my question is why release this info... wouldn't we want to not say anything until it was time to do it? or is this to put the 'fear' into Iraq? -------------- U.S. Plan Calls for Massive Attack on Iraq WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A draft U.S. military plan for an invasion of Iraq is said to envision a multi-pronged attack with tens of thousands of Marines and soldiers probably invading from Kuwait, The New York Times reported on Friday. Citing a person familiar with the document, the newspaper said the highly classified plan calls for air, land and sea-based forces to attack from three directions in a campaign to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. President Bush has openly declared his desire to remove Saddam my military force if necessary, but has offered few details of how he plans to accomplish that goal. According to the newspaper, the document envisions hundreds of war planes based in as many as eight countries unleashing a huge air assault against thousands of targets, including airfields, roadways and fiber-optics communications sites. Special operations forces or covert CIA operatives would strike at depots or laboratories storing or manufacturing Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to launch them, the report said. Underscoring the preliminary nature of the planning, officials were cited as saying that none of the countries named in the document have been formally consulted about playing a role in any U.S. action against Iraq. Nothing in the document or in interviews with senior military officials suggests an attack on Iraq is imminent, the newspaper said. click for complete article
I read this in the chronicle this morning. Why are they giving any details at all of their plan? They should hit Iraq hard with or without the support of any other nation, preferably with. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1483565
Iraq has been expecting to be attacked for quite a while now... especially since 9/11. I think as long as So Damn Insane is in power there, it's pretty much inevitable.
I think we should use swift, decisive force in attacking Iraq. They are currently defying UN weapons inspectors to this day, despite the conditions of surrender they agreed to after the Persian Gulf War. Additionally, they are funding terrorist groups to this day and are actively seeking to build "weapons of mass destruction". If we allow them to continue on this course, they will eventually be able to threaten their neighbors (and our oil suppliers) and eventually our economy. I personally would like to see us go after several other Middle East nations as well in an effort to root out terrorism. Now is our best chance, if we wait longer, we will have even less support abroad for this. After 8 years of the Clinton administration acting like a complete pushover on these issues, it is time to take decisive action.
I think So Damn Insane is going to have a few chemical weapons up his sleeves and I really feel sorry for our ground troops... this time it will be messy....
Good point rockHEAD, but the war will be fought on Iraq soil, so any chemical weapons used will undoubtedly harm more Iraqis than US, although I honestly don't think that is something Saddam even considers. Also, if they use chemical weapons, I would not at all be surprised if George W unleashes nukes on him.
An attack like this can't be a "surprise" attack do to its very nature. It would take a massive military build up in the region, permission from a variety of countries, etc. It would probably takes many weeks of pre-attack preparations. If we do attack Iraq, I think we will all know about it well in advance.
According to military sources quoted on "All Things Considered," an attack probably wouldn't take place until early next year. One of the main problems appears to be securing staging grounds for the troops. Many of Iraq's neighbors seem unwilling to offer their land at this point.
It sure will be messy. If the United State took him out in a few days with planes, and hardly any effort, wait until they decide to finish the job. Something tells me the ground troops are barely going to be needed. I think what you're going to see is non-stop bombing by air, wiping out their communications so that they can't communicate with each other, and then systematically wiping them out. Pretty much like Afghanistan.
This doesn't sound good. I don't like the idea of sending a bunch of troops to war overseas. A better solution would be to send in a group of special troops to displace Saddam, much like they did to Aidid in Somalia. If we have the intelligence to discover so damn insane's whereabouts, let's kill him with as little noise as possible. I'm sure the US has people working in Iraq on the "inside." Remember the last time the US went to war with Iraq, there were thousands of civilian casualties. I'm no left-winger, I just don't like the idea of tearing apart families and starving innocent people. Not to mention the fact that a war with Iraq will cause our nation further financial strain.
You guys are forgetting public reaction from other Muslim countries. The governments might be friendly to the US, but they can't admit it or their people will riot. Did anyone read that other topic about "Bushariff" losing countrol of public opinion because of his strong support for American demands? This is a regionwide thing. There will no doubt be civil unrest in many Muslim countries if they allow the US to use their land as bases. Turkey is already trying to suppress it's fundamental movements. And one of the reasons of Osama's terrorism is that the United States kept a millitary presense on Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca. This is going to be a very messy battle, and no doubt Saddam is going to play the "East vs. West" or "Christianity vs. Islam" card. And there will be many people in the Muslim community that will share that sentiment. It's a diplomatic landmine, and the rhetoric Bush is saying now isn't making it better. I also doubt special forces can effectively assassinate Saddam. He's a master of hiding himself and putting lookalikes of him around his various bunkers. Not only do we want to kill him, but his various enemies like the Kurds in Northern Iraq want to displace him as well. If you look at the situation in Afghanistan, the Muslim world wasn't very supportive of it, but accepted it because of what happened on 9/11. Now they're going to view this as a US invasion on another Muslim country. Whether you care or not, worldwide opinion on the US will suffer, and we might face another oil embargo like that in the 70's. Prices for oil have been relatively stable for the past 10 months because our friendly Muslim governments have been keeping their gas prices low. There's more than one way to show support than being vocal, and they've done it.
I hope to God you're not raising the possibility as anything other than a horrifying worst case all things gone wrong scenario, because that's just scary. Do you really want to live in the only nation to have ever been able to use nuclear arms to have actually done so...and done it again!?!?!What would we think of, say, Russia, or China, if they had that record instead?
It appears that Saddam may be launching a small pre-emptive strike. http://www.debka.com/ Saddam Sends Crack Troops Against US Commandos and US-Backed Kurds in North 2 July: On June 11, Saddam Hussein signed Military Directive 531 ordering commando units from the Republican Guards and special military intelligence combat units to head into northern Iraq. He had just received intelligence reports indicating that the US special forces and CIA personnel he knew to have landed in the northern region were making impressive strides in recruiting and training Kurdish fighters for their anti-Saddam combat units. According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources, the presidential decree directed the commandos “to wage a secret, tenacious and sustained war to destroy enemy forces that have invaded the Iraqi motherland”, employing the following tactics: 1. Ambushes and night raids to attack and destroy Kurdish and US camps, communications bases and arms depots and inflict heavy enemy casualties. 2. Seek the element of surprise. 3. Each unit was on its own in the field and must fight as though no outside help was available. The average Iraqi commando squad is composed of five or six well- trained fighters. Five or six larger units have between 15 and 25 combatants each. Each unit was issued its operational and attack missions. They included terror strikes against civilians in the Kurdish cities, towns and villages where the population appears willing to cooperate with the Americans. Their commanders were to break open the secret emergency stores located in Klar, in the oil province of Kirkuk; the Dahuk region north of Mosul in central northern Iraq; Rawandiz, in the northeast near the Iranian border; Amadiyah, near the Turkish frontier; and Zakho, close to the meeting point of the borders of Iraq,Turkey and Syria. Those stores contain supplies of weapons, explosives, ammunition, food, drinking water and medical supplies. Iraqi military intelligence had moreover established three forward command centers near Siniar in western Iraq, across from the border with Syria; outside Summel, northeast of the Ayn Zalah oil field; and in the Rost area, very close to the Iranian border. Saddam set up the command centers and commando units back in February, when he found out that a vanguard of US special forces and CIA agents were about to land in northern Iraq. He held back from striking then in order to lull his enemies into a false sense of security and the belief they were in full control of a friendly region. ________________________________________
Things like this don't come out in the press for no reason. Someone in the administration and/or Department of Defense and/or State is floating this information to gauge public support, or inspire action within Iraq.
I hear Saddam may step aside aside and hand power off to someone else as the pressure and military builds. He knows that he cannot win.
I'm willing to risk political fallout in the Middle East (not exactly like we're really liked there now, anyway..not sure what real difference it will make!) to eliminate this guy and the possibility that he might used weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies. Easy for me to say since I don't have to make the decisions that will send american soldiers out there...and since i'm not in the military. but suppose we do nothing...continue waiting for sanctions to work..if Iraq ever did use chemical weapons or nuclear weapons on the United States...and we sustained massive casualties...how could we ever forgive the presidential administrations that allowed this guy to defy these arms inspections for so long? I couldn't...and i'm betting those who are critical of these efforts now would then be critical that nothing was done to make them safer...peace doesn't just exist..sometimes it has to be made..and other times it just has to be guarded.
Saddam said he may hand control to his son. What a joke. I can't imagine there are any countries in the Middle East that actually want Saddam to stay in power. Iraq has a secular government, so the Islamists can't call our military action a religious affront. Does anybody really think that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran want Saddam to continue his reign of terror in possession of nuclear weapons? In my opinion, many nations will publicly express contempt for the US and UK when the attack occurs, and quietly cheer when Saddam is gone. Russia, a country that needs American dollars for oil, will sit quietly on the sidelines in the role of our new business friend.
sounds like the emperor in return of the jedi! sorry..i totally agree with you...it just reminded me of that movie "it is your destiny!!!"
