>>>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.<<<
Regarding the Muslim youth I think all you need do is look how young Palestinians are behaving. If you make a larger Israel, i.e., the US, in the heart of the Middle East the hatred amongst Muslim youth will increase, not decrease. Given America's track record on helping South and Latin American youth, I don't see anything like this happening in the Middle East. Heck Cuba ranks better than most Latin and South American nations in most categories.
But I will assert that economics is a far better weapon for improvement than is the tool of war. War is failure, not success. On that, I agree with the French. But the French weren't the first ones to realize that. We should have a long, long time ago!
>>>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.<<<
I think that's wishful thinking. Also a very expensive proposition that carries with it tremendously horrible public relations. I don't think the US could withstand the siege, never mind Baghdad. Two things would happen under this scenario: a) Widening worldwide hatred for the US, to include areas where once we had allies; and, b) OBL has a field day picking up new troop terrorists.
>>>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.<<<
Not that this couldn't happen, but I doubt it will happen. I'd imagine he'd be very secluded. And I suspect he's prepared for a long siege of the city. Tikrit, however, will easily fall--it's simply not large enough to sustain any kind of staying power.
>>>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.<<<
Sure. Our troops sweating it out in the desert, while encirling Baghdad for several months? I doubt this will or could happen.
>>>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.<<<
Actually, that's not what happened. Sure we were there as peacekeepers. But that particular mission was not a peacekeeper mission. We were acting on our own and there was tremendous hesitancy and considerable embarressment to have to call the UN for support. The mission could almost be described as renegade as to what the UN's true intentions were.
>>>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).<<<
This is not the only place where this has happened. Just 'cause we've got extremely well-trained and very well-equipped elite fight units doesn't necessarily guarantee a successful mission.
>>>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.<<<
That might have been so when they were being run out of Kuwait. But it's a bit different defending one's own homeland. My gut tells me the oddsmakers see a fierce battle for Baghdad, and not the easy and assumed surrender.
There's also a risk that Iran, fearing it'll be next on Bush's list, could join the campaign. Although doubtful, possibly Syria too. I think any general will tell you that there's no such thing as a textbook war. And that appears to be what you think will happen. You might wish to reconsider. |
