Ivory Coast

It would be easy to rag on the French again, but I wish them luck in protecting their nationals from any harm in Ivory Coast. I am impressed with the professionalism of troops who are fighting to preserve a surrender deal brokered by Paris. The soldiers have my sympathy and admiration. I would welcome their help in the Gulf. This emphasizes again that when I rag on "France" it is not really all the French that I complain about, but is merely shorthand for the Euro-Parisian SOBs who only have to know what America's position is on any given subject to decide their own-the opposite.

Iraq

Turkey getting ready to host U.S. troops and is moving its own troops to the border. Jordan says they will host U.S. troops and Patriot batteries are posted near Aqaba and the Saudi border (to protect routes for U.S. troops into the Jordan front?) and near Syria. Arab papers are accusing Saddam of failing to go into exile to spare the region from war and are blaming the coming war on Saddam. A Saudi paper even laid out Saddam's human rights violations. Following on the heels of the European letter in support of us, the lie that we would be "unilateral" in confronting Saddam becomes obvious. Of course, I've noticed that "unilateral" has been defined to mean "without UN sanction" no matter how many allies back us.

No more than a couple weeks I should think. And about damn time.

Bravo to the Italian defense minister for saying we are justified in attacking Iraq and a big hoot (with all due respect) to the Vatican for implying that he did not have the wisdom to make such a decision. The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when the Pope asserts an infallible position. The Pope has done this twice (I think) and in both it was a case of faith. If the Pope wants to claim that no war is an infallible matter of faith or morals, he is welcome to assert it. Otherwise, the wisdom is all with the Italian defense minister.

Oh yeah, I read that the strike that went awry (from GPS jammers?) was in February 2001.

North Korea

According to this story, North Korea may be moving spent nuclear rods and the American commander for our Pacific forces has asked for several thousand ground troops(presumably the third brigade of 2nd infantry Division), bombers, and a carrier to deter North Korean attacks while we go after Baghdad.. Prudent requests, no doubt.

On the radio on the way home from work, I heard a story that the outgoing South Korean president actually paid Kim Jong Il an obscene amount of money to meet with him to start his "Sunshine policy" of seeking peaceful relations with the North. Yet it was all a farce. Pyongyang did it for the money (as they agreed to pretend to halt nuclear programs for cash) and the South Korean leader won a Nobel Peace Prize for the big lie. Figures. Say the right words and the Nobel committee will kiss your butt. Honest to God, the U.S. Army has done more to advance world peace than any of the yahoos who get that prize.

I hope this revelation ends the absolutely ridiculous accusation that the President 'provoked' North Korea to break the 1994 agreement by his Axis of Evil speech.

Oh, and just a note to anybody who wonders why we want UN talks and not direct talks with the North as Kim Jong Il demands-North Korea always wants talks with America alone because they do not recognize the South as legitimate. It bolsters the North's claim that we are the problem. If we agree to direct talks alone, the North wins a point in its ridiculous quest to conquer the South.

Heads They Win, Tails They Win

What am I to make of this:

"Even if it goes well – short, quick, with Iraqis dancing in the street – it will nevertheless be known as a U.S. war against a Muslim country," said Judith Kipper, a specialist in Middle East politics for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Best-case or worst-case, any war is going to be a rationale for thousands of new soldiers for al-Qaida."

First of all, if Moslems will really despise us for freeing Moslems from tyranny and torture, we might as well just get the clash of civilizations going now.

But I think Kipper is quite wrong. How is it that fighting back can only make things worse? And if we really whomp Iraq, the enemy will not get even a teensy bit discouraged? So, they hate us now already, yet they will attack us more if we show our strength by defeating Iraq. How is this possible? Shouldn't our first defeat of Iraq have enflamed them for the next century? Conversely, they blame us for the Crusades and we did not exist then. What are we to make of that? Indeed, the French (then known as the Franks) were the more successful of the Crusaders. And France butchered Algerians, fought Libya, and invaded Egypt yet this does not earn France eternal hatred? The Serbs slaughtered Moslems in Yugoslavia yet Moslems aren't declaring jihad on Serbs. Indeed, Iraqis tried to help the Serbs survive our 1999 air offensive. And should not the Indians be faced with unrelenting hostility and suicide attacks for their multiple wars against Moslem Pakistan? And why are we number one on the target list of Islamofascists when the Russians could give seminars on slaughtering Moslems?

Honest to goodness, some people think that it is the height of sophisticated analysis to discuss the finer shades of a vast array of surrender options from which we can choose. They are so accustomed to losing that they cannot conceive victory. I am reminded of General Grant's frustration with his generals when he took command of the Army of the Potomac. His generals raised objections to every course of action, arguing that Lee would counter it. Finally, Grant would hear no more: "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."

I am heartily sick of it, too. Saddam and the Islamists are going to be very busy worrying about what we are going to do to them. And we can turn a double somersault and turn up anywhere on the globe to kill them.

On to Baghdad.

Averting War?

The question of what it would take to avert war yet still constitute a victory is in the air. I'm not talking about what those who think we are a greater evil than Saddam would think is winning. These ANSWER types think Saddam's regime should be preserved intact, and of course would lift the current sanctions, containment and inspections. Victory would consist of imposing those things on America.

I am talking about those who think Saddam's regime is evil, but … cannot imagine actually doing something more strenuous than wishing. Of course, many of those who support various alternatives to American soldiers hoisting our flag over the Ministry of Pain in downtown Baghdad have relaxed opinions of what constitute 'victory.' Mostly they seem to think the mere avoidance of war is good no matter what is needed to achieve that end.

Take for example, the exile option. What if Saddam and his chosen family members (those he hasn't shot already) go into exile? Do we really trust whoever emerges and proclaims they will really disarm? And what does this say to other would-be-nuclear aspirants/nutcase dictators? It tells them that you can pursue nukes in secret, sign contracts with the French, and then if you get caught, call your French attorneys to bail you out. If the U.S. still persists in massing the force necessary to nail you, call "uncle" and take your stashed looted billions and go into cushy exile. Who knows, you or your son might return when the attention drifts. That isn't deterrence, that's an invitation to proliferation!

Or there is the single bullet option. What if a general whacks Saddam? Other than the satisfaction of knowing Saddam is swimming with the fishies, what do we get? This is not personal as some anti-war types froth. This is about our security. If any of Saddam's buddies take over, we have the same problem we have now, but with a lesser known whackjob. Would we start the whole process of inspections over again with the new dictator and give that guy a chance to prove himself over twelve years?

Or there is the full cooperation option. What if Saddam caves and says, you are right, we have everything you say we have—here it is, come and destroy it. Even if he destroys it all, what if he has more than we think? And what happens after he is certified weapons--free and we go home? With his wealth, scientists, and technical expertise, he begins again. And not from scratch since the knowledge is the key ingredient. All else can be purchased with his wealth and hidden even better, with the knowledge of what we can do. And who in Iraq will dare tell us anything knowing we let the thug escape—yet again.

There is also the partial cooperation option. This is a disturbing option too. It assumes that Saddam gives up just enough to get the anti-war types to claim success for inspections. Saddam gets to keep some of his assets unlike the full cooperation mode; yet must suffer through inspections for years. But he knows how to win that game. In a few years, he will neuter the already weak inspections and finally get them out completely.

There is also the old standby of continued containment and inspections until the cows come home. I won't go into why this won't work yet again. Search the archives if you are that interested. Suffice it to say that I have not changed my mind.

No, the only option is complete American and allied occupation of Iraq whether we must fight our way to Baghdad or just march in as in Kosovo. Even in the event that Saddam leaves the scene, we would need to occupy the country. My hope is that by granting Saddam one more chance—really, this time for sure, we are not kidding here, that Saddam will conclude that (yawn) he's been there and done that. He will give nothing and think he will win again.

Not this time. We intend to go to Baghdad. We've tempted fate long enough by delaying. Six months ago, attacking us at home might have been a dream of his. Now it might be a reality. If it isn't an option of his, yet more delay might grant him that time. Let's go, already.

Europe

I have frequently complained about 'Europe' for their refusal to stand with us-or to apparently stand for anything. Even as I complain I know it is unfair. Europe is not a monolith and even the states whose leaders rail against us have many people who side with us. If you press me and I am in a charitable mood, I'll even concede that this applies to France. We do have a common heritage of freedom though I fear Europe's is far less deeply embedded than our own. I do worry that an EU bureaucratic dictatorship really could evolve this century.

I am heartened by this report:

EIGHT European leaders today call on the Continent to stand united with America in the battle to disarm Iraq, while warning the UN that its credibility is on the line. In a calculated rebuff to France and Germany -- denounced by America last week as "old Europe" -- the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic have combined to make an unprecedented plea in The Times for unity and cohesion. They say the transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of President Saddam Hussein's threats to world security.

As much as I am frustrated with the vocal European opinion leaders in much of Europe, I would not walk away from Europe in frustration. We can support our friends there. And for God's sake, we should stop supporting European integration. Our friends will be smothered in a Brussels regime that the French and Germans will dominate. We must give them an option that will let them avoid the smothering embrace of the EU that will kill freedom. We have sent our soldiers to save Europe twice in the 20th century (three if you count the Cold War-and I do). We can send our ideals of freedom and our resolve to defend our way of life to save them again from the strange nihilistic impulse to surrender to beasts with the will to kill.

Remember, we intervened in two world wars and defended Europe in a Cold War because we knew that our freedom and prosperity are at risk if Europe is held by an enemy. That still holds true and we should fight to preserve the continent as our friend.

And thank you to our friends who signed this letter. It renews my faith that we are allies.

Why We Must Kill Them

Oh no, it is simplistic to think that Iraq and Islamist thugs are linked. Yet they have already vowed fealty to Saddam and the Europeans worry that Islamists will strike with poisons throughout Europe when we invade Iraq. Funny, I thought siding with Iraq was supposed to immunize the Europeans from their fury. Do these Europeans not see that they are a target always? Do the Europeans think the ability to attack them with chemical weapons will go unused even if they manage to derail our invasion? Do they not see that their coddling and appeasement brought these cells into their countries in the first place? Will they not finally fight back against our common enemy?

It will not be our fault if terrorists strike Europeans after we invade Iraq. Europe brought this upon themselves and they should be grateful that we will pave the way for them to clean up the terrorists who live among them and feed off their welfare systems. It is not anti-immigrant or racist to rip out the thugs from the mostly peaceful immigrants who live in Europe. Indeed, it will benefit the larger population by getting rid of the terrorists who prey on the immigrant communities and give them all a bad reputation.

The President laid out—again—the case for war against Iraq. And Powell will go to the UN next week where he will speak slowly and with small words so that even sophisticated Europeans and Hollywood actors will understand the beastly regime we will destroy by capturing Baghdad. The President's speech to Congress will follow soon after, and then very quickly we will get the speech from the White House that war has begun. I'm without a clue as to when it starts, but a couple weeks seems pretty likely.

And in the meantime, the war against al Qaeda will continue and cleaning up Iraq will start—politically and in regard to weapons of mass destruction. And Iran and North Korea remain to be dealt with. And so much more. Yet we will do it because at the end of the day, our security rests with our ability to shape the world and fight the threats to our very lives.

On to Baghdad.

SOTU

Well, it doesn't look like we will go on the 31st. We will go, there is no doubt, but Powell will go to the UN next week first. And the President will then speak to Congress. I'd say this could be disinformation but I really don't think so. We should go earlier than the press reports, but once again my invasion date will pass with no invasion.

Perhaps Powell will provide the gotcha moment at the UN. Lord knows I think the case has been made, but for those who avert their eyes from the bloody obvious, maybe these skeptics will finally see.

Yet these delays give our enemies time to prepare. That we intend to invade Iraq I have no doubt. We will not be thwarted by our so-called friends. But will we? Will events intervene to thwart us? Time is so precious yet we just dole it out to the Iraqis like we are unstoppable. I pray they are unable to use this time.

North Korean Threat

Whoa, I'd actually worry about this. North Koreans claim our State Department is finalizing plans to attack the North at a moment's notice. Aside from the sheer absurdity of claiming State is doing that, I'd be real nervous that Pyongyang is laying the basis for their own attack. They are the ones poised to attack at a moment's notice after all, not us. And with our troops about to invade Iraq, North Korea may see their opportunity.

Yes, I know they frequently threaten us, but the times are dangerous.

Ivory Coast

It is sad that people in Ivory Coast look to us to save them from French surrender terms yet we back the slow surrender brokered by the French. Why say anything? Let the French handle this in their own wise ways, derived from their centuries of experience.

War?

Countdown to Invasion: 3 Days?

Why would we even try to convince people who believe we are a greater threat to world peace that we are right to end the threat Iraq poses to our security? Why would we delay and risk the lives of our troops to lower the percentage to 80% from 84% who distrust us more than Iraq or anybody else? Such people cannot be convinced. The Carnegie Endowment people who oppose war cannot be convinced. Jessica Matthews' essay shows she will never believe war is justified. After twelve years, she thinks we don't know if inspections work or not. She thinks war is unnecessary. Every new resolution obliterates the history of Iraqi lies prior to the UN vote and so requires a new beginning to judge Iraq. Yet somehow she thinks that we could "overwhelm" Iraq (say it to yourself, Jessica, you just called for destroying Iraq) should they use any WMD against us. She obviously does not think that, and why she would say that in an effort to avoid a quite necessary war is for her conscience to debate, I suppose. Any evidence produced by us will either be considered insufficient or forged. Or, egads, "old." Yet in her essay she fears that the Iraq that she says has been contained from developing WMD, in fact has sufficient WMD to use against us even at home should we invade. That's quite a record of containment for a regime that agreed to get rid of all of WMD.

Remember, 1441 was supposed to be their last chance to come clean and get rid of their WMD.

Far from rushing to war, we have displayed remarkable patience, giving Iraq all the time in the world to disarm and cooperate, giving Congress time to debate and authorize war, giving the UN time to give Iraq yet another chance (and now some would like to give them another "final" chance), and giving anti-war people plenty of time to make their case. Heck, Sean Penn had tome to go to Baghdad and Sheryl Crow had time to stitch a t-shirt with an anti-war message. The president should make his case tonight, give the UN Security Council a couple days to act on the Blix report's verification that Saddam is in material breach of 1441, and then provide the gotcha evidence Thursday night. He can make the case that our allies know this information yet they will not back us. Then, on Friday, when Blair is here, announce that we and our allies consider Saddam Hussein in material breach of 1441 and reserve the right to take action. We should attack that evening (EST).

Some say we will have weeks of bombing first, but I doubt it. I've guessed from a week or so before the heavy armor goes in to even a little after the ground invasion starts. I still tend to prefer the shorter time, but if we go soon, it may be because we do intend to bomb for a bit while we converge the pieces of our invasion force into Iraq. Still, with all the talk that this is a regime take down akin to Panama rather than a battle like Desert Storm, I'd bet on a near-simultaneous ground and air strike for maximum shock rather than maximum attrition. Besides, our munitions are so smart now, that we could probably do a fair amount of attrition during the time it takes to roll up to the gates of Baghdad.

And it should be soon. We are not waiting for all the divisions alerted to make it to the Gulf. Look at what divisions have been alerted according to public announcements and press stories: 3rd Infantry, 101st Airborne, 10th Mountain, 4th Infantry, 1st Cavalry, 1st Armored, 1st Infantry. Plus elements of two of our Marine divisions. So we are to believe that seven of our ten active Army divisions are going to fight Iraq? With 82nd Airborne fighting in Afghanistan (and involved in a fairly large battle right now, apparently) and 2nd Infantry guarding Seoul, that leaves only 25th Infantry (I think, 25th) and a Marine division in Okinawa in reserve? Light infantry outfits and the 25th is, I believe, involved in the Stryker brigade creation? We really have time to mobilize the Guard in a crisis should something else come up? And 1st Infantry can't go because of its ongoing commitment to Kosovo, anyway. Maybe 4th Infantry and 1st Armored are designated occupation troops when the invasion force rotates out after defeating Saddam's legions. Or maybe we just want 4th ID's equipment sailing in the Indian Ocean relatively close to South Korea just in case. All I am confident of for sure is that we aren't waiting for all those alerted units to get to the Gulf before we invade.

And the British amphibious group is off of Cyprus, apparently. There is no reason it must join our Marines in the Gulf. It could stage through Jordan from the Mediterranean and strike out of Jordan with our forces. If I am not mistaken, we have Army and Marine equipment stored there. Could these all provide the core of a division-sized element that invades western Iraq, linking up with airlifted light forces that go directly into captured Iraqi airbases and with armor advancing out of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? There are American and allied pieces all around the periphery, and they could go anywhere.

On to Baghdad.

GPS Problems?

On the GPS issue, I earlier speculated that GPS problems were not going to be a critical problem since GPS bombs are useful only for striking fixed targets. Strategypage.com reminded me that the special forces on the ground in Afghanistan used GPS/laser range finder combo to strike mobile targets with GPS. Whether that means we can strike moving targets that way, I don't know. The site also reminded me of a GPS strike early last year that went awry. I'd forgotten about that. Were the Iraqis testing their jammers? Reading on, the site says in December we were testing ways to strike moving targets. I guess it is possible, but we probably aren't there yet for anything more than test strikes in an Iraq War. GPS jammers in Iraqi hands are worrisome but not critical. And we may have counter-measures, anyway.

Blix Krieg

Boy, I hope I'm the first with that headline.

Blix exceeded my expectations in his report. Yes, he wants more time and has a ridiculous faith that inspections can work, but he did document the fact that Iraq has not cooperated. That conclusion added on to the non-disclosure adds up to 'material breach.' Just tell me that we won't wait three more weeks trying to get our allies on board. If we really do need three more weeks to get our troops in place, fine (but let me rip on whoever decided not to be ready now), but we delay too much for little gain. And freeze out anybody on post-war contracts unless they pour troops into Iraq for occupation duty. Squeeze those SOBs who failed to stand with us when we needed them and only jump on board for the end of the trip.

But the Next Day After That?

I have never been suspicious of Secretary Powell. In the world of international relations, State is the good cop. I never believed Powell was doing more than carrying out his duty to give the president his advice. The UN detour was a policy that I did not oppose as long as it did not delay the invasion. What's the harm in getting UN approval if we can? Yet at the end of the day, Powell executes American foreign policy, however, and he is showing it now. (It certainly helps that the French just screwed him over royally) I do hope that Secretary Powell was being very literal when he said, on Sunday at the Davos forum, "To those who say, why not give the inspection process more time, I ask, how much more time does Iraq need to answer these questions?" Mr. Powell said. "We're in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after, but clearly time is running out," he said. "We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction." Yes, and hope that he means we could decide to go on Wednesday or Thursday, or on Friday when Blair is in town to meet with the President.

Other gems of Powell include, "I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of, or apologize for, with respect to what America has done for the world," [Powell] said in response to a question asking why the United States always falls back on the use of "hard power" instead of the "soft power" of diplomacy. "We've put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives," he said, his voice growing hoarse. "We've asked for nothing but enough land to bury them in." Take that you bunch of Euro-appeasers. You give us two world wars last century and you want to complain about what we have done? And the last part was a particularly good shot at the French. Just how many French soldiers are buried here, after dying to defend America? I'll let you count before I continue—no need to take off your socks to tally the number, either.

Powell, responded nicely, too, when the British head of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, was applauded when she questioned whether the Iraq threat "risks provoking a massive humanitarian and human rights catastrophe." In reply, Powell said the United States was "sensitive to the plight of the Iraqi people, not only in case of conflict but also right now." I do wish he had jumped on her for saying we will "provoke" the catastrophes. Doesn't she read her own material? Good for Powell for jamming it right back at her, although far too politely as far as I'm concerned. Yet, diplomacy is his game. For blunt, we've got Rumsfeld…

The article goes on to note that Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said that if Hans Blix, the head of the chemical and biological weapons inspection team, asked the Security Council for more time when he submitted his report on Monday, he should get it. "I don't think that we are talking about an infinite amount of time," Mr. Solana said. "Time has been given to Saddam Hussein before. So we are talking about a question of weeks, perhaps months." Obviously, infinity is not on the table. Our sun will go supernova in a finite amount of time. But why weeks or months more? As he notes, he has had time—years. Delay only increases our casualties should we need to fight in the heat of summer. The day we let some EU proto-dictatorship tell us how to protect ourselves is, well, never mind. It ain't happening in this administration I dare say.

And then, our friends the French. Speaking on French television, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, called for an extension of the inspections for "several weeks, or for a few months." This time he said it without his Solana hand puppet, but at least we see the origins of the vast French-wing conspiracy where talking points are drafted in Paris and passed out to the good little soldiers in the EU to repeat to the world. More to the point, after nearly twelve years, why would a few more weeks or months matter in the face of Saddam's absolute refusal to disarm as the Persian Gulf War ceasefire terms require? Again, all it does is at best is increase our casualties and at worse, give time to opponents of war to derail the invasion completely. And do not doubt that they seek delay only until the can achieve a halt. The French have already said that "nothing" could justify war so what charade do they play claiming we should delay for even longer? And why should we believe anything they say?

Finally, the article notes that Mr. Powell's speech did little to change the view of the Democratic leadership in Congress that Mr. Bush is acting in "a very precipitous way," as Senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, put it. Big sigh. We've eased into this fight, if we ever get to it, with the care and delicacy of a senior citizen coaxing a squirrel a little closer to the park bench to take a cracker. Precipitous, indeed. I don't think that word means what the good senator thinks it means.

On to Baghdad. In four days, please. I want to believe that we have what we need to start the war already in place.

That'll Teach Them

So, the results of French intervention in Ivory Coast (contrary to the lofty French position that war is never the answer to any problem) is that Paris asked their soldiers to give their lives in order to broker a slow surrender of the government to the rebels. Wow, the French sure are wise in the ways of the world! The rebels apparently get the Defense and Interior ministries (in Ivory Coast, as in most countries, Interior is a security position, not a national parks post). While not an immediate defeat for the government, it will only be time before the rebels use their new positions to take over completely.

I am disappointed that our government has endorsed this deal. Why would be back the French anyway and why would we support intervention in order to enable surrender? Sure, the French hope to get both sides a little grateful so they come out on top no matter the result, but that is no reason we should go along. We should stay silent and let them screw it up on their own. Let the world know what French friendship gets you. That will teach them to ask for French help.

The January 31 invasion is looking dicey since I have seen no indication of a big airlift of troops. Of course, one way to get around this failure to deploy troops is to assume that I am wrong about the ground and air assaults beginning at roughly the same time. If the air offensive lasts a week before the ground troops go in, you could begin the airlift shortly before the air attacks begin. We'll see. I have less confidence that January 31 is D-Day, but it still could be. It all depends on what the Pentagon plans to start with. And I still think we have more heavy equipment out there than is realized. Reports in the news dating back months indicated heavy equipment was being sent to the area and then nothing more has been heard of it. It didn't just disappear and I don't think the military has been wasting its time for the last year. But then, I may not be in an armchair but I am just guessing here.

Countdown to Invasion: 5 Days?

D-Day?

Countdown to War: 6 Days

This article has some persuasive indicators that invasion will not be for at least another month. One, it says that the computer simulation in Germany won't take place until later this month. Earlier, reports said it would be done mid-month. 1st Armored, 1st Cavalry, 3rd Infantry, 4th Infantry, and 101st Airborne are supposed to be part of it. First Infantry is not part of it. As I noted, this division is occupied with Kosovo duties. Second, the article says it would take a month to move the equipment of 101st Airborne to the Gulf. That was something I really had no clue on. Then some in-theater training is desirable. The possible need for more carriers is not persuasive. We don't need six. Six would be nice but with Air Force units nearby and precision weapons, four are probably fine.

And the report that we will let the inspections go on longer to gain allied support is really disturbing. The French and Germans claim there is nothing that could convince them that war is necessary. The Chinese prefer to have us tied up in a military confrontation. The Russians combine the French desire for Iraqi money and the old Soviet habits of opposing us (wait, that is a French habit too) and wanting us militarily occupied. Are we doing this for Blair, then? But why will delay help? As time passes, people get even more used to the idea of inspections. And although this author thinks war is coming in February or March, it is not much of a comfort to me. For those who wonder whether Iraq's strategy of delay will drain our spirit and get us to give up, the prospect of invasion even as late as March probably is reassuring. I worry about delay and I think our failure to deploy the necessary forces is purely diplomatic and has been for some time. Even without the preparations of the last decade, in 1990 and 1991, we deployed a much larger force in a little over 6 months. We've had a year now and only 3rd Infantry is mostly in theater. There is not a purely logistical reason for delay.

This information runs into the wall of my firm conviction that we must go sooner than later. We need surprise, delay gives Saddam time to come up with something to thwart us and for other enemies to take advantage of our pending war, we don't need all the forces that are supposedly heading to the Gulf (and if we send them all, we would risk defeat in a second war should it be thrust upon us), and delay will not build public support. Laying out the evidence will help our public support but I imagine nothing short of a crater where the Eiffel Tower stands now will convince many of our allies that there is a threat. Yet it is dangerous to say what we know except when we are about to bomb them, lest the Iraqis move them or use them once they realize we know there their chemicals, bugs, and nuke projects are located. Or, they might figure out how we knew something and compromise one of our sources.

The signs point to later. I do assume 101st Airborne is needed. But what if we did manage to ship in equipment for the division already? What if we don't need the division in the early phase? I sure hope that all this talk is part of our disinformation campaign to gain surprise, so I hold to January 31 as the invasion date. But the lack of a visible airlift in the next day will likely make this date another wrong guess on my part. I will be sadly disappointed if we have telegraphed our actual invasion timetable so obviously.

Basically, there is dissonance between what I think we should do, what it appears we are going to do-which contradicts what I think we should do, and the unknown of how much of what can be seen is disinformation-which may negate some of the contradictions that I can see.

On to Baghdad. I fear delay more than the Iraqis.

No Exile

Mark Steyn had a great column on the protesters, but I think he missed something thinking that Rumsfeld went wobbly when he said America would think it fine if Saddam went into exile. I imagine that statement was more to provide substance to the meeting the Turks are hosting with several Arab states to convince Saddam to leave to prevent war. If we dismissed the possibility, the states that want some cover to help us would lose their excuse. They will now say, "Hey street, we tried to get Saddam to leave. Even Rumsfeld said it would be fine—and you know how bloodthirsty he is. Yet Saddam refused our plea to think of the region's welfare and leave to avoid war. We regrettably conclude that we must support war for the good of peace in our region."

Don't worry. Rumsfeld has not gone wobbly. He merely had a role to play, I dare say. As Steyn finally concludes, war really could be any day now. The 31st would be good. Even weeks away as this article says is probably too long—when near, appear far.

It will be interesting to see how France, the Confederation of the Rhine, Russia, and China react when it becomes clear that we will move without waiting for UNSC approval. Life without the UN where they can pretend to have equal power will seem pretty awful to them. I bet they rush to vote and put the still-wet authorization on a Concorde to deliver it to General Franks in Qatar.

My Arms Are Tired

Countdown to War: 7 Days.

Honest to God, I am actually tired of pounding on "peace" protesters and the "French" for their vexing behavior and statements.

Perhaps it is because the war seems imminent. Troops are moving (I still don't know if we will have enough in one week to start, but we've got so much stuff moving and alerted that we may). Statements out of Washington indicate uniform resolve. The Iraqis continue to trust the French and Germans will post bail (note the Iraqi government complaint that they've really tried to get their scientists to talk to the UN alone but they just refuse. Please, if Saddam told them to drop their pants and sit on a block of ice, they'd do it--fast). The human shields will get to Iraq in time to witness the fireworks. And the Japanese told their people to get out of Iraq--by Wednesday would be nice.

Yep, all the whining by the "peace" activists and "French" are about to be made irrelevant. Our year-long "rush to war," after our 11-year "stroll to surrender" will culminate in war to overthrow that lunatic Saddam.

Am I happy about this? No. It saddens me that our military will suffer and die, in unknown numbers but probably not much more than 1991. They will pay the price to end this threat and cast down yet another champion of the Islamofascists who would kill us as we sleep if they could. Yet we cannot shirk this duty and pretend that inspections will make us safe.

Yes, the job to make us safe just begins when the Tikriti mafia in Baghdad is overthrown, but that is true for all wars. The stakes are too high to walk away as we did in 1991. This time it's for keeps. A nuclear 9-11 cannot be allowed to happen. Sadly, we have much to do before we can stand down.

On to Baghdad. Soon.

Rush to War?

What is with the latest talking point that we are in a "rush to war?" This is the most telegraphed war in history, I should think. And the idea that members of Congress are saying it when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to debate and vote is amazing. If they voted for war lightly, perhaps they should resign. Rush, indeed. I'll be happy enough if it isn't too late.

Pieces

UPI says that 101st Airborne and 1st Cavalry divisions are about to be deployed to the Gulf. Those are the last two major ground pieces that need to be moved (with Marines and 3rd Infantry soon to be in place) to start the invasion with a hammer blow. Tenth Mountain could be airlifted in much faster. We shall see when these two divisions and a brigade of Marines are airlifted into the Gulf region. We have had a year to prepare for a surge of airlift.