Posted on 03/11/2003 5:36:24 PM PST by grimalkin
MANAMA March 11. Faced with serious diplomatic setbacks in the last one week, the United States may be considering launching an attack against Iraq, mainly on its own steam, soon.
According to diplomatic sources, the U.S. maybe losing patience with diplomacy for obtaining the United Nations' sanction for an attack.
Two crucial developments have taken place recently that could persuade Washington that it should consider attacking Iraq quickly, even if the U.N. does not endorse the use of force, sources say.
First, there are clear signs that France and Russia may not hesitate to veto a fresh "war" resolution on Iraq, as envisaged by Britain and U.S., that gives the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, an extremely narrow time-line to surrender all his weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. route for an attack on Iraq, therefore, stands virtually blocked.
Second, Britain, Washington's staunchest ally, has begun to show nervousness, by suggesting that the proposed new resolution can be modified to include an extended time-line for Mr. Hussein to comply.
This reworked resolution could also give Iraq the option in disarming, not all at once, but in phases. Sources pointed out that a possible postponement of an attack, that a modified resolution entails, is unlikely to suit the Bush administration.
With the possibility of sandstorms starting to kick up in the Arabian desert towards the end of March, a further postponement of an attack could put off military action to the end of this year. That, in turn, would mean exercising the politically distasteful choice of withdrawing or rotating the nearly 300,000-strong U.S. forces that have been deployed in the Persian Gulf.
It is extremely unlikely that the Bush administration, dominated by hardliners, will accept a loss of face over Iraq.
Signalling that its commitment to occupy Iraq using force has not wavered, U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea have been reportedly ordered to go on combat readiness from Tuesday afternoon.
Despite the large deployments, U.S. military planners were expected to work on the contingency of going to war in case the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was hampered by his Labour party ranks from contributing nearly 40,000 troops to the war effort.
You forgot the 'game is over' in this recap. I fear that GW is doing serious damage to his credibility and 2004 prospects by delaying any longer......
I agree 100%. Every day we wait further compromises our position and makes it look like we, like the UN, are unwilling to enforce the mandates of the numerous UN resolutions, not to mention a wishy-washy commitment to dealing with the threats to our security.
Poor Tony Blair has gone wobbly on us. Others are backing away more and more. When we are finally down to it being only the USA, we will have problems after the fact that we could have avoided by having the air war already underway.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear Dubya was (is) playing high stakes poker with Sadaam and was depending on Sadaam folding under Bush's bluff(?). Unfortunately, Sadaam has always been successful in calling other's bluffs. I am beginning to wonder if Dubya can/will really "pull the trigger."
Just after 9/11 Dubya said "...an soon they will hear from us" when speaking of ALL TERRORISTS and those who harbor and support them. I'm still waiting, optimistically, and hopefully, but I'm loosing the faith...
For more on why we need to do this, from an unexpected source (no friend of Bush or of conservatives), check out the Iraq section of "Frontline" at of all things PBS. More Americans should read that web page. There isn't a lot of doubt.
Woolsey puts it especially well. Alliances are for serving US national security interests -- not the other way around. Richard Butler also presents a good case.
Look, that particular three front war is pretty easy.
We can have my mother go over to France with a baseball bat, and the French will surrender to her.
The troops are just about in place to take Iraq now.
FReepers can take the UN.
Now that's statesmanship the French will understand.
Do you also remember Bush's promise that this war will be fought on many levels, some obvious, some unseen, that it will be long, but that we will not falter and we will not fail?
I, along with most veterans I know,am glad he gave the diplomats every opportunity to step up to the plate.He has.They didnt.Gametime is over.
I am as antsy as anyone else on this site for the "balloon to go up" in Iraq, and our troops to come back home ASAP.It is not going to be that simple, and the margin for error is large.
Whatever Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice & Rumsfield are waiting for, I am truly thankfull for the first time in over XX# of years that I am not privvy to any inside information.I can still sleep at night, go to work each day, and simulate normal life fairly effectively.
War is not a made for TV spectacle,and while I fully support the next phase,I am not looking forward to it with any joy, and I doubt the onset will satisfy any of us for long.It is just the next step on the road to eventual peace and freedom from foreign state sponcored terrorist tactics.
Chill, and remain extremely cautious while travelling through the fog of war.(I wish I would consistantly follow my own advise! LOL!)
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.