Liberation Blitz: Winning in Iraq won't quite be a cakewalk

Opinion Journal ^ | 10/11/2002 | THOMAS MCINERNEY

[Pokey78]

Barring a coup d'etat in Baghdad, it now appears certain that the U.S. will launch a major military strike on Iraq in coming months. As President Bush made clear in his speech on Monday evening, such a strike would be designed to prevent Saddam Hussein from providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists groups such as al Qaeda that could be used against the U.S.

[VaBthang4]

I know it is adolescent to dismiss someone outright but I have honestly thought from day one that Gen. McInerney was [and is] a twit.

[vbmoneyspender]

Based on what?

[The Great Satan]

In a multidirectional campaign, coalition forces could initially seize the cities of Basra in the south and Mosul in the north and most of the oil fields.

This is actually one of the more sensible articles I've seen, even if it does not put things into their larger context. I suspect the General is on the right track here.

[Uncle Miltie]

Avoiding hubris at this juncture would be wise. Let us have a war against terroristic-nuts-with-nukes. That is THE issue. The ancillary benefits (freedom for Iraqis, etc.) are many, but they are not sufficient for war.

Doing this one thing well can put others on notice, and forestall having to do it again for twenty or thirty years. So let's get busy.

But let's not move force from A to B to C because we are capable. B and C will learn the lesson of a Free Iraq, and are likely to come along in their own time bloodlessly.