Sadaam Poses No Threat?

[Reid]

OK, this may seem silly, but I'm a worrier.

If Sadaam and his followers are not dead, don't they still pose a serious threat to the US. Here's what I'm thinking: They sneak out of the country with some biological agents. They than either give to a terroist group to use on the US or try to find a way to deliver the biological agents to the US.

Wouldn't this group also have considerable money to get other people to do their dirty work?

And here's another thing that has been worrying me. I heard that Sadaam has a bunker that can hold up to 10,000 people. Couldn't he and his men be down there now, preparing to release biological, chemical or nuclear weapons? People don't seem so concerned about these things.

Somebody convince me why I'm worrying unnecessarily, please.

[patricia]

Considering that none of the major players in this seem to be positively accounted for, I don't think that your concerns are invalid.
Out of the formality of a war theatre, the gloves are off, so, who knows? As I've mentioned, apart from the thousands of dead Iraqi soldiers and citizens, the main cogs in this wheel have evaporated. Ominous, at the very least.

[Monte Smith]

My worry is about Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay. A lot of anti-war naysayers were fond of the line, "A war in Iraq will create a million Osamas." That's ridiculous. If a worst-case senario came to pass and more potential jihadis were motivated by their hatred for the US than were demotivated by American miltary vigor, then some number of Mohammad Attas would be created. Not Osamas. Osama is or was a rather singlular individual. Not everyone who dresses in fatigues and something nice from Linens'n'Things is an Osama bin Laden. Osama had wealth, a genius for organization, and a *successful* war to recruit and cement a terror network with--that's a different thing than an ad slogan that runs, "We just lost a war, come join us."

An Osama is a leader; Mohammad Attas are followers.

Uday and Qusay have advantages that could make them Osamas. I don't know much about their survival skills outside the family's private grounds (Baathist Iraq). Hopefully they are feeble. But Qusay, at least, is reputed to have a brain. He was tasked with running his father's intelligence service (a secret police, not a real intelligence service). If these jackasses are alive and at liberty, they may have in their possession some wealth. That's dangerous.

But what's the point in worrying? I'm sure neither Saddam or his sons are the type that nurse grudges. Yuk yuk yuk. No seriously: am I worried? No. Should we think about these possibilities? Yes--and we should be watching every corner of Iraq and also the Baathist refuge of choice. Uh-huh. Syria.

[willy]

2-1 odds that Saddam and the boys are hangin' with Jacques in France.

[walto]

There you have it, folks. Our two next targets: Damascus and Paris.

[willy]

Saddam and Jacques are hanging out together in a pool hall in Paris.

[Monte Smith]

Paris?! C'mon, Americans like a challenge.

We have some cleaning up to do in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But next targets? Probably non-state groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Obviously, shutting them down will involve some degree of operation against the support they receive from Damascus. There are other groups in the Phillipines, Indonesia, Africa, Central Asia. Probably these are intelligence, treasury, and covert operations rather than infantry divisions in play.

How about Iran? Everyne hopes Iran will resolve itself by junking the clerical fascism that keeps it chained to the 1979 revolution. Wouldn't it be cool if there was an earnest foot race between Iraq and Iran to claim the title of "first true democracy in the region?" That's the best-case scenario. A little dreamy, perhaps.


And then there is the wild card, North Korea. They've been quiet recently. But the NYT reported on Thursday that we and the South Koreans have agreed to close down our army HQ in Seoul and move it south down the peninsula. The report didn't say, but I have to assume the base in Seoul they mean is Yongson. Removing those troops (and support teams, and even civilians--Yongsan is like an American suburb in the middle of the Korean capital) from beneath North Korean artillery range is an interesting move. Oh, to be privy to a Politburo strategery session in Pyongyang these days. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when some general explained to Kim Jong Il that the United States captured a foreign capital in 20 days using one-sixth of its military. And we didn't even have French help.

[willy]

Jacques, baby!

[patricia]

I don't know about Saddam Hussein, but I think that there could be a parallel drawn between Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson. Both inspired others to carry out their meglomaniacal plans. All the more reason to catch him. As long as we don't know where bin Laden is, we don't know what new plans he may be hatching. After all, Manson's followers were loyal to him, years after they were all incarcerated.

Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden........cut from the same cloth, IMO.

[Reid]

Walt,

Unlike some other debates, I really want to be wrong about this.

What worries me a little more is the press coverage. I don't here many people talking about the issues I raised. It's like Sadaam's not in power, so he and his followers are really not a serious threat. There's talk that we've won, but that seems foolishly premature. At this point, what has Sadaam got to lose? If he doesn't have much of future, there might be even more incentive to use WMDs, or try to get someone else to use them.

OK, I'm going to start another thread about innovation to take my mind off this.










Just kidding.

[walto]

I didn't mean to make fun of your worries, whether I think they're realistic or not, Reid. Hey, my kids are 8 and 3 and I'm already fretting about drugs, teen pregnancy and the future availability of grants for post-docs in the area of coloring.

[Shadowwalker]

The problem remains, as long as Hussein or anyone like him remains in power, there's always going to be that threat. I'm not the biggest fan of George W. either, but I think it was a smart move on his part to actually stand up to Saddam and get a war declaration, as opposed to just sending troops into Iraq to level whatever cities they come to (anyone remember the Viet Nam conflict?). What I don't like is the fact that it took so damn long to actually get it DONE.

One other thing: I heard somewhere that bin Laden was going to martyr himself. If this is true, then others will probably follow suit (knowing my luck anyway), and this would be a very BAD thing.

[walto]

"(knowing my luck anyway)..."

If your luck really has bearing on this sort of stuff, I think you should tell us more about it, so we'll all know what we should be expecting.

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Reid
If Sadaam and his followers are not dead, don't they still pose a serious threat to the US.

When did they ever pose a threat to the U.S., Reid?

[Uli]

If Saddam and his followers got away, they may pose a threat to the US and it's interests now. They may wanna get back and share in the power in Irak or simply mess with the US for revenge.

[Chris A]

Now, perhaps, but Reid said "still pose."

[patricia]

There is something rather curious that's happened. People are afraid of Saddam Hussein sympathyzers being a threat.
He was the leader of a structured, however corrupt, government.
On the other hand, Osama bin Laden still seems to be up and around and he is the terrorist instigator and his borders of influence extend worldwide, as we saw Sept 11.
If I'm going to be concerned about terrorism, I would be watching for bin Laden loyalists to stage a terrorist attack, not Saddam Hussein's bunch. Bin Laden attracts the disenfrancised, Hussein thrived on government corruption and he has no government to corrupt now.
Oddly, bin Laden seems to have dropped off the radar, in the government's eyes.

[Chris A]

I agree, Patricia, religious fanaticism is far more dangerous in this context than is greed.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Chris A
I agree, Patricia, religious fanaticism is far more dangerous in this context than is greed.


The thing that bothers me most is that religious fanaticism is not really the root of the violence. It's just the carrot, an illegitimate motivator for those who would follow the orders of leaders, like bin Laden, whose real motivation is power, not religious ferver. No legitimate religion condones violence. Those who use it as a reason for tyranny pervert the very roots of any religion of which I'm aware.

[Reid]

Chris,

I don't know if Sadaam was ever a threat to the US directly. He couldn't launch a missle or anything like that. Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate about the degree to which he posed a threat to the US and theworld prior to the invasion. What concerns me is that people seem to talk as if he's irrevelant now, and I don't feel so sure about that.

Patricia,

I agree with what you're saying. While Sadaam and his people have different motives from Bin Laden's people, they now have a common enemy or at least they're both equally motivated to get back at the US. They might not like each other, but it's conceiveable to me that now, Sadaam and his people could attempt to give or help give Bin Laden's people WMD. It seems Bind Laden and his people would be open to that level of cooperation.

[Chris A]

Reid, I have a feeling that Saddam is irrelevant now, but I think this entire episode (the invasion, the Bush arrogance) has given us something to fear: increased rage in the Arab world. The rage is justified, IMO, but I'm afraid the action it will generate will go way beyond anything that can be rationalized. I hope I'm wrong.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Chris A
Reid, I have a feeling that Saddam is irrelevant now, but I think this entire episode (the invasion, the Bush arrogance) has given us something to fear: increased rage in the Arab world. The rage is justified, IMO, but I'm afraid the action it will generate will go way beyond anything that can be rationalized. I hope I'm wrong.

Chris, I think that the real fear I have is not Saddam's thugs, who were only effective en masse in terrorizing their own people.
Though it would seem that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have their hate of the U.S. in common, I am much more afraid of random "small" attacks, rather than corruption and tyranny. These two men's evil are, IMO, two very different things. Iraq's former tyrant thrived on the absolute power over his country, which afforded him world status as a leader, however corrupt.

bin Laden, I think, is a puppeteer. His power comes from persuading others to carry out acts of world terrorism. He's not into governing, just creating mayhem.

So, the idea that these two would collaborate, being enemies with no real common ground seems unlikely to me. The only possible thing that they would have in common would be their hatred of the U.S. Both want to survive to survey their work, but I have never believed that they were on the same path, or would join together for any reason.

There is no proof that they have consulted or cooperated with each other before now. Bin Laden does not need Saddam Hussein to realize his plans, whatever they are.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Monte,

To get rid of the Palestinian terrorist groups you listed we'd have to invade Iran, Syria, Lebanon and maybe Jordan. In otherwords you're calling for the US to invade and conquer most of the Middle East.

And then N. Korea?

Are you serious?

It seems to me you're talking about decades of war.

You plan to inlist? We'll need the extra bodies.

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by patricia
I don't know about Saddam Hussein, but I think that there could be a parallel drawn between Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson....

Leave my cousin Charles out of this!

[Sand]

DarrylGT to Monte: "It seems to me you're talking about decades of war."

They are - and that's the bad news. The good news are that they will not succeed.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Clay Fink
Leave my cousin Charles out of this!

LOL!! Sorry about that.

Does anyone else, but me, wonder about the real reason for this war?? We kept hearing about the challenge of Baghdad and the dangerous mission it would be to take Takrit. Although there was some resistance to the invasion, the outcome, militarily, was never in doubt, IMO. The U.S. has every possible WOMD that Iraq was accused of "wanting to acquire", but apparantly doesn't have. This seemed to me, like shooting a mouse with an elephant gun.
Aside from the massive deaths and injuries of ordinary people, destruction and disappearance of the main players, this was WAY too easy.
What exactly happened here?? Although nobody disputes that Saddam Hussein was a despot and a tyrant, he isn't proving to be the horrible imminent threat we were led to believe.
So, does anyone have any explanation for the massive expense incurred, in lives of ordinary Iraqi people and property, beyond access to oil and make-work reconstruction projects for American companies??

[Knike]

On the other hand, Osama bin Laden still seems to be up and around and he is the terrorist instigator and his borders of influence extend worldwide, as we saw Sept 11.

This sounds as if it was Osama Bin Laden, who is responsible for the 09/11 Attacks ! Don't forget he's only ONE of many possible suspects and by now, it rather seems unlikely he did it. He's an easy target for suspection and i admit *He could have done it*, thats nothing but speculation, but it's a great legitimation to attack the arabian world.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Knike
This sounds as if it was Osama Bin Laden, who is responsible for the 09/11 Attacks ! Don't forget he's only ONE of many possible suspects and by now, it rather seems unlikely he did it. He's an easy target for suspection and i admit *He could have done it*, thats nothing but speculation, but it's a great legitimation to attack the arabian world.


I don't think that bin Laden is a viable villian to the administration now that attention was diverted to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
His part is over now and the plan moves on to other villians.
Hope that it won't require another terrorist attack on this side of the ocean to create another villian. We seem to need a single face and a local crisis to alarm us enough to strike out. Few seem concerned with the havok created by this war on the people in the country which we invaded.
Makes me wonder what the next target will be. Syria is now being accused of having a chemical weapons program, not to mention of harbouring the players from Iraq. Will it work again??
Those who "pooh pooh" the plan hatched in the eighties by the present main architects of this war may want to look more closely at it.

[clinthopson]

Saddam Hussein has NEVER been a threat to us.
I'm more worried about Shrubcheneyrumsfield feeling their testosterone surge as they get ready for a war against Syria, followed by Iran and Korea.