A couple of days ago I tried posting this in General Questions as “American Enterprise Institute and Iraq” but it did not fly, maybe because it was a dull thread title, maybe because no one thought it was important. At any rate, I’m going to try it again.
Over the last few days there have been repeated references to the possibility/probability/certainty of a connection between binLaden and Sadam in Iraq. Notably there was an interview with a press agent for the American Enterprise Institute on NPR on Wednesday and on Thursday an editorial by Richard Parker, A Knight Ridder journalist, and Bryan Bender, formerly the Washington Bureau chief for Jane’s. The thrust of these items and, I imagine, others is that while binLaden’s people may well have done the dirty work, Sadam and Iraq are probably the instigators and financiers of the terror raids on NYC and Washington. This makes some sense on a “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” level, but it may well fall into the “important if true” category.
If true (and I assume that the government knows or has evidence of stuff that we are not being told), doesn’t it make more sense to restrain the verbal attacks on Afghanistan and crank up to finish the Gulf Campaign by beating up on Iraq? The idea of military action against Afghanistan is somewhat daunting even if the action is confined to commando raids. Afghanistan is going to be difficult to get to, it being land locked and surrounded by states whose cooperation is questionable and subject to change. Isn’t it much more feasible to go after Iraq. Iraq can be attacked from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and from the Persian Gulf. We have an immense amount of information on Iraq since the country has been under intense surveillance ever since the Gulf Campaign. Compared to the damage Iraq can do in the Middle East the actions of binLaden’s people are a pinprick, even considering the horrors in NYC and Washington.
Doesn’t it make sense, if we have credible information that Iraq is culpable in the terror attacks of last week, to concentrate our vengeance on Iraq before we go off on a series of 40-day patrols in Afghanistan?
The information would need be credible to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the very least. Their standard of proof will likely be higher than journalistic hearsay.
This Salon article discusses former CIA Director James Woolsey’s thoughts on the subject. No good proof, but his contention is that the amount of organization involved is more consistent with the operations of the Iraqi intelligence service than with some fundamentalist religious organization. Woolsey makes a plausible assertion, for instance, that Ramzi Yousef (of the 1993 WTC bombing) is really an Iraqi intelligence agent.
If it turns out that our old friend Saddam is manipulating bin Laden both as a diversion and to supply cannon fodder, I’m prepared to believe it.
Woolsey has written another article, this time in The New Republic, outlining many of the same questions that he raised in his original article. If the connection between the terrorists and Iraq is made, I wonder how that will change people’s perception of the acceptability of a military response. The original Salon.com article by Woolsey mentions a possible meeting between Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi Intelligence officer. The same possibility is mentioned in a news report from ITN.
No one wants to see innocent people suffer for this attack, whether it was organized and planned by Osama Bin Laden or Iraq, but an attack that was orchestrated by Iraq is an attack by a nation state and would be a true “Act of War” under any definition, not merely the expanded one that has been used so frequently since September 11[sup]th[/sup]. If the involvement of Iraqi can be proved, does that change the understandable resistance to the idea of a large-scale military response to this attack. Suddenly the parallel between the attacks on September 11[sup]th[/sup] and Pearl Harbor become much more palatable, albeit still imperfect. Instead of being the isolated act of a terrorist group or network (a non-state entity), suddenly it’s a nation working through a proxy to attack another nation. If a connection is proven to the satisfaction of the hopeful coalition, does the possibility of a massive military response become more acceptable?
Certainly, from a practical and tactical standpoint, a response against Iraq has few of the problems that confront us in Afghanistan. The terrain and location of Afghanistan make any sort of full-scale invasion of the country by American or even Coalition forces problematic at best, it’s already been demonstrated that the wide flat desert of Iraq poses no such difficulties.
If a connection between the government of Iraq and the attacks is proven, how far do we go? Although the policy of the United States states that the terrorists and anyone who harbors them will be treated in the same manner, I haven’t seen any credible reports that we are planning on declaring war on the nation of Afghanistan. Would we, and should we, go to that extent if Iraq is shown to be deeply involved in the attack? If war is declared, what’s the objective? To topple Sadamn Hussein and the Bath Party regime? How far should and would we go?
The US-led coalition is assembling the greatest air armada in military history–along with several aircraft carrier task force groups–against a mountainous country in which ground-based guerrilla warfare is indicated. Doesn’t exactly compute does it?
Unless you consider that Iraq is about to get the living crap pounded out of it, too. Don’t be surprised to wake up one morning soon and see a coordinated attack on both countries underway. I think Bush is getting all his pieces pre-positioned for a massive two-fer. I’ll guarantee you the National Security Agency has intercepts proving Iraq’s complicity.
Be kinda ironic to have Colin Powell playing the key role in taking Saddam out this time, wouldn’t it? Wonder what he thinks about taking the State job now.
tsunamisurfer, the gathering of air power may simply reflect the fact that it’s pretty much what we have available. Besides, it’s good intimidation for third-party governments - the modern version of gunboat diplomacy. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be used, but I’m as prepared for the news you predict as you are.
If this becomes a reheating of the Gulf War, then it will really be a continuation of the no-fly-zone engagements that have been going on ever since, below the level of public notice, with the difference that a ground invasion and capture of Baghdad, and the execution of Saddam and the Baath Party hierarchy, would almost be required. The Afghanistan theater would be a sideshow.
I’ve been telling my friends from day one that we were going to attack Iraq and Afganistan. Anybody want to put a dollar bet on it. You don’t need 3 aircraft carrier battle groups to attack afganistan. There will be small directed attacks against Afganistan and large full scale invasion of Iraq.
You don’t need 3 aircraft carrier battle groups to attack afganistan. There will be small directed attacks against Afganistan and large full scale invasion of Iraq.