On Thursday 12 Sep 2002 11:03 pm, Cleveland, Kyle E. wrote:
> Oddly enough, the Pentagon conundrum is not, as the media contends,
> between the Hawks and Doves. In reality, unilateral attack is
> probably moot. The issue is whether to go forward with an
> Afghanistan-style operation (promoted by the Air Force) which
> prefers an air assault directed by teams of Special Forces on the
> ground (200 soldiers, tops). The Army, however, prefers more of a
> "Desert Storm" approach of using the air forces to take out the
> infrastructure, followed by a mechanized ground assault on Baghdad.
> There's a lot of inter-nicene squabbling about the "how" of the
> attack. Critical to both approaches is how fast stability can be
> brought to the region without a Kurdish uprising, thus pissing off
A Kurdish uprising would be the least of their worries, if US/UK
unilaterally attack Iraq the whole Middle East will be thrown into
turmoil, at least two "pro western" countries whould switch to Moslem
fundamentalism. If Bush/Blair have such good "dope" on his "Nuke
Factory" then take it out, you don't need to invade the whole
country. Snatching away his toys every couple of years is really
going to piss him off. Drop the sanctions, improve the lot of your
aaverage Iraqi, make them think "well maybe Uncle Sam's not so bad".
> Sadaam's point-of-view is that if the regime can survive the
> initial assault, the US will not have the stomach for a full-scale
> ground assault on Baghdad (which is what happened in 1991).
> Bush and Blair are quickly losing credibility by holding their
> cards close. They say, "We have the goods on Sadaam. We'll show
> you (U.N. Security Council)next month or November." Sorry, Tony
> and Dubya, you boys ain't got a month.
> The coalition can and probably will win the war, but waiting until
> the mid-term elections are over is too transparent even for a dumb
> redneck like me.