prevent massive civilian deaths.

Bastards.

I've been fooled before, and you're getting fooled right now -- these things take much longer to play out than you think. Talk now is necessary to keep up the Big Mo, after a summer of saying nothing. If I had a dollar for every post I've seen over the last year predicting an attack on the next full moon....

Militarily, nothing is going to happen until the new year. It will be jaw-jaw in Congress and the UN for the next few months. Bush's opening position is he wants an answer in "weeks" -- but you know how opening positions work. My guess is we'll get congessional authorizations and a UN resolution towards the end of this year, and we'll dick around with Iraq over the resolution for a few months.

In the face of Iraqi "intransigence," Bush will launch a military camapign next spring. There will be token strikes on alleged WMD facilities, but the main push will probably be on the periphery of Iraq. My guess is that the military strategy will be a mixture of what we've seen put into play against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Arafat in Ramallah. We'll slowly and methodically isolate Hussein, while we work with local opposition to gradually take over the country. Again, I would guess we are going to put him in a vice, tearing off the territory under the Northern and Southern no-fly zones, where his ability to project power is already limited. We'll set up interim governments and forward bases as we conquer the territory.

All this will be the work of 2003 and 2004. It will amply fill the time we need to build up our civil defenses. Bush will look strong. Saddam will look weak, just like Arafat does now, as his dominion shrinks to a strip of land around Baghdad. At the same time, he'll still have an incentive to stay in the game. If he doesn't take exile by late 2004, that's when I'd push it to the brink, assuming we have our defenses in place domestically. If necessary, he could be flushed at that time by the simple expedient of parking a B52 nuclear bomber over Baghdad and going public on the anthrax. That will clear the place out in no time. Game over.