12-05-2001, 02:01 PM
With the high-precision bombing capabilities of today far surpassing that which was available even a few years ago, it may be possible that ground troops would never have to be used if the goal is not to topple Saddam, but rather merely to enforce Iraq's compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
Sanctions could be lifted immediately, and Saddam could be told plainly "There you go. No more sanctions. The U.N. inspections teams will be arriving shortly. If you allow unhindered access on an ongoing basis, sanctions will remain lifted. If you deny or impede access, the cease-fire agreement of 1991 will be considered abrogated by Iraq, and Iraq will then be bombed UNTIL you allow unhindered access for the U.N. teams on an ongoing basis."
According to Iraq, there is nothing to inspect and they are only interested in getting the sanctions lifted. So if this is true there shouldn't be a problem.
If necessary, such bombing could include sites suspected of producing or developing weapons of mass destruction as well as select military targets. Eventually Saddam will have to capitulate, and possibly he could eventually be threatened with direct bombing of his person if necessary and given a very short time-limit. By the way, Saddam is not a fanatic, and he understands and respects only two things: money and military force.
While the present focus should remain primarily on al-Qaeda, there is no question that within a few years Saddam will possess nuclear weapons if he is not stopped. I think most of the Western world knows how bad this would be, whether he uses them to bully local countries, or against Israel, or sells them to terrorists.
The US should continue its diplomatic dance as best it can, seeking and building support with Western allies, Russia, and some Ismamic countries. However, the US must not allow critical opinion, or lack of support, to prevent doing what needs to be done.
On another note, I think some similar approach could be used with regard to the Palestinian problem. Designate a true homeland for them, perhaps the present territories/settlements or something close to it. I don't know the exact geography in the area but where most of them are concentrated now might be pretty close to what this might consist of. The U.N. could compensate Jordan or other states for a bit of land if necessary. Tell them it's theirs. No, sorry, you guys don't get Jerusalem because it's already taken. But you do have a homeland. Treat it well and build it up and live long and prosper. If you live in peace with your neighbors we and Israel will live in peace with you.
If Hamas, etc. continue their attacks, implement a large enough campaign to take out Hamas and any other such belligerent organizations.
Yes, I know the Mideast situation and global terrorism are complicated problems with no easy answers. In many ways things are very ominous and complicated. But in another sense, all aspects of these problems don't have to be complicated. The correct approach may in fact be fairly simple at its core.
One other potentially long-term problem is that the youth in many Middle Eastern countries are receiving strong indoctrination in school in Wahhabism, which is a particularly strong type of Islamic Fundamentalism with an anti-Americam slant. I read that in Saudi Arabia one-third of the students' study time is spent in this area. How to handle this is another matter on which I don't have any suggestions at the moment, other than to try to get the governments in these countries to see that it would be wise to tone this down a bit, for the sake of the future.
One thing I'm trying to emphasize in this post is the concept that the newer precision-guided bombing capability the US has, complete with GPS interfacing, really does allow much more projection of power than we could have even considered just a few years ago. I think it is coming time to offer certain belligerents, terrorist organizations and a few others a stark choice: Here's a partial and reasonable solution to your gripes. Accept it and cease your belligerent behavior or else. And for some, who are beyond reason and are committed to the destruction of others and themselves (such as al-Qaeda), elimination is the only alternative.
I think Bush and his team are already on the right track with on a lot of this. However I would like to see the steps above taken with regards to Iraqi sanctions and the Palestinian problem. The sanctions aren't enforcing compliance, obviously. It makes little sense for both sides to continue insisting that the other side accede first. I say lift the stupid sanctions and then give Saddam a stark choice. Likewise, but more complicated is the Palestinian issue. I believe that the most workable approach includes both addressing the underlying issue and hammering out a quick deal on a homeland, combined with a near-zero tolerance policy towards belligerence and terrorism. It seems to me that such a combination approach has far greater chance of working than an approach favoring either negotiation or force. No solution to the Palestinian problem will be perfect, that would be impossible, but it would behoove all parties to accept a solution that is somewhat workable if less than ideal, in order to avoid endless bloodshed. I think such a solution should be put together fast, implemented quickly, and enforced from that point on.
Just a few thoughts; all comments welcome.
Sanctions could be lifted immediately, and Saddam could be told plainly "There you go. No more sanctions. The U.N. inspections teams will be arriving shortly. If you allow unhindered access on an ongoing basis, sanctions will remain lifted. If you deny or impede access, the cease-fire agreement of 1991 will be considered abrogated by Iraq, and Iraq will then be bombed UNTIL you allow unhindered access for the U.N. teams on an ongoing basis."
According to Iraq, there is nothing to inspect and they are only interested in getting the sanctions lifted. So if this is true there shouldn't be a problem.
If necessary, such bombing could include sites suspected of producing or developing weapons of mass destruction as well as select military targets. Eventually Saddam will have to capitulate, and possibly he could eventually be threatened with direct bombing of his person if necessary and given a very short time-limit. By the way, Saddam is not a fanatic, and he understands and respects only two things: money and military force.
While the present focus should remain primarily on al-Qaeda, there is no question that within a few years Saddam will possess nuclear weapons if he is not stopped. I think most of the Western world knows how bad this would be, whether he uses them to bully local countries, or against Israel, or sells them to terrorists.
The US should continue its diplomatic dance as best it can, seeking and building support with Western allies, Russia, and some Ismamic countries. However, the US must not allow critical opinion, or lack of support, to prevent doing what needs to be done.
On another note, I think some similar approach could be used with regard to the Palestinian problem. Designate a true homeland for them, perhaps the present territories/settlements or something close to it. I don't know the exact geography in the area but where most of them are concentrated now might be pretty close to what this might consist of. The U.N. could compensate Jordan or other states for a bit of land if necessary. Tell them it's theirs. No, sorry, you guys don't get Jerusalem because it's already taken. But you do have a homeland. Treat it well and build it up and live long and prosper. If you live in peace with your neighbors we and Israel will live in peace with you.
If Hamas, etc. continue their attacks, implement a large enough campaign to take out Hamas and any other such belligerent organizations.
Yes, I know the Mideast situation and global terrorism are complicated problems with no easy answers. In many ways things are very ominous and complicated. But in another sense, all aspects of these problems don't have to be complicated. The correct approach may in fact be fairly simple at its core.
One other potentially long-term problem is that the youth in many Middle Eastern countries are receiving strong indoctrination in school in Wahhabism, which is a particularly strong type of Islamic Fundamentalism with an anti-Americam slant. I read that in Saudi Arabia one-third of the students' study time is spent in this area. How to handle this is another matter on which I don't have any suggestions at the moment, other than to try to get the governments in these countries to see that it would be wise to tone this down a bit, for the sake of the future.
One thing I'm trying to emphasize in this post is the concept that the newer precision-guided bombing capability the US has, complete with GPS interfacing, really does allow much more projection of power than we could have even considered just a few years ago. I think it is coming time to offer certain belligerents, terrorist organizations and a few others a stark choice: Here's a partial and reasonable solution to your gripes. Accept it and cease your belligerent behavior or else. And for some, who are beyond reason and are committed to the destruction of others and themselves (such as al-Qaeda), elimination is the only alternative.
I think Bush and his team are already on the right track with on a lot of this. However I would like to see the steps above taken with regards to Iraqi sanctions and the Palestinian problem. The sanctions aren't enforcing compliance, obviously. It makes little sense for both sides to continue insisting that the other side accede first. I say lift the stupid sanctions and then give Saddam a stark choice. Likewise, but more complicated is the Palestinian issue. I believe that the most workable approach includes both addressing the underlying issue and hammering out a quick deal on a homeland, combined with a near-zero tolerance policy towards belligerence and terrorism. It seems to me that such a combination approach has far greater chance of working than an approach favoring either negotiation or force. No solution to the Palestinian problem will be perfect, that would be impossible, but it would behoove all parties to accept a solution that is somewhat workable if less than ideal, in order to avoid endless bloodshed. I think such a solution should be put together fast, implemented quickly, and enforced from that point on.
Just a few thoughts; all comments welcome.