"Robert J. Chassell" wrote:The arguments for the latter expectation are three fold:
> First, that Iraq is in a `use them or lose them' position: if it does > not soon use any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that it now > has, the US will seize them or destroy them. The presumes that US > spying is extensive and accurate and that Iraq still has such weapons. > > Second, that Iraq gains power by killing Shia civilians in Kuwait and > other places, and by hindering US port logistics. The model here is > that of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which was a military loss for > the Vietnamese communists, but a political win. > > Third, that Saddam Hussein and his government are mis-interpreting the > Bush administration's stubborness; that they are like the military > government of Argentina who invaded the British Falkland Islands in > 1982: the generals thought that the then British goverment under > Margaret Thatcher was wimpy and that it would complain vociferously, > but back down and permit Argentina to take over the Malvinas. The > other examples here are that under US President Reagan, the US pulled > out of the Lebanon after a truck bomb killed several hundred soldiers, > and that under US President Clinton, the US pulled out of Somalia. I don't know if you happened to read that Globe article about Saddam that I posted the other day. Its analysis of Saddam was that he thought he would win via causing a long, grinding, bloody ground battle that would cause the US to lose its resolve and back down, which seems to agree with your third point. My guess is that *BOTH* your expectations are correct: I think that Saddam knows world opinion would radically swing in favor of the US if he starts using the WMD he said he didn't have, and it will only strengthen US resolve. He's likely counting on lack of US resolve and on world opinion to help convince the US to pull out once the bloody ground battle he's expecting has started. So I don't think he will use any WMD -- -- Until it becomes clear that the above plan has failed and US victory is imminent*. At that point, the blaze of glory plan will kick in. I fully expect him to unleash any and all dirty tricks he has up his sleeve, causing as much destruction as possible (which critics will inevitably blame on the US). I wouldn't put it past him to have booby-trapped oil fields, WMD-loaded scuds hidden in position to attack Israel and Kuwait , and possibly even attacks on his own people as part of this plan. (Final prediction: if he pulls the trigger on WMD, he'll simultaneously attempt to flee the country and disappear into wealthy anonymity rather than be captured and face a war crimes tribunal.) This is my nightmare scenario, in which the US is proven right, but at terrible human cost. My hope is that the US attack will cripple his reach of power so swiftly and effectively that he won't be able to enact them before it's too late. -bryon * I'm not saying that the war will necessarily be done quickly; I just that think his plan to make the US back down will fail, so eventually it will come to a point where even he will have to admit that it's failed and the US is about to win. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
