Experts Criticize U.S. Iraq Strike

By Bryan Robinson ABCNEWS.com

President Bush says the strike against Iraq was justified but experts say the attack may further diminish support for sanctions and inflame anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010218/ts/experts_criticize_u_s_iraq_strike_1.html

What is your feeling on the recent bombing of Iraq? Do you think that President Bush is "war happy?"

In Love and Light, Brenda

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Answers

One of the drawbacks of the all volunteer military is that we've reached a point where only a few have served, or even know anyone who has. This leads to a woeful ignorance among the public about things military.

For the past 10 years there has been an air war going on over Northern and Southern Iraq. The object was originally to protect the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south from the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Seeing as how we didn't want to take over Iraq after Desert Storm, and we didn't want to help the rebellions of these two peoples, the air patrols were established to prevent their genocide. No one ever predicted it would last this long with no end in sight, and I can tell you from personal experience it has been a disaster for the Air Force. Many of the problems you hear about (or don't hear about) from worn out planes to people are a result of this air war. Right now I'm watching the child of a First Sergeant who is deployed to Saudi Arabia, and whose wife had an appendicitis attack last night. It's tearing military families up.

Unfortunately the only alternative is to invade Iraq and occupy it. I personally would LOVE to do this to put an end to this slow leak on the Air Force, but the political environment, foreign and domestic, won't support it. This means we have to put up with the 2nd best solution until Saddam dies, and maybe longer.

Part of the 10 year air war has involved Iraq taking pot shots at our planes. PTL none have been shot down. What would we do in that instance? This latest raid is only the most recent in a long string aimed at air defence sites that have taken place for 10 years, and it was designed to protect the lives of our pilots. No one likes the sanctions, and no one, particularly the miltary likes this war. Anyone up for an invasion?

Oh yeah, anyone saying we should fight more fairly or gently should be given no credibility. They demonstrate a contemptible disdain for the lives of our servicemen and women. To quote a Marine, "by the time we get sent in, there are no more gray areas." Once military forces are committed the best solution is foot to the floor. Thankfully, Colin Powell and President Bush realize this. Also, how many liberals out there, who so casually advocate committing forces, then won't let them fight, have kids or grandchildren in the service? I thought so. To quote another Marine, "they like to say 'hey you guys, go fight!'"

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

This was a huge mistake. We need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Iraq has the right to choose their leaders and we are not to determine who is satisfactory to the rest of the world. I served twenty years in the US military (Air Force) and if after 10 years there is no progress, it is time to change. Blessings

Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

I agree with Pastor Paris on this one. We need to get out of Iraq. Because "we" don't like Sadaam we have killed over 500,000 Iraq people. We crerated him, giving him the arms and resources because , at the time, "we" did not like Iran and Iraq was at war with them. The problem is that if you count back to the Gulf War, that was Daddy Bush's war. He called the ceasefire Feb 28, 1991.It was his proudest moment because he was not considered a strong foreign policy president. Now "W" is assuming the cleanup of what was left by his father. What give the U.S. the right to say what a soveriegn country can or can not do in their own airspace? What would be out reaction if Mexico or Cuba declared that from the border to 150 miles north, no American planes were going to be allowed to fly? It is all about oil and nothing else. The protection of Kuwait, not a democracy either, by the way, is all about oil. We should clear the aerea or be honest about what "U.S Interest" is in the region.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Let's get out! I agree. But...that means the Marsh Arabs and Kurds will all be dead within a few months. How do we protect them if we're gone? Please don't say diplomacy. We're talking about Saddam here. We either patrol the air or invade.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

In whose "name" is this war being fought? Is it about The Creator or the oil?

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Who appointed us the protector of the world? The Kurds, Serbs, Hatitians, Albanians, etc. What would have happened if Britian or France or Russia or any country had came to the aid of black folk while they were being lynched in the US? Don't give me that stuff about millions dying. There's oil in them thar hills! Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

From a geo-political position we can not "get out of Iraq" so long as Sadamm Hussein remains a threat to our national security. Intelligence reports have shown that the perennial mid-East malcontent is making all efforts to circumvent the UN imposed sanctions without scaling back his hostile intent towards neighboring nations like Kuwait. The recent bombing is an appropriate course of action given the blatant violation of air-space instigated by Iraqui aircraft. The appeal for withdrawal is understandable but the cost of retreat would be economically regrettable and the effect on our foreign policy potentially devastating. QED

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

How is Sadamm Hussein a threat to the US? Is he bombing the US? Appears to me, we are our biggest enemy. Look at the CIA agent selling secrets. We've got enough to keep up busy.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Saddam is not a threat to the US, except through terrorist expression in ways we have seen too frequently since 1988. Saddam is a threat to "US interests", which is doublespeak for "our vital oil supply, so that we can use up somebody else's non-renewable resource and save our own until such time that we can develop exploitable alternatives."

On the question of authority, the US does not have authority in this manner. President Bush (41) never asked for a declaration of war, but for approval of the US's commitment to carry out UN resolutions. The counter-invasion and occupation of Iraq is therefore under the UN umbrella. Since it meshes with US interests, the US has sent its forces to comply with the UN resolution.

Overlooked in all this was the hijacking of a plane in January carrying a US ambassador. This may have been a response to that, coupled with the need to reassert Air Supremacy over the "no-fly" zones.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

If Iraq's neighbors, the Saudes, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Israel are satisfied with them developing weapons of mass destruction, why do we care. If we get out of the way, his brothers will take care of this situation. We helped out in Korea and that war is still going on. Peace comes when there is a clear winner and loser. We lost the war in Viet Nam and now we are partners with North Viet Nam and there is peace all over Viet Nam. Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Here's Secretary of State Price's solution. First, let's admit it, the oil has value and we'll defend it. That's why we fought a war there.

Now, what we have is a situation similar to that in Korea. There's an enemy who must be KEPT AT BAY. We don't need to conquer him, just contain him. To do that we simply need to pull our forces out of Europe and station them in the Gulf. Off the top of my head I can think of two heavy divisions, four fighter wings, a wing of cargo planes, and a special operations forces galore. That's enough to keep a lid on the entire region forever.

The obstacles we face in implementing this: 1. Getting out of the Balkans and leaving them to the Europeans. 2. Getting the Gulf states to allow a permanent presence complete with military families and our "infidel" religion. Hard to do, but we could do it if we read a few allies the riot act. Otherwise we just pull the forces in both theaters home and let them handle it on their own. We'll come in after the fact to pick up the pieces.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

Greetings to all of my neo-isolationist friends in this thread!! The collective comments supporting complete US withdrawal from its post- Desert Storm responsibilities unfortunately are not relective of the US's international position. As a reminder the US is the only verifiable superpower remaining and with that position certain expectations are cultivated. One of the expectations is to enforce all violations when perpetrators routinely break international law. Would you propose that immunity be extended to war criminals such as Slobodan Milosevic?? Is Hussein worthy of immunity?? In the majestic words of the arch-angel announcing the coming birth of the Christ child, I too desire, "Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men". I am just unpersuaded that the current Iraqui leader will work towards that fundamental theological and humanitarian goal. QED

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001