So you kill Hussein. Then what? The International Politics Fairy waves her magic wand and a friendly government just appears?
And while the fairy is at it, maybe she can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Oh please, :rolleyes: First of all, I wouldn’t be the one picking targets. CIA operatives have a pretty good idea what Saddam looks like. When they see a man who looks just like him standing at a podium while several hundred Republican Guard soldiers pass and present arms, they might just turn to someone on the corner and say, " is that who I think it is, the big cahuna himself, Uncle Saddam?" I guess they should push their way to the front of the crowd and ask Saddam for three forms of positive ID before killing him, hmmm?
Yeah ** Nicky**, I know, I didn’t come up with Bush’s policy. But I’m trying to understand whether he REALLY wants to 86 the guy, or just wants to continue this John Wayne image he thinks is so appealing. If it’s the former, then what’s the holdup? I assume it’s the latter, and I think it’s ridiculous.
Crusoe, I’m not so sure Saddam would be long gone before the missile gets there. A military parade does not just materialize out of thin air, there would be some advanced knowledge. I’m guessing we’ve got tabs on their large collections of forces from our eyes in the sky at any given time. We have naval vessels in the area pretty much 24/7. U.S. aircraft have been policing the no-fly-zone since 1991. And have you ever participated in a military parade? They go on for F*@#!ng ever. 
Also, driving Saddam into greater secrecy and precautions would really be pushing the envelope. The guy is a paranoid freak already. Perhaps this would push his paranoia over the edge. It would be very hard for him to function as a threat if he started killing his closest aides and advisors any more frequently than he already does! I think it might cause him to unravel completely.
Perhaps I’m being too hard on Bush. Maybe he believes that simply implying Saddam’s life is in constant peril would have those effects without actually having to spend any effort on actively pursuing his death? Maybe we’re playing a little psychological warfare in the hope that we don’t have to commit to an actual assault?
NAAHHHH, too subtle and clever for Bush. I have to take it at face value.
Several years ago, CBS ran a tape of a meeting of Saddam’s top henchmen showing how he enforced loyalty to him. Apparently, all the top guys are asked “Would you do anything for our dear leader?” And the inevitable reply is "Of course, I would do anything for him.
“Oh, in that case, take this knife, and poke out one of your eyes.”
And the the guy DID IT!. Another one poked a sharpened cane completely through his belly, one had another guy drive the tips of some daggers into his head, and one took a revolver and shot himself in the gut. IIRC, whoever is charged with doing one of these ‘tricks’ has the option of passing it on to one of his subordinates, to prove loyalty on down the line.
The whole thing was pretty gruesome, and it’s not something I heard about, I saw it myself, and I don’t think the Iraqis are capable of much video trickery. I’ve looked all over the web for a copy of the video, to no avail.
I would imagine that anybody with enough nerve to stand up to Saddam, or try to organize a coup, has been gone for some time now.
Hmmm, loyalty… or fear of much worse happening should one refuse? I wonder how many of these guys had families who they were unwilling to put at risk.
Don’t you think that this effect would be exagerated by large, co-ordinated strikes on Iraq on a monthly schedule that still fail to kill him? Imagine how the enemies of the U.S. would perceive it after a massive bombing of Saddam’s homes and headquarters, only to have him release a “na-na-na” video.
As far as instilling fear in one’s enemies, the only thing worse than not using a powerful military, is using it to fail.
The difference is this: my words that you quoted referred to the early policy of hunting Bin Laden, making his capture or death an imperative in the war on terrorism. Bush later backed away from this because we had no freaking idea where OBL might be, he’s a man who has no palace or headquarters. Saddam has several of both. If you knock them all out at once you stand a good chance of killing him, and certainly make life much harder for him even if he survives. I doubt he’d be as willing to live in a cave as OBL is. And when he rebuilds each of those gagillion dollar palaces that he currently owns, how will the Iraqi people feel about him squandering their money? I wonder which Saddam would choose to do without, his palaces or his weapons programs? The money would eventually run out if he continued to rebuild every time. This could delay the coming day when he successfully creates a nuclear weapon.
And by the way, according to Pentagon officals, this attempt in '98 was not a failure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/strategy121998.htm
It had many benefits (perhaps some of them were only perceived) one of which was the temporary incapacitation of his elite Palace Guard, thereby opening up an avenue for the regular army to begin a coup.
For the record, if I were Bush I would prefer having him in the crosshairs, or painted with a laser to guide a missile, rather than hitting the palaces and hoping you got him. But it seems that Bush has no plan, just words.