http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28740-2002Jul31.html And my favorite part: ???? The "civilians" should just admit that they don't want to send the necessary number of ground troops because it would not be politically advantageous for Bush.
I guess the American people are superfluous in this whole war thing, huh? I guess that our whole pretense of being a democratic republic is pretty much out the window. Let's start with a declaration of war by Congress. That's what the Constitution says.
You don't need Congress to approve anything if an operation can be done in less than 90 days. Not that I'm supporting an invasion or Iraq, but I firmly believe that the military should decide how many troops they want to conduct war, not some civilians. That was one of our downfalls in Vietnam, the politicians controlled too much.
Wag the Dog Isn't this pretty much the same set of points people went over in the lead up to Gulf War I, when the debate was whether to come in on the side of Kuwait? People were painting Iraq's armed forces as the biggest and baddest, by far, throughout the Middle East, and talking about Hussein's possession of and willingness to use "the poor man's nuclear weapons" (nerve gas, etc.). Why are we watching these re-runs without anybody in Washington taking note of recent history? 1) the Gulf War did not accomplish one of its central objectives (stabilizing the Middle East), and in fact seems to have made things worse by having strained US supporters there and elsewhere for no clear benefit. 2) Virtually all Arab leaders are warning against the US taking steps against Iraq prior to any kind of real movement toward resolution on the Palestine/Israel issue. 3) WTF is going on in the Bush II administration? The debate is not "should we or should we not", but "how big should the invasion be"? Has Bush or any of his trainers even come close to articulating to the American people a coherent argument as to why an invasion of Iraq is in US (or anybody else's) best interests? 4) Speaking of interests, when all the Energy Moguls sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom were/are busy telling Bush what to do, was/is invading Iraq (possessor of the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East) on the list? My guess is you damn betcha.
Re: Wag the Dog that would mean involving all that messy, bleeding heart democracy. and yes, there are those with a great interest in invading iraq. they are the same ones that own the majority of the stock in our democracy.
Better yet, let's wait until he has nuclear weapons. Or until he uses a nuclear weapon. Or until he uses chemica...never mind.
From: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13710 According to Ritter, there is no justification, in terms of national security, international law or basic morality, to justify this coming war with Iraq. When asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied, simply, "Everything." "This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."
And who was it who armed Saddam in the first place during his war with Iran? Answers on a postcard please.
Thanks for posting this. It makes Ritter out to be more of a wacko than I previously thought. I'll stick with the opinion of the UN's chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler. Or wait, maybe he's been hijacked by the "neo-conservatives" too?
Whatever we do, make it swift and decisive once the fighting starts. My feeling is that the civilian staff want it quickly resolved, hence the less amount of troops involved. More troops means more buildup means a longer to time to achieve the objective, whatever the objective is. Having served in the Air Force, I'm on the side of the military leaders. I have more confidence in the Generals' abilities to negotiate a campaign such as this. I don't want this becoming another Vietnam.
The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 limits the Presidents power to deploy troops into combat situations for a length of only 60 days (oops I originally said 90). After that he needs approval from Congress to continue any operations. Congress has the sole power to declare war. Here's a GREAT site, detailing the War Powers Act. http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html
Considering he testified that he had seen no evidence that Iraq had shared weapons technology with terrorist groups (unlike the administration's view), I would say "no."
Should we invade every nation with nukes? Why are we doing this? "Ann Richards said mean things about my deddy. Check. Bill Clinton beat my deddy. Check. Saddam wouldn't retire gracefully, and that's why Bill Clinton beat my deddy. I'm comin' after you." Yes, in my heart of hearts, that really truly ooly is what I think is happening. Here's a quick little exercise: Were the Bushies planning to invade Iraq before Sept 11? Are the Bushies using Sept. 11 as a reason for invading Iraq (and by reason, I mean, have they made a case using evidence)? So far as I know, the answer to both questions is no. That leaves the scary conclusion that Bush is waging this war either for personal reasons or for domestic political reasons.
If it can be done in two months, wow, go for it. Seriously, the War Powers Act is as flawed as the theory that as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the right to put troops directly into combat. If a President, for example, invades Iraq, and for some reason after two months we're bogged down in an ugly, bloody quagmire, Congress pretty much has to declare war or surrender. Congress was supposed to be the body that decides if Americans would be in combat in the first place - any other interpretation is as impractical as it is unconstitutional. If the reasons for overthrowing Saddam are that compelling, why would Congress say no?
Has Butler come out and said the US should attack Iraq? I'd be absolutely shocked if that were the case.
Thanks Dante! I assume (given the timing) that this had something to do with our prolonged involvement in SE Asia.
Remember it took us 100 hours on the ground to kick Saddam's ass last time. We would've been on the outskirts of Baghdad in another 100. IMO 2 weeks of preparation (airstrikes and arming/infiltrating Kurdish, Iraqi National Congress, and Sunni rebels) followed by 2 weeks of ground fighting will be enough. This isn't Vietnam, it's not even Afghanistan. We kicked Saddam's ass in 100 hours last time and IIRC he is estimated to have less than half of his fighting capability from 1991 (not including weapons of mass destruction). We won't be fighting in a jungle and we won't be fighting in the mountains. We'll be fighting on flat, wide-open desert--perfect for our tanks. Remember, our fvckign RESERVISTS steamrollered his "elite" Republican Guard last time. Now this time will be tougher because we'll need to actually go into Baghdad and take out Saddam, but that's why we have special operations troops. Soften up the target with airstrikes and Tomahawks, send in the Marines and best Army units (101st Airborne, 10th Mountain Division comign down from the north, etc) along with British, Australian, and Turkish units first, use our reservists for clean-up, push to the outskirts of Baghdad then send for the Rangers. I think we get it done in a month from first air-strike to taking control (not including the time it will take to get our troops amassed in Turkey and the Gulf states). Afterwards we occupy and Marshall Plan them. Alex
And should we expect to see you in the first wave of American troops? From: http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1027953256453&p=1012571727102 "Rolf Ekeus, head of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991-97, has accused the US and other Security Council members of manipulating the United Nations inspections teams for their own political ends." So Mr. Butler may not be as apolitical as you think.
> We won't be fighting in a jungle and we won't be > fighting in the mountains. We'll be fighting on > flat, wide-open desert--perfect for our tanks. The southwest part of Iraq is flat desert, and there are no better desert fighters in the world than our army. But southeast Iraq is swamp and further northeast it is mountanous. If they escape there, it will be a harder fight. > Soften up the target with airstrikes and > Tomahawks, send in the Marines and best Army > units (101st Airborne, 10th Mountain Division > comign down from the north, etc) along with > British, Australian, and Turkish units first, use our > reservists for clean-up, push to the outskirts of > Baghdad then send for the Rangers. This isn't a good battle plan (not that we have seen one yet from whomever leaks them to the NY Times). Light infantry isn't designed to invade a nation - you need heavy armor for that. Light forces do not have the organic support needed for long marches. The 10th Mountain would be totally dependent on helicopters, which are very inefficient. We havn't even worked out if Turkey will let us invade from their nation. And Rangers are the wrong force to send into a urban warfare situation - that is the job of Marines. > I think we get it done in a month from first air >-strike to taking control (not including the time it > will take to get our troops amassed in Turkey and > the Gulf states). How long will it take to get the supplies and equipment there in the first place? It took us half a year at maximum effort last time. Good thing our air travel industry is in the crapper - we can use all those airliners sitting in the desert now. But it will still take more then 3 months after we start getting ready before an invasion can start, unless they use one of the crazy light plans.