Attack Iraq: Who has family/friends in the military?

My Uncle(21) is in the Army. He has truly turned his life around and I greatly respect him for that. He was about to go to Afghanistan, but didn't. I dunno if he'll go to Iraq...

 

I know lots of people in the military...and while they are nervous about going over seas, but they all know that they made the commitment for their country to protect their country.

Most of they people I know that are in the military think that Saddam should have been taken out in the Gulf War when we were already there, but are more than willing to go back to finish the job.

One cousin of mine was in Desert Storm and saw first hand the horrible things that Saddam did to his own people and the Kuwaitis. He saw the rows of headless women and children in the streets that he ordered beheaded because he considered them a "security threat." (don't see that on CNN, do you?)

He saw the Iraqi soldiers beg his men to kill Saddam so they could just go home.

He saw the fear in the eyes of the people in the middle east when they mentioned Saddam. He rules by fear and threat, and should not be in power.

My cousin was all for keeping the military pressure up until Saddam was out, but the American public wanted their boys back home, so that's what we got. And now...more than ten years later, we're still trying to figure out what to do to this guy.

I hope the result in not taking him out before isn't a nice little germ bomb in Central Park in New York or something to that affect.

Of course we are going to care for the men and women we know that go to war, we always have, but those men and women have a duty to go to war if called. That's why they are in the military. They should expect to go to war and fight if their country calls upon them and I would hope that they would accept their call to arms with dignity and honor.

 

A brother in the Marines. If the US goes in, I hope we destroy the budget by using a ton of missles to take out fortification, antiaircraft weaponry, etc.

 

I am in the military (Army NG), and while I really have no great personal desire to spend time in a desert blowing people up and possibly being shot at, it would not really bother me as much as you might think if I was ordered to do so.

Everyone in the military is a little nervous about the prospect of combat - that's only natural. But this particular war (v. Iraq) is supported 100% by those in uniform, at least by everyone I've talked to. We know Saddam well in the military. We understand why it needs to be done. Most of us would much rather go there than Afghanistan, too...

It is natural for family members to be afraid for their loved ones - my mother isn't too happy about the prospect. But those who will actually go are behind it 100%.

 

Anyone that isn't willing to go to war should not be in the military to begin with. Why would you join the armed forces if you weren't willing to fight? Seems like you would just be a leach, there for the rewards but not the risks.

 

The problem is, there's body bags over here to. Thousands of them last September. And if Iraq has something to do with this terrorist attack AND they have nuclear arms, there could be MILLIONS of body bags, both citizens and military. And I have family who has served in the military in the past (cousins, uncles), and some currently (friends and cousins), so trust me, the last thing I want is a war. But think, also, about the families who have had loved ones who were victims of terrorist, or people who are worried about a twisted country starting WWIII.

 

You're assuming that there are traffic lights where none exist... The world is a far more chaotic and dangerous place than many want to admit.

Because of the very nature of our society (openness, trust, assuming that people are basically good - that sort of thing), we are perfectly open to attack by those who dislike us, and there are plenty of souls out there who are both willing and able (and in some cases actually capable - like Iraq) of attacking us. Remember that whole 9-11 thing? You are aware that there is no world body that can/is going to guarantee that there are no repeats along that vein. There is no world cop. Hell, no nation can really even police its own, so-called "civilized" nation-states included.

What do you think we're doing in Afghanistan? We never bothered to police that particular area before, and look what happened - Osama and his Taliban cronies built an army and flew some planes into our buildings... Obviously, a more proactive approach was needed there in hindsight. Not necessarily even military, but something more...

I don't want to be telling someone 3 years from now "If we'd just have removed the ba*tard 3 years ago, they never would've gotten that nuke into the ship channel...", or "Man, that smallpox attack nearly wiped San Antonio, didn't it? Wish we could've stopped it in the first week..." I don't ever want to have to say anything like that to anyone. I refuse to.

It is up to us to defend ourselves. Thank God - or whatever superior entity/idea/notion you subscribe to - that we have people willing to take that job on. Saddam will fall - like it or not, understand it or not, appreciate it or not - Saddam will fall.

 

BTW, just to address some other concerns -

Our long term goals - aside from preventing future WMD attacks, the threat of which is obvious, and has been/will be commented on more in the future - consist primarily of defending our political and economic power bases and positions. Changing social factors (such as attitudes towards us, for example) can also be addressed, although those fall under a different scheme and must be addressed by education methods - which will take decades to enact. But by replacing the current Iraqi govt now we can:

- Open up a new source of oil, probably the greatest reason of all to do it (more on this in later posts... much more)

- Remove a persistent threat to the world's oil supply (need I comment on OPEC's stranglehold over the global economy, and a free Iraq's ability to alter that 'balance'?)

- Take advantage of an opportunity to place a nonhostile democracy smack dab in the middle of a host of undemocratic states; hopefully such a phenomena would spread to neighboring countries

- Place militant Islam in check by capitalizing on Iraq's existing secular tendencies, hopefully softening future anti-Western Islamic fervor and facilitating attitude change throughout the Islamic world

- Send a message to other nations which are hostile towards our interests and our people; the "this guy screwed with us and got the stick" method can be a very effective diplomatic tool

- Remove the public interest in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Oh, wait...

The only risk we really run is losing perspective and overreacting. It is much better for us to enter into this war - which is going to happen anyway - with a clear view of the battlefield, including its political, social, and economic aspects. And our view of the consequences need to be based upon likely outcomes and benefits, not baseless and/or paranoid (or party-driven) fears and insecurities. Keep your eyes on the prize and you will get there; scan the woods for lions, tigers, and bears, and - Oh My!... You will see shadows of all, and you'll never get where you want to go.

The decision is made. It is a wise one. Forge ahead.

 

There is no doubt that Saddam is a monster, and a lunatic, but the thought of taking him out brings two words to my mind...

power vacuum

I would genuinely be concerned as to what would happen in Iraq if he was killed. What's more frightening than an evil dictator with nuclear weapons? A chaotic, basically third world country, full of extremists, in turmoil, that has nuclear and chemical capability. This needs to be done right, and I can't see any way, short of a full occupation, that this happens. And there will be many casualities in that situation, particularly if you want Saddam dead.

This seems unlikely to happen if a full-scale invasion of a muslim country is carried out by the already unpopular US.

 

Really? If Saddam has nuclear and bio capacity, what would prevent him from dropping some of those on America had this evil man get pissed off? I'd say it's pretty easy to sneak some nukes or bio agents into the USA, money talks.

 

Uhh... We're not going to just walk in there, knock the Baathists out of power, and then just leave. We are going to *replace* the government there, not just destroy it.

Did you see the whole "democracy in Iraq" thing I covered earlier?

BTW, there will obviously be a "full occupation" in the aftermath. It could take some time before a viable successor government is in place. No one said that it would be a cakewalk (and if they do they're wrong).

Quit thinking short-term.

Of course the muslim (Arab) world will be enraged in the short run - that is to be expected. If we can actually install a functioning democracy there, however, the rest of the Arab world may see that and want one too. As I said, I hope such a development would be infectious.

Democracies tend to have more liberal educational systems, as well as free presses. If such institutions can take root throughout the Islamic world, then we may see some attitude change on their part. There is no guarantee of this, and it may be that there simply is no way to "make them love us", but if there is it will only come through our helping to spread democracy. And that process would have to start with Iraq.

Duh? Has it occurred to you that he can do that if we don't invadehe can do this anyway? That is one of the major reasons to invade in the first place - to prevent him from doing so.

As for the argument that he will have nothing to lose and will so unleash his WMD in the event of a US invasion, you must take into account the timing here. If we do it now, a number of factors come into play:

- he will have little time (relatively) to deploy his WMD, and will therefore "get off fewer shots"

- he currently has only a limited number of delivery platforms (SCUDs, UAVs, etc); the longer we wait, the more of these he will have

- he will probably not have any nuclear weapons at his disposal when we go in, so the dangers will be restricted to chemical and biological agents being used against our troops - and we can defend against that (MOPP IV gear is uncomfortable as hell, but it works - we wenty in wearing it last time)

This last one is most important: if he has nuclear weapons, then we really can't invade unless we're content to turn the entire area into a parking lot. And if we can't invade, then he has won, and it will only be a matter of time before he takes over the entire Middle East - and much of the world's oil supply. That cannot be allowed to happen.

BTW, it is not commonly known that over a million chemical and biological alerts were triggered in the first Gulf War. That means that he actually did attempt to use such weapons against us then, but our defenses worked surprisingly well. That whole Gulf War Syndrome thing? We know what caused it, and it wasn't depleted uranium...

So, yes - he can attack us with chemical and boilogical WMD as soon as the invasion starts. But those can be defended against. He cannot yet threaten us with nukes, but he will soon be able to - which is why we must do it now or never. The window of opportunity is short.

 

Exactly! Since Iraq isn't a serious threat to this country going over there wouldn't be serving or protecting the U.S.

No doubt Saddam is a bad man who kills people and uses money that could help Iraqi citizens for his own greed and personal palaces. I agree Saddam shouldn't be in power.

I don't agree that the U.S. should unilaterally invade the country. After all those kinds of dictators have been around and are around all over the globe. Some of them are supported and kept in power by the U.S.

The military members of Bush's cabinet are opposed to the invasion, and the civilians in Bush's whitehouse are in favor of it.

I do think we should put more pressure on Saddam about Weapons inspectors, I think we should continue to contain him, and thus keep ourselves and the region as safe as possible. We should also fund and help some of the groups inside Iraq already that might have a chance to defeat Saddam.

 

Yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be a problem if he took over the Middle East and gained control of 70% of the world's oil supply. I'm sure he would just put his hatred for us aside and keep the prices low. He would never think of grabbing our economy by the balls and squeezing, would he?

And I guess it wouldn't be so bad if he gave someone a little smallpox to use on us. Or sailed a nuke into the ship channel. Nah, we'd get over it...

Name one that A) has large WMD stocks and has a proven willingness to use them, and B) we are currently at war with? As far as Saddam's concerned, we are already at war. And since the rest of the world refuses to admit that reality, we have no choice but to go unilaterally.

You know, I keep hearing this but have yet to hear any specific instances of uniformed brass saying that they are against invasion. All they have said is that trying to replicate the strategy used in Afghanistan would be a bad idea, and that significant numbers of ground troops would be needed. They are of course right about that.

As I said earlier, I am in the military and know how the military feels about this issue - they overwhelmingly support it. Why? Because we understand the threat and know that action is necessary.

Didn't 9-11 teach you anything?

Oh good Lord... Do you *honestly* think that there is any chance in hell that inspectors will ever be allowed in by Saddam again? I mean a real inspections regime, that is - not a sham inspections regime such as the Chinese, Russians, and French (who are all dying to sell Saddam weapons) would support. Don't hold your breath.

BTW, none of the opposition inside Iraq has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating him. Using them is precisely the idea that the military chiefs are opposed to, because Iraq is not Afghanistan. And failure is not an option.

 

Well how come none of his neighbors in the middle east including Kuwait feel threatened by him taking over their country? Sure if Saddam were capable or seemed likely to take over the middle east that would change my feelings about invading.

However I don't think it would even come to that. If he attacked even one of his Arab neighbors again we would invade. And like the Gulf War it wouldn't be unilateral. He's contained. He has a no fly zone, being enforced. Anytime he shows any hint of trying to buck the no-fly zone he is bombed back into place.

I'm not saying we let him get a nuclear weapon onto a ship and do nothing. I agree with the policy of containment. But the fact that his neighbors, who judging by history and his delivery capability have the most to fear, are against invading, then I can't see that our country is directly threatened.

China is one that has large stocks of WMD. The've said in the past they aren't afraid to use nukes. The U.S. so far is the only country that has actually used one. Iraq currently doesn't have any nukes.

China is also oppressive, and violators of human rights, but because they provide cheap labor, and business opportunities they won't be on the list of countries that we go for. Even though recently they've been more aggressive than Saddam has.

Here is one article on it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1822-2002May23?language=printer

Yes it certainly did. I live in NY and was here when it happened. One thing it taught me was that we have a bigger threat in terrorism than we do from Iraq. I would rather concentrate our effort on that front rather than be diverted by Iraq.

If we invade Iraq and make our Arab allies angry, we are alienating one of the main sources of information concerning Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist terrorist groups.

I believe that invading Iraq will only make our war against terrorism more difficult.

We have no idea what's going on with Bin Laden. Mullah Omar is still on the loose, and terrorism remains active. I would much rather concentrate on that, since it's the main threat to the U.S. right now.

 

Their opposition to a US invasion does not have anything to do with whether or not they fear another invasion. On the part of the governments there, they fear a successful, pro-US democratic state next door than anything else. If the people in their nations (Saudi, Kuwait, and the UAE in particular) were to see that in action then they would likely want democracy for themselves, and the regimes there would be in serious trouble. On the part of the people, they simply oppose any initiative of the US that does not involve giving them cash as an imperialist/colonialist move on our part. No matter what we do, they will oppose it.

They are all irrelevant, though.

You are aware of the Baath party's central platform, are you not? Their goal - and it is one that Saddam has always believed in - is to unite the Arab world under one banner. A united Arab world with Saddam at the helm sounds pretty dangerous to me.

And keep in mind what would happen if/when he obtains nukes: everyone will fall before him. If he gets nukes, then he actually will have the capability to successfully invade his neighbors, because we probably wouldn't have the stomach to stop him. We're trying to avert a nuclear war here - that is the real reasoning behind invading now.

Not if he had nuclear weapons. Which he will, and soon.

Wouldn't it? Do you think that the Europeans would be more eager or less eager to intervene if Saddam had nuclear weapons? I would bet on less eager. And that is to say nothing of the Russians or Chinese.

The no-fly zones do absolutely nothing at all to hinder his WMD programs. They would also do absolutely nothing at all to stop the Iraqis from handing over WMD to terrorists. How contained is he, really? Sure, an armored column attempting to penetrate into Saudi would be ripped to pieces, but what about the lone truck transporting 2,000 lbs of anthrax to Saudi Al Qaeda operatives?

Containment wouldn't stop him from putting a nuke on a ship and sailing it into one of our harbors, either. If they can sneak a hundred thousand barrels of crude past us busting the sanctions, then they can sneak a 2000 lb nuke past us.

I addresssed this above, but here I'll address the logic of this statement: If they're not threatened, then we are not either. They don't feel threatened, so we shouldn't either. Am I to understand this as your logic? Do I really need to point out the faults with this line of thinking?

Are we currently at war with China?

I am somewhat familiar with the PLA's nuclear strategy, and I can say that it is faulty - to say the least. They believe that if they used limited numbers of nuclear weapons against our population centers, then we would be frightened into submission and surrender. They clearly do not understand us, and that is something that will have to be addressed down the road. But for now, bad example.

Most likely not. But they will soon - that is almost a certainty. How do we know? Because people who used to work in Iraq's nuclear program have informed us of their progress. They have everything they need for up to 3 weapons except for sufficient amounts of weapons grade plutonium - and they are estimated to have enough of that by as early as 2004-5.

Do you really want to wait to act until after he already has nukes? This is the whole point you seem to be missing.

Yes, it says that the military is trying to convince the civilians that it would require a lengthy buildup with large numbers of ground troops. Isn't that what I just said?

At any rate, as I also said earlier, I am in the military and know what their thinking is on this matter. I trust my own personal experiences in the matter more than I do a news article - which is subject to disinformation warfare, something that we are seeing quite a bit of right now.

You are aware that Iraqi Intelligence was behind the 1993 WTC attack, are you not? You appear to believe that the Iraqis are not a threat to us, and for the life of me I just can't figure out why. They are both threats - Al Qaeda and Iraq - and both need to be confronted. Iraq is not a "diversion", it is one of the leading global sponsors of anti-US/Israel terrorism out there. It must be dealt with if we are to win the war on terrorism.

Angry? They already hate our guts, and for the most part aren't giving us any intelligence about Al Qaeda at all (with the possible exception of Jordan). Hell, the Saudis have been paying for plane tickets of Al Qaeda fleeing from Afghanistan.

I frankly don't care what those particular "allies" think. Thay are not helpful in the war on terrorism anyway.

I believe that victory in the war on terrorism will be impossible unless we deal with Iraq. I will bank on it.

We can do both. No forces or significant assets would actually have to be diverted from the Afghan/Pakistan theater, our covert operations around the globe would continue unabated, and the search would continue. We can do both. Again, we have to.

 

So you do admit that "losing perspective and overreacting." is not the only risk the Americans face overturning Hussein. Invasion aggravates and escalates Hussein's bio/chemical terrorism threat into a whole new level, the American civilians would be living under much more constant terror of successive bio/chemical threats if Hussein is a crazy lunatic, and it's not easy at all to defend bio/chemical contanmination in civilian neighbourhoods. Actual citizen lives will be lost. You can push for the campaign all you want, but the people should be fully aware what kind of risks they are getting into beforehand.

Beside, your whole premise of invasion is based on the recognition of Hussein having no nuclear capacity now, and serves as a prevention measure to keep him from having it. Now how do you know that Hussein really doesn't have nuclear capacity? I mean the CIA didn't really do a grand job on 9-11 precaution, how's their reports suddenly become totally reliable? What if, that Hussein does own few workable Nukes, whether made by Iraq or smuggled from Russia? How to defend them from being smuggled into American and detonated in a major city? The answer is we don't really know for sure. In that case, the invasion doesn't serve as a protection/prevention measure, but rather might be a fuse to a nuclear disaster.

Futhermore, why is the only feasible measure is an all-out, full scale war aiming at Hussein's head? How about precise bombing and infiltration to destroy the Iraq's nuclear infrastructure? Before the Americans risk their lives into something, these questions should be well answered first.

 

The risks to the continental US coming under WMD attack are already present and will not increase upon invasion. He can already attack us anonymously in that fashion if he wants to, invasion or no invasion. If anything, the chances of successfully pulling such an attack off will decrease in the event of an invasion due to the disruption his intelligence, financial, and logistics networks would undergo.

The risk to the Israelis would increase, but if you've been paying attention you'll know that they have been quietly beefing up their defenses against chem/bio weapons... The risks to our troops in theater would also increase somewhat, but as I said MOPP IV gear works. The risk is frightening, but acceptable.

A) The mass of Iraqi defectors have told us that he doesn't yet have that capability, and B) they have never conducted any nuclear tests (which are necessary and which we would notice).

True, we don't know for sure (but we are pretty sure), but you still miss the point: there is nothing stopping him from using any weapons he currently has now. He can already do so anonymously. I personally feel that he will likely do so if given enough time, which is why we must act now.

What exactly do you intend to do? Wait until you are 100% sure that he has a nuclear arsenal, and *then* invade? Or just let him keep his nukes and use them to gain control of the world's oil supply? Neither of those courses of action (or inaction, rather) sound very wise to me.

Because his nuclear infrastructure (WMD infrastructure, that is - don'e forget the gas and germs) is not the core of the problem - they are only tools. The core of the problem is Saddam himself and his Bath regime - they are the ones who are continually threatening everyone, the weapons just make it easier for them. When dealing with a repeat murder offender, do you just keep removing his weapons from his possession? Or do you remove him from society? Removing the weapons is not a long-term solution, only a stop-gap measure - until he builds/buys more weapons.

I can't think of a simpler explanation than that.

 

Treeman,

I respect your opinion on the matter, but I think we basically assess the risk to the U.S. differently.

I think if Kuwait or any other of his neighbors were really in danger of being taken over by Iraq they would want something done. Why would they be more scared of suffering at the hands of democratic reform(which I do believe they are afraid of. I agree with you on that point 100%) or suffering from an invasion from Iraq. Why would they be against a U.S. invasion of Iraq if it only meant that they would be taken over from Iraq at a later date.

I also think China is good example, because they have nukes, and from what I understand your statement on their policy of using them is correct. If anything they are a bigger threat than Iraq. They already have the weapons and the delivery systems needed to reach the U.S.

Anyway I salute you for your military service to our country. Keep up the good work.