some thoughts on attacking Iraq (long)

[K_Kinnison]

See former Marine, author, and Reagan Navy Sec'y James Webb's piece, below; arguably, one of the most thoughtful, integrative, powerful pieces on the Iraq debate to date:

 

Washington Post

September 4, 2002

Pg. 21

 

Heading For Trouble

 

Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?

 

By James Webb

 

Country music's most popular song this summer is a defiantly nationalistic tune by Toby Keith, in which he warns potential adversaries that if they mess with us, "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." Last week the Chinese government showed us its way. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had brought a conciliatory gesture from the Bush administration, agreeing to recognize a separatist group in China's Xinjiang province as a terrorist entity. This diplomatic contortion was so appeasing that the Economist magazine labeled its logic "astonishing." And yet the day after Armitage left, the Chinese government sent its own political signal by "test-firing" a DF-4 missile, which has a range of more than 4,000 miles and was designed to attack U.S. military bases on Guam.

 

The implied disrespect of this incident did not occur in a vacuum, either militarily or diplomatically. As our country remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations have begun positioning themselves for an American war with Iraq and, most important, for its aftermath. China, which has pursued a strategic axis with key Islamic nations for nearly 20 years, received the Iraqi foreign minister just after Armitage's departure, condemning in advance an American attack on that country. Russia has been assiduously courting -- both diplomatically and economically -- all three nations identified by President Bush as the "axis of evil." Iran -- the number one state sponsor of international terrorism, according to our own State Department -- has conducted at least four flight tests of the nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile, whose range of 800 miles is enough to hit U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Central Asia.

 

Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and

a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? On this second point, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action included -- at a minimum -- Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.

 

America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust – was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations. With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.

 

Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.

 

The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is. Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival. Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II. Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's imperial family. Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's. The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.

 

In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.

 

These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.

 

The writer was assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration

[edlib]

Interesting.

Yeah, that's how most of the people I have talked to about this have felt, especially the part about the Muslim extremists escallating terrorist operations against American targets if we do go after Iraq right now. That seems like a given.

All right, Saddam REALLY isn't a very nice person, and is an obvious long-term problem and threat against American interests in that region ,.. but shouldn't we really finish our objectives against BinLaden and AlQuida first at least?

[K_Kinnison]

i thinke we should just send in a group of special forces,and have so-damn-insane assassinated, and his 2 sons ESPECIALLY the older one.

 

it would create a power vacume where they would be more worried about internal politics then what everyone else would do. then we can come in to "save the day" and offer assistance in human aid and junk and the poepl will have a new idea about us instead of what Saddam feeds them

[Gold leader]

IMHO, I think it would be in America's interest to meddle a bit more with the Israelian-Palestinian conflict, earn some credit (especially in the Middle-East) and use the new found credit to get UN approval to whack the moustached @$$hole.

[Zargon]

We can't just waltz in with aid and save the day......we tried that in somalia and it didn't exactly work out so well......

[K_Kinnison]

well the problem with somalia is that we thought we could do everyhting with air power... and were proven wrong.

 

we had a chance to take Bagdad in the Persian Gulf war, but the "objectives" were to push Iraq out of Kuwait. in fact, i have talked to some vets and they said they were about a mile away when they were told to go back.

 

wrong objectives is what really makes all these battles worthless. Let the military run the war, and keep the poloticians out of it

[Taarkin]

A large military presence won't be required as long in Iraq as it will in Afghanistan. Who's gonna want to live in caves for years fighting for an ousted Saddam?

[Nute Gunray]

Forget Israel, Palestine, and the entire middle east. they can keep their 15% of US oil imports. i'm sure mexico or russia would LOVE to see our money instead.

[Commander 598]

You do realize that we get good relations with the Israeli's if we invade Iraq.

[Tierce]

yeah...so what?..good relations with Israel=bad relations with the Arab world, and thats not good.

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by Commander 598

You do realize that we get good relations with the Israeli's if we invade Iraq.

 

this helps out how? Israel isn't Britian or China or Russia or some country that actually matters. It's a small nation in a region that only has ANY strategic value because we decided that it would be a good idea to buy oil from it. The only reason I like Israel is because they put the smack on the Palestinians who I don't like.

Israel actually could care less about Iraq. Iraq, for the most part, leaves them alone. They don't share a common border. Iraq and Israel are irrevelant to each other. Besides I'm sure they'd be ****ING THRILLED if we invaded Iraq and Iraq started randomly lobbing Scuds at them like last time.

 

the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST except for Egypt and Turkey are absolutely and entirely useless to the US. Shift oil production to other nations that CAN do it that we don't buy from and we solve ALL our problems except when the Arab commoners start realizing how much they depended on the Great Satan for everything.

[edlib]

Besides,.. don't we already HAVE good relations with Israel??? We are, without a doubt it's strongest, in not closest ally.

It seems to me that a lot of our problems in the middle-east come from the fact that we even recognize Israel as a nation (something that almost none of it's neighbors do), let alone have good dealings and relations with them.

I don't think that we need to get on thier good side, If anything the exact opposite is true... they should be working harder to get on OUR good side!

[Commander 598]

The world would much simpler if the Soviets were still around. Or the Germans were showing signs of taking over the world again.

[K_Kinnison]

oh i think we are still on good terms with Isreal.. .concidering we gave them F-15E, probly one of the best multi-role fighters in existance. in fact, if i am correct, the only f-15 to be shot down in air combat was due to freindly fire by another F-15

 

anywaz, US made the same mistake they did with Afgan. Leaving a job unfinished even tho thier "objectives" were completed.

 

I still saywe assasignnate Saddam and his kids, and watch the power vacum perculate.. oh, and try to put the blame for the assasination on Iran... it sure woudl be fun to see the fireworks from that one.

[Taarkin]

Of course no one would suspect us

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by K_Kinnison

fact, if i am correct, the only f-15 to be shot down in air combat was due to freindly fire by another F-15

 

I was unaware Iraq'a KARI defense line consisted F-15s, and not Soviet SAM launchers. For example: http://www.pownetwork.org/gulf/gd012.htm

[Zargon]

this assumption seems to only have made an ass out of you.........

[K_Kinnison]

by air combat i mean DOgfight... plane versus plane. Not plane versus flying telephone poles

[Zargon]

F-15's aren't exactly dogfighter's.................that why they have F-16's.....................

[Nute Gunray]

F-15s are bomber hunters, not dogfighters.

It's unconfirmed, but highly probable that three IAF F-15s were shot down over the Bekka Valley a ways back.

[superthrawn]

I think most of us are really missing the point here. Yeah, Iraq is a threat, so is China. And while I do agree with what was said about China, Iraq is pretty much small beans. Any expert on world war will tell you that for a major Muslim offensive to begin to be successful, it will take the mass population of the Egyptians. Just a bit of food for thought.

 

Oh, and one other thing:

 

A single quote keeps coming to mind when I hear these debates;

 

"Dulce bellum inexpertis."

[Jem]

You stole Admiral's punch line !!!

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by superthrawn

Yeah, Iraq is a threat, so is China.

 

China is a stable nation that doesn't act irrationally, openly threaten, or even invade places. Nor does it's legendary repression of Tibet match Iraq's thumping of the Kurds. And this is coming from a guy that hates ChiComs.

[Admiral Odin]

Originally posted by superthrawn

"Dulce bellum inexpertis."

 

I see you have read my sig. However for those that haven't it means:

 

Sweet is war to those who have never experienced it.

 

However think about where that proverb come from and what it says.

 

It latin, and a Roman proverb, it comes from a civlization that conquered the Mediterrean world. The Roman Empire was extremly militaristic.

 

The proverb isn't from a pacifist, and indeed doesn't say war is wrong or not necessary. Instead it says if you have never been in a war, you don't understand how horrible it is.

 

With many of these debates that is true, many people seem think that war isn't as terrible as it is. That being said, I do believe that while war is horrible it is also necessary at times, this is such a time. There many reasons why, mainly Saddam is dangerous and unstable.

 

China on the other hand, as Nute said is stable, and not a prominate enemy at this point. Iraq maybe small, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

[MadPilot]

I'm still not entirely sure where I stand on this one. When thinking about it I keep getting back to the argument of western intervention causing unnecessary tension, versus the suffering of the Iraqi people and neighbouring countries.

 

IMHO, I think it would be in America's interest to meddle a bit more with the Israelian-Palestinian conflict, earn some credit

 

I personally believe that the US have done enough damage there already. I find it quite possible America are taking the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' reasoning with Israel. They support Israel over the Palestinians to guarantee their support for war on Iraq. I know this is a somewhat contravesial view, but I can't think of any other reason why the US would support Israel's illigal occupation of Palestinian territory. If the suicide bombers attacked only military targets, instead of innocent civilians, their cause would be entirely justified in my opinion.

 

I can understand America's choice for targetting Iraq. Ater the war in Afghanistan, they want a target they can see. I'm not saying Saddam shouldn't be toppled, I'm just hoping the US are doing it for the right reasons. Not for the sake of national interest, but for the genuine belief that it would help stabilise the middle east.