Saddam's Secret Strategy & What to Do Now

[Gravitymaster 0]

March 15, 2006
Saddam's Secret Strategy & What to Do Now
By Ed Koch

On March 12, The New York Times published the first of two articles on "Saddam's Secret Strategy." The Times reported that "the Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them [in December of 2002] three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense."

This information was provided to a CIA task force called the Iraq Survey Group by Tariq Aziz, who had been deputy prime minister of Iraq. The survey group was established "by the CIA after the second gulf War ended to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapon's programs." The Times article continues, "to ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq Survey Group said."

If the Iraqi generals believed that Iraq had WMD up until they were informed by Saddam Hussein three months before the war started, and the UN was unaware of how and where the weapons of mass destruction had been dispersed or destroyed, it is not surprising that the CIA, with few, if any, agents in Iraq before the war, also believed that Iraq still had WMD.

Will The New York Times editorial board and the radicals on the left like MoveOn and the ACLU, all having for years accused the Bush administration of lying to the American people on Iraq's possession of WMD, now admit error? Will the ACLU run another full-page ad in The Times admitting that it was wrong when it accused the President of lying about Iraq's possessing WMD thereby committing high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment?

The self-appointed watchmen of our society, including those I mentioned, and the many media commentators and politically active citizens, e.g. Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, Times columnist Bob Herbert, and so many others who have made wild charges against the President will undoubtedly continue to do so. They have injured the country in the eyes of the world. I do not expect them to admit error in their wild charges and apologize, no matter what the facts show.

The Congress recently held hearings on what the role of the U.S. armed forces will do in Iraq in the event of a civil war. The Bush administration, using Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace in media interviews, takes the position that to date there is no civil war taking place. They say the Iraqi people on all sides looked into the abyss and pulled back.

I don't believe that. The bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a venerated Shiite religious site -- apparently by the Sunnis and the destruction of 100 Sunni mosques in retaliation, along with the execution of hundreds on all sides since the Golden Mosque bombing surely signifies a civil war. This past weekend, The Times reported, "Six car bombs exploded at dusk on Sunday in four crowded markets in a Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, and an Interior Ministry official and witnesses said the bombs killed at least 46 people, wounded more than 200 others and spurred Shiite militiamen to take to the streets." Both Shiites and Sunnis believe the American armed forces will help and protect the other side, their enemies in the fratricide taking place. The U.S. position will undoubtedly be to remain neutral and work with and protect both sides. There must be an Islamic verse somewhere that states the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. I fear our troops will be targeted by both sides.

What is the solution? I have proposed that we issue an ultimatum to our NATO and regional allies informing them that unless they join us by providing their military forces and treasure to bear in the future the casualties and costs we have suffered and expended, we will leave Iraq before the end of June. If they don't join us, the Iraqi civil war will spread and endanger some of those countries physically and others economically.

The closer Iraq has come to a civil war, which many people believe as I do is already here, the more reasonable and doable my proposal becomes. American casualties now total 2,309 dead and 17,004 injured. American expenditures since the Iraqi War was declared total 350 billion with 120 billion more currently being requested by the administration from the Congress. The voices in the land in both Congress and in the cities demanding immediate withdrawal are rising.

If the offer to stay provided our allies join us is not made by our government soon, in the not-too-distant future, it will not be available because an overwhelming number of our citizens will demand immediate unconditional withdrawal. The Congressional election of 2006 in November will soon be upon us, making it more difficult for those supporting our remaining until the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, to convince a majority in the Congress running for reelection to continue to support funding the war.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have always liked Ed Koch because he has a way of seeing through the BS and telling it like it is. I think this is a good proposal and one that GWB should give serious consideration to. Not only does it provide an excellent exit strategy, but it also would force our "allies" to understand what will happen if the US sets a timetable for leaving Iraq and does so without regard to the political stability, something I also see lacking in our own Govt.


-

[briguy 0]

I think the threat to pull out would be regarded as a bluff by the international community and a victory by the extremist insurgents in iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I think the threat to pull out would be regarded as a bluff by the international community and a victory by the extremist insurgents in iraq.

Considering the current hysterical atmosphere the newspapers and liberals have created about Iraq falling into civil war, this would be an excellent opportunity to get NATO onboard and to bring an end to US isolationism in the world regarding Iraq. Think of the impact of such a move would be, particularly forceful if the US simply starts withdrawing troops.

The worse that could happen is it would force debate within the world community and might bring home the reality of what effect such an action would have on the economic stability of Europe, especially. Once people start to understand how such a move would impact them personally, they may start to pressure their own govts. to provide support. This is the main reason support has been hard to achieve up until now.

I also wonder how many US citizens have thought it through on what a withdrawl would do to the US's standing in the world? I wonder if they have thought about what happens in the future when the US wants to sign a treaty with another country and the leaders of that country have doubts about our veracity?

If we could get the Mullahs to start an onslaught of hate and negativity towards Bin Laden and Zarqawi on the same level as the current ones directed at GWB here, we could declare victory. Think about it and think about how this is perceived by the insurgents and think about how helpful it is to them.
Wouldn't it be a great psychological victory to get up every morning and hear another Mullah calling Bin Laden and idiot and a moron and the worst leader the Muslims have ever had?


-

[billvon 3,070]

>what a withdrawl would do to the US's standing in the world?

It could hardly get worse. We'd go from the country who is currently killing Iraqis and enabling a civil war to the country that just enabled a civil war. Is that better or worse?

>I wonder if they have thought about what happens in the future
>when the US wants to sign a treaty with another country and the
>leaders of that country have doubts about our veracity?

After the "there is no doubt that Saddam possesses WMD's" thing I don't think other countries are wondering about our veracity.

>Think about it and think about how this is perceived by the
>insurgents and think about how helpful it is to them.

Just ship them some of your tinfoil hats! (You do have one now, right?)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Perhaps for once you could address the post instead of taking pot shots at me?

I guess thats too much to ask.

[livendive 8]

Nice article, but here's the thing.

Saddam Hussein said Iraq no longer had any WMDs.
His people said Iraq no longer had any WMDs.
The chief UN Weapons Inspector said that Iraq no longer had any WMDs.

GWB said all those people were full of shit and decided to expend mega money and significant US and Iraqi lives proving it. He was unable to do so, because it turned out they weren't full of shit.

Dress it up however you like; try to justify it by any means necessary. The fact is that in the months leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi President had a more legitimate claim to honesty regarding Iraqi WMDs than the American President. Of course Saddam knew he was telling the truth, whereas GWB was just gambling that he wasn't.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,106]

Ed Koch of Saturday Night Live fame?

" I have proposed that we issue an ultimatum to our NATO and regional allies informing them that unless they join us by providing their military forces and treasure to bear in the future the casualties and costs we have suffered and expended, we will leave Iraq before the end of June. If they don't join us, the Iraqi civil war will spread and endanger some of those countries physically and others economically. "

I can see how that would go over well. First we poke our finger in our allies collective eyes ("Freedom Fries", "cheese eating surrender monkeys"...), then we fuck up an operation that should take "at most six months", prove our president a liar, and now Koch wants us to blackmail the allies into bailing us out of the mess WE created.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Perhaps for once you could address the post instead of taking pot shots at me?

You're very skilled at missing where he does "address the post." I've been amused watching you do that all over the place.

Quite a skill. Is it marketable? Maybe you could teach classes.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps for once you could address the post instead of taking pot shots at me?

You're very skilled at missing where he does "address the post." I've been amused watching you do that all over the place.

Quite a skill. Is it marketable? Maybe you could teach classes.

And I've noticed your propensity to make everything personal.

Is there something you would like to discuss about this post?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ed Koch of Saturday Night Live fame?

" I have proposed that we issue an ultimatum to our NATO and regional allies informing them that unless they join us by providing their military forces and treasure to bear in the future the casualties and costs we have suffered and expended, we will leave Iraq before the end of June. If they don't join us, the Iraqi civil war will spread and endanger some of those countries physically and others economically. "

I can see how that would go over well. First we poke our finger in our allies collective eyes ("Freedom Fries", "cheese eating surrender monkeys"...), then we fuck up an operation that should take "at most six months", prove our president a liar, and now Koch wants us to blackmail the allies into bailing us out of the mess WE created.

What would your plan be?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be:

We fucked up royally, we understand that now, we are truly sorry and would appreciate any help.

[billvon 3,070]

>We fucked up royally, we understand that now, we are truly sorry
>and would appreciate any help.

That statement alone would do more to get more international cooperation than a hundred sessions of backroom arm-twisting. But it will never, ever happen. Heck, the first time Bush was asked if he would have done anything differently he couldn't think of a single thing. He needed coaching before he could answer it the next time - and then the answer was "I trusted people too much."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Shouldn't the title of this thread be:

We fucked up royally, we understand that now, we are truly sorry and would appreciate any help.

Maybe "We Should Have Trusted Saddam" would be more to your liking?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Maybe "We Should Have Trusted Saddam" would be more to your liking?

I think that should read:

We should have trusted everybody else, since we were the only ones claiming any different.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe "We Should Have Trusted Saddam" would be more to your liking?

I think that should read:

We should have trusted everybody else, since we were the only ones claiming any different.

Short memory, huh? Go back and read what German, Italian, British Intelligence thought at the time. Read what most politicians in the US thought at the time. 20/20 hindsite is wonderful isn't it?

-

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Short memory, huh? Go back and read what German, Italian, British Intelligence thought at the time. Read what most politicians in the US thought at the time. 20/20 hindsite is wonderful isn't it?

Wasn't that all based on the same reports from the same guy?

And if you go back far enough, all those reports would be correct, since he did have them. Just not anymore when you needed it as an excuse for Bush's pet project.

[billvon 3,070]

> Go back and read what German, Italian, British Intelligence thought at the time.

They thought he might have WMD, and wanted to complete UN inspections to be sure. Too bad we ignored them. There would be a few thousand more US soldiers alive today if we hadn't.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Ed Koch of Saturday Night Live fame?

" I have proposed that we issue an ultimatum to our NATO and regional allies informing them that unless they join us by providing their military forces and treasure to bear in the future the casualties and costs we have suffered and expended, we will leave Iraq before the end of June. If they don't join us, the Iraqi civil war will spread and endanger some of those countries physically and others economically. "

I can see how that would go over well. First we poke our finger in our allies collective eyes ("Freedom Fries", "cheese eating surrender monkeys"...), then we fuck up an operation that should take "at most six months", prove our president a liar, and now Koch wants us to blackmail the allies into bailing us out of the mess WE created.

What would your plan be?

1. Impeach Bush
2. Impeach Cheney
3. New president apologizes to the world and appeals to traditional allies for assistance

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ed Koch of Saturday Night Live fame?

" I have proposed that we issue an ultimatum to our NATO and regional allies informing them that unless they join us by providing their military forces and treasure to bear in the future the casualties and costs we have suffered and expended, we will leave Iraq before the end of June. If they don't join us, the Iraqi civil war will spread and endanger some of those countries physically and others economically. "

I can see how that would go over well. First we poke our finger in our allies collective eyes ("Freedom Fries", "cheese eating surrender monkeys"...), then we fuck up an operation that should take "at most six months", prove our president a liar, and now Koch wants us to blackmail the allies into bailing us out of the mess WE created.

What would your plan be?

1. Impeach Bush
2. Impeach Cheney
3. New president apologizes to the world and appeals to traditional allies for assistance

Give Saddam his country back. He, no doubt, did a far better job than the US and the puppet government now in power(?) can ever expect to do. Considering that the US and Saddam were, at one time, allies and that the US shit all over him for the oil corporation it is hard to see how any mideast country could ever trust the US.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I have proposed that we issue an ultimatum to our NATO and regional allies informing them that unless they join us by providing their military forces and treasure to bear in the future the casualties and costs we have suffered and expended, we will leave Iraq before the end of June. If they don't join us, the Iraqi civil war will spread and endanger some of those countries physically and others economically.

Sounds more like a blackmail proposal.
Hey, look, we screwed everything up and made a mess out of this, join us or else we'll release the dog on you! Koch is an asshat and nothing but hotair.
The US cannot expect support from countries that the US thumbed it's nose at.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nice article, but here's the thing.

Saddam Hussein said Iraq no longer had any WMDs.
His people said Iraq no longer had any WMDs.
The chief UN Weapons Inspector said that Iraq no longer had any WMDs.

It would be foolish to take the first two at their word. Only someone with no power would.

The UN in theory is about preventing conflict, which was not really in US interests to remove the return of a powerful Iraq in the Gulf.
(The UN in practice appeared to have a lot of $$ attached)

Of course, we all know that WMDs was a means to an end, not the reason, so it's somewhat beside the point. And monday morning QBs have it too easy. If you were Israeli or a minority faction in Iraq, would you take it on faith that the weapons were gone? Would you bet *your life* on this conviction?

[sfzombie13 324]

point is we didn't have to bet our lives on it. since when is our duty to protect isreal? if corporations weren't running this country, we'd be free from oil now and laughing at the fact that the mid east had all this oil and coudn't sell it, so their economies would collapse and they'd be threats to noone. the main 2 reasons for this war (actually 1) is w's daddy was embarrassed by saddamin desert storm, and then he was no longer controllable by us and the cia.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[MrBounce 0]

Quote

> Go back and read what German, Italian, British Intelligence thought at the time.

They thought he might have WMD, and wanted to complete UN inspections to be sure. Too bad we ignored them. There would be a few thousand more US soldiers alive today if we hadn't.

Actually most intelligence services weren't certain that he had operational WMDs. Hell, Tony Bliar had to "sex up" the intelligence reports to get parliamentary support for a war, and even then, most people didn't believe it.

The US would go a long way by apologising and facing up that it made a mistake, and then by taking resposibility for that mistake by committing to stay until Iraq has a stable society. That way others would be more supportive and more likely to help.

Gavin

Gavin

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust.

[briguy 0]

Quote

...committing to stay until Iraq has a stable society. That way others would be more supportive and more likely to help.

i don't know if anyone can give them a stable society with all the splinter groups. we can, however, provide a stable government and infrastructure.

(then we'll be accused forming a puppet government and those crazies will blow up all the cool infrastructure we just built)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~