Author:
Bush: "I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT!" LMAO.
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:59:42 06/17/02 Mon
Author Host/IP: 67.25.96.34
In a secret meeting in mid-May, top US military leaders expressed grave concerns to President Bush about a US campaign against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Central Command chief Tommy Franks estimated that such an attack would require close to a quarter of a million troops, far more than had been previously estimated. In addition, the generals said that an Iraq campaign could take up to five years to complete, kill many US soldiers in bloody urban combat, and precipitate the use of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons, if they do in fact exist. (AFP News Wire, May 24)
Here's what President Bush had to say in response to the concerns raised, according to AP reports from two senior officials: "I don't know what they're talking about." (Boston Globe, 6/17/02)
Frustrated with repeated advice from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and top generals that attacking Iraq is unwise, Bush seems determined to launch a campaign, risks and consequences be damned. Officials close to the President have even raised the possibility that he'll launch a surprise attack, committing the US to a war against the better judgement of its best strategic, diplomatic, and military minds.
Given the rift in the thinking of the current Administration, we have an opportunity to shift public opinion towards a more prudent approach. Letters to the editor are an extremely effective way of doing this -- the editorial page is usually one of the most read pages in any newspaper, and politicians pay a lot of attention to the items they read there. Please join us in this effort by writing a letter today. We've even included some sample letters you can copy below.
Although there's been talk of Iraq as a second Afghanistan, the two situations are hardly similar. Iraq has a highly organized and, according to the CIA, extremely loyal military of over half a million troops. Saddam Hussein is a capable military leader who has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to buckle under pressure. And there's nothing similar to the Northern Alliance: by all accounts, the few opposition groups are poorly organized and ineffectively led; they consist of at most 20,000 men. Regional instability could easily ensue: Iran, Iraq's neighbor and enemy, has long had designs on portions of Iraq; one of the largest Iraqi opposition groups is widely viewed as an Iranian front.
The generals and diplomats who argue against a campaign in Iraq aren't just naysayers. There are many other points of leverage that could be used to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are permanently kept out of Hussein's hands. For example, Iraq has recently indicated that it may be willing to accept, once again, a team of international inspectors who can ensure that the nation has no nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry. There are many other ways that pressure can be bought to bear on Iraq that will accomplish US aims.
Simply put, many experts agree that a military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein is a bad idea. It's likely to be dangerous in the short term and ineffective -- if not actively harmful -- in the long term.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 
War on Iraq? Top Us Military Leaders Express grave Concerns to Bush.