"Peace" is possible in the Middle East.
Posted on 08/16/2002 12:37:18 PM PDT by rightwing2
Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best
First of Three Parts
by David T. Pyne
August 16, 2002
Recent news reports indicate that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an unprecedented move, has locked out the Joint Chiefs of Staff from further planning for the planned US invasion of Iraq. This action was reportedly taken due to recent leaks by some of our highest-ranking general officers of US war plans, who remain wary of fighting another war against Iraq this time without provocation or justification. While our top generals are not convinced that war with Iraq is a prudent course of action, those of our top policymakers who have never fought in a war are leading the charge to invade Iraq. The only combat veteran among them, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been wisely urging that caution be exercised by the President in getting the US into another war with Iraq and informing the President of all of the undesirable consequences that would likely result from such an unprovoked unilateral US invasion of Iraq.
According to polls, two thirds of the American people would support another US invasion of Iraq. Too many Americans dismiss the Iraqi military machine after the seemingly easy victory of 1991 during Operation Desert Storm achieved at the cost of only a few hundred US soldiers killed in action. Over the past few months, the news reports have been blaring with headlines announcing the Administration's secret plans to invade Iraq. Such planning has ranged from a full-scale 250,000 man invasion which would come closest to ensuring victory though at a potentially high cost in casualties during the war and ensuing occupation to one which would involve as few as 50,000 airborne and special operations troops. This contingency plan is based on the likely erroneous presumption that effective organized and well-armed opposition to Saddam exists and would take action if only the US 82nd Airborne Division were only to appear outside Baghdad to support it.
This last plan would likely result in total disaster for the US forces participating in it. The reason is that even after the destruction wrought upon it by the US armed forces during Operation Desert Storm, Iraq retains a large Army consisting of 424,000 men in 23 divisions including 2200 main-battle tanks, 3700 other assorted armored vehicles, 2400 major artillery weapons and up to 300 operational combat aircraft. It also has another 120,000 men in its internal security forces, which could be expected to defend Saddam from capture. After recent upgrades with help from the Communist China, North Korea and Yugoslavia, Iraq now boasts one of the best air defense systems in the world according to national security experts.
If anyone seriously believes that the nearly 550,000 defenders of Iraq are going to give up the fight at the sight of a mere 20,000 US light infantry troops landing near Baghdad, they are in for a big surprise. While the first US-Iraqi war did prove that much of the Iraqi military lacks the will to fight, it also proved that the tens of thousands of well-trained and well-equipped Republican Guard troops would likely to mount an effective and determined resistance to a US invasion. These Iraqi forces would outnumber US invading troops by over eight to one and could conceivably surround and capture large numbers of US troops before they could safely be extricated and before US reinforcements could be sent in to save them. In short, if the US were to commit the 82nd Airborne to the capture of Baghdad unassisted by heavier armor and artillery formations, it would undoubtedly result in the highest number of combat casualties since the Vietnam War.
Top policymakers in the Administration appear to have forgotten the lesson of Desert Storm which is that large numbers of troops with heavy tanks win wars in their desire to repeat the successes of Afghanistan in which 50,000 US Special Forces troops were able to beat a ragtag and poorly equipped Army of 47,000 Taleban and assorted Al Queda irregulars. A word of warning-Iraq is no Afghanistan. It would take at least 200,000 well supported and well-equipped US ground troops with plenty of tanks and tracked armored vehicles to win another war against Iraq. Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official, now a senior fellow and Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies cautioned, "I think it is incredibly dangerous to be dismissive" of the Iraqi military. "To be careless about this war, to me, would be a disaster."
The grand coalition which former President George HW Bush organized to challenge the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait has long since been broken thanks to the polarization of the Arab world with the US-led war on terror and the Israeli war against Palestinian terror. If the US were to invade Iraq, it would likely do so virtually alone without any coalition allies. Even America's closest ally, the UK has voiced opposition to the US plan to invade Iraq. Only Israel would support such a war even though Israeli intelligence publicized the fact that Iraq has no discernable connections to the 9-11 terrorists. However, any Israeli military intervention against Iraq would further anger the entire Arab world against the US and possibly even risk an enlargement of the conflict.
It seems that the Bush Administration has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past and will embark on a course of regime change with the intention to kill or capture Saddam Hussein, which will ensure a no holds bar conflict that is most likely to maximize casualties on both sides. It would be far wiser to come to an accommodation with Saddam whereby he steps down in favor of another more acceptable successor and agrees to go into exile with immunity from prosecution. That would maximize the prospect for another victory at low cost in blood and treasure and might well eliminate the perceived "need" for the US to invade Iraq in the first place. It was recently reported that Hussein was considering formally stepping down from power in a bid to end UN sanctions on his country so such a development is not out of the question. It would be more sensible for the US to restrain itself to fighting one war at a time. An invasion of Iraq would not be prudent before the war in Afghanistan is finished. The Iraq warhawks in the Bush Administration would do well to consider why they have been unable to persuade any of their allies to support their planned unprovoked aggressive war against Iraq. ***
Next up: Part 2--Would another invasion of Iraq be justified?
© 2002 David T. Pyne
What is a legal war?
War of self-defense
I see. Well, good thing that if we invaded it wouldn't be "without provocation", then.
Never ceases to amaze me how many articles come out (and they really are a dime a dozen) criticizing the so-called "plan to invade Iraq", a "plan" which doesn't even exist as far as we know, except of course in the ever-more-fantastic and mutually-contradictory stories leaked to the New York Times. This article ought to really be titled, "The bogus stories leaked to and planted in the New York Times about this or that 'plan to invade Iraq' are dubious". The real story here, after all, is the fact that the NYT and people like the author of this piece are so damn gullible.
Stupid is a better word.
Dubya's? Dubya claims no plan.
Anyway, what plan? Everybody has a plan. These plans are all other peoples' plans. This is Friday. Is this referring to today's NYT plan or last Friday's Newsweek plan? Or maybe next week's NPR plan?
Uh ... I think it was more like 500, if even that many. Here we go again with the "mother of all battles" talk. I actually like the inside-out approach. We'll have spies and SF teams crawling all over Baghdad before we go in. Saddam will have a bullet in his head by then.
If we don't have a plan to win the peace, we won't win the 'war'. Bush needs to think beyond the next election and to think the strategy about how in some 50 years we end up with friendly nations like Germany and Japan. That's why this area has been warring for 4000 years. Generals know more about saving American lives long-term than pundits and neo 'con-men' with their own timetable.
Call it whatever you want, it won't happen anyway.
(Now, an invasion with provocation - that's another story.)
If you ask me there is greater moral imperative to invade and take this guy out now than we had in the Gulf War, for God's sake!! What would you suggest that we wait around and have him hit us again? I bet these same guys would be sitting on their hands then as they are now!
I don't mind a little thoughtful consideration but Sadam, the Mullah's in Iran, House of Saud, Hosni Mubarek, and Syria need to be shown that terrorism is a loosing form of warfare. I persoannly feel that if we took him out the first time, Sept 11 would have never happenned. Why, you ask? Because We would be controlling those Iraqi oil fields and the Saudi's would have been exposed for the thugs they are long ago. Faced with competition for oil they would be shaking down OPEC and terrorising their other customers. We would have also sent a message thoughout the Middle East that says "Don't you dare mess with the US or you WILL loose your country". These thugs only respect one thing: Force and Power. Its time they were shown what REAL power is in the hands of a commited, enraged, courageous and freedom loving people. We HAVE been provolked. The time for action is now!
Oh, great... so now the plan which the administration has been talking about for months doesn't exist. Now how am I to believe that one?
Absolutely amazing.
I think the relentless psy-ops campaign against Iraq is aimed at precipitating the provocation necessary thus making our planned invasion legal.
Furthermore, if Saddam is dumb enough to lash out in a first strike at Israel, which I feel is the unstated aim of this psy-ops campaign, no US invasion will be necessary. All that will be left for us is radiation containment and nation/government rebuilding.
Many made the same claim in early January of 1991. Iraq will fold like a house of cards yet again. People forget it took those inept clowns eight years to fight Iran to a draw.
I'm unfamiliar with his writings, but if this is part-and-parcel of what he says, I would have to say that he is a part of the Fifth Column.
America Firstish isn't it. Check this out.
"Kirk Lyons for ANV Commander"?
Sort of like Babe Ruth pointing at where his home run is going...
Anonymous sources have been talking about a plan. The administration hasn't.
There is a difference...
"Peace" is possible in the Middle East.
We wound up with a civilized Germany and Japan because, first we beat the pants off of them, and then we rebuilt them more or less in our image.
I don't think we had it all thought out on December 8, or even on D-Day. Job one was "beating the pants off of them". Job two, rebuilding them, sort of took care of itself when the time came.
We have Iraqi military and science defectors telling us that this megalomaniac is feverishly working to develop WMD. Intel has confirmed that Muhammed Atta visted Hussein linking him to 9/11. He is blatantly violating the terms of the Gulf War's end by now allowing U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs, and yet we still have those on the Left and Right who say that we're not provoked and/or have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong.
Like I said, what a bunch of panty-waist limp-wrists.
It's disgusting!
There's a time for peace and a time for war.
Lock and load.
This alleged link has no credibility. First, the 9/11 terrorists did not need the help of the Iraqi government. Second, terrorists are not going to discuss their plans in the open in a restaurant in Prague.
The "50,000 special forces" figure is bogus, which renders the rest of his commentary somewhat questionable. It is not clear that he is simply engaging in hyperbole, which would be forgiveable, but still off the mark.
If the 50,000 refers to all naval and air force and army personnel assigned to the task, it is probably close to accurate.
I am not particularly worried about Saddam's 500,000 man army. Once the Republican Guard is neutralized, the remainder will sieze power and be the basis of the post-Saddam government. Within two months we will be sending Iraqi officers to the US for advanced management seminars.
And I was worried that you were going to cite a discredited source. By the way, Scott Ritter claims that Iraq does not represent a threat to our security.
"We" would not be controlling a damn thing. The best we could hope for is quasi-US companies (really multi-nationals, Exxon, Chevron being the prime examples) gaining contracts to produce and sell the oil. This would be a benefit as long as they keep it flowing, no matter what the remaining OPEC members demand, but corporations have been known to restrict supply to increase profits. And those profits (aside from whatever taxes the Treasury does collect) won't be going to the US, but to *surprise* the same elites that made this whole thing necessary in the first place by placing the US in defense of the House of Saud in 1991. So, unless we create a national oil company to exploit our new-found spoils, with the spigots unfettered and all profits going into the Treasury, young Americans will be in harm's way for corporate profits.
Thus, a bullet in Saddam's head is the cleanest and most just means of achieving our stated goal. Invasion serves only a select few.
LTS
"...repeat the successes of Afghanistan in which 50,000 US Special Forces troops were able to beat a ragtag and poorly equipped Army of 47,000 Taleban and assorted Al Queda irregulars. " Try 1,500 SF.
As an aside and kudos to Vietnam Vets, During the battle of Hue, the Marines took on 6,000 NVA, killed 5,500 and lost 150 Marines. At Khe Sanh, over 10,000 enemy dead, maybe 15,000, at a cost of 200. The same working and middle class Americans that brought you mass production farming, auto assembly will now bring you, as in the past, death. Enemies never learn.
Scott Ritter. You talk about a traitor.
And we dismiss it for good reason. The members of my local gun club could probably destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard in less than a week.
Listening to the Novaks and Buchanans of the world spout off a decade ago about how we shouldn't undersestimate the Iraqi war machine was laughable, and they (of course) were shown to be dead wrong. Now, a decade later, the Iraqi forces are at a fraction of the "strength" the were then, so what makes (some) people think that things will be more difficult for us this time? The fact that Saddam probably has a lot more WMD's and is mad enough to use them? Well, that's precisely why it's in our best interest to destroy whatever is left of their army and overthrow their regime. And as a bonus, other regional repressive regimes might just decide to change their crimminal behavior after seeing the ease with which we conduct and conclude our campaign.
Yep, and a rich traitor at that. That schmuck is being paid off in a big way.
Well said.
Tell me about it! Don't you just love these people who fall all over themselves to write huge counterfactual screeds bizarrely predicated on "if we attack Iraq without provocation"??
It's like saying, "If we start to distrust Bill Clinton for no good reason...." and then launching into some discussion over it. Or, "If we start to suggest that Tiger Woods is a good golfer before he wins anything...." Or, "If we decide that the stock market is doing poorly before stocks even start falling..." I mean, are these people living in an alternate universe or what?
You must be one of those "living in an alternate universe" people. In the universe where I live, the administration has not been "talking about" a plan to invade Iraq "for months". I don't even know where you get that. If this is what you believe, then tell me: When will the invasion take place? How will the invasion be handled? Who will be involved, where will the support come from, what countries will be used as staging areas, what is their exit strategy, what is their post-victory strategy, what contingency plans are they making?
After all, you seem to think the "administration" has been "talking about" this "plan" for "months". So presumably you know plenty of military details about their "plan" to invade Iraq. Well, spill it!
Please don't misunderstand me. It's not that I'm saying that We Won't Invade Iraq at all. I reckon that we will. But it's premature to talk about (and criticize) the "plan", whatever it is or isn't, without actually knowing any details whatsoever! I mean get real, all we have are a bunch of dubious leaks to the freakin' New York Times! You're telling me it makes sense to look at those leaks/planted stories and sniff, "I don't like their plan at all, it's so bad"? I really hope you understand what I'm trying to say because I'm really getting tired of saying it.
The administration may indeed attack Iraq, sometime, in some way. But neither you nor I nor this columnist know any solid facts about their "plan" for doing it (if, indeed, such a "plan" exists), and so it's just plain stupid to start carping about how Their Plan Is So Dubious and all that.
Yep, they're everywhere......but I don't find it amazing. The testosterone vacated the GOP a long, long time ago.
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.