As can be seen Rumsfeld expects no surrender by Sadam and anticipates a bloody war. This is where you wish you had a military guys running things as US casualties, not to mention Iraqi casualties might be avoided. Probably would be useless to offer exile, but a less blood thirsty US administration might offer. It would probably even be wise in terms of public opinion. Rumsfeld: Too Late for Exile for Saddam 2 hours, 50 minutes ago By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday there was "not a chance" that the United States would agree to an arrangement that would halt the war and allow Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to survive as Iraq (news - web sites)'s leader. "It doesn't matter who proposes it, there's not going to be one," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon (news - web sites) briefing. He said that governments that are discussing such a deal "provide hope and comfort" to Saddam's regime "and give them ammunition that they can then try to use to retain the loyalty of their forces." Rumsfeld said it was too late for Saddam to seek exile. "If you're asking if we're still encouraging him to leave, the answer is no," he said. But while the secretary said it was too late for Saddam or his top aides to save themselves, it was not beyond that point for members of Iraqi's military, and he urged them to stage an uprising. "Iraqi officers and soldiers can still survive and help to rebuild a free Iraq, if they do the right thing," Rumsfeld said. "They must now decide whether they want to share the fate of Saddam Hussein or whether they'll save themselves, turn on that condemned dictator and help the forces of Iraq's liberation," he said. Rumsfeld said there are contacts between the United States and some Iraqi military leaders. "There's still contact, and you never know" when the contacts might bear fruit, he said. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, giving an update on the U.S.-led campaign, said U.S. forces were "on the outskirts of Baghdad right now." He refused to comment on reports that coalition forces had launched an assault on Baghdad International Airport, about ten miles outside the city. Asked about the widespread power outage in the Iraqi capital, Myers said the United States had "not targeted the power grid in Baghdad." Asked if he and other U.S. commanders knew why much of the city was in the dark, Myers said, "at this point we do not." Rumsfeld was asked by a reporter about efforts by some countries — such as France and Russia — to try to craft a deal to end the war short of the overthrow of Saddam and his regime. "There is not a chance that there's going to be a deal," he said. Rumsfeld said that talk of such an arrangement would unrealistically feed the optimism of those around Saddam, "with hope that one more time, maybe he'll survive, one more time he'll be there for another decade or so." Rumsfeld renewed a warning to Syria against being a conduit for military equipment destined for Iraq. "We have seen that Syria continues to conduct itself the way it was prior to the time I said what I said," Rumsfeld said. He first issued the warning last week, saying that military equipment — including night-vision goggles — was coming across the Syrian border with Iraq to help resupply Iraqi forces. U.S. officials have accused Russian companies of manufacturing some of the equipment at issue. Rumsfeld accused Saddam of forming Iraqi "death squads" which he said were killing Iraqi civilians. "Iraq is running out of real soldiers. All that will be left are war criminals," he said. Asked about the relatively light resistance that allied forces have encountered as they close in on Baghdad, Rumsfeld said, "Some forces have retreated into the cities, others have just left and gone home. Still others are still there and fighting and have been reinforced." U.S. troops have advanced quickly to the doorstep of Baghdad, leaving their commanders with the choice of continuing the charge into the capital or waiting for reinforcements and giving Iraqis a chance to overthrow the regime themselves. Earlier, U.S. forces raided a presidential palace about 55 miles north of Baghdad. Special forces infiltrated some Iraqi command posts in the Baghdad area during the night and also secured some bridges and dams to forestall possible sabotage, according to the U.S. Central Command. The advance set the stage for either a final push on the capital or the capitulation of Saddam's best and most loyal fighters. Some Pentagon officials said Wednesday the American forces likely would pause on the outskirts of the capital to allow pressure to build on the Iraqi regime, perhaps enough so it would fall without the chaotic and bloody urban fighting Iraqi officials say they are planning. A pause also would allow more reinforcements to enter Iraq. The 4th Infantry Division, which has some of the Army's most advanced tanks and equipment, is arriving in Kuwait and could field a brigade-sized task force of a few thousand soldiers as early as Monday or Tuesday, the official said. But top civilian leaders said they weren't counting on Saddam's capitulation. "It doesn't seem likely," said Rumsfeld's spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke. Still, the Pentagon sought to lower expectations that the Iraqi capital could be taken quickly or easily. "We are planning for a very difficult fight ahead in Baghdad," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal told a Pentagon news conference. "We are not expecting to drive into Baghdad suddenly and seize it." If American forces do battle to take Baghdad, whether after a pause or not, the strategy is likely to include cordoning off the city and targeting key sites for attack, a military official said. The Americans would try to avoid the street-by-street battles that Iraq wants to set as traps by focusing on such key areas rather than trying to take over the entire city, the official said.
If glynch had command during WWII, we would have probably stopped on the Rhine to cut our losses. ever heard of "unconditional surrender" and total victory? Americans go for the big enchilada.
I agree. No turning back. Besides, does anyone really think that Saddam or his administration is going to come out and surrender after all this?
I can understand the position that there'll be no resolution that would let SH remain Iraq's leader. But if he agreed to step down, and was offered exile in another country, wouldn't this be a victory for the coalition forces?
Saddam would never step down anyway. Anywhere he went, Mossad and CIA would follow. He would be assassinated wherever he went, and he knows it. Besides, I think it's a little late to be talking about him stepping down. That option flew out the window as soon as the 3 ID crossed the Iraqi border. I'm inclined to think that he's in no condition to travel anyway. How hard would it be to take a picture with him holding up today's newspaper? He's either dead or fairly badly wounded. Anyone heard about his family apparently being wisked away from Baghdad? Just curious: if you're a Special Republican Guardsman and you see your boss getting his family the f* out of dodge, what would be running through your mind? Possibly, 'It's about time to put on civies and say "I love America" to the first US infantryman I see'...
No, that would be like suggesting that if Bush were assassinated would we pull out of the war? No. Saddam's regime (which includes his military, his staff) are all aware of and trained to use these chemical weapons, and most importantly are willing to die for their cause. This is not about one man.
Anybody else think the headline is a wee bit misleading. It says "Too late for exile..." but Rumsfeld doesn't talk about exile at all. When you get to the body of the text, the journalists mentions that he dismisses any notion of Saddam remaining as the leader. That is not exile.
Like many who have posted, I think its highly unlikely SH would ever surrender. But is surrender not even an option? Don't you have to stop pounding someone when they say 'uncle?' An unconditional surrender means you win, doesn't it? War may be hell, but our military shouldn't be assassins. If his government is overthrown, and he is forced out of the country, why is this not enough? So many other despots have accepted exile, I just don't understand how it cannot be available to Saddam if he had the sense to take it.
JV: re: the misleading headline That was my first impression too. Then I reread and found this: That is what confused me. As I said, I can understand the position that deals that would leave SH leader may by off the table now, but "dead or aXXXX -- actually, just dead" policy seems a little bloodthirsty.
Actually, if Saddam were to say tomorrow "OK, I give up, I'll leave", then I don't see how we could continue the fighting. That would end it, for all intents and purposes, unless elements within the regime refused to stop fighting. So in that case, I think we probably would accept an exile (and then assassinate him later on). We would still occupy the country, dismantle the existing government, and supervise the creation of a new one; the fighting would just stop early. Highly unlikely, though.
The adminstration has already said they would go in with the military even if this happened just to do their WMD search.
Hey, if we didn't do it, the Mossad surely would. Or, even more likely, the new Iraqi government. He doesn't exactly have too many fans outside of France right now...
treeman: I actually agree, pretty much word for word (except for the assassination bit) with your take on an SH surrender. And I'm a tree-huggin', peace marchin' lefty. -- so its not often I agree with your positions on military action -- although I do read them, and find them informative. I'm glad there are guys like you watching my back. Good luck to you and your compatriots.
I wonder if these statements really mean that he's not going to be able to surrender, or go into exile, because he would have to be alive to do so. And that they don't think he is. we can but hope and keep our fingers crossed... they can't just tell us everything they know in these situations, so it's always hard to know who to trust and who to believe...