Invade Iraq and install a new government? My crystal ball doesn't see it because we don't have a <i>mandate</i> to do that. Wasn't the lack of a <i>mandate</i> the key reason that the US and allies went only along the Iraq frontier during the Gulf War? Mango
Shanna: In Iraq we will give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. We will stick around long enough to help them get back on their feet and build up a credible defense against Iran, and then we're outta there. It would be most advantageous if the occupation force consisted primarily of other Arab armies (anyong except Iranians - they're not Arabs, despite what many think). But the point is that what we'll mainly be doing in Iraq is: 1) Eliminate Saddam Hussein, 2) destroy the Republican Guard, but not necessarily all or even most of the regular army, and 3) Destroy the Iraqi Ba'ath party and its security apparatus. Once those three things are gone Iraq and the rest of the world wii be a much safer place to live. Mango: I guarantee you that Iraq is on the list. Saddam will be removed, along with the Ba'ath party that supports him and the RG that keep all of them in power. It is a known fact that Saddam has been cultivating anthrax again, and likely botulism, cholera, and possibly even smallpox. He has an extensive chemical weapons program, too, and it is even possible that he possesses nuclear weapons by now. He was one month away from having a working nuke in 1991... He is also responsible for a large chunk of the funding that Al Queda and other networks and groups recieve for their operations. His security apparatus consists of a good number of Iraqi terrorist operatives, as well (Youssef - the guy who ran the 1993 WTC bombing - was an Iraqi security agent). It is believed that he even personally helps to devise and coordinate some attacks. Iraq is on the list, it will be invaded (simply because there is no other way to get to Saddam, as he is the best protected man on the planet), and Saddam will be eliminated.
treeman, All of the mayhem that Iraq caused in Kuwait wasn't enough of a mandate for the Allied forces to invade & conquer, yet subsequent activity now does? How do you expect countries such as Egypt, Saudi etc to have the stomach to be the occupation forces in a fellow Arab and <b>Muslim country</b> that was subjugated by a <b>Christian army</b>? We can sit here and talk about the freedom to practice one's religion in the US, but we are considered a predominantly Christian country by the rest of the world. When Clinton had the chemical factory hit in Sudan 3 years ago, that was a pinprick response. To topple the Iraq government <b>and</b> eliminate/neutralize bin-Laden is a monumentally larger operation. Since we are in that subject area:<i> Will the capture/death of bin-Laden be the measuring rod for success or failure in this projected endeavor? Anything less is failure?</i> Condoleezza is your source? Mango ps nice discussion/topic
did I misunderstand a radio report that said Bush only has the authority from Congress to fight against those people responsible for this terrorist act? Assassinating all terrorist leaders sounds fun (Without Remorse???) but I'm not sure he has the authority b/c of some rule that arose during Vietnam...
First: That final statement was presumptuous and signalled your ill-intent in this discussion. If you immediately dismiss the other person, why should we listen to you? Such statements make communication pointless, and intimate that you're only interested in "scoring points." Are you interested in discussion, or not? So far, you've ridiculed those who disagree with you, while they have generally been more objective. What's your decision? Rant over. I would actually propose a UN occupation of Afghanistan led by nations like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Friendly with the West, wealthy enough that terrorism is decidedly against their interests, and influential enough to sway opinion. Let the US lend some aid and money... but don't administer directly, as much as can be avoided. Foster regional bonds, and make it clear that we're not simply imperialists. About Iraq: I'm skeptical about the feasibility of attacking Iraq again. Obviously, we could incapacitate them quickly. But they've been taught to hate us for more than a decade. Hussein has effectively won them over. Afghanistan is different: the Taliban is repressive, cruel, and most of its citizens probably have little love for it. They may fight for their country, but the government is unpopular. Hence some sort of non-US occupation could probably succeed. Report
Easy answer, Yes, if he is not caught/killed then anything we do will be considered a failure. But personally speaking, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be killed, or possibly captured. I realize that that will be extremely difficult considering the fact that there are a thousand caves he can hide in inside Afghanistan, but it's really just a matter of determination on our part. We've never been properly motivated to go in and get him, because we will lose troops doing it. But we have the motivation now. As for Iraq, Saddam is definitely as much of a threat as Bin Laden, probably more of a threat considering his access to and willingness to use WMD. And as I said earlier, he is the best protected man on the planet. There's a reason we can't simply send in the SEALs and take him out. He moves around constantly, and never stays in the same place two nights in a row. Even most of his security detail never knows where they're taking him. Speaking of his security detail, it includes an entire brigade of SRG (Special Republican Guard, the elite of the elite) that would slaughter any special forces teams we sent in after him. He also has at least 20, and possibly 100, doubles around the country at any given time, so you can see the dilemma... Taking out Saddam would mean invading and literally hunting him down. But considering what just happened, I can not realistically envision any scenario where we allow him to continue operating as he has been. Our leaders are telling us that this will be a long, drawn-out war, and that sacrifices will have to be made. Iraq and Saddam are part of that equation, I guarantee you.
Achebe & outlaw: The War Powers Act gives him the ability to engage in military operations outside our borders for I believe up to 60 days without conferring with Congress, but it doesn't restrict him further than that 60 days as long as he confers with Congress. Congress will back him on whatever action he wants to take in this instance, and will almost certainly give him a Declaration of War if he feels the need for it. Bush's hands will not be tied. As for assassination, the Ford ban only matters in peacetime. In wartime, every enemy leader may be targeted. But I suspect that that executive order will be rescinded, if it has not been already. If that sounds confusing, it just means that it is not necessary to publicize any executive order that deals with national security...
<B>As for assassination, the Ford ban only matters in peacetime. In wartime, every enemy leader may be targeted. </B> The US was not allowed to target Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. We could bomb areas where he may have been, but we could not legally go in and assassinate him, although I'm not sure who we would have had to answer to. Did we officially declare war in that conflict, or did we just do another "police action" type thing?
haven: I apologise if I've sounded condescending at times. I guess my patience is a little strained right now. I just think it's pointless to argue for a position that's contrary to decisions that have already been made. And the decision to attack Afghanistan (and almost certainly Iraq) has already been made, it's just details that remain to be ironed out. Any occupation of either Iraq or Afghanistan will certainly have to have a heavy contingent of foreign (Islamic) forces included if it is to have any legitemacy with the populations of those countries. This will be difficult to organize. Saudi, Jordan, and Egypt will probably contribute to Iraq, while Pakistan would probably have to contribute in Afghanistan. That said, however, some US troops will have to contribute, as these nations will absolutely refuse if there are no Americans there. In addition, the Northern Alliance will likely be the primary candidate for taking over governmental functions in Afghanistan, as they have a good degree of popular support there. In Iraq, anyone except an Iranian-backed faction will be acceptable, even though the country's populace is majority Shiite (a little known fact here). But there are plenty of Sunni opposition factions that would be acceptable; the INC would be my guess.. Also, I realize that it appears that Saddam has a great deal of popular support in Iraq, but this is misleading. Yes, he does have alot of support when dealing with the West - they do certainly hate our guts for devastating their country. But they also hate Saddam; the problem is that they fear him more than they hate him. They simply have no other choice but to support him. In Iraq, if you fail to support Saddam, you will hear a knock at your door one night, and no one will ever see you again. Most Iraqis would love to see him gone.
We definitely tried to kill Saddam in the Gulf War, it just turned out to be extremely difficult to do without an army in Baghdad. Every time we learned that he might be in a certain area, certain building, etc. we sent in a strike mission, even if that area/building had little military value. We were allowed to do it, we just couldn't under those circumstances... We haven't officially declared war since WWII. Every war since then has been a "police action" type of thing. We may or may not declare war now, I don't know. We will if we need to, although it's really just a formality since Congress is already on board.
Great thread Shann! Funny thing is that you're thinking is much more akin to what you see on time.com and CNN talk shows then some of the "blast them to the stone age " posters here. Hopefully this outrage has finally given people the resolve to face unpleasant truths about the US and take steps to solve the terrorist problem now and in the future.
<B>We definitely tried to kill Saddam in the Gulf War, it just turned out to be extremely difficult to do without an army in Baghdad. Every time we learned that he might be in a certain area, certain building, etc. we sent in a strike mission, even if that area/building had little military value. We were allowed to do it, we just couldn't under those circumstances... </B> We were allowed to do the bombings under the pretense that we were targetting military areas, and if Hussein happened to be there, so be it. (the actual military value is something that could be debated and killed in any court) However, conducting an actual assassination is guided by a different set of laws -- there's no target/goal outside of killing the one man. I believe that kind of a strike -- which is what would be needed for bin Ladin since he's probably holed up in a cave somewhere -- is still considered illegal. I don't know much about this area of the law though.
Technically, you're right - that's still illegal for the time being in peacetime. But in a war situation it is totally irrelevant. And I strongly suspect that the ban will be rescinded very soon anyway, if it hasn't already. And it should be. It made sense in the Cold War - it was originally designed as a message to the Soviets that neither side would try to kill each others' leaders anymore. It is obsolete now, and IMO contrary to our national security interests.
<B>But in a war situation it is totally irrelevant. </b> Thanks -- this is the part I wasn't familiar with.
Did anyone else see that Afghanistan is massing its forces near the Pakistani border and it said that if Pakistan helps the USA it will attack it? Pakistan is in turn mounting its troops also. Advantage : Pakistan. http://www.msnbc.com/news/629304_asp.htm Also Uzbekistan said that it would consider helping the US if asked. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/uz.htm Also, not that I am worried about our abilites to invade Afghanistan, this article discusses the difficulties faced. Remember the problems Russia had. But that was under different circumstances though. http://www.msnbc.com/news/629890.asp?0si=-
No one's mentioned this yet, but we might not even need anyone to cooperate as far as staging ground troops out of their country. Obviously, it would be easier and preferable if we did have that, but it's not really necessary. The 75th Rangers can take any airport / airfield in the world. They HALO in and are ready to fight within about two minutes of hitting the ground, and an airfield is ours within 30 minutes. Once an airfield is taken, the 18th Airborne Corps can start bringing in the 82nd Airborne and the 101st Air Assault divisions, and those two divisions would be more than enough to send the Taliban to hell... There are very few countries in the world who could beat even one of those divisions. Uzbekistan's assistance would of course help, though.
No Doubt Treeman, just ask the Germans about the 82nd and 101st Airborne. You can't stop the Stars and Bars.
