The U.S. Will Not Go to War Against Iraq: Not ever

National Review Online ^ | May 20, 2002 | John Derbyshire

[SJackson]

The Iraqis are a tough nut in the sense of logistics and that very important strategic surprise. We've got to ensure that if we land Marines on those mud flats up at Basrah, we can support them...It's true that the Germans expected an invasion. They were totally duped as to where.

In a sense, you're making the no-go case.

Hitler was fooled as to location, and the nature of our deployments. But he knew we were deployed.

Sadaam was fooled tactically last time as well. He also knew we were deployed. Same mistake.

Saddam knows we're not deployed today.

It would be nice to think we could do it with air power and insurgents on the ground. But if we're going to attack him again, we have to be prepared for another major American ground action. When the necessary call ups begin we'll all know.

[PhilDragoo]

Might China be putting the Muslim world up to this? Who would benefit from a protracted war between the West and the Islamic countries? China -- they'd sit back, watching their two major enemies weakening one another, ready to pick up the spoils at the end.

On 9/11 I said China. A graduate of the Naval Academy now in the sea of COSCO containers in southern California said, "No, China wants the trade. This is muslims."

But the board game for millenia says they would use deniable surrogates to instigate struggle between their enemies.

This would be consistent with their Unrestricted Warfare principles.

Why would it not be especially attractive to the Chinese to engineer our involvement in Islamist struggle to give them a freer hand vis a vis Taiwan?

We have traitor-rapist 42 getting 300K to speak at China's annual Taiwan Roast in Australia, then having a private meeting with Abdullah. Why would there not be Clinton moles in FBI, CIA, DIA, etcetera serving as channels of information and disinformation?

It can readily be seen that the PRC would welcome a Hillary presidency, and the coordination between Clinton & Clinton, LLC, PRC and Anti-Semites 'R' Us would be a capable ethernet.

The service of the media and Democrat hack machine to the left and to the Islamists and to the Clintons is an established fact.

There is more facing Bush, Inc. than one Stalin aficionado in Bagdhad.

Not quite a Sax Rohmer, Tom Clancy, Jeff Head scenario, but anyone who is in the grease trap with Marc Rich, the mafiya, the top echelons of Interpol, and China Resources contributes to the smell from the carpet when wet.

[gwynapnudd]

"When he says something like that, and has that look in his eye, it's a done deal. "

Color me totally unimpressed with W's military prowess to date. I'll reconsider when we get Bin Laden, and Al Zawahiri on our trophy wall.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, and the conventional thinking was that we would be lucky to capture one Afghan city before the dreaded Afghan winter set in.

Osama is dead, by the way.

[gwynapnudd]

If he is dead, that is a good thing and it should be reported. Do you not agree that success should be reported?

[MissAmericanPie]

I have had the same "feeling" since the rap went from, "We must attack Iraq now before they attain their weapons of mass destruction, to, "Sometime in the future at the Presidents disgression", to, "If we should ever in future attack Iraq", to Collin Powell's honest statement "There are no plans on the President's desk to attack Iraq" and that is a direct quote.

It goes back and forth and is all over the board, one day it sounds like we will go in next week, and the next day it sounds like the last thing on anyone in the administrations mind.

I also have the "feeling" that if we attacked say Saudi Arabia instead, 40 to 70% of our terrorist problem would be solved.

[gwynapnudd]

In President Bush's credit, he did inherit a military that had been cut to the bone by Clintigula's policies and betrayals. Bases had to be set up in central Asian republics, which is an amazing feat in and of itself.

It is just frustrating to hear that more attacks on us are imminent and there seems to be no resolute action to stop them. But I suppose we not only had to rebuild the military, but the entire intelligence network too.

I suppose we should just be glad we aren't fighting a powerful enemy or multiple fronts. We should be grateful Clintigula left us any military at all.

[Zeroisanumber]

Armchair general doesn't understand that war doesn't happen in a vaccum. Moron.

[gwynapnudd]

Nobody is talking about the Chinese

I don't know if you saw this, but it may be of some interest.

China seeks land route to Afghanistan

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If anybody knows why right_to_defend is now 'No current Freeper by that Name', perhaps they can Freepmail me, if it shouldn't be posted.

[Texasforever]

I don't know but at least I now know there is a "God".

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I don't know but at least I now know there is a "God".

And his Archangel 'Admin Moderator'.

[Texasforever]

Look the best thing about the threat of war is the threat. Having said that. The entire timetable for taking out Saddam was thrown completely off balance with the latest flare-ups between Israel and the Palestinians. Both this nation's and the rest of the world's focus shifted from international terrorism back to the never ending localized war between Israel and Arafat. The entire issue, once again, was shrunk back to the familiar world view that Middle Eastern "peace" and foreign policy revolved around a 30 year old internal war. Bush, like so many presidents before him, has allowed our foreign policy to be hijacked by that problem. It could be that the momentum we had with Afghanistan has been sacrificed to that reality.

[Dog Gone]

If he is dead, that is a good thing and it should be reported. Do you not agree that success should be reported?

I'm not sure about that. First of all, there are no reports of us finding his remains and confirming his identity through DNA. All we have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence. There remains a remote possibility that he is alive, so an announcement would be premature.

Additionally, confirmation of his death would give the peaceniks in our Congress and around the world a new reason to bash our efforts to combat global terrorism. With Osama out of the picture, some official support from our pathetic allies might evaporate entirely. A strong case can be made that it's in our interest to keep the myth of Osama's survival intact.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Saddam knows we're not deployed today.

You may be right. But I wonder if we are not deploying a lot of high tech gadgets and special ops types to look as if are not deployed when we really are. Look at the B-2. They don't have to "deploy" at all to ruin your whole day.

I think it still comes down to information. If we could locate Saddam -- there might be a B-2 over Baghdag right now.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Kurdish allies, etc.

Two BIG problems there:

1. The Kurds are still smarting from the end of Desert Storm, when we egged them on, and then stood by while Saddam wacked them. They are not eager to repeat that experience.

2. Ask yourself - exactly what do the Kurds want? Do they simply want to topple Saddam, or do they want their own homeland, a Kurdish State? The latter is quite problematic, for the Kurdish nation straddles the border between Iraq and Turkey. And in Turkey, those Kurds who clamor for a homeland are known as "terrorists" (very versatile word, isn't it?) The Turks will never agree to a Kurdish State - even one carved out of Iraq - for fear that it would spark an irredentist movement among the Kurds living in Turkey. And the Turks are our allies - we routinely look the other way when the Turks cross the border and wack the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

In short, I don't see the Kurds going along.

Well, you're right.

What we did to the Kurds was SO crappy. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the iamges of the Kurds being overrun didn't occur to some people when they were in the voting booth in 1992.

It seems though, that trying to go through Turkey is a lesser risk than trying to hit Basrah.

In the latter, you've got Iran and China on your flank and many people who don't like you all around.

But if you want strategic and operational surprise at least, send in the Marines and land the landing force!

Walt

[BlackVeil]

Buaya was exactly right with those details on the Kurdish situation. I would add one more aspect, which is the rather depressing constant civil war between the Kurds themselves. This means that one or another faction of them can fall in with the Iraqi regime. They do collaborate in the breaking of sanctions through the northern border, it is in their interests one can't expect them not to do it.

The other faction of interest is the Shia population of southern Iraq, who are dominated by an Iranian-oriented Islamic movement. One can't knock over Sadaam Hussein without vastly increasing the power of Iran. This is one of the reasons why the Gulf states are nervous and they support Iraq.

[BlackVeil]

Why no more "Right to Defend"? I used to debate him all the time. He was part of our "bio-weapons" discussion circle.

[The Great Satan]

Has right_to_defend been banned?

[Mitchell]

Has right_to_defend been banned?

Apparently so. Comments by him have been removed by the moderators. I have no idea why.