Cover

Hmm. We’ve worried about the interlude between when we start to deploy our invasion force to Kuwait and Turkey (and Jordan, but keep that quiet) and when we attack. Our forces would be vulnerable to chemical and possible biological attacks while they sat there waiting to attack. What to do to reduce that vulnerability? Attack with special forces? Attack with a tiny force of armor and paratroopers that marches in to accept the Iraqi surrender when they wet their pants and give up at the first sight of an American uniform? Both require little deployment time so reduce that vulnerable period. Yet both could fail spectacularly. Neither option to me seems wise. A five-division invasion force is the only way to make sure we win decisively and rapidly. It may even reduce casualties significantly.

But if the UN demands unqualified access to Iraq for weapons inspections and gives the Iraqis a deadline while we move in troops “to put weight behind the UN demand,” will the Iraqis strike while they retain home for a way out paved by their friends in Russia and the EU? I think not. They will wait and hope and the American corps will deploy into Kuwait, passing the danger period. Iraq will not accept the terms, and if they do, they will not execute them in a rapid enough timeframe to forestall invasion. Iraqi failure to implement that UN resolution will be all we need from the UN. We won’t go back again for positive approval.

UN passes resolution by end of October.

US starts deploying in November, giving Iraq a deadline of Christmas 2002 to fully implement inspections. Special forces infiltrate Iraq.

Begin two weeks of preparatory bombing and move invasion force to kick-off points.

Invade in January. We are in control of Iraq by the end of the month. We send out our thank you cards to the UN and our allies for their gracious support.

War on terror continues.