Saddam's WMD strategy

[cannon_fodder]

I supported the Gulf War II, invasion of Iraq.  Along several lines:

1) He had WMDs for a fact, now he won't let inspectors look for WMDs.  Logically he probably still has them.

2) He routinely defied UN and United States mandates, including the treaty that ceased hostilities from Gulf I.  He did so without consequences for more than a decade.

3) He wasn't a very nice guy.  The advisers all said the war would be easy (it was) and the aftermath smooth (it was not).

4) He may have possible maybe had something to do with 911 and did give support to terrorists (though not the ones that were fighting us).


Now we all know that we failed to plan for the aftermath.  The military did their job:  plan an invasion and occupy a country.  Done and done!  But the planners failed plan (which was kinda their job) for a prolonged occupation or any kind of transition.  They failed to account for the prevalence of "Bathification" among competent or educated person (you had to be a party member to have any leadership role) and they failed to account for the millennium old hatred between radical Sunni and radical Shia (I believe we planned adequately for the Kurds). 

This led to much of the trouble that we are seemingly just now getting under control.  If we had replaced Saddam's iron fist with our own and then slowly released the grasp, my guess is all would have been well.  Or better at least.  Much like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. 

ANYWAY . . .

Per the WMDs, logic dictated that he MUST still have WMDs.  If he didn't why would he risk a US invasion?

Well, that answer has come out from military transcripts with the man himself.

He was more afraid of Iran than of the United States. He was willing to "go a second round" with the United States in order to retain his ability to bluff Iran into thinking he had WMDs.  That is the first explanation I've heard that stands to reason.  I really REALLY hope there is some strategist or policy maker somewhere going "I TOLD THEM SO."  But I never thought of that.

I no longer think the war was worth it, and I'm not sure whether I think the President and Congress should have known it was a bad idea.

http://www.wbbm780.com/Saddam-said-he-had-WMDs-out-of-fear-of-Iran--Hid-o/4728061

[swake]

I supported the Gulf War II, invasion of Iraq.  Along several lines:

1) He had WMDs for a fact, now he won't let inspectors look for WMDs.  Logically he probably still has them.

2) He routinely defied UN and United States mandates, including the treaty that ceased hostilities from Gulf I.  He did so without consequences for more than a decade.

3) He wasn't a very nice guy.  The advisers all said the war would be easy (it was) and the aftermath smooth (it was not).

4) He may have possible maybe had something to do with 911 and did give support to terrorists (though not the ones that were fighting us).


Now we all know that we failed to plan for the aftermath.  The military did their job:  plan an invasion and occupy a country.  Done and done!  But the planners failed plan (which was kinda their job) for a prolonged occupation or any kind of transition.  They failed to account for the prevalence of "Bathification" among competent or educated person (you had to be a party member to have any leadership role) and they failed to account for the millennium old hatred between radical Sunni and radical Shia (I believe we planned adequately for the Kurds). 

This led to much of the trouble that we are seemingly just now getting under control.  If we had replaced Saddam's iron fist with our own and then slowly released the grasp, my guess is all would have been well.  Or better at least.  Much like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. 

ANYWAY . . .

Per the WMDs, logic dictated that he MUST still have WMDs.  If he didn't why would he risk a US invasion?

Well, that answer has come out from military transcripts with the man himself.

He was more afraid of Iran than of the United States. He was willing to "go a second round" with the United States in order to retain his ability to bluff Iran into thinking he had WMDs.  That is the first explanation I've heard that stands to reason.  I really REALLY hope there is some strategist or policy maker somewhere going "I TOLD THEM SO."  But I never thought of that.

I no longer think the war was worth it, and I'm not sure whether I think the President and Congress should have known it was a bad idea.

http://www.wbbm780.com/Saddam-said-he-had-WMDs-out-of-fear-of-Iran--Hid-o/4728061

You are missing the four main reasons that the Iraq war was a bad idea from the very start:

First, it sucked needed resources away from what should have been our main objective, Afghanistan. We are paying this price today. And we still don't have Bin Laden.

Second, Saddam was valuable to us for a variety of reasons. First of all, he was an important counter balance to Iran. He hated them more than us. He also was a very contained, predictable threat. We had him in a box with sanctions and with air rights over Iraq. If he was removed, who ever replaced him was likely going to be a lot worse than him, and would likely be in the sway of Iran. This is why Bush's father didn't invade Iraq. This is what is happening now, Iran is going to be in control of Iraq in very short order, if they aren't already. Majority rule in Iraq means that Iran's clerics are in charge of Iraq.

Third, Iran was crumbling before the war started. Reformers were gaining power in Iran and the price of oil was low creating a lot of economic pain there which was further threatening the ruling system. The invasion created a threatening environment that allowed the hardliners in Iran to take back all the power in Iran due public fear that Iran was next, the war also drove up the price of oil easing the economic pain in Iran.

Fourth, the war was used all over the Muslim world as a recruiting tool for terrorists. "The Christians are invading, go fight for Allah!"

The war was always a really bad idea. It was a bad idea even if we had handled the peace well.

[TheArtist]

We could have greatly reduced any threat that Saddam posed without going to war.

Before the war we had him boxed into the middle of the country, (no fly zones, the "parallels" etc.) Remember when he tried to send a column of tanks into the south to squash the nascent freedoms that were taking root in the area? Soon as they crossed the southern parallel, we sent in some planes and obliterated them. He was effectively neutered in the north and south sections of the country and those areas were starting to build up their own economies, governments, etc.

We could have kept weakening him and making his box smaller and smaller while also nurturing and encouraging the redevelopment of the areas to the north and south.

There was NO need to go to war like we did and spend so much in lives and treasure (Iraqi lives as well). 

The republicans, with the consent of the ignorant dems, bought into the scenario that the only choices were; Saddam in power as a big threat, or war.  The picture was painted that if you didnt go to war to remove Saddam, you were for Saddam remaining in power and a major threat. And the dems were too stupid to counter that argument. There were a few proffering the idea of "squeeze the middle and nurture the rest" but the repubs then would cry that the Kurds in the north might form their own country and Turkey would not like that... well Turkey didnt want us to go to war either, so no matter what we did Turkey wasnt going to be happy so that was an over blown argument as well.