Tension in the Middle East

Hank Stanley arjohns at ADNC.COM
Sat Feb 14 15:23:56 MST 1998


At 23:32 2/11/98 -0800, Richard A Whitenight wrote:
>
>Most likely everyone on this list is aware that Iraq is attempting to
>circumvent the United States/Nations' attempts to determine of Iraq is
>now making or has the capability of making chemical warfare agents.  All
>parties involved are attempting to reach a diplomatic solution to the
>problem, while President Clinton and others in our government are using
>the threat of military strikes if the diplomatic efforts aren't reached.
>
>
>Question I pose to everyone on this list:
>
>        Should the United States take the initiative and provide Iraq
>with an ultimatum, to open up all their facilities for the UN to search
>within a preset length of time or face the consequences of strategic air
>strikes against Iraqi military targets?
>
>In other words, should the United States use its military might to wake
>Iraq up?
>

The answer to this question is YES, or the result will be another
"Chamberlain's Appeasement Folly" of 1938.

But, the rest of your preface has some issues to be addressed.  I don't
think it has to be (nor should it be) that the U.S. take the initiative
unilaterally.  It should be done, as happened the last time, under the
auspices of the U.N. with a number of our allies signing off on the
process, even though, ultimately, the U.S. would undoubtedly carry out the
military option, probably exclusively.

And, I think it should be done the following way:

1.      We should circumvent the government-controlled sources of information
and go directly to the people of Iraq.  I think the best way to accomplish
this is by conducting a leaflet campaign the way we often did in World War
II.  Using unmanned drones, we could drop leaflets saying something similar
to:

        "Citizens of Iraq, the United Nations forces wish to assure you
        that there is absolutely no intent to harm innocent civilians.  To this
        end, we encourage everyone to remain clear of the 63 sites where the
        Palaces of Saddam Hussein are located for, at least the next XX days.

        "Also, if you hear gunfire, please take shelter because, in the
        past, the Iraqi anti-aircraft forces have been known to fire wildly into
        the air and the large number of expended rounds falling back to the
        ground present a secondary hazard to civilians.  Please protect
        yourselves."

2.      Then, we should commence the United Nations One-A-Day Brand Palace
Removal Program.  That will be to systematically and methodically select
for elimination by bunker-busting high explosive weapons, one new palace
every day (substitution for palaces may be made on a 1-for-1 basis with
suspected factories employed for the production of weapons of mass
destruction, at the discretion of the 1ADBPRP administrators).  This will
leave, entirely to Saddam, the option of how many palaces (and/or
factories) he chooses to relinquish before he agrees to unconditionally
meet all UN demands of him.

3.      If the bombing lasts longer than 10 days (doubtful, but possible), we
should then begin to marshall all ground and amphibious assault forces for
purposes of invading of the southern portion of Iraq, after all
palaces/factories have been eliminated.  This will be to cut off Iraqi
access to the southern oil fields and the main port.  Then we will control
the output of the those refineries and well sell oil to provide
humanitarian aid for non-belligerant Iraqis.  Once established in the south
this way, we then begin an incremental move northward, taking whatever
territory necessary until Saddam is found, leaves the country, or returns
to Allah.

But, this last step is the crux of the matter.  We shouldn't take Step 1.
unless we are prepared to fully execute Step 3.  That means maintaining a
single, focused purpose throughout-- no matter what the UN or our allies
have done in the meantime (the alliance will undoubtedly have broken apart
about the time of the invasion).  That also means we need to be totally
prepared for Scuds and kamikaze terrorist attacks and the whole 9 yards.

Having said all that, there are two things existing today to make an
operation of this magnitude, at minimum, questionable, if not impossible:
1) the unrelenting resolve of the American poeple led by Commander-in-Chief
with sufficient moral authority to ask the citizenry to allow their sons
and daughters to be put into harms way to this degree, and 2) a military as
capable as the one that liberated Kuwait.

I fear that neither of these are in existence today.

>
>
>I'd appreciate your thoughts on this and if you decide to reply to the
>list, please carbon copy me, so I might tabulate the results of this
>informal poll?
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read this post and may your God be with
>you during the upcoming weeks.
>
>



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list