Hi twfowler; Re: "I never said it would be a cakewalk or even indirectly suggested it would be."
I agree. I said that the Iraqis would fight us by guerilla war in the cities and that we would eventually have to pull out in ignominy after a long and bloody occupation. You said that you didn't know for sure, but you doubted we'd stay long, and you were worried about Saddam getting nukes.
History has shown that my expectation of guerilla war in the cities was fulfilled. Even now, people who supported the war 2 years ago are saying that we should pull out after the elections and let the country do whatever it likes. The occupation continues, with a new high in the number of US ground troops, and new highs in US fatalities. My expectation is that if we do withdraw after the elections, the resulting government will be rather unfriendly to us, and less fearful of us than Saddam was, in that they will be convinced that they have beaten us on the ground.
Bilow, April 27, 2002
Iraq is not even a long term risk to the security of the United States.
...
Yes, after bombing the crap out of the Iraqis, our proudly marching troops are going to be greeted by cheering crowds in Baghdad, glad that we got rid of Saddam Hussein. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What a fantasy.
Message 17391929
Bilow, April 27, 2002
The last thing we want to do is to attack Iraq and then have to put up with 20 years of warfare against guerillas infiltrating from 4000 miles of border. Iraq makes Vietnam look easy.
Message 17400343
twfowler, in reply
That a big exageration. No jungle, better technology, no superpower help of Iraq, less political restrictions on our military once we do commit, and most of all nobody that will support Saddam as strongly as the Vietnamese communists pushed for a reunified communist Vietnam. BTW I'm not saying it would be simple, or even that we should do it, merely that it doesn't "make Vietnam look easy".
Message 17400449
Bilow, in reply
Re: "No jungle ..." That's the lesson that the Iraqis presumably learned in the Gulf War. If they learned their lesson (and who knows, they may not have), then future warfare with the US will be in the cities. Cities are not more suited for the US brand of warfare than jungle. In fact, jungles are somewhat easier as you can put together free fire zones that are against the rules of war in a city.
Message 17400813
Bilow, April 30, 2002
I have no doubt that we can take Baghdad, and that the above description [Stalingrad] does not apply. Instead, my doubt is in the question of whether or not we can pacify it. These are not small cities filled with people who are chafing under the rule of a hated foreign elite like the Afghanistani cities were. This is a proud and (in their eyes) used to "freedom" and self rule. They are not going to put up well with being under US occupation any better than the Palestinians have put up with Israeli occupation. Note that our troops in Afghanistan are there by invitation.
Message 17401731
twfowler, in reply
I undersand and agree with your point that we have to look at worst cases, but I think you are saying or at least implying that the worst case or something near to that is a forgone conclusion. I agree with the idea that it could be a mess and I understand that the possibility of such a mess might be a good reason not to go forward, but I disagree with your apparent assumption that it will be such a mess. The mere possibility might be enough for me to entirely rule out the option if it wasn't for 1 - The liklyhood that if we do nothing that Saddam will get nukes, and 2 - The violations of cease fire agreement giving us justification for an attack. Even with those I am still undecided at this point. I don't think we will have an extended occupation except perhaps at the request of some new government. I don't think anyone in the current administration plans to or even seriously thinks about making Iraq in to a colony. I also don't think Saddam is any more popular then the Taliban was. I don't think most of Iraq feels that free, and the Shia's and the Kurds don't feel they have self rule. I understand that people can and have fought hard for an abusive dictator but I don't think most of the Iraqi army will be that motivated in this case. (Of course the Republican Guard may be a different story and its a lot more powerful then the Taliban's forces where).
Message 17402656
-- Carl
P.S. By the way, the papers are reporting that Powell had stated, before the administration decided to begin claiming that Saddam was working on nukes, that Iraq was disarmed and no longer a threat. You were one of many that bought into that administration lie. By comparison, here is what I was saying before the war, about WMDs in general, not just nukes in particular:
Bilow, February 16, 2003
"Does Iraq have WMD or not?"
My guess is that they do not, but I don't know for sure.
Message 18587191
Bilow, February 18, 2003
The evidence in favor of Iraq is in the orders that have clearly come down from Saddam. Iraq has allowed inspectors into the Palaces, provided lists of scientists, etc. All these things are verifiable evidence that Iraq (not every Iraqi citizen or soldier, but the country as a whole) is submitting to inspections. This is what Iraq has been asked to do. In comparison to this solid evidence of a decision to disarm from the very top, the evidence that Powell provided is simply too weak to counter.
What Powell needs to do is to arrange the capture of one of those mobile weapons labs, if they exist.
The whole concept makes me laugh, since I know how big weapons factories typically are. It takes 10 tons of chemical weapons to kill a single soldier in combat (as of the Iran / Iraq war), so the concept that you're going to manufacture significant amounts of weapons in the back of a truck is ludicrous. Weapons factories are huge enterprises. Only assassins (or terrorists) can make weapons in the back of a truck, and there are plenty of weapons that are not WMDs that are just great at assassination.
Message 18593817 |
