THE DIGNIFIED RANT
FOREIGN AFFAIRS DECEMBER 2002 ARCHIVES
Return to National Security Affairs
Return to National Security Affairs Archives
"Leverage?" (Posted December 31, 2002)
Countdown to Invasion: 4 days late.
I don't know why I keep highlighting my missed invasion date.
On the other hand, thinking the invasion is late really does free me to write about other foreign affairs topics. Just a matter of when not whether.
Anyway, critics of isolating North Korea already decry our lack of leverage. What leverage did we have with the 1994 agreement which the North Koreans violated immediately? And why do the critics think we want leverage? Yes, North Korea is very isolated and very poor. They are so bad off that they are unable to feed their own people. I don't think leveraging a ten percent decrease in torture and repression is the proper strategy. Regime change is needed but we have no military option short of several hundred nukes targeting every nuclear site, missile site, major base, and combat unit headquarters. I personally think that is too awful an alternative to contemplate. The article quotes the new South Korean president:
For the Bush administration, simply intensifying economic and political pressure on the North involves enormous political obstacles. South Korea has embraced engagement and dialogue as the best way to address the reclusive country to its north. It appears committed to that course -- a fact underscored today as South Korea's president, Kim Dae Jung, rejected containment as a failed doctrine.
"Pressure and isolation have never been successful with communist countries," Kim told his cabinet, in remarks distributed by the presidential Blue House. "Cuba is one example."
Huh? First of all, Cuba has had to make many compromises with communist economic practice to survive the ending of Soviet aid and American pressure. Castro could maintain his communist system as long as he did only because of massive Soviet subsidies. Second, does Kim really forget the pressure and isolation of the Cold War and the Soviet empire's resulting collapse? I'd say this strategy has a pretty good record.
And I disagree that we have no leverage. A richer, or at least less desperately poor regime, might shrug off our cut off of aid and fuel. We'll see if they decide starvation and total collapse of their regime is truly superior to giving up nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. If Pyongyang wants to preserve their regime, they will find they undermine regime survival when confronted with the price of further isolation as the consequence of pursuing weapons of mass destruction. They really can count on aid from America and their allies to prevent starvation if they get rid of missiles and nukes. I'd say that is leverage.
But our aid should always be minimal. We have a humanitarian interest in preventing starvation (and a practical goal of making cooperation a better option for the North than rolling the dice and invading South Korea); but should not do so much that we solidify the regime. Just enough to string them along and give them false hope that riding out the poverty is superior to trying to knock off the rich South Koreans and looting them to bolster the North. And enough to keep the North Koreans from believing their ridiculous assertion that we plot war. Should they act on such a false belief, it will mean war.
Letting the North get away with acquiring nukes in the short run is disturbing. But more forceful options are not on the table right now.
The rest of the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) has orders to ship out to the Gulf. This used to be the 24th Division which set the Middle East land speed record during Desert Storm.
"Interesting Map" (Posted December 30, 2002)
I visit strategypage.com far too infrequently. Dunnigan is pretty good and goes way back in quantifying war as a game designer back in the 1970s. He has a good map of Iraqi deployments and estimated US/British invasion force. 2-1/3 heavy divisions (including a cavalry regiment?), 101st Airborne, and a Marine Expeditionary Force backed by three British brigades (a division). I assume 10th Mountain and a parachute brigade too, but we're in the ball park here.
The people at strategypage.com seem to assume a Kuwait springboard. Here I have to disagree. We'd have to cross rivers, advance through broken terrain through 2 regular corps (or take them prisoner-and guarding them might drain more of our power than killing them), watch a corps on the Iran border in case the commander gets delusions of counter-attack glory, smash a Republican Guard corps, and then battle the Special Republican Guards in Baghdad. All the while, being doused on the road north with chemicals.
Why do it the hard way?
We think the regular Iraqi army will defect or stay in the barracks so why go near it? If we get close to a regular force, we probably have to kill it just in case.
Why risk the chemical highway by advancing between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers? And if we go west of the Euphrates, can we supply the divisions as they work their way up to Baghdad if the supply line goes back to Kuwait?
Why do anything but feint out of Kuwait?
As I've mentioned before, were I God, I would base the invasion's main effort out of Jordan and head right for Baghdad down that very good highway from Jordan with two heavy divisions and the 101st. The British and Marines and one heavy brigade simulating all of V Corps advances out of Kuwait. With nothing down there, who would know it was not the main effort until XVIII Airborne Corps arrived in the western Baghdad suburbs? 10th Mountain out of Turkey. The parachute brigade to seize some important airfield. Rangers to drop on Saddam's caravan as he runs or to hit a WMD site if it looks like it is about to be used.
News tonight said we plan rolling start to invasion, attacking while we deploy. The way the Iraqis are pulled back out of fear of us, this might work. I am wary of dribbling in the troops piecemeal but it could work, especially since we have the heavy armor already out there.
If we are really lucky, defecting Iraqi units shepherded by our special forces will spearhead any assault on Baghdad should that be necessary to win the war.
But it appears that we really will need to see a big airlift prior to invasion. We did not manage to secretly deploy the troops to start the war on the 27th. How long must we airlift troops before we go? Don't know. But the air bridge should start before we go. I sure as heck hope we aren't truly going to wait until February. I'm not convinced we will wait, but my old timetable is shot.
Stop stalling. Our enemies prepare for us. Hit them before they figure out how to stop us.
“
Countdown to Invasion: 3 days
late.
This article’s
headline seemed to hold promise of a hatchet job without historical context but
the article itself did a good job of explaining the situation we found
ourselves in during the 1980s regarding
Opinions
differ among
"It
was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth
M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening
Storm," which makes the case for war with
"Fundamentally,
the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former
When deciding what to do,
sometimes options are not what one would like. In trying to halt expansionist
Iranian Islamism, we ended up siding with
We sided with the Soviets to
defeat Nazism and paid for that aid by enabling the Soviets to advance their
border to the
The world is a tough
neighborhood. Get over it.
Correction. Please note: I double-counted some equipment being
moved from Diego Garcia to Kuwait from globalsecurity.org’s
web site, so reduce the number of heavy battalions in the region by six. I was
shocked when I thought we had nearly enough equipment for nearly three full
heavy divisions. I was surprised for
good reason, they ain’t there. This still leaves us
at enough for two heavy divisions, the minimum for a good solid offensive
punch.
In looking back, I had
assumed we would see mobilization and an intense airlift of troops in a flurry
of activity before invasion. When that didn’t happen, I began to wonder if we
had secretly moved the troops within striking range (perhaps my counting error contributed to this suspicion). Clearly, I
was too tied to my target invasion date and toyed with the latter idea too
strongly. It is unreasonable to think we could hide that many troops. The
airlift surge really must happen, and though I expect war sooner rather than
later, I just don’t know if we can start the war without the airlift surge or
whether we must wait for those troops to arrive.
Any day
now, people. Why are we giving our
enemies time to prepare?
On to
"Why Not North Korea?" (Posted December 29, 2002)
Countdown to Invasion: 2 days late.
I really get a little frustrated when I hear pundits who have wanted to avoid fighting Iraq to prevent Saddam from getting nukes, suddenly advocate taking on North Korea. Of course, they say, focusing on North Korea means we must drop all talk of war with Iraq. Until Iraq gets nukes, too; then Iraq is a threat in that view.
Yep, dealing with two nculear armed thugs is far better.
It is far better to deal with the Iraqi threat, now; before the North Korean threat gets worse. Why?
First, we can stop a country from getting nukes rather than turning back the clock on two. That is easier.
Second, Iraq is sitting on oil and poised to threaten weak countries with lots of oil. No, this war is not primarily about oil but it is silly to pretend it is not a factor. If we had wanted the oil, we would have taken Baghdad in 1991.
Third, Iraq's military is vastly superior to the Gulf states. North Korea's neighbors can all stop the North's military without our help. The balance continues to develop in favor of South Korea (aside from nukes). In the Gulf, if we are busy elsewhere or caught unaware, Iraq can strike.
Fourth, the US military can, with little allied military assistance, destroy Iraq's military. North Korea's military strength requires us to get full enthusiastic South Korean assistance to invade the north.
Fifth, even if we eliminated the North's nuclear capability; the North could inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties using artillery and rocket delivered chemicals on Seoul.
Sixth, Iraq has the financial resources based on oil and European collaboration to outlast containment and avoid isolation. North Korea is impoversished, starving, and its only export--cheap missiles--will likely be throttled by us (notwithstanding our letting the Yemen-bound shipment of missiles through).
All in all, plenty of reasons for an "Iraq-first" strategy. Face it, many advocating "North Korea" first really are aiming for "nobody at all."
On to Baghdad.
"North Korea" (Posted December 28, 2002)
North Korea is pushing us as we prepare to invade Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld said we are capable of fighting two wars. He is right, the question is not whether we can but how much risk do we want to run and do we use nukes. Clearly, if nukes are on the table we could fight a whole lot of North Korea-size states. Without nukes, we would be stuck within the confines of our "two" war strategy. On paper, we can fight two major theater wars, "nearly simultaneously." (Every commentator forgets that important provision) That is, we can march on the enemy capital in one war (Iraq) while successfully defending in a second (Korea). Winning decisively in the second must await victory in the first so that air, naval, and ground forces can be shifted to the second war to carry out the counter-offensive. (And don't say the war on terror is a "third" war-even with the troops in Afghanistan, that is less than a division-the rest is intelligence and police work)
North Korea should know that they cannot defeat the South Korean military even if we are occupied with Iraq now. The problem is, Seoul is right on the border and has a quarter of the South's population not to mention the lion's share of GDP. The North may not be able to win but they could seriously wound the South in an attempted murder-suicide pact.
This is what our strategy will be:
Administration officials said the threat of growing isolation was the best way to force North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions and, if it refused, to bring down the government. Officials say that under their plan, which they call "tailored containment," they are willing to negotiate with North Korea but only if it first dismantles its nuclear weapons program.
To offer new incentives, officials say, would be to reward the North Korean government for failing to live up to earlier commitments.
"It is called `tailored containment' because this is an entirely different situation than Iraq or Iran," a senior administration official said. "It is a lot about putting political stress and putting economic stress. It also requires maximum multinational cooperation."
This seems reasonable. Critics say it is risky and that our allies won't go along.
So what. Talking and shipping oil didn't get us cooperation, just a slower push toward nuclear capability and missile tests over Japan. Any action regarding North Korea will have risks.
Should we invade like we are going to do to Iraq? Some critics claim we are hypocrites for not threatening invasion. But the costs of war are surely part of the equation. First consider that given the forward deployment of the North Korean army, we are not going to invade. If we start shipping in troops to invade (and convince South Korea to invade with us), North Korea will see it and attack first. If that happens, no matter what scenario you use, whether it ends up with nukes used, our forces marching on Pyonyang, or stalemate, one constant will be there-Seoul will be destroyed.
That's a pretty high price to pay. There are certainly circumstances where that might be the preferable course but we are not there.
So do we launch air strikes to knock out North Korean nuclear and missile facilities? We could probably do it. At best we buy time until the North Koreans can dig deeper and start again. At worst, the North invades the South in response. Seoul will be destroyed.
Do we talk and come to an agreement? I'll trade you Carter's Nobel peace prize for another one of those. We can't trust them to count on an agreement. Talk? Sure. Actually agree to something? Nope. We are just asking for nukes and a North Korean economy strong enough to keep stumbling forward.
Then there is that old standby that so many want us to take with Iraq-containment. At least here, we have successfully contained action greater than terrorism for fifty years. We do have a track record of keeping them at bay. It has not, however, resulted in the defeat of the North, only slowing its nuclear arsenal development. We need something more.
Isolate them. Choke them off. Will our allies cooperate? Not likely. But probably enough. And having them be the good cop to our bad cop may keep the North from going to war in desperation. A completely united front by Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, and America might just freak them out completely. But squeeze them until they collapse.
One advantage to us is that any war will smash up our allies rather than us. Sorry to be so cynical but there it is. Yes, our military will take losses as long as we are on the peninsula, but the South is probably capable of holding off the North without our ground forces there. If the South Koreans continue to complain too much about our troops, we could withdraw them to the south to be a counter-attack force rather than taking the first shot on the chin. This actually makes more sense militarily than the politically motivated deployment north of Seoul more suited to the days when the North had conventional superiority and our troops represented a trip wire to massive nuclear retaliation.
And if North Korea uses its nukes? Well, the South and Japan have more to worry about. We will soon have a rudimentary missile defense system to defend Alaska; and in time our sea-based interceptors will be able to reliably knock off the North Korean rockets as they launch, if we park our ships off their coasts. Already we can defeat their conventional invasion and in time we will be able to nullify their nuclear threat. You can bet the Japanese and South Koreans will cooperate with our missile defense efforts.
We can contain their military threat-even nukes-and in time, by mostly isolating them, the North will collapse.
It is not a pleasant situation to contemplate, however.
Countdown to Invasion: 1 day late. Beats me why we are waiting. Do we really think we need four heavy division to invade? Are we really waiting for the Blix report? I still can't make myself believe that is so. My December 27 date was fairly arbitrary. But I'm still holding to an invasion before the year is out before my logic for this time frame fails me. Ok, I'll even stretch it to January 2 before I start to consider whether we really might be waiting until February.
Go. Go. Go. Time is not our friend.
"Zero Hour Passes" (Posted December 27, 2002)
Well, it is 7:20 and nothing on the news even hinting something is up. I'm either hours, days, weeks, or months premature!
I still think hours or days. It just makes no sense that we would telegraph our intentions so far ahead of time. Yet it is possible that I grossly over-estimated our logistics preparations over the last year. Maybe we really do need a month of overt deployment.
I'll be up a few more hours watching this...
"New Moon" (Posted December 27, 2002)
Just noticed that the new moon starts January 2. If we invade today, that gives us six days to fight our way to Baghdad and have the maximum advantage of our night fighting capabilities. Of course, if reports that we will arrive at the outskirts of Baghdad in 48 hours, we could start as late as December 31 and still be there. That is the pace of a road march, however, not a fighting advance. If we can do that, we must have 5th Special Forces Group camped out all along the Jordan-Baghdad highway signaling that the route is clear.
"The Street Going Home" (Posted December 27, 2002)
According to this AP report, the Arab public is tired of Saddam's track record. It seems that braggarts are only admired as long as we let them get away with it. Now that his doom is imminent, his track record means that the public will stay home and hope for the best.
We are fed up with Saddam's wars and confrontations. They brought nothing but
defeats, humiliation and disasters," al-Omari told The Associated Press.
Like many people in the Middle East, al-Omari hopes any war on Iraq will be short
and will target only Saddam's regime. He said his deepest worry is about the Iraqis
who might be killed or suffer, not about Iraq's leadership.
For years, Saddam skillfully played to Arab public opinion. But Jordanian political
analyst Raja Talab said the Iraqi leader's popularity is waning and many Arabs now
blame him for "leading the area to the edge of another catastrophe.
People look for real heroes who can deliver and Saddam is only a drowning,
defeated ruler who is clinging to the wreckage," Talab said.
War is imminent. XVIII Airborne Corps out of Jordan strike to Baghdad. Marines and British capture Basra region. V Corps feints to Euphrates with skeleton force. Turks and 10th Mountain out of the north.
Also, per globalsecurity.org, two infantry battalions of the Army National Guard activated to train in 3rd Infantry Division's base. Either guarding the base as division leaves or to provide additional infantry for Baghdad battle.
On to Baghdad.
"Units Activated" (Posted December 27, 2002)
Countdown to Invasion: 0 days.
Just on the news, Washington battle group, Marine amphibious ready group, hospital ship, and Air Force units put on notice to move in 96 hours. Also note that carriers in port in France and Australia were scheduled to leave port just after Christmas, so could make it to launch points by today. Until it's 7:00 EST, I'm still holding to the attack beginning today. The same report says February is the most whispered attack date; but notes Pentagon says they could start today if necessary and rush necessary supporting troops in once attack begins.
It just makes no sense to wait for obvious signposts like the Blix report or State of the Union address. The group think that has led all newscasts to report February as invasion date just smacks of using our open media to our advantage. The constant caveats that we could attack at any time just seems like cover so that the press can't accuse the Pentagon of lying. After all, senior officials never confirmed a time frame and always noted we could attack at any time.
Besides, how much warning time do we want to give North Korea?
On to Baghdad.
"Don't Torture" (Posted December 26, 2002)
Countdown to Invasion: 1 day.
I'm no expert on torture and interrogation, but this article decrying possible US torture or excessive coercion (or "rendering", allowing allies to do so), states one fact that I had long read was true: "officials who defend the renditions say the prisoners are sent to these third countries not because of their coercive questioning techniques, but because of their cultural affinity with the captives. Besides being illegal, they said, torture produces unreliable information from people who are desperate to stop the pain." Aside from the fact that there should be lines we should not cross, torture is not effective. No, we should not have to treat prisoners like guests at 4 star hotels, and I have little sympathy for those who say they should have Miranda rights. But morality must have a place. Torture is not a matter of being tough. Yes, some will say, but what if the captive knows where a nuclear bomb is going to go off in 6 hours? Wouldn't you torture then? Well, yes, under those circumstances, of course. But the need to go to such an extreme example should tell you something. What short of that justifies torture? The French were torture-happy in Algeria and it did not work. As the official above said, torture is not effective. An al Qaeda under torture will admit to being the second gunman. How many resources will we waste tracking down confessions to anything to stop the pain?
Stop short of torture. It is right and it is more effective.
On the pending Iraq war, I've seen nothing that indicates it is imminent. No apparent airlifts of troops. No open mobilization. No President revealing the "gotcha" evidence to the UN Security Council. Could we have quietly shipped that stuff in by sea over the last year and kept it secret because the military knows people will look for the obvious signs? Lots of equipment is there and we have declared them in material breach (announced by Powell no less, who the Europeans hoped would restrain the war).
I'm still holding tomorrow as D-Day though I have (and never had) anything concrete to go on-just a hunch and what I'd do. But then, I thought obvious signs would be on the news by now, albeit disguised as meaning nothing now. I'll be really impressed if tomorrow night the news reveals we have attacked.
If not, I still don't see why we should wait for the Blix report. I can't believe we would wait until then.
I really have to write on North Korea. Very disturbing situation to say the least.
“Our Call to Iranians”
(Posted
We are broadcasting
to the Iranian people. This will surely give them hope that they are not
forgotten. And on the eve of war with
It would be nice to get a
relatively easy one in between dealing with
“Allies Onboard” (Posted
Countdown to Invasion: 4
days.
Allies are
signing up for war against
The interesting thing to see will
be how many people who argued that no international support meant we lacked
moral standing to invade will now conclude that having allies means we have moral
standing to invade. Our motives didn’t change, just those who agreed with us,
yet somehow this game of “might makes right” gave us the authority to invade.
The likes of the UN Security Council gallery of rogues and feckless allies
joined
So now, the invasion is
coming. I’ve read that we’ll be in the suburbs of
The big question is how
quickly do the ground troops enter
And it must be soon. Loading
ships with heavy armor here in the States must mean war is imminent; and ships
from embarkation ports for three of our heavy divisions are packing up. If we
wait until after those ships get to the Gulf, we will lose surprise. And we
don’t need that equipment. We have more than a couple divisions worth of heavy
stuff in the Gulf region already (fourteen armor battalions and ten mechanized
infantry battalions or their equipment in Kuwait, Qatar, and Diego Garcia: At 9
or 10 per division, we’ve got almost three divisions of heavy stuff there
already—see globalsecurity.org).
Actually, loading that armor
makes more sense if we are worried
I do hope that we don’t get a
ringside seat that proves how wrong critics of the two-major theater war
standard were (and are).
On to
"Washington Home" (Posted December 21, 2002)
The Washington did arrive in port. I decided to look around a little more and found an article confirming homecoming. Never mind...
Of course, as I noted before, maybe we don't need Washington for the first wave of strikes.
"Where's the Washington?" (Posted December 21, 2002)
Where's the George Washington battlegroup? It was due in Norfolk yesterday yet the carrier's homecoming page only says that it is coming home soon.
I only ask because I fully expect the carrier to be racing for deployment in the eastern Mediterranean for the war. Globalsecurity.org says more brigade sets are in the Gulf than they thought before. And the red herrings are loading heavy armor for three heavy divisions in CONUS ports. I've seen this movement as the sign war is near and they are loading. That stuff won't be used and given the equipment that is out there in the Gulf I am shocked nobody has noticed we don't need that armor.
Oh, and elements of the 101st Airborne are reported in Djibouti.
Could the airstrikes start sooner than the 27th?
"Eyes to the South" (Posted December 21, 2002)
Countdown to Invasion: 6 days.
Three interesting articles today. One notes a huge armored exercise by the Army in Kuwait. Another notes that the British and Americans are planning an amphibious assault on Iraq from the Gulf. Still another says that President Bush is cancelling his Africa trip next month to focus on Iraq.
So what do these news reports tell us? They tell us to look south to Kuwait and Gulf and fear the coming storm that will go all the way to Baghdad, as the writing on the tank gun barrel helpfully prompted in the first story. The third story tells us that the President expects to be busy in January getting ready to pull the trigger on the force that many other reports show will mass in January.
That's what they say but I don't see it that way. I suppose I'll have to be properly embarrassed if these stories mean exactly what they say. Oh, sure, I expect an amphibious invasion. Helicoptering into Basra while other forces advance overland will keep telltale massing signs in Kuwait to a minimum and provide fewer targets for an Iraqi preemptive chemical strike. And I do expect American armor to roll north out of Kuwait and head for Baghdad-I just don't expect it to be much more than the brigade now exercising, backed by attack helicopters and artillery to sound like an entire corps. The main attack comes out of Jordan.
As for the President cancelling next month's trip, that seems like an obvious telegraphing of our punch, which says to me that I should go with my hunch on the invasion timing. We won't be waiting for the Blix report at the end of January.
But the Iraqis will expect to have another month to prepare for war and to prepare to stall our invasion with some false "progress" on inspections. We will get tactical surprise. Senior officials note they are ready now and that there is no timetable for war even as everybody talks about January or February, or even the summer!
On CNN now, a bunch of Western clerical types are whining for peace, actually claiming that the Iraqi people they talk to who say we should stay out are actually free to speak their minds. One man of the cloth implored President Bush to speak to the people. I hope that particular pacifist returns after the invasion to speak to those same people and explain why he--a free man supposedly educated and holy--stood with Saddam when the people of Iraq were too scared and cowed to speak freely. I hope he visits the torture chambers. I hope he will seek forgiveness for confusing defending a butcher with advocating a different course than invasion to solve the Iraq problem.
On to Baghdad. Very soon.
“Chemical Strikes” (Posted
This article is
interesting and probably quite right that Saddam will opt for a scorched earth
policy; but ends with a statement I think is clearly wrong: “War planners don't
expect a chemical and biological attack in the early stages of war, but they do
say that it could be a last act of deadly vengeance and defiance.”
Saddam’s only chance to
survive our invasion is to knock us back on our heels by launching what he’s got
as soon as we strike. When defeat is staring his commanders in the face, they
will hesitate or refuse to shoot. Only in the beginning of the war will they
fear Saddam more than us. We need to assume chemicals from H-Hour on.
Oh, I note that when leaders
refer to late February as invasion time, they often note there is no particular
timetable, which everybody assumes means it could be later—even much later.
Why couldn’t it mean earlier?
That’s what I think, anyway. That’s the only way to get tactical surprise at
this point.
“Troop Build Up” (Posted
Countdown to Invasion: 7
days.
When near, appear far. When
strong, appear weak.
Everyone is saying February
invasion. We need more time, they all say. Troop strengths in the Gulf continue
to ratchet up (now it is given as 60,000). More reservists are on duty now than
a couple months ago (7 or 8 thousand more if my memory is correct). Defense officials
note that we have more heavy equipment in the Gulf than is publicly
reported. Three heavy divisions are
apparently on call for the invasion (1st Armored and 1st
Infantry (Mechanized) in
I will be shocked (and quite
obviously wrong, too) if we wait until February. I’ll be surprised if we wait
until January. Maybe I’ll start to believe at face value more of what I read in
the papers and have a little more faith in the skills of reporters.
On to
"Cover?" (Posted December 19, 2002)
I just remembered the report a few days ago or so, that said the flesh-eating bacteria had broken out at the Marine Corps base in California. Since the California-based Marine Expeditionary Force is the unit earmarked to go to Kuwait, could this be covering the deployment of the troops out of the area as they head to Kuwait? I'm honestly just wondering. But that is one bacteria guaranteed to keep people away from the base for a week or so. Since I expect the war to start soon, you wouldn't have to hide this for long. But I really don't know if it is possible to hide a major deployment out of a major base in the United States.
Just idle speculation, but I will watch for related news.
“Material Breach” (Posted
Countdown to
Invasion: 8 days.
We would not declare
Further,
Making
Maybe I’m wrong
and all those people saying the war is weeks or months away are right, but I
think we strike soon.
“Overwhelming Force” (Posted
Five years ago, I wrote about the lessons of the First Gulf
War between
“ The lessons for the
· The need to maintain a combined arms approach to battle was
demonstrated time and again. In one of
their drives on
· The demonstration that even troops apparently hopelessly
outclassed can make a good showing--even if they have to do nothing more
complicated than die in place in their bunkers--is useful.
· The importance of gaining information dominance is clear
from the Iraqi army’s experience of plodding to stalemate by advancing blindly
as separate brigades with no situational awareness and ignorant of the location
of its enemy.
Information dominance must also be achieved before we ever arrive on the battlefield. Our Army is a power projection force that
must be deployed largely from the continental
· Notwithstanding technological strides, well-trained troops
with good morale are still important in the information age. In 1980,
· We must not under-estimate our potential foes as the Iraqis
did in 1980. They will be clever just as
we are. They will believe in the cause
for which they are fighting. And they,
too, will fight to win. We cannot assume
that the sight of an American soldier will panic our enemy and induce retreat
and surrender in the same manner that
· The need to establish a realistic war plan is also
highlighted by
These lessons, although useful in
isolation, teach us a larger lesson when taken together. Ending a war with victory should, of course,
be the ultimate objective.
The NDP provides another legitimizing
process to reduce further our already small Army. It is also an opportunity for the Army’s
defenders to validate the QDR’s sound reasoning for
maintaining a high quality Army and halt what could easily become an annual
ritual of reducing the Army after claiming to see no threats to American
interests on the horizon.
Finally, American victory in war requires
a joint approach, with all the services contributing their unique
capabilities. The core of any war
effort, however, must be the ground elements provided by the Army, which alone
is capable of taking on the most sophisticated or determined enemy and
delivering victory. Complete victory
comes when your soldiers plant the flag on the enemy’s territory and impose
your will--not achieved when you can sail offshore or fly overhead with
impunity. By any reasonable standard a
well-equipped and superbly trained United States Army with global
responsibilities is hardly too much for
This paper is still available from the Institute of Land Warfare.
With talk of war being delayed until January or February or
even later (and signs apparently supporting this timeframe such as British
contracting for ships for January to June to move heavy armor), I should note
that I don’t believe it. I think we will
have enough very soon to smash
Countdown to Invasion: 8 days.
On to
“Are the Ground Pounders Worried?” (Posted
According to the Washington
Post, the Army and Marine commanders are worried that the government is
assuming a cakewalk. They worry we have insufficient forces to start the
invasion. Are the civilian leaders underprepared?
The psychological warfare is
intensifying, the President will soon declare
We go before the end of the
year.
If we are going in a
shoestring, we should worry. I just don’t think we are. Are we underestimating
the Iraqis? We know they can inflict casualties by fighting hard in the cities
and using chemical weapons. We are clearly training hard to face both threats.
And speed of attack will blunt the threat of both Iraqi options. Even if the
Iraqi regular army fights, most is facing the Kurds (and the 70,000 Turks who
will invade too) and is away from our troops. I bet Saddam keeps it that way.
As a force to stop us, the regulars are too ill-trusted and ill-equipped to be
more than speed bumps. They would be more of a challenge to us if we had to
take them prisoner and feed them. The ones around
The Republican Guards and
their Special Republican Guard uber lords are the key
fighting forces and I don’t believe anybody assumes they will break on impact.
Maybe they will, but those 100,000 or so troops have to be assumed loyal. I
think we are preparing for a tough fight and if we are wrong—great. I’d rather
be accused of over-preparing for an easy war than getting stopped because we
thought victory would be easy. I can’t believe Franks would have agreed to
assume little resistance. As a soldier, he would have to salute and follow
orders of course; but would the civilians tell the troops who will die that
they don’t need what they think they need? After the shame of refusing to send
a pittance of heavy armor to
Countdown to Invasion: nine
days.
“Turkish Troops for
Turkey
will send perhaps 70,000 troops into northern
When XVIII Airborne Corps
with two heavy division and 101st AB, roll into the western suburbs
of
Haven’t heard anything
lately, but on the weekend reports of President Bush addressing the UN
Wednesday and a report that
On to
“French Mandate” (Posted
So, according to this
article, “
We have a 15-0 UN Security
Council vote backing us (on top of 16 or so more over the last 11 years),
Congressional authorization, and many allies on board, to invade
As Al Bundy so brilliantly
put it, “It is wrong to be French.”
“
So, 5th Special
Force Group (which fought in Desert Storm and is clearly better suited to
I know I’m reading a lot into
little things, and these forces could just as easily swing into the Gulf
instead of into
On to
"Victory" (Posted December 15, 2002)
A Friedman column speaks of hope for getting the talking between us and Islam going. Some voices in the Islamic world, according to the article, are saying publicly that America is not at fault for their backwardness and that their societies must look inward and cure themselves.
This is encouraging. They must end the killing philosophy that has been the public voice of Islam recently.
Iran’s situation has already given me hope that Iranians have seen the terror and economic failure of Islamist regimes. Others in the Arab world are raising their voices too. Yes, the Palestinian issue must be resolved to blunt a sharp corner that we bump into repeatedly, but we must always remember it is not the cause of the problem between the West and the Moslem world—it is an irritant.
We must demonstrate resolve through military and other means so that Islamists will never be able to appeal to followers by saying we will ultimately lose. We must present a face of awesome power so that glory in pursuit of jihad against us seems less productive than working with us and focusing on their own problems.
We started by breaking the Taliban and crippling al Qaeda. Next we must destroy Saddam.
Then we start building. I’m no fan of nation building, but I don’t see what choice we have now. We can’t just leave them to nurture grievances and come back at us again when they are ready and we are unprepared. This time we "de-Nazifiy" the Moslem world of the Wahhabi Islamofascism that has preached death to us. But there is hope. The Germans and Japanese seem unable to fight now, after our occupations.
Turkey is one face of moderate, modernizing Islam. Indonesia can be also. Then Iran, after the mullahs are overthrown. Then Iraq after we invade and rip out the Ba’athist thugs who destroyed a promising nation carrying out the orders of a thug who sought glory through death and conquest.
Marching on Baghdad is just the beginning of this job.
And we still have to deal with North Korea. And a rising China who may be friend or foe. Plus the various nutcases out there who would love to dump some VX into a subway or office building. And the usual tribulations of dealing with Cuba, and Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, and other states that may not pose much of a threat but which don’t want to operate within the world system or at least refrain from torturing their own people.
We let down our guard after Soviet communism collapsed, thinking that history had ended and we had won it all. But while we vanquished a single state that could wipe us out, we now must face multiple threats who, though unable to kill 100,000,000 of us in twenty minutes, will settle for 100,000.
Amazingly enough, this is better. And I do have hope.
"Hussein’s Resistance" (Posted December 14, 2002)
Iraq's Saddam hopes he can delay our invasion until our will fades, hoping our allies will melt away in the face of ambiguities over right and wrong; or hopes that a bloody defense of Iraqi soil will prompt massive resistance to us in the world. Or deter us in the first place. He has wrapped himself in Islamist ideology to appeal to the widespread tendency to blame for us for the failures of the Moslem world even though it is their own damn fault.
All the more reason to break Saddam—and soon.
If we give Saddam time by delaying an invasion too long, he may very well break the Europeans, or maybe North Korea will invade the South, or something. That is the problem with giving our enemy time to prepare, time to act against us. Their plan might actually work before we can launch ours.
We need to ruthlessly prosecute this war to crush Saddam. Leave no doubt that the self-proclaimed champion of Islam was ripped to shreds. Who cares that right now he gets points for resisting the world’s only superpower? The important thing is that Saddam should lose—badly and clearly. The article says he is appealing to the street as bin Laden did. But the massive uprising on the street failed in the face of his dramatic defeat in Afghanistan and the fall of his protectors, the Taliban. As he said, the street likes to go with the strong horse. So now the street’s irrational hope for blaming America for their failures and having another strong man to stand up to us rests on Saddam’s shoulders.
A despicable champion to be sure that says much about the bankruptcy of their societies. But since they have chosen Saddam, Saddam must die. And with him their hopes for killing us.
Once they lose hope of killing us and winning, maybe we can have a real discussion of what they can do to build a decent society with hope for the future. Once they stop believing that killing us is their road to success, we can talk.
But first things first. No mercy in waging the war. Win it decisively and quickly.
On to Baghdad.
"Mobilization Begins" (Posted December 14, 2002)
Well, mobilization is beginning. I was getting antsy that it should begin soon if we are to invade by the end of the year. The US will call up a whole bunch of reservists soon. Is it enough for a war to begin before the end of the year? The article still speaks of mobilization actually occurring in January, but this doesn’t have to be so. Plus, I’m no expert on timetables and plans, but with so many reservists already on active duty, could we at lest start the invasion without tipping our hand by mobilizing too many more prior to invasion? British mobilization, on the other hand, has not begun. On the news today, it was reported that the British will send troops to the Gulf starting in January. But they have some in Kuwait already. And maybe we don’t need all that heavy armor they are planning to send. Maybe paratroopers, marines, and airmobile infantry that can be flown in are all we want for the invasion. As with all that heavy stuff we have in our Gulf and Atlantic ports waiting to be sent, maybe the British armor division is just a diversion. Everybody assumes invasion must wait for them but they just aren’t in the plan.
Maybe all the signs that invasion won’t happen until January or February are true, but I don’t know. I’d rather go earlier than later. I’m still holding to December 27 as D-Day. Air attacks begin and within a day to a week the ground troops go into Iraq in force.
"War Timing" (Posted December 13, 2002)
One carrier that was somewhere at sea is back in Japan. Another carrier is heading home and due on the east coast December 20. Everyone says late January or February is when we attack. It seems to be the consensus of the defense experts.
I don’t know. I still guess by the end of this year—with December 27 as my D-Day choice. After all the talk of five carriers gathered in December, having only three means what? That we won’t attack? Will we have more in January or February? I don’t follow the carriers that closely but it seems unlikely. It seems that those carriers could start moving real soon to get in position if we need them by December 27. If the Washington battlegroup gets called to West African waters or something and homecoming is delayed until the end of the year, could she do a high speed dash through the Gibralter Strait at night and make it to eastern Med. Before anyone knows it isn’t heading home? Undetected? Or has the five carrier convergence been a red herring? Can we go with three? We’ve had a leap in capabilities even since the Kosovo campaign so we may not need very many aircraft to carry out a precision air campaign.
Still, I have to believe that we must see significant troop movements within days. Especially the 101st AB Division. Maybe to Germany to be able to stage right into airheads in western Iraq. And what of the British? Will we wait for their heavy division? I didn’t think that Britain would commit as much as it appears to be publicly stated. Is the British force another false piece of the puzzle that people wait to move as a sign war is soon? Otherwise, American troops need to fall in on that prepositioned equipment we already have there. I know we don’t want them there too early but this is getting ridiculous!
It just feels like Rumsfeld’s trip to the Gulf was the last tour before invasion, assessing the commanders and troops and getting a feel for it. The material breaches are piling up and the President will make his case to the world and more importantly to the American people.
I’m starting to get nervous that the invasion will be later but I’m sticking to this year for now. After all, going early is the only way to get tactical surprise. And if everybody says January at the earliest…
On to Baghdad.
Oh, I ragged on the 100 stars in Landfill and then had a pang of guilt for mocking them so. See Landfill for the attack and apology/explanation. Depending on when you read this, it may be in the archives.
“Show Support” (Posted
From a DOD press release
received today:
SUPPORT
OUR TROOPS
With the holidays approaching, thousands of Americans
are again asking what they can do to show their support for servicemembers,
especially those serving overseas in this time of war. Below are Web sites for
several organizations that are sponsoring programs for members of the Armed
Forces overseas. While it would be inappropriate for the Department to endorse
any specifically, servicemembers do value and appreciate
such expressions of support:
Donate a calling card to help keep servicemembers
in touch with their families at Operation Uplink at http://www.operationuplink.org/
Send a greeting via e-mail through Operation Dear Abby
at http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/
or www.OperationDearAbby.net
Sign a virtual thank you card at the Defend America Web site at http://www.defendamerica.mil/nmam.html
Make a donation to one of the military relief societies:
Army Emergency Relief at http://www.aerhq.org/
Navy/Marine Relief Society at http://www.nmcrs.org/
Air Force Aid Society at http://www.afas.org/
Coast Guard Mutual Assistance at http://www.cgmahq.org/
Donate to"Operation USO
Care Package" at http://www.usometrodc.org/care.html
Support the American Red Cross Armed Forces Emergency
Services at http://www.redcross.org/services/afes/
Volunteer at a VA
Hospital to honor veterans who bore the lamp of freedom in past conflicts.
Reach out to military families in your community,
especially those with a loved one overseas.
Please do not flood the military mail system with
letters, cards, and gifts. Due to security concerns and transportation
constraints, the Department cannot accept items to be mailed to " Any Servicemember ." Some people have tried to avoid
this prohibition by sending large numbers of packages to an individual servicemember's address, which however well intentioned,
clogs the mail and causes unneccessary delays.
The support and generosity of the American people has
touched the lives of many servicemembers, over
300,000 of whom are deployed overseas.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2002/b12122002_bt632-02.html
I know what I am going to be doing this weekend. Our
people in uniform have my sincerest thanks for protecting all of us. The least
I can do is let them know.
On to
“
Iranian
situation continues to develop toward revolution—one friendly to us. Yet
aside from Ledeen at National Review, few cover this much. I can’t
believe that the administration is failing to support the growing revolt
because it doesn’t want the
Ledeen says “faster, please,” but although I have much
sympathy for that view, I say, “after
Turn on the pressure on
Then, deal with the hard
one—nuclear-armed
On to
"Shakespeare" (Posted December 10, 2002)
Well, the latest experiment to see if 100 chimps banging away on typewriters can come up with Shakespeare will release its results soon.
One hundred of our best line readers will tell us what they think about our foreign policy with Iraq. They couldn’t tell the difference between VX and VD yet they assume we give a rip about what they think. I guess this is what we get for letting nerdy movie critics pass judgment on their work. The artists are getting their revenge.
After telling us that only those who served in combat can support war, those who only played soldiers on TV will weigh in against war.
Truly, this is the most anticipated opinion piece since Amy Carter opined on the greatest threat to American security during the Dark Ages of the Carter administration.
I eagerly await the letter from the stars.
I bet it’s "Q."
“Peace Prize” (Posted
Here we have, on the occasion
of his
receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, the reason the Euros love former
president Jimmy Carter:
“Jimmy Carter
will probably not go down in American history as the most effective
president," said Gunnar Berge, chairman of the
five-member Norwegian awards committee, in introducing the winner at this
afternoon's solemn ceremony in Oslo's ornate city hall. "But he is
certainly the best ex-president the country ever had."
Clearly, the Euros hold a
special place in their surrendering hearts for ineffective American presidents.
It is amusing, though. A critic of Carter would have been hard pressed to issue
a better left-handed compliment.
Carter shined as usual with
his failure to grasp history. In his rebuke of our determination to wage war
against
And then, in possibly his
most outrageous statement:
While declaring
again his deep Christian faith, he denounced those who used religion as a cloak
of justification for suicide bombings and other acts of terror. "In order
for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we
find it necessary first to dehumanize our opponents, which is in itself a
violation of the beliefs of all religions," he said. "Once we characterize
our adversaries as beyond the scope of God's mercy and grace, their lives lose
all value."
But Carter said
this false justification applied not only to terrorists, but to combatants in
high-tech modern warfare. "From a great distance, we launch bombs or
missiles with almost total impunity, and never look to know the number or
identity of the victims," he told the audience, which included the king
and queen of Norway and dozens of his own friends and relatives.
So, when “we”—and I assume he
means America—launch weapons from a range that safeguards our pilots from
death, he finds that equivalent to suicide bombers who deliberately target
civilians.
He does more harm to
Truly, he tests our belief in
freedom of speech. No, he should not be restrained (except by himself should he
have a sudden pang of conscience for his actions and words), but in my mind he
will always be an enemy combatant.
“Anti-War Protesters Say They
Protect Ordinary Iraqis?” (Posted
An interesting report
by the International Crisis Group noted in the Washington Post on December 9.
The first interesting part to note is the
second footnote that indicates that Voices in the Wilderness reports that
Iraqis fear the brunt of war will be on them and so will fight us. The Voices
crowd actually wants to act as human shields for Saddam’s regime so it isn’t
too surprising that the victims of Saddam will say such things. Would you
really tell the truth to a bunch of foreigners who are so addled that they
would come to
In any case, the
International Crisis Group was surprised to find that Iraqis are eager for
invasion. Far from representing the beginning of war, our invasion will signal
the end of the wars and war deprivation that have been ongoing since 1980 when
Saddam started his blood-stained path to glory over the bodies of his neighbors
and his own people. The mere fact that people spoke to
the interviewers rather than fear reprisals indicated to the ICG people that
they must truly expect change. This is the best part”
Attitudes toward a
All those in the West who
still defend Saddam’s brutal regime will have a lot to answer for when these
people are freed. They may well ask why those who lived in the safety and
freedom of the West did not cry out for those in
Let’s not let the Iraqis
down. I’d hate to have to explain our inaction at this late date. After we know so much.
There are no more excuses for
looking away.
On to
"The Apology. Part II" (Posted December 8, 2002)
Just saw on 'Meet the Press' that the Iraqi apology claimed they invaded Kuwait in 1990 because they believed they were justified because America was about to invade Iraq. Aside from the ridiculous charge undermined by the many months it took us to gear up for the attack and the failure to march on Baghdad (which must have been our intention if we are to believe the Iraqis since we allegedly planned our attack before Iraq captured Kuwait), it is nice to see Saddam endorsing the concept of preventive war. Indeed, his rationale for attacking Iran in 1980 relied on this concept as well.
Of course, if we rely on Saddam precedents, we could commit any horror to achieve our objectives.
On to Baghdad.
"The Apology" (Posted December 8, 2002)
In the spirit of Iraq’s ‘acceptance’ of UNSC Resolution 1441 and their non-declaration of their banned weapons programs, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein has ‘apologized’ for invading Kuwait. Indeed, it is in the same spirit that a child, scolded for telling another child he is ugly, tells the offended party under pressure, "I’m sorry you’re ugly.’ (And wasn’t it only last August that the Iraqis celebrated the anniversary of their invasion by telling the Kuwaitis they ‘deserved’ the Iraqi invasion?)
According to the Iraqis, Saddam said, "We apologize to God for any action in the past . . . that was considered to be our responsibility, and we apologize to you on the same basis."
So get that, not that he thinks they did anything wrong by invading, looting, and brutalizing Kuwait, but they concede that some ‘consider’ some unnamed ‘actions’ to be their responsibility. And they apologize only because some consider those actions to be Iraq’s responsibility.
It’s like dealing with a naughty seven year old who’s holding a loaded shotgun. An amazing inability to accept responsibility in the real world on a reasonable basis combined with the ability to do great harm.
And of course, as with any insincere apology compelled by some authority figure, Saddam then attacks Kuwait. He blasts the Kuwaitis for hosting American troops and for letting us use Kuwait to enforce the no-fly zones. Of course, this is where Saddam unintentionally lets some truth out: "As you can see, the foreigners are occupying your country in a direct occupation," he said. "And, as you know, when the foreigners occupy a country, they don't only desecrate the soil, but also the soul, religion and mind." While our 12,000 or so personnel are there at the invitation of the government, Iraq’s couple-hundred thousand camped in Kuwait during their occupation following an uninvited invasion (unsanctified by the international community) truly did desecrate the soil, soul, religion, and mind.
The Kuwaitis rejected the apology.
To the French and the merely French-like, if some consider our actions to liberate Iraq and end the threat to the world of Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction to require us to say we’re sorry, well, tough. You’ll get no apology from us. You’re the ones who need to explain yourselves. Man, I’m looking forward to seeing the Iraqi archives. Much like the opening up of the Soviet and satellite records after communism fell, only the most tenured (and their pampered trust fund Marxist students) in the West will be able to deny the horrors they defended before we defeat our enemy.
On to Baghdad.
"Laying the groundwork" (Posted December 7, 2002)
Am I reading too much into this opinion piece or is King Abdullah II of Jordan justifying letting Americans use Jordan to launch the invasion of Iraq. The king said, in part:
Together, we share a responsibility to prevent the abuse of religion by those who would divide us. We have a special duty to combat injustice, which is so often exploited by extremists. Nowhere is our help needed more than in the Holy Land, where Palestinians and Israelis alike are crying out for peace, stability and security. Together we must urge their leaders to hear the voices of reason and peace, end oppression and occupation, stop the violence and create a future of hope.
Sounds like he is making an Islamic case for fighting those who abuse their religion for their own ends (bin Laden) and who represent injustice (Iraq). He simultaneously guards against those who admire these thugs simply because they say they fight for Palestinians. The king argues that he is working to solve that problem more effectively than the murderers and oppressors will ever do with terrorism and oppression.
To me this reads like the justification for letting us base what we need in Jordan to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime. Unless I miss my guess (and it is just a guess), Jordan will host the main effort aimed right at the heart of Iraq’s regime—Baghdad—that will bypass the cities and armed forces of Iraq until they reach the outskirts of Baghdad.
And the Iraqi declaration today says they have no weapons of mass destruction. This is the clear material breach that even the French will have to accept. They blew their last hope of sidetracking our invasion.
On to Baghdad. Soon.
"Baffling" (Posted December 6, 2002)
I am honestly baffled by this. How on Earth can these people go to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussein? How does being "anti-war" turn into being pro-murdering dictator? The story says: "The four Canadians, sponsored by an anti-war organization called Voices in the Wilderness, have volunteered to be human shields in an effort to dissuade American-led forces from attacking Iraq."
Let me just say that no American soldier, Marine, or pilot should take any steps to avoid killing these idiots if it would increase the chance that the Americans would themselves die. If those mossy-brained dolts want to die for Saddam—let them.
In the real world, we wait for the Iraqi declaration that they have nothing but dual use chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. Dual use in the sense that they can be used to kill soldiers or civilians, of course. It is actually depressing that Saddam’s thug regime will require young Americans to die in order to prevent Saddam from inflicting even more death in the future should he go unchecked. It is infuriating that Voices in the Wilderness would defend a regime with professional rapists on the payroll. Infuriating but not surprising.
Bombs away, guys.
“
In my mind anyway, the
The Marines with some of the
British armor attached would seize
Eventually, some of the forces
under Marine command could then assist V Corps in crossing the
The Iraqis have pulled so far
back to avoid getting hammered that we could simulate the main attack for days
before the nature of the plan becomes apparent.
Of course, I really have no
idea what will happen other than the big picture of a major ground invasion
that will overthrow the regime.
Heck, maybe it will be a real
surprise and the invasion will roll out of
On to
“Iraqis Say They Will Use
Chemical Weapons” (Posted
As the December 8 deadline for
|
No.4 |
|
|
Unidentified Senior Iraqi Official: We Did Not
Hesitate to Use WMD in the Past and Will Not Stand Idly By This Time Either In the first statement of its
kind, a senior Iraqi official confirmed that his country is not ruling out
the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction to defend the regime.
His statements were published in a lead article in today's London-based
Arabic-language daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, which is known to support Saddam Hussein. [1] The articles title stated
that Iraqi sources do not rule out the possibility of using chemical weapons
to defend the regime. The following are excerpts from the article: "A
senior Iraqi official who refused to reveal his name said that the Iraqi
regime would defend its existence and its reputation. The Iraqi official said
unequivocally: 'When the regime was under intense attack in Al-Fau and began to be under threat, it did not hesitate to
use all the weapons of mass destruction in its possession. Similarly, when
the people of Halabja, or some of them, became
guides for the Iranian forces that tried to breach the northeast [front], the
regime did not hesitate to use chemical weapons.' Therefore, 'do not expect
us to stand idly by in the face of any aggression that seeks to destroy and
banish us not only from the regime but also from life.'" A
top party official from Iraq in "First,
deployment of the Republican Guard forces at the periphery of the cities,
primarily "Second,
deployment of special forces that will include the 'elite of the elite' - in
his words - inside the capital "Third,
deployment of groups of 'Saddam's Fedayeen' within
the capital and in other cities, to control the internal situation and
participate in the resistance operations." The
party official further stated: "The collapse of the Iraqi forces in 1991
and their refraining from resisting as much as was necessary will not recur
this time, because The
official added that "Iraq does not put its trust in the Arab regimes and
Arab masses at all; Iraq will rely on itself this time, and will not be
surprised if some of the Arab regimes collaborate with the American
aggression and even participate in it." The
top party official spoke "with bitterness" of The
Al-Quds Al-Arabi article
also quoted members of the Iraqi opposition. |
But we all know we Americans
are just being belligerent when we claim that the peace loving Iraqis have
weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis say they have none and we should just
believe them. Honestly, we are sullying their reputation by disbelieving their
denial that they have chemical weapons. And they’ll gas us until we stop lying,
apparently.
Note on MEMRI. I will concede
that, as critics of MEMRI hold, MEMRI looks for the worst of the worst to
translate, so I don’t assume their collection is necessarily representative.
One could probably do the same for statements coming out of
On to
“Image” (Posted
Many around the Islamic world
are apparently upset
with our effort to improve our image with them. They say it is a waste. They
say our policy is to blame. They would help themselves more by worrying about
their image over here. They honestly complain about our policy? Given all we have done to help Islamic countries and
people? They complain when we refuse to sign off on a war between Christianity
and Islam when the Islamofascists fervently claim to
want one? I’d say we have done an awful damn lot to help them and they better
worry about their policies. Oppress women? We don’t like it. Slaughter non-Moslems
when you don’t like what they say or write? We’re against that. Kill us in our
office buildings? We really don’t like that. Cheer in the streets when we are
killed? That gets us mad. Issue fatwahs at the same rate we issue patents? We
despise that.
Our policies
are offensive, indeed.
It’s amazing. If we do
something or nothing, we are to blame. After all, if nothing has happened, just
make up the evil that we did. Or twist what good thing we did into evil. Or
just dismiss the help we’ve provided by saying it was done in “our interest”
alone. Whether we feed them or rescue them, we’ve done wrong. And when they do
something horrible to us? Well, we provoked it. We are to blame again. It is a
very easy philosophy to grasp. Whatever happens or does not happen is the fault
of
I’m tempted to say the State
Department should fund a massive “Bite me” ad campaign.
But that’s just the anger and
frustration talking. Winning requires fighting smart and we should not write
off the Islamic world because some try to kill us and many wallow in a
blameapalooza to excuse their backwardness. Waging a battle for the hearts and
minds of the many Moslems who are not filled with hate is a fine thing to do.
Just remember, however, that we owe the killers nothing but the business end of
a thermobaric bomb. The Moslem world, while tolerating killers in their midst, should
pray five times a day that we don’t conclude we really are in a war between
civilizations the way those killers claim.
“Terrain” (Posted December 2,
2002)
Check out this terrain
map showing suitability for cross country movement. I’d sure rather advance
down the Jordan-Iraq highway than slog up through the
I still want a
Oh, our first Stryker Brigade
won’t be ready until May 2003. It will be too late for anything but Iraqi
occupation duty. Still, might a battalion task force be ready? Just for testing
concepts?
“Puff Peace” (Posted
What an amazing puff
piece on the “peace” movement to protect
After
large rallies in Washington and San Francisco on Oct. 26, the next big day to
test the antiwar movement's might is Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day.
Hundreds of groups plan events, rallies and civil disobedience to capture the
nation's attention, including demonstrations in
No mention of the role of
Stalinists in organizing the protests. Just a mention that the Workers World
Party is one of many diverse protest groups—how sweet that they should join
hands against that evil war thing, eh? No mention of the hard left agenda at
all. Let’s see what happens if an oil company sponsors a “support freedom in
Do they see nothing wrong
with bestowing this kind of moral standing on a regime that is brutal beyond
mere atrocity reports? Have they no decency? Where were their signs when Saddam
invaded
The British have a report
out on Saddam’s
atrocities. Amnesty International is, of course, outraged that their work
will justify war. Can they not be happy that somebody will do something about a
regime they admit is repulsive and brutal beyond comprehension? This does
highlight the difference between those who ignored Saddam before, and now
either want war or are against war. Those for war today never, as far as I can
tell, defended Saddam’s virtues prior to 1990—he was merely the lesser of two
evils (or the lesser of several). This is a perfectly defensible position in my
opinion, but one that does not claim moral superiority. The fact that there are
now reasons to hold Saddam as the greater threat does not erase the fact that
his regime is and has been evil. No hypocrisy is required to go from tolerating
Saddam to promoting his overthrow. The anti-war crowd, however, by claiming the
moral high ground in opposing death and war, have a lot to answer for in
explaining why they were silent for more than twenty years and only roused
themselves to anger now.
Peace protesters indeed. They
shield a monster and pretend it is virtue.
I stand proudly as “pro war”
if that is the epithet they would hurl at me.
On to