WTC One - The Iraqi Connection

The National Interest ^ | Winter 95/96 | Laurie Mylorie

[The Great Satan]

The idea that this entire military buildup is a bluff, just seems to be the absolute worst possible political and military strategy they could have come up with to deal with this situation.

It isn't a bluff. The forces aren't going anywhere. This is a hostage situation. We are the hostages. The sheriff has the hostage taker's hideout surrounded. The squad cars and the SWAT teams will stay there in position until the standoff ends -- however it ends and whenever it ends.

[The Great Satan]

What if we suppose that this framing the war in the context of Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions is just a delaying tactic by Bush, in order to buy time to try and root out the domestic threat?

Correct. Except "root out" isn't really the right way to put it. The domestic threat can never be definitively rooted out, by the very nature of the sleeper strategem. "YOU CAN NOT STOP US," was the boast in the anthrax letters, and that is perfectly true. But that does not mean that we can do nothing against the threat Saddam presented in those letters. We can and will blunt the threat, but that is not something that can occur on a timescale of a few weeks or months. We are at T+18 already, and it will probably be T+36 before we have seriously degraded his ability to hit us or our allies.

[The Great Satan]

I read the Bush speech thread. Seems like just more atmospherics. The main thing is to keep up the sense of inevitability, no matter how long things might take. Again, this is a hostage crisis. We are the hostages. The sheriff might be scared witless inside as to whether he's going to be able to end the thing without losing the hostages, but he can't afford to show that, not to the media, not to the hostages, not to the madman who's threatening to kill them. The most significant statement Bush has ever made regarding Iraq is, "Saddam Hussein better remember, I'm a very patient man." If it takes five years, well, that's what it takes. Whatever it takes, we'll deal with it.

[Mitchell]

We can and will blunt the threat, but that is not something that can occur on a timescale of a few weeks or months. We are at T+18 already, and it will probably be T+36 before we have seriously degraded his ability to hit us or our allies.

I don't think Saddam Hussein would simply sit around waiting during this period. In your chess analogy, it's his move right now. And he's playing the same game that you pointed out we are playing; he's trying to capture our minor pieces, jockeying for positional and material advantage.

Following your analysis, Pres. Bush is in a very awkward situation currently. He appears to the public to have missed his timing, and he needs to do something to buoy up popular support, especially with the widespread (but presumably false) expectation of an imminent attack on Iraq, and the political pressure for such an attack.

In fact, I'm a bit surprised that Saddam Hussein hasn't done anything yet to knock Pres. Bush further off his stride, trying to take advantage of the current underlying political shakiness. A reiterated warning, to drive home Iraq's continued resolve, would seem to be called for. Saddam would want to be sure that Pres. Bush doesn't decide to discount the deterrence and launch an invasion anyway.

Moreover, the U.S. must have a plan for explaining away the upcoming lack of military action. This plan may involve your "Liberty Alliance" or something else, but we must have some face-saving reason planned. It follows that Saddam Hussein would want to move first, to weaken the U.S. position.

Yet Iraq does nothing. Why not?

[riri]

"Saddam Hussein better remember, I'm a very patient man.

My fear, TGS, is we lose Bush. What if we lose Bush in two years?

I am reading Peggy Noonan's book re: Hitlery. And it makes my blood boil. I have been wanting to ask you a semi unrelated question. In your opinion will she be neutralized/discredited?

[oceanview]

This is exactly right, Bush's position here is tenuous. This is why I wonder, if indeed the TGS concept is correct, why this current approach was chosen. It could have been handled differently.

My opinion on this, is that Bush should have told some partial truths about the anthrax attacks. He had been president for only 8 months. He could have fingered Saddam as the leading "person of interest", and subtley alluded to the fact that our intelligence capability had been so deteriorated under Clinton that specific proof was unavailable at that moment, but "under investigation". No details need be given about the possibilitiy of pre-positioned supplies already in the US, no need to panic anyone. His position right after 9/11 was alot stronger, he could have delivered a stark message like this to a more accepting public. After Afghanistan, the "investigation" could have moved forward, providing a different set of facts to use for whatever approach they decided to take (UN only, covert war, hot war, more aggressive domestic investigations).

We may be surrounding the hostage taker, but for how long? How long can we sustain these forces in the region? How long can Bush politically sustain the "last chance, running out of time" mantra before looking like the boy who cried wolf? How long can the economy hold up to $40 oil and delayed spending decision due to the uncertainty of war?

[The Great Satan]

What if we lose Bush in two years?

We're not going to lose Bush in two years. Bush holds all the cards. It's hardly even going to be worth having an election.

[The Great Satan]

Yet Iraq does nothing. Why not?

Saddam is on his best behavior. Wouldn't you be, if you'd secretly attacked the most powerful nation on earth, and all eyes were on you?

[_Jim]

The forces aren't going anywhere. This is a hostage situation. We are the hostages.

GREAT thinking ...

[The Great Satan]

How long can we sustain these forces in the region?

How long was World War II?

[_Jim]

YOU CAN NOT STOP US," was the boast in the anthrax letters,

... and since the heat was turned up on Hatfill - it's stopped ...

[_Jim]

Saddam is on his best behavior.

Dodge and weave - both of you ...

[The Great Satan]

... and since the heat was turned up on Hatfill - it's stopped ...

LOL! You're a little bit behind the curve on this, aren't you, _Jim?

[_Jim]

Again, this is a hostage crisis. We are the hostages. The sheriff might be scared witless inside as to whether ...

ONLY in your scenarios I'm afraid ...

[_Jim]

Not at all ...

[The Great Satan]

Where's the grand jury, _Jim?

[_Jim]

For indictment of Hatfill?

[_Jim]

Yet Iraq does nothing.

YOU didn't hear Saddam's exhortation to his 'citizens' to dig trenches in their yards?

[The Great Satan]

Exactly. You claim the FBI is onto Hatfill. They've been on to him for since last spring. He killed five people, terrorized the whole country, inflicted $2 billion damage on the US economy. He secretly manufactured the most sophisticated weaponized anthrax ever produced. Meanwhile, Powell is out there citing the anthrax letters as reasons why the UN must sign off an invasion of Iraq. But there is no grand jury to put the squeeze on Hatfill. Why do you think that is, _Jim? Have you figured it out yet?

[_Jim]

Have you figured it out yet?

I'm not the one pushing *bizarre* theories that don't stand up to close scrutiny here - and Hatfill to this day remains a person of interest to the authorities.

Having read his bio and his background and history (and the man has a LOT of history) I personally think this man is *the* singular most likely suspect.

I guess you HAVEN'T read his bio and his history ...