| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2005 09:29:57 AM |
| Object: |
Neocon's "Cakewalk In Iraq", Washington Post, February 13, 2002. |
I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq
would be a cakewalk.
Let me give simple, responsible reasons:
(1) It was a cakewalk last time;
(2) they've become much weaker;
(3) we've become much stronger; and
(4) now we're playing for keeps.
http://united-states-of-earth.com/article.asp?MenuID=824
Cakewalk In Iraq
By Ken Adelman - Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire
warnings were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam
Hussein's regime.
Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and
Michael E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost
surely" need "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec.
26, 2001].
Worse: "Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the
Arab-Israeli wars suggest that . . . the United States could lose
thousands of troops in the process."
I agree that taking down Hussein would differ from taking down the
Taliban.
And no one favors "a casual march to war."
This is serious business, to be treated seriously.
In fact, we took it seriously the last time such fear-mongering was
heard from military analysts -- when we considered war against Iraq 11
years ago.
Edward N. Luttwak cautioned on the eve of Desert Storm:
"All those precision weapons and gadgets and gizmos and stealth
fighters . . . are not going to make it possible to re-conquer Kuwait
without many thousands of casualties."
As it happened, our gizmos worked wonders.
Luttwak's estimate of casualties was off by "many thousands," just as
the current estimates are likely to be.
I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq
would be a cakewalk.
Let me give simple, responsible reasons:
(1) It was a cakewalk last time;
(2) they've become much weaker;
(3) we've become much stronger; and
(4) now we're playing for keeps.
Gordon and O'Hanlon mention today's "400,000 active-duty troops in the
Iraqi military" and especially the "100,000 in Saddam's more reliable
Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard," which "would probably
fight hard against the United States -- just as they did a decade ago
during Desert Storm."
Somehow I missed that.
I do remember a gaggle of Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to an
Italian film crew.
The bulk of the vaunted Republican Guard either hunkered down or was
held back from battle.
Today Iraqi forces are much weaker.
Saddam's army is one-third its size then, in both manpower and number
of divisions.
It still relies on obsolete Soviet tanks, which military analyst Eliot
Cohen calls "death traps."
The Iraqi air force, never much, is half its former size.
Iraqi forces have received scant spare parts and no weapons upgrades.
They have undertaken little operational training since Desert Storm.
Meanwhile, American power is much fiercer.
The advent of precision bombing and battlefield intelligence has
dramatically spiked U.S. military prowess.
The gizmos of Desert Storm were 90-plus percent dumb bombs.
Against the Taliban, more than 80 percent were smart bombs.
Unmanned Predators equipped with Hellfire missiles and Global Hawk
intelligence gathering did not exist during the first Iraqi campaign.
In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a
domestic coalition.
Virtually the entire Democratic leadership stood against that
President Bush.
The public, too, was divided.
This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as
"coalition partners" to convince the Washington establishment that
we're right.
Americans of all parties now know we must wage a total war on
terrorism.
Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security
and civilization.
Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government
funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on
weapons of mass destruction -- and just as deep a hatred of America
and civilized free societies.
Once President Bush clearly announces that our objective is to rid
Iraq of Hussein, and our unshakable determination to do whatever it
takes to win, defections from the Iraqi army may come even faster than
a decade ago.
Gordon and O'Hanlon say we must not "assume that Hussein will quickly
fall."
I think that's just what is likely to happen.
How would it be accomplished?
By knocking out all his headquarters, communications, air defenses and
fixed military facilities through precision bombing.
By establishing military "no-drive zones" wherever Iraqi forces try to
move.
By arming the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south and his many
opponents everywhere.
By using U.S. special forces and some U.S. ground forces with
protective gear against chemical and biological weapons.
By stationing theater missile defenses, to guard against any Iraqi
Scuds still in existence.
And by announcing loudly that any Iraqi, of any rank, who handles
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, in any form, will be severely
punished after the war.
Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would
constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism.
_____________________________________________________
2,146 American troops are dead, 15,966 have been wounded, tens of
thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead and wounded in deranged Bush's
insane war and the Chickenhawk criminals roam free.
Harry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
