| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Pro-Saddam Protests Damage Inspections |
| 2003-02-20 |
| President Saddam Husseinâs government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq. âThey are feeling: The world opinion is with us. We can resist further pressure. We have time. We can play with the U.S. and U.K.,â a U.N. official said. âThis is very dangerous.â I can hear the Left now: Bush and Blair made us protest! It's not our fault we started the war! |
| Posted by:R. McLeod |
| #9 Starting a Conspiracy Theory Central. What if GW and Powell don't need another UNSC vote? What if Tony Blair only talks about another resolution? What if Blix is afraid to issue a tough report because he will be forever remembered for triggering the war? And Chiraq continues to stonewall? This discussion then becomes not about Saddam but the survival of the UN. Now the real business of diplomats starts, to come up with wording for a vote everyone can live with. Notice how quiet some of the players in NY have become. A win-win way in the making. And very much an MBA grad way. |
| Posted by: john 2003-02-20 20:57:37 |
| #8 What happens if we get 13 abstentions? Pooty-poot already said he's not helping, but DEBKA reported after Iraq, France, Germany, the UN and Russia will be dealt with because W is a wee bit upset w/the weasels. The x-KGBr did not read W's profile. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-20 16:26:16 |
| #7 I'll be both laughing and cheering, Dishman! I think your analyis is going to turn out to be pretty close. Depending on what Russia does, you might put Putin up into the planners category (or at least advisor to the planners). I'm sure you remember what his old 'job' was. As for Sun Tzu, I think you are spot on. The more confused and wobbly things seem to get, the more hopeful I get. Liberalhawk, keep in mind that Bush doesn't have to be brilliant, as long as he has brilliant advisors and is smart enough to listen. Which I think he is. |
| Posted by: Kathy K 2003-02-20 15:41:34 |
| #6 Been getting letters from the CIA, eh Dishman?? :) excerpt: Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons? Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view. from the source |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-20 11:15:04 |
| #5 Would like to believe is all so well coordinated, but relies on too many variables to be choreographed, in my opinion. Why suggest there's an anti-terrorism motive without having to hand hard evidence of Saddam-a/Q link? Too much reliance on Chirac losing his marbles? Generally too drawn out, jeopardising friendly regimes in M/E. (There are reasons why prolonged pressure would be useful, of course). |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-20 10:35:37 |
| #4 Risk: Unforseen schedule delay, ie. Turkey. Condi asks Blix to tone down report to UNSC. Damning report held until all elements in place. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-02-20 10:23:02 |
| #3 I doubt Chiraq is in on it. Here's my assessment: Concept and planning: Rice, maybe Rove, Sun Tzu Main Group: Bush, Blair, Wolfowitz Co-conspirators: Rumsfeld, Putin, Powell Innocents: Blix, Annan Ropes: Gaullists, Saddam, Ba'athists Collateral Damage: 'peace' activists, J. Jackson, numerous other figures The key question which I believe led to this is: How do we protect our troops from chemical and biological weapons? They are relatively safe once they are in motion. Until then, they are vulnerable. Clearly, the best way to protect our troops is to have it seem like they are not coming until they are already under way. The same logic applies to our forces in Northern Iraq. Until Saddam thinks war is unavoidable, they are safe from attack. Once he believes it is unavoidable, he will likely try to attack them. The logic of the situation and teachings of Sun Tzu say "When you are close, make your enemy believe that you are far away." The more ready we get, the further away we seem. Acid test: UN Security council still meeting at 4:30 pm EST on a Friday (after the markets close), discussing use of force. Blix makes unscheduled report of Iraqi non-compliance. Risk: Saddam works this out. Actually, not really such a great risk. Increasing Saddam's paranoia would only further cloud his already poor judgement. Risk: Tony Blair vote of no-confidence. He's can count on support from the conservatives. Not going to happen. Risk: Blix has a Quisling moment. This is a serious risk, but unlikely. Over-trumps held in reserve to cover this possibility. Risk: Putin gets cold feet. Bush is presumably chatting with Putin daily. Alternate strategies would have been chosen if this had been a serious risk. Risk: France fails to over-play hand. Chiraq's personality has been extensively documented. One downside to continued presence on the world stage. Is this whole proposition outlandish? Yes. However, Condi and company had a lot of time to work this out. Various parties have had 12 years to plan this out, thinking a little bit at a time. If someone has spent one hour a week for a dozen years, there is a very high probability of one or more brilliant insights. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-02-20 10:16:11 |
| #2 "I have something to tell you. I'm not left-handed, either." - GW Bush He plays a bumbling fool or a cowboy or whatever is needed, and people forget he's got a Harvard MBA. At this point, I'd be willing to wager even money that Condi asked Blix to tone down the Feb. 15 report because the rest of the elements weren't ready yet. Right now, there's so much rope out there, it's not even funny. I'm very glad he was able to establish a close personal bond to Vladimir... which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-02-20 07:30:15 |
| #1 That only works if you are a mind numbed robot, with no ability of free will. You chose to protest, or else are defective. Either way, it is your fault, not Bush, not Blair. The only difference is in the corrective action needed to correct such a defect. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-02-20 02:52:35 |