To date, there's been no beef that has been shown and the intelligence put forward has been caked more in convenience than in fact.
Matter of perspective and opinion. I personally have, what I consider, VERY LOGICAL and and imperative rationales for why Saddam must be removed.. Most of them have their foundation in the demographic trend in the muslim world, where 40% of the their population is under the age of 18.
But it's tough for the US to openly argue that they are ousting Saddam because so many muslims are young and that we're intent on undermining the authoritarian social fabric that reinforces autocratic rule and their entire class (quasi caste) system..
And the policy makers can't publicly acknowledge that its ultimate target is Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist religious structure, or that quite possibly the US might support the Hashemite secession to the House of Saud.
But for folks, like myself, who try and understand to far-reaching trends and necessary solutions, all of the above are necessary in order to create economic prosperity in the region and reduce the emmigration of millions of Muslims into the West nations... effectively as "stealth invasion" of its own undermining western values and systems.
Now for your scenario about Baghdad. I think there is this false impression that US forces will ever be required to invade Baghdad proper and engage in house to house fighting. Frankly, we'd be stupid to do that. That would be playing into Saddam's game and that's not how to win a war.
What does the US need to do to effectively castrate Saddam and make the situation ripe for an internal coup?? Actually conducting the invasion.. seizing the oil fields... "neutralizing" any Iraqi military formations foolish enough to oppose us... Encircle Baghdad, and principally, Takrit, cutting the two cities off from any contact with the outside world.... And then just sit back and launch the final phase of an intensive psychological warfare operation (currently underway with all of this war-talk) until the citizenry rise up and overthrow him.
So I HOPE Saddam gives weapons to his people. Because we're going to sit back, if we're smart, and let Saddam be responsible for taking care of anyone foolish enough to remain loyal to him.
Also, look at how Von Paulus waged the Stalingrad campaign.. He charged right into the heart of the city in an attempt to split a wedge into it all the way to the Volga river. He failed, and became embroiled in bitter house to house fighing (y'all watch "enemy at the gates"??)..
Instead, he should have encircled and cut off the city from its supply lines, capturing a bridgehead on the far side of the volga and forcing a surrender. Blitzkrieg(air-land battle) is like zen buddhism.. Flow around points of resistance.. neutralize them, contain them, and cut them off while you go for their lines of communications, supplies, and central command.
As for Mogadishu, anyone who watched "Blackhawk Down" knows why we lost that one... We were there as "peace-keepers", not as a police force intent on disarming and restructuring the political system. We launched raids, without proper armor being provided for a quick reaction force (the Pakistanis were a UN force and not available for supporting US missions).
We shouldn't sweat the risk of US inflicted casualities too much.. Anyone willing to defend Saddam deserves to share his fate, IMO. And anyone looking to be part of the new Iraq, will know that the best they can do is surrender, revolt, or just take their uniforms off and act like civilians.
Hawk |
