I say he is crazy because I am speaking to you in our terms. :)
I agree if the coalition is getting weaker, waiting will only make our situation worse. That doesn't mean we're going to start.
Furthermore, it doesn't mean that even if we start, we're going
to necessarily 'win'. Aside from the fact that we have 1/10th the forces we had during the Gulf War there, the fight is not necessarily about who can kill more of the opponent. To me the definition of "win" is the elimination of Saddam as a threat to the region. To Saddam, the definition of "win" can be (pick any):
1) The killing of a few hundred Americans
2) A quick doubling of oil prices so he can make some quick money
3) Gassing Tel Aviv.
4) Another mobilization into Kuwait, but this time, continuing right through to the Saudi Oil fields (low probability).
If he can do any of these and still be the head of Iraq when he's finished, then that's probably a victory for him.
On a side note:
People don't realize how close we came to losing the 1991 war before it even began. Saddam took over Kuwait and then stayed there. He gambled that the world would accept his move, because he offered lower oil prices. In gambling, he gave us time to build up our forces in Saudi Arabia. Before we built up our forces, he had the ability to roll right down through the major oil fields on the NorthEast coast of Saudi Arabia. Had he done that, he would have controlled most of the worlds oil AND we would have had no place to put our forces. |
