The President has said that he’s committed to overthrowing Saddam, but that he hasn’t yet decided to do so militarily. Presumbly, he’s currently trying to accomplish this goal by other means. [ul][]What other means is he be utililzing?[]What other means should he be utililzing?How effective or realistic are they?[/ul]
Hope Saddam kicks the bucket. 
Or if he doesn’t kick the bucket, maybe someone close to him can kill him for us.
Asking that question seems to me like taking a walk around the houses.
How about extending the logic and asking why Bush allegedly wants to see regime change in Iraq. The answer is, presumably, because Saddam is perceived to be a threat to the US. Q: How to remove threats and secure the safety of the US people, including the threat allegedly posed by Iraq ?
A starting point and clues: Nine letters, beginning with ‘P’, three generations of refugees, 50 years of vacillation, the single most significant motivation for those behind 9/11.
'course, because Bush hasn’t produced any evidence, we can talk all day long about ‘perspective change’ and whether Saddam actually poses a threat.
Wsa that the answer you were looking for … 
You hit the nail on the head, oh denizen of the darkest month.
The problem with the rhetoric being tossed around now is that we are backing ourselves and Saddam into a corner. As long as we are publicly committed to a regime change, we are going to have to use force.
Bush talks about mulling over the options, but he should know that Saddam is not going to voluntarily walk away from power.
If the rhetoric was “We think a regime change is necessary, unless Saddam allows weapons inspectors to return under the conditions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.” then we have a chance of using diplomacy. We could get Russia (Iraq’s new best friend) and the surrounding countries to push that goal, and it might work.
I don’t hold out high hopes of it working, but if it did, it would be much cheaper, less bloody and more stabilizing to the region than a military conflict.
They can send a one-man force in.
http://permanentpeace.org/ex_summary.html
I really can’t add anything to do this justice, save that it has that peculiar air of sounding ALMOST logical, as would, perhaps, the mass casting an AD&D ‘Sleep’ spell on Iraq.
Ah…the “Fidel Castro” approach…
I said it on my Iraq thread, and I’ll say it again. One, exploding cigars. Two, guns which explode when fired in the air. Three, exploding moustache trimmer. Four, anything else that explodes, dammit. No, I did not work for the CIA in the 1950s-1960s, I just think like I did.
I say we we sit in a circle indian style “sorry native american style” and chant “Let their be world peace.”. Then get lit and have group sex.
I don’t think that would work, as the Iraqi Republican Guard are classified as 5th level fighters, and thus immune to sleep. The best move would be to infiltrate Baghdad with a Cloak of Elvenkind, then cast Finger of Death on Saddam. As he’s a 0-level human he has a crummy save against Death Magic. Probably wouldn’t hurt to follow up with a Mass Charm on his inner circle.
London_Calling, my dear old bean, when did you pass your sages exam? Well said, Sir!
Yeah. At the risk of being flamed or at least severely singed, what HAS Saddam done to the US recently? Why is there this overwhelming need to deal with him? What sort of a threat is he to US security?
Or is this yet another case of the US just wanting to display its military might, and sticking it’s nose into an arena where it is clearly out of bounds?
Surely, SURELY the lessons have been learned, or have they?
how about trying to create a popular peoples coup?
It might be hard to do peacefully though.
somedays, I feel like Wolfie Smith.
The reasoning is something like this: Saddam invaded Kuwait a dozen years ago. This demonstrates a hostility and a desire to invade. We have no reason that, given the opportunity, Saddam would not invade again. We believe (know) that he is developing WMDs. We further believe that, contrary to nations like the US and England, he would not use the weapons as a deterrent or in defense, but in offensive capabilities. (Specific targets that have been mentioned include Israel.) We also suspect strongly that he is supporting terrorism, either directly (funding and housing terrorists), or indirectly (giving money to the families of suicide bombers as an incentive). He is thus a threat to the surrounding arab nations, Israel, and the US. I don’t think any one of these reasons by iself would be enough for us to desire regime change, but taken in aggregate, there is pretty substantial reason to see Saddam as a credible threat.
This would be great if we could pull it off. I think the problem with this is two-fold, though. First, there aren’t really any groups in Iraq that are powerful or organized enough to topple Saddam. Second, those that are closest to being powerful enough might not be much of an improvement. Instead of Saddam, we wind up with Saddam-Lite. True, it couldn’t be any worse, but it might not be much better. By invading, we have a little bit more control over who takes over the reigns.
Jeff
I was with you most of the way until here.
Some worse options:
-
Absolute freaking chaos (a la Somalia): No effective central control, weapons of mass destruction being sold by janitors in military installations to exactly the people we don’t want to have them. People starving in the streets.
-
A new dictator: Except the first thing he has to do is crush any resistance to his position. Lots of blood in the streets.
-
Balkanization: Iraq becomes Kurdistan, Iraq (Sunni) and South Iraq (Shiite). Kurdistan becomes a base of operations for rebels in Turkey and the Shiites start to piss off the Saudis by increasing ties with Iran. The region becomes even more volatile.
-
US installed “friendly” government: We win and put in a governement that (rightly or wrongly) is seen as a puppet of our interests. Anti-US sentiment grows and terrorism threats increase.
So… somehow we need to win the war, keep control over the whole country and bring three groups who don’t like each other much into a new single “democratic” government that isn’t perceived as being a puppet of the US.
I want to see Saddam gone, too. But I think our chances are better by pushing for inspectors back in, keeping a close eye on him and waiting for him to die or be pushed out.
Increasing the fuel economy of automobiles in the US is a completely non-military option. Less dependence on foreigh oil (our only real concern in the Middle East, regardless of our cries for demorcratic gov’t, end to terrorism, etc.) and we could greatly reduce our need for involvement in the area (including giving a damn about wheter Iraq lobs a missle at her neighbors).
Or course, we do have an administration of former oil executives in the White House so the chance of this coming to pass are nil.
The prospects for getting rod of Saddam without outisde military intervention are practically zero. We need to get a few things straight:
One: Saddam cannot be assassinated, not by outsiders or insiders. He is the most protected man in the world. No-one, not even most of his security insiders, know exactly where he is or will be at a given point. Try and assassinate him and you’ll get some poor Saddam look-a-like. Plus, he has both the SSO (secret police) and the Republican Guard (hardcases) and the Special Republican Guard (even harder) guarding his real and supposed whereabouts and keeping them WATERTIGHT.
Two: Chances of an internal coup are negliable. The Iraqi Army is not allowed anywhere near Baghdad precisely because Saddam fears a military coup. Any group of army officers, party-men or secret police trying to even discuss a possible coup have arrest, torture and death to fear. How do would-be conspirators know who they can trust? They don’t. And if the Iraqi army did try and mount a coup, they have the Republican Guard to fight, and that means civil war and probable defeat.
Three: Popular uprising is out of the question. After the horrors of 1991, no uprising could gain the mass support it needs to succeed. People are very scared of the regime. Hey, Saddam Hussein and his cronies scare me and I live thousands of miles away from them.
Four: the organized rebels in Iraq- Kurds and INC in the North and the SCIRI in the South are a thorn in Saddam’s side, but are incapable of actually taking over Iraq, even if they could act in unison. They’re outnumbered and outclassed by Saddam’s security machine.
Five: Even if Saddam somehow died- natural causes, accident, meteorite, whatever- there are plenty of like-minded beret-wearing moustached-types to step into his shoes. Saddam is the highest layer of the regime, then his clique of family, spooks top party-types, and then the Iraqi Ba’ath Party and the security apparatus itself. His death would at most only cause the top echelons to start offing each other in the race to fill his shoes. Then, things continue as before.
So given all that, Saddam's regime is a solid rock built on a weak and run-down nation. Saddam's number one priority has always been political survival and despite all his other failiures and the disasters he was brough on Iraq, that is the one thing he has masterfully pulled off.This might have been a more realistic option if the U.S. hadn’t completely screwed the Kurds in 1991, who were one of the most realistic hopes to accomplish this. I’ll look for the cite later if anyone is dying for it, but a couple of weeks ago the Bush administration invited an Iraqi Kurdish leader to Washington for “talks,” and he basically told them to go to Hell.
I can’t say that I blame him; the Iraqi Kurds have been screwed over historically at least as badly as the Palestinians. Saddam Hussein’s regime has been known to pull lovely little tricks on them involving such charming tactics as chemical warfare and massacring and bulldozing entire Kurdish villages.
Maybe if the U.S. didn’t have such a recent history of waffling on its military quasi-commitments a la early 1990’s Bosnia, popular rebel movements might be more likely to believe that we’d deliver on our promises and act accordingly.
Ah, but you forget that Saddam has dual-classed from that 0-level human to a 20th level assasin (he gained a lot of XP offing his high-level extended family). The best option is to hit him with Mordenkainen’s Sword and an Earth Golem or two (cuz his saves are too good for direct damage spells), while casting a Prismatic Sphere around him so he can’t slink away into the shadows again…
Man, I’ve played too much Baldur’s Gate II
- Wind