Posted on 03/15/2002 1:47:27 PM PST by maquiladora
There was a nation under obsessed cruel dictatorship. While this dictatorship was eleminating over 50 millions of its own citizens, The West was silent and quite well cooperated with Stalin and its successors (forget small clashes here and there).
Once dictatorship is gone - every keyboard warrior is happy to spit on what left of this nation.
The U.S. will proceed to position our forces as if we plan a conventional attack (and to give us the option of engaging in such an attack at any time). But meanwhile we'll infiltrate our special forces into Northern and Southern Iraq under cover of our air power in the "no-fly zones". Our aircraft will intensify their activities, and start hitting some targets without waiting to be "locked onto" by radar. Any suspected missile launch facility will become fair game. Soon missile sites in central Iraq, outside the "no-fly zones", will be targeted.
This is our "slowly boil the frog" strategy. We just keep increasing our military action but hold off the massive air and land attacks. We launch special forces raids on suspected WMD facilities. We assist anti-Hussein Iraqi forces in the north and south. And we allow fear and defeatism to percolate throughout the Iraqi government and military. Saddam has to keep purging and fighting off coup attempts (or suspected attempts), and he becomes more and more isolated, spending most of his time hiding in underground bunkers.
As long as the U.S. holds off on full-scale war, Hussein will be unable to use his WMDs against Israel, since that would immediately trigger massive retaliation and all-out war and make him appear responsible. Meanwhile Hussein can cling to the (vain) hope that the pressure of "world opinion" might yet prevent a U.S. attack.
Eventually Saddam and his government crack apart from the pressure, and our Iraqi allies take over with virtually no loss of U.S. life.
I think this is a good scenario. Instead of them forcing attrition to U.S., U.S. bring attrition to them. The success of this operation depends a lot on political operation to alienate and enlist part of Saddam's regime in exchange for new life after Saddam's death. But I fear that Saddam doesn't want to wait for his slow eventual death. He will come up with some excuse to launch those missiles. He will go down in flames whether we like it or not. It is theoretically possible to outmaneuver him, killing him or capturing him before he launches those missiles. But it is unlikely. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that he will be the one who launches WMD first not U.S.
Saddam had WMD (chemical and or biological weapons in the last Gulf War) but he didn't use them against either Israel or Saudi Arabia for fear of nuclear retaliation. On the other hand, if his back is to the wall, he has nothing to lose and he might very well decide to use everything, in which case the U.S., or more likely Israel, will retaliate with nuclear weapons, possibly seting off the whole region and bringing on WWIII. Given that these are not trivial issues, I wonder why Congess isn't debating the issue around the clock. If it's necessary to risk nuclear war to bring down Saddam, Bush should ask congress to step up to the plate and explicitly declare war on Iraq. At least we'd get to hear the best arguments, pro and con.
Regarding the initial analysis of this article, I think that the Russians here in this thread underestimate the newfound friendhsip between our nations. Should this jihad grow, America and Russia will become natural allies against Islam, forgetting all else. Why not? Russia is a Constitutional Republic, they have their own Islamic troubles, and the economic interdependence between us will only grow in the future. Russia and the US could logically become more than allies - call it a joint venture - or even a merger at some time. (Wouldn't China love that!!!) Already, Russia is our #2 oil supplier - and trying to become #1 ahead of Suadi Arabia. Personally, I think we should tell the Saudis to pack sand, and buy all of our foreign oil from Russia. That alone would break the Arab's financial empire in only months. After all, they have NOTHING else worth owning.
Tige -- while an insurgency of the Kurds would be very good to have, both the Barzani and Talabani factions (which are more or less clan-based and fight each other intermittently) have been burnt by US indecision or withdrawal at least three times before:
I can't imagine any scenario other than a WMD attack on the US or a close ally that would lead to a US use of nuclear weapons. In fact, in many cases of WMD attack the correct responce would not be nuclear. For nukes to be worth shooting off, the provocation must be sufficient, but that's only half of the equation, the political half. The other half is military: the target must also be suitable.
So far we have faced nothing that would justify the use of nuclear arms, from a strictly military viewpoint.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Heh, infantry. Couple reasons why not. Three even:
The nuclear arty shells and battlefield missiles are gone, also. Simply obsolete. In 1945 you needed to erase an enemy's cities to destroy his war-making capability and defeat him. In 2002 that sort of un-Christian (non-Western, really) frightfulness is no longer required or useful.
Ironically, the one bomb that remains militarily useful in certain circumstances is the one we didn't field: the Enhanced Radiation Weapon ("neutron bomb") which would simplify defeating the North Koreans and save many Allied lives, if that war plan ever has to be implemented...
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Warp factor five, Mr. Scott!
--Boris
Attack on Israel by Saddam using WMD will create a real problem to us. If Israel attack Iraq with her own nukes, we may have all-out Mid-East war. So it is better for U.S. to use its own WMD(battlefield nukes) for retaliation. The purpose is to keep fights within U.S.(and its local allies) and Iraq. No new combatant, especially Israel, should be brought in. This is for U.S.'s benefit, not just doing Israel a favor.
As for U.S. troops being attacked by WMD, I am still not convinced that 100 FAE or bunker busters will do the job for retaliation.
As for targets for nuke, I heard there are several large underground command bunkers in Iraq. Any of them could be a good target. Or you can drop it at the troops even if they are scattered. Such as a Republican Guard tank division in the desert.
As I said before, good deal depends on spook operation to sow dissention inside Iraqi regime. If we can convince some of them that they have a future in new Iraq, they may come to U.S. side with secret materials and knowledge and even military units. If this operation can neutralize Saddam's scud missiles by disabling command and control of the system, that will be a great coup. The job of military should be made as small as possible. I think that military operation is only 50% of the equation, political/intelligence operation is another 50%.
This is what I've been saying for at least 6 months.
A timely rebump.
I think it's more likely that any offensive action won't happen until 2003 rather than this Fall, however there is still the possibility of a 'shock' attack before the elections.
Back on the 18th of June there was word in the intel community that President Bush wanted to engage in an attack "as early as August".
My guess is that we are ready today. The only hold up is Saddam's Scud missiles. Once we believe we have them neutralized, the attack will begin.
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.