Originally posted by rs7
Please don't misinterpret my meaning. I personally think he personifies evil. But he seems to be such a caricature of himself that I can't help but wonder if our perceptions can be real. Can anyone be that purely evil? Even Hitler has his softer side. (No defense of Hitler intended...I would go back in time if I could and kill him myself if possible).
We negotiated directly with Stalin. He turned on us eventually (as have so many of the Arab and other third world "allies" we have backed at one time or another). But even the brief alliance with Stalin served our purposes for the duration of the War with Germany.
Now you're where I want you. We can talk. I feel that he just might be that evil. And for whatever reason his internal unit has been galvanized into a pretty good support armor. You say that you wonder if our perceptions could be real? Well the Jews would have never believed that a man would go to the lengths that Hitler went to as they boarded the trains for the camps. Someone within the whole Nazi/SS should have taken the shot that would have saved so many. Yet it did not happen. As tragic as it may have been, it could have been stopped. And it wasn't!
Stalin? He turned on us eventually. Sounds as though we only prolonged the inevitable then. Should we opt for that as a base strategy again? Rather than create "brief alliances," why not think through the alliance and the possible turns first. Maybe it
IS an option if honestly put together and not planned.
----------------------------------
I just think every option should be considered. If nothing works, I believe a limited tactical strike on the leadership of Iraq would make more sense than a massive ground attack. Maybe the old adage "cut off the head and the body dies" will hold true. If we can eliminate Saddam, we may not have to bother with the Iraqi army. And certainly not with the Iraqi people.
That's exactly what I am trying to do here. Consider options instead of developing a "Concept From the Hip" approach. Think it through as far as possible. Well beyond the field actions.
Limited tactical strike? I like that but intelligence would lead me to understand that this is not practical without some "innocent casualties" being possible. Is that an acceptable thing for you? His fleeing will undoubtedly be through a group of "shield civilians" all claiming to be innocent and unarmed. Are
YOU ready for the American outcry of "Unjust Killings" that will follow.
-----------------------------------
And an "occupation" could actually be beneficial to all. It could be a way to contribute food, education and financial support to a nation that otherwise would never accept our contributions without all the goods and services going to the corrupt regimes that are in control. You cannot give foreign aid of any kind when you try and bypass a regime like Saddam's. Remember Somalia.
Ok, I can see that. But what if they do not want our food? What if they claim it is poison laced? That it is a genocide planned by the capitalist dogs of America. Our education? More mind poison. Our money? Trying to buy an allegiance like America always does, throw money at a problem. The Arab world as we are lead to believe is such a monolith that we would have no chance. What preplanning and what countries will you use for the occupation? Any western forces would get no mileage. And what other Arab country are you going to (in their minds) enslave them to? Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are viewed by many with hate as our puppets. What now?
-------------------------
Just my disjointed thoughts for this morning. I don't see how the "Afghanistan" approach would play but in Iraq. Afghanistan was a different situation. No organized army, no distinct
"popular" leadership, no conventional anything. And importantly, no natural resources with which to use as bargaining chips as there are in Iraq. Remember what the Iraqi forces did when they left Kuwait. If their mentality can conceive of such destructive behavior, then they could be manipulated into believing that we can sever their only assets that make them a viable presence in the world. Threaten to take their resources, and they may crumble with the fear that they would have nothing left with which to deal with the world. In the end, it comes down to putting Iraq in a position of being forced to decide what path will best serve their own purposes. And it would not seem that difficult to limit their choices to either cooperate, or be a global outcast. Broke, hungry and devoid of hope. And all they need to do is take some control over their own lives. These are more educated and more secular people than we have had to deal with in places like Afghanistan. Or Somalia. Psychological warfare should do the trick in Iraq. As long as we can clear the way by somehow taking Saddam and his lunatic sons out of the equation.
This would all be true if the average Iraqi understood what value they do have. They see no benefits from the oil profits other than lavish palaces and a new set of tanks and other weapons. To them, oil is an asset that the west wants. But do they really understand what they have and are not enjoying the benefits from. We talk evil oil, but we should put a face on evil oil. And it ain't an American face/company. The average Iraqi citizen has not been to Disney World, rode on an exclusive personal jet, partied in the finest areas of the world, enjoyed the fruits so to speak. Why not start there? Show them the true enemy!
