U.S. general tells Israelis war will start by late November WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Thursday, August 29, 2002 TEL AVIV — The United States has told Israel that it will attack Iraq before the end of November. Israeli military sources said a a senior U.S. military visited Israel earlier this week and toured facilities where the U.S. military has prepositioned equipment and weapons for an emergency in the Middle East. The sources quoted a visiting U.S. general who heads army logistics as saying that Washington intends to strike the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by late November. The Israeli sources said the two countries discussed Israel's role in any U.S. military attack, Middle East Newsline reported. The general was quoted as saying that Washington's aim is to topple the Saddam regime. The general was not named. In joint military discussions earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said Iraq would be only the first stop in the U.S. war on terror, an Israeli parliamentarian said. Yuval Steinetz, chairman of the Knesset subcommittee on military doctrine, said he held talks with senior Pentagon officials in June regarding Washington's vision of a post-Saddam Middle East. Steinetz said Washington envisions a new order in the Middle East after Saddam is toppled and a democratic regime is installed. "Iraq is the key but not the last stop [in the U.S. effort]," Steinetz said. "It is the first stop. After that there will be massive [U.S.] pressure on Syria and Iran to halt weapons of mass destruction programs and Syria's occupation of Lebanon." U.S. military sources and analysts said Washington has sent tens of thousands of soldiers and military personnel to Gulf Arab states, Central and South Asia and the Levant. They said the force includes at least 1,000 military planners who have prepared for a rapid airlift of forces in case Washington decides on a war against Iraq. Israeli officials have confirmed that both military and civilian officials from Israel and the United States have been discussing Washington's plans to attack Iraq. They said the talks have included the Bush administration's vision of a post-war Iraq and U.S. policy in the Middle East. The military talks, the officials said, have focused largely on Israel's response to any Iraqi missile or air strike on the Jewish state. They said Israel and the United States have reviewed a series of scenarios of whether and how Israel would react to an Iraqi conventional or nonconventional missile strike. Israeli military sources said the level of Israel's response would depend on the number of casualties and damage caused by any Iraqi strike. The sources said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told the Bush administration that it would not pledge any policy of restraint as that during the 1991 Gulf war. click for complete article
I read that during the Gulf War we restrained Israel from attacking Iraq after they launched Scuds at Israel. This time around they said that we would not even ask Israel to restrain. I think they fear that other Arab states will jump in on Iraq's side if Israel attacks. That could get ugly if they did. I really hate all of this posturing and leaking of information. If we are going to do something, let's do it and get it over with instead of letting everyone know. Saddam is screwed, if he let's the weapons inspectors in with full control then they will find his WOMD/chemical weapons and he will lose all international support and we/UN will slam him. I think he is stalling with the talk of letting them in, he will never let them search all of his facilities. If we attack him now, it will not be popular globally but as soon as we show the weapons that we find in Iraq and the links to terrorism the world will get off our backs.
Are you saying it would help the GOP in the election? Isn't the country pretty divided on attacking Iraq? I don't think it would help anyone. No Wagging the Dog here.
I still don't understand how we can attack Iraq without the approval of Congress. I saw that Bush's legal advisors said he could get around it, but I still haven't seen how. Anyone have any links to help me out on this?
I love how thwey are planning for a post War Iraq before we even do anything. However, that being said, why don't we just give it to the palestinians and pretend it's a holy mecca or something
I'm glad that even though there is no support from Europe (other than Britan and even that is waning), no support from the Middle East, Russia or China, tremendous warnings from military and political experts (including from within the GOP and the administration), no consensus among the administration leaders and no support from Congress, a significant concern that a $100 billion war could bankrupt the country in a time when our financial markets are shaky at best... after all this... it seems like it's going to happen anyway. oh, and by the way, according to the military, this is just the beginning. genius.
Only Congress can declare war, but the President can take military action without officially declaring war. The War Powers Act says he has 90 days I believe after the intervention, after which he has to come to Congress.
The thing that gets me is that they say because Saddam is trying for weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them on us, that's justification for committing the first strike? Well using that logic, either India or Pakistan would be justified in attacking their neighbor. Both already have weapons of mass distruction, and there is a far greater chance that either of those will use them on each other than Iraq using them on the U.S. Those two countries have military or paramilitary skirmishes all the time.
I think the attack is closer than we are guessing here. Give it about a week- 2 weeks. Get us through the long weekend then it will happen. I really doubt we will wait until November.
It seems that we now tip our hand to our military startegy through the press. I realize this is nothing new but it seems more prevelent then in the past. I may be naive, but I dont think Bush would use this as a catalyst for anything other then what it is, ridding the world of terrorists.
Uh, no. India and pakistan already have nuclear weapons, so its not the same thing. And both of them having nukes has NOT stopped aggression, as you point out, it has only made the likelihood of a conflict becoming NUCLEAR that much greater. Right now Iraq does not have nukes, so the likelihood of a nuclear conflict between Iraq and someone is ZERO. Once they get them the likelihood increases exponentially.
Come on Jeff, you would still say this if we knew for sure that Saddam has nukes and he is trying to use them on us? He may have them already. He is very dangerous. Where did you get the 100 billion dollar figure from? This will be a short war. When all of the facts surface there will be plenty of support for his removal. Besides what's 100 billion when we owe 6 trillion?
The $100 billion figure came from numerous experts on the subject who testified before congress and the joint heads of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both the Republican and Democratic members of that committee were interviewed several weeks ago and said they were very concerned about the cost. The Gulf War cost $60 billion and the us was only on the hook for 10 percent of that according to them with our allies each picking up some. In addition, several experts including the US military expert who led the UN's weapons inspectors in Iraq for more than 6 years, have said that Sadaam is not close to developing weapons of mass destruction that would be OF ANY GREATER THREAT than he has had for the past 25 years, most of which are chemical and biological. Of course, we knew he used those against Iran. Besides, saying this will be a "short war" only implies that the fight will be short. Some estimate that the US military will be required to occupy Iraq for as long as 10 years to rebuild the government infrastructure because the highest concern (right up there with the cost) is what exactly will happen once Sadaam is gone. No one knows and it is impossible to predict at this point. That leaves us as peacekeepers, aid workers, humanitarian suppliers, military and political advisors to a country once the fighting stops. Then there is weapons disposal, re-building of infrastructure, development of key internal systems for their country, handling refugees, etc. This goes WAY beyond just kicking Sadaam's ass, which is probably not as simple as everyone thinks and will very likely only serve to alienate us further from the Middle East where they already don't care for us, which means MORE terrorism. This thing is complex. The estimate of $100 billion is just for the war and post-war cleanup. It doesn't even bother to include what will happen after the war is over and it doesn't mention what will happen if this widens into a war throughout the region - Iran, Syria, Lebannon, Israel, Palestine, etc. That is why so many people are concerned and not just liberal anti-war types. Scocroft, Baker, Powell and on and on are all advising extreme caution and very slow going and Congress is doing the same.
Yes they do already have nukes, so they seem they would be even more dangerous than Saddam, yet the Bush administration continues to urge both sides toward peace in that case. A pre-emptive strike by either India, or Pakistan, could remove an enemy from power making them much safer from nuclear attacks. After all who's under more danger... someone who's enemy has a nuclear weapon, or someone who's enemy doesn't? For the record I don't think either of those countries should invade the other, but if the logic of pre-emptive first strike being justified, then either of those countries have more justification than U.S. This country has never been the nation to strike first. Looks like that's about to come to an end.
There aren't many countries that even have the capability to reach American cities with nuclear weapons. The biggest threat among those, I would guess would be China. I think first they would probably take out LA. I think they've even mentioned that if they struck heavy population centers such as L.A. it would weaken the U.S. will to fight.
If it were terrorist and not a country trying to defeat our capabilites to attack, then it would probably be another big symbol of America. I would guess New York, D.C., Baltimore, Philly, Boston. Probably something on the East Coast. Maybe something closer to Canada like Chicago or Detroit that might be easier to get into than the East Coast. I think the Bush administration said that they fear the Canadian border because it is so long and hard to prevent passage. I doubt it would be LA, Dallas, Houston, San Fran... just my guess. I hope it never happens.
