CIA: Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked.

[GePap]

Comparing Saddam to Htler is a useless tactic:

Many dictators have invaded neighbors and repressed their own people: Idi Amin did so, Mussolini, Stalin, kim Il Sung, so forth and so on. Invading a neighbor and repressing your own people is a relatively common things in the history of the world- comparisons to hitler add absolutely nothing to a discussion- it simply serves to delegitimize with a cheap rhetorical tool not worth serious debate.

To get back to the point of the CIA: I think Saddam is easily deterrable, and I fail to see the offensive potential of WMD against states with. Even with a nuke Saddam couldn't tale Kuwait or Suadi Aarabia, as long as we state openly that we wil again drive Saddam out of these areas, and if he even thinks of using WMD, hes toast: you know, just like we did in 1991. Giving the ultimate tool for his maintanance of power to men who he does not control (international terrorist) for their own, not mainly his aims, makes no sense to me, since Saddam has shown himself to be a 'rational' actor. I competely agree with the CIA, that if the fear is that Saddam will use his WMD or give the to terrorists, then the policy of regime change is the thng most likely to make that threat materialize, not disappear.

[chequita guevara]

Heck, it's not as if he's invaded anyone since then. And according to the chicken hawks, he has WoMD. According to their argument, he should be running rampent through the ME right now.

[uh Clem]

Even Israel may surrender if Saddam acquired the means to destroy Israel entirely.

This is sheer fantasy. I can't imagine any circumstances in which Israel would surrender to Saddam, regardless of what weapons he possessed. And given that Israel has the means "to destroy [Iraq] entirely" (or all its major population centers) today, Saddam has zero chance of ever achieving any nuclear superiority.

And while all this happening, the country with the world's largest nuclear arsenal just sits by and says, "Oh, dear, I wish there were something we could do!" ????????????????

Is this REALLY how the people who support this war think? Sheesh.....

As for "Saddam’s history of actually using WoMD in aggressive wars," let's be clear: he used poison gas, not nukes. Yeah, he's loathesome, but lumping the two together is intellectually dishonest. I know, I know, it's done all the time, but that doesn't make it right. (See the last quote in my sig for someone who agreed completely with Saddam about using gas.)

[SnowFire]

Bull****. Saddam, had he been smart enough to realize what was coming, could have been in Riyadh, and all the way down the arab side of the gulf, occupying every major port that was later used as a logistics base against him. Saddam could have done this before *anyone* could have stopped him.

Okay, I'm hardly an expert on the Gulf War, but I was under the impression that even before getting bombed by the US Airforce, the Iraqi military had absolutely terrible coordination and morale. Hardly the greatest source ever, but I remember a TV show that mentioned a "counterattack" that the Iraqis made that actually headed into Saudi Arabia a bit (it was their only one) where they barely managed to muster 100 guys & a dog (it was promptly repulsed). Now sure, the Saudis probably wouldn't have much in the way of resistance, but would they really be able to take the whole coast in 3 weeks if they were that ineffective?

I can't imagine any circumstances in which Israel would surrender to Saddam

4 words. Orbital. Mind. Control. Lasers.

The best part is when Eli & co. start posting about the wonders of their magnificient new leader which has shown them the light of their cruel democratic past.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Arrian - don't get me wrong, I still want to thump his ass, I just want to do it under a clearly defined scenario, with adequate political support and a clear vision of what is the desired end-result.

I don't see all the ingredients being there yet. Yet being the key word. Let the inspectors do their thing, let Saddam do his, then grab the UN by the balls and force them to man up and call Saddam on it for once.

Get the forces in place to do the job with maximum effect, get psysh warfare in full gear, inducing that surrender and defection frenzy like last time, and lever Saddam's ass out of power. But! (key word here) do it with some clearly articulated vision of what we want to see in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Then, when we've got our **** together, act. Not before.

Hilliary C. just gave a speech in the debate that said virtually the same thing. In fact, I was very much impressed with her speech from all aspects. She is going to support the resolution, and support Bush in order that we get a strong UN resolution. The inspectors will then go in and be effective. If they are deterred, she said, everyone will be on our side in the next war. This would make success in the war and success in the resulting peace far more likely.

I personally have changed my mind on her. She is a worthy candidate for president. Far better than that cowardly buffoon that ran last time.

[Ned]

Israel not surrender? It might if it had feckless leadership that was unwilling to act until the danger had grown too great. The time to act is when the cost of doing so is acceptable. At some point, even Israel will be faced with total obliteration by Iraq. What will it do then in face of Iraqi demands? I suggest, it will comply.

But, realistically, I don't believe Israel will ever allow Saddam to acquire nuclear weapons. They stand quietly by now only because we are leading the effort to disarm Iraq. Pray those who are against disarmament here do not succeed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Snowfire: You're referring to the Iraqi incursion into the area surrounding al-Khafji, which occured in late January a couple of weeks into the air phase of the war.

Morale is a very fragile thing, and the Iraqi army is pretty damn uneven, then and now.

Back in August, the Iraqi invasion was led by Republican Guard formations, Kuwait fell with token resistance, Iraqi supplies were already in forward areas, and the units which followed on the Republican guard were relatively pumped up - they had an easy job, a quick victory, things looked great.

Nearly six months later, at the time of the al-Khafji attack, the IRG units had been pulled back into the Iraq-Kuwait border area as theater reserve / enforcer (to keep the rest of the Iraqi army in place) units, while the Iraqis generally deployed lower quality units forward. (There were some exceptions to this pattern, some of the Iraqi line units fought well and hard)

The Iraqis had been digging in for months, which is always both hard work and demoralizing (soldiers quickly realize the more you're ordered to dig in, the more the brass expects your unit is really going to get ass-****ed).

Rumors run rampant over time, people had radios to listen to the BBC and Saudi and other radio broadcast, a lot of senior officers had CNN by satellite, so the word was out that the Iraqis were facing down the best of NATO and a hell of a lot of arabs - Saddam and his propaganda machine tried to whoop things up about how they were going to kick ass, but when you see your HQ units move to the rear, your supplies get hidden and dispersed, and you keep digging, mining, and putting up anti-tank obstacles, it doesn't take much to do the math.

Then when your regular units are kept unaware of the location of the mines in the minefields because the brass *******s don't want you to desert en masse, it occurs to you that perhaps they're aware of reasons why you would/should want to desert en masse.

Build up this sort of demoralization for months, then start systematic bombing (by the second week of the air phase, we'd demonstrated that we owned the air everywhere, day and night) around the clock. The Iraqi grunts knew this was nothing like fighting Iran, which was bad enough. This was like nothing they'd ever imagined, and nothing they had a chance to deal with.

The Iraqis attacked with a couple of batallions (a bit more than a hundred guys and a dog, they might have had two dogs left at that stage ), but they had no fire support, no flank infantry support, no armor, and other than crossing a line on a map, they had nothing but a bull**** objective.

The Saudis overreacted at first in typical arab fashion (the King was personally offended that intruders had trespassed into the Kingdom, so he wanted to immediately eject them with whatever forces were at hand), so some SANG (Saudi Arabian National Guard) units plowed in there and got chewed up - not badly, a couple of KIA and a few wounded, but enough firepower from the Iraqis to let them know that it was more than a recon patrol.

We then taught both sides what a combined arms attack is all about. The Marines contributed small arms, mortar and arty fire, we pounded the **** out of them by air for more than twelve hours, shot at everything that moved and most things that didn't, just to make sure the message was delivered, and then the Saudis went back in with support.

It was a much different situation in terms of morale, availability of fuel and supply, force composition, and enemy presence than back in August, when there was essentially nothing but open road between the IRG and their potential destinations to the south and west.

[Roland]

Mike:

"I'm not "convinced" either, but the notion of a Baathist regime sponsoring fundamentalist terrorists is certainly less far-fetched than the US sponsoring a Baathist regime."

Less ? It's a lot more far-fetched IMO.

Is there any peculiarity about Baath regimes in constrast to dictatorships ? Don't tell me it's "socialism".

"Something about common enemies"

Well the difference here is that Saddam turned against the US after the common enemy thing. The Fundies have turned against the Baath regimes long time ago.

"and being able to do through proxies what you don't have the means (or can't be caught without "plausible deniability") to openly do yourself"

Well what would he want to get done ? Burning tankers off the Yemeni coast ?

[uh Clem]

Israel not surrender? It might if it had feckless leadership that was unwilling to act until the danger had grown too great. The time to act is when the cost of doing so is acceptable. At some point, even Israel will be faced with total obliteration by Iraq. What will it do then in face of Iraqi demands? I suggest, it will comply.

Um...that's Israel's problem, not mine, right? In the unlikely event they elect "feckless leadership" (don't I wish), they'll deserve what they get.

This is the biggest non-threat since Ho Chi Minh's teeming hordes were ready to invade California the instant we showed a lack of resolve in Indo-China. It's the refusal to make a serious case on the part of the war boosters that raises questions in the minds of skeptics.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
Mike:

"I'm not "convinced" either, but the notion of a Baathist regime sponsoring fundamentalist terrorists is certainly less far-fetched than the US sponsoring a Baathist regime."

Less ? It's a lot more far-fetched IMO.

Is there any peculiarity about Baath regimes in constrast to dictatorships ? Don't tell me it's "socialism".

IMo, the key issue is that Baathists, at least in theory, have a pan-arabian national vision, so they're not real cozy with the western lackey monarchs unless there is something to be gained. Despite Saddam being an apostate, there are practical reasons for fundies to work with him at this point in their respective strategic goals (more like fantasies, but that's another subject)

"Something about common enemies"

Well the difference here is that Saddam turned against the US after the common enemy thing. The Fundies have turned against the Baath regimes long time ago.

Saddam was always anti-US, we just had a use for each other when he decided to thump the Iranians and they started kicking his ass. Pretty much the whole arab world poured cash and weapons into Saddam's war machine to keep him from collapsing. I think Saddam was arrogant enough to think that he had the US around his pinkie, then the whole Ollie North arms for hostages fiasco hit, and it was clear to most people who thought about it that everyone was using everyone, and that our interests were served by the Iranians and Iraqis running themselves into the ground.

My take would be that both Saddam and the fundies see the US as a greater evil and a bigger threat to their respective fantasies. There's certainly no real friendship there, just a higher priority mutual enemy. We all know what an enemy of my enemy is, though.

"and being able to do through proxies what you don't have the means (or can't be caught without "plausible deniability") to openly do yourself"

Well what would he want to get done ? Burning tankers off the Yemeni coast ?

Attacks on the US, disruption of the US economy, fanning anti-American and anti-monarchy sentiments in the gulf area and the emirates, etc. If there happens to be disruptions to gulf oil supplies, then there's a little more demand for smuggled Iraqi crude, and more pressure to end sanctions. Every disruption of US influence or presence in the region serves Hussein's short term interests, at least.

[SpencerH]

Too many people are thinking of anti-american terrorism as stuff like 9-11, but lots of "small" terrorist actions that will effect the markets and economy in general are more likely now.

[Roland]

"Despite Saddam being an apostate, there are practical reasons for fundies to work with him at this point in their respective strategic goals"

Well the point was that the US working with a Baath regime is perfectly normal - as you describe for the first gulf war. It sounded like you considered that "farfetched" ?

There may be some common ground but that's really slim. Saddam has no interest in propping up the fundamentalists as he has no chance to ever bring them into fold, and what interest would the Fundies have ? It's extremely unlikely Saddam would hand out his precious B and C weapons unless he knows he's going down anyway. And the fundamentalists are best served with a US invasion and puppet regime in Iraq.

"Saddam was always anti-US"

So were most of the mudjeheddin in Afghanistan. But they didn't act it as long as the common enemy was more important. Baath and fundamentalists have been clashing for a long time, and while tables turn quickly in the ME, I fail to see a compelling reason there.

"Attacks on the US, disruption of the US economy, fanning anti-American and anti-monarchy sentiments in the gulf area and the emirates, etc."

I think Saddam is clever enough to keep his fingers off of that, especially as there's no need for him to get involved. Islamist terrorists attack on their own, Bush & co are doing a great job in fostering anti-US sentiment, and if he really wanted something why not use the secular palestinian groups ?