[Fidelista]

Catching up on some reading, and yes , I do read books written by conservatives!
I couldn't help but post these statements by Gen. Schwartzkopf because they are thought provoking. This is not cut/paste so I hope I have not made error. I have no comment, just curious what others think of his opinions.
It is an older book, but a interesting one now , considering the situation in Iraq. My best!!>f

IT DOESN"T TAKE A HERO > by Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf >> Page 498.

" I am convinced that had a decision been made to invade all of Iraq, and capture Baghdad, the coalition ,
that we worked so hard to preserve would have fractured. I am equally convinced that the only forces that
would have participated in those military actions would have been British and American.
Even the French would have withdrawn from the coalition.
Had the United States and the United Kingdom gone on alone to capture Baghdad, under the provisions
of the Geneva and Hague conventions we would have responsible for ALL the costs of maintaining or restoring
government, education, and other services for the people of Iraq.
From the brief time we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq,
we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit-------we would still be there,
and we, not the United Nations , would be bearing the costs of that occupation.
This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 498
"Had the United States and the United Kingdom alone attacked Iraq and occupied Baghdad, every citizen
of the Arab world today would be convinced that what Saddam said was true.*
Instead, they know that the armed forces of western and Arab nations fought side by side against Iraq's aggression
and that when Kuwait was liberated the western nations withdrew their military forces and went home.
For once, we were strategically smart enough to win the war AND the peace"
note*{what Saddam said was that the western powers were "lackeys" of the Israelis}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 499
" Instead a defanged Saddam has been forced to retreat behind his own borders.
His nuclear , biological, chemical military have been destroyed, and will stay that way
if we can figure out how to prevent him from getting them in thru future the same way he
got them in the past------from unscrupulous firms, both eastern and western , more
interested in the corporate bottom line than in world peace.
Saddams 's military forces suffered a crushing defeat and are no longer a threat to any other nation"

[Davey7549]

Fidelista
Interesting!
I think Norman was correct in his assessment on who would of backed a full country invasion, however page 499 I think spells it out quite nicely knowing now from the Duelfer report how France, Russia, China and even the UN were involved in helping Suddam circumvent the sanctions.

Dave

[Fidelista]

Hello Davey. Re: page 499. Did you notice his choice of words? "unscrupulous firms"----"corporate" ?. Maybe Saddam is only half of the problem?.
This is speaking of pre-1991 , so WMD as well as other weapons were a real issue.
It appears that he felt that Arms suppliers {firms} were a real threat. Of course that business is International.
I have read that the U.S approved of Iraqs weapons programs at one time and shipment by third partys , so we are not entirely innocent, but that is not my point.
Maybe we should be considering the firms that supply weapons as the enemy---regardless of where they come from. Maybe the Generel has made a important point. >f

[Davey7549]

Fidelista
Oh I agree! I think Norman was right on and I also think the US has many times in the past allowed our weapons to be sold to less than desirable countries. The point may of been pre 1991 but is it not strange how much of the same occurred after gulf 1 and during the sanctions.
Oh and by the way France's duplicity was focused with its government controlled "Total Oil company". Who knows what Russian or Chinese companies were involved and indirectly approved by their home countries.

Dave

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

I have read that the U.S approved of Iraqs weapons programs at one time and shipment by third partys , so we are not entirely innocent, but that is not my point.
Maybe we should be considering the firms that supply weapons as the enemy---regardless of where they come from. Maybe the Generel has made a important point

the end of ww2, and the emergence of america and the soviet union as the two superpowers, saw the serious beginnings of providing weapons to allies and influences that both countries saw as beneficial to their hold on the balance of regional power...

it not so unlike the growth of "accountability" in public education (massive testing as the primary proof of success), and the concurrent emergence of curricula as a billion dollar satellite industry....

at one point, i suppose it all seemed perfectly logical....the rhetoric and posturing of democracy and communism demanded that power be balanced in the regions of the world, that countries to one degree or another be "bought and paid for" with aid and arms and loans, and capitalism was quick to...well, capitalize on the cold war, making the arms industry a multi billion dollar satellite of democracy....the sidekick of freedom....the soviet union did the same thing in its own way, and other nations found ways to trade their gifts for favors, as well.....resulting in a pretty universal proliferation of weapon technology and hardware.....

its all just a part of the world now, a result of the desire for security....funny how we are still struggling with that, while our soldiers are killed by weapons provided by the very civilization they are defending...

at some point, ya just gotta start questioning the sanity of it all...or at least the motives that continue to create these situations....'cause it doesn't feel at all like any of us regular folks, anywhere, really want it to go on.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Catching up on some reading, and yes , I do read books written by conservatives!
I couldn't help but post these statements by Gen. Schwartzkopf because they are thought provoking. This is not cut/paste so I hope I have not made error. I have no comment, just curious what others think of his opinions.
It is an older book, but a interesting one now , considering the situation in Iraq. My best!!>f

IT DOESN"T TAKE A HERO > by Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf >> Page 498.

" I am convinced that had a decision been made to invade all of Iraq, and capture Baghdad, the coalition ,
that we worked so hard to preserve would have fractured. I am equally convinced that the only forces that
would have participated in those military actions would have been British and American.
Even the French would have withdrawn from the coalition.
Had the United States and the United Kingdom gone on alone to capture Baghdad, under the provisions
of the Geneva and Hague conventions we would have responsible for ALL the costs of maintaining or restoring
government, education, and other services for the people of Iraq.
From the brief time we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq,
we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit-------we would still be there,
and we, not the United Nations , would be bearing the costs of that occupation.
This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 498
"Had the United States and the United Kingdom alone attacked Iraq and occupied Baghdad, every citizen
of the Arab world today would be convinced that what Saddam said was true.*
Instead, they know that the armed forces of western and Arab nations fought side by side against Iraq's aggression
and that when Kuwait was liberated the western nations withdrew their military forces and went home.
For once, we were strategically smart enough to win the war AND the peace"
note*{what Saddam said was that the western powers were "lackeys" of the Israelis}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 499
" Instead a defanged Saddam has been forced to retreat behind his own borders.
His nuclear , biological, chemical military have been destroyed, and will stay that way
if we can figure out how to prevent him from getting them in thru future the same way he
got them in the past------from unscrupulous firms, both eastern and western , more
interested in the corporate bottom line than in world peace.
Saddams 's military forces suffered a crushing defeat and are no longer a threat to any other nation"

Still there now!

[GoneForNow]

Right Leader, Right Time
By Tommy Franks

1 November 2004
The Wall Street Journal

(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
The decision we make tomorrow will have a greater impact on the security of our country than any presidential election in my memory. America is at war on a scale unmatched in scope and importance since World War II. The threat today isn't monolithic like Hitler's Germany or Hirohito's Japan -- or bin Laden's al Qaeda of the '90s. But it's just as deadly, with diverse cells in 60 countries, linked by ideology and hatred. The war is global, complex and lethal, and the fundamental choice we must make is whether we fight that war offensively, by pursing the terrorists relentlessly around the world, or defensively, by waiting for them to strike again on American soil. There's no third choice. We cannot play for a tie. America did not create terrorism, terrorists did. And now we must wage war until we win -- no half measures, no equivocation, no "global test."
John Kerry recently suggested that he'd be satisfied if terrorism were rolled back to the point where it was a "nuisance." Terrorism was never merely a nuisance. Terrorists have been killing Americans for more than two decades. The problem is that we chose to do something about it only in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983; the first World Trade Center attack in 1993; the killing of our airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 -- these were not a "nuisance." They were deadly acts of war. The president of the United States must recognize the difference.
I know from firsthand experience that George W. Bush understands this reality. As commander of the Allied Forces in the Middle East, I worked with him as we laid out a strategy and reviewed operations. I came away from every meeting, every conversation, impressed by his consistency, his honesty, and his character. He does not hesitate, but neither does he rush to judgment. His decisions are based on the best information available. He respects the military and trusts the judgments of our serving military leaders. At each step of planning, he asked me directly whether I had the resources I needed to accomplish each mission. Yet his desire for thoroughness never led to wavering. I knew I could count on him to have the steadiness and patience to see the mission through -- and so did my subordinate commanders.
President Bush's leadership has come under attack by Sen. Kerry, who accuses the president of "incompetence" in pursuing the war on terror. With the release of the latest Osama bin Laden tape, Sen. Kerry has once again attempted to capitalize on Americans' most urgent security concerns. The notion that we "outsourced" our mission at Tora Bora is completely wrong. The Afghan forces at Tora Bora were working in concert with the best fighting forces America has to offer. In addition, the Afghan troops had a long history of opposing the Taliban and fighting for freedom in their own country.
This past week we also saw Sen. Kerry pounce on news stories about the Al Qaqaa facility in Iraq. Those stories first said 380 tons of high explosives were missing, presumed taken after our soldiers were on the scene. Now it turns out the story is more complicated. We don't know how many munitions were stored there when the war began. And we don't know when the munitions that are gone were taken. What we do know is that our forces have seized or destroyed more than 400,000 tons of munitions and explosives -- weapons that Saddam Hussein controlled. If Sen. Kerry's view had prevailed, we wouldn't be arguing about 380 tons of munitions; Saddam would still be in control of all 400,000 -- and potentially much more.
We still need to gather more information about the missing munitions. And, true to form, President Bush will gather the facts and respond appropriately. I respect his thoughtfulness, and his willingness to work with our generals to develop strategy -- strategy based on analysis and experience, not media headlines. All due respect to the media, that's not the way to win a war.
I don't know Sen. Kerry's plan for victory. But I do know that his criticism of the military conduct of our global war on terrorism disrespects our troops. I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't support the cause. And he cannot attract more international support for this cause when he denigrates the allies who are helping us.
President Bush understands that destroying terrorism requires a consistent, committed effort on a global scale. And he knows we need the help of other nations committed to freedom. Since Sept. 11, 2001, he has built the largest coalition in history. And the mission determined the coalition; the coalition did not determine the mission. With the help of these allies, we have made remarkable progress in the last three years: 50 million people are free, two regimes that sponsored terror are gone, and America is safer. But much remains to be done. As voters consider their choice, they must think about how America will continue to confront challenges to our freedom. Winning the war against terrorism demands responsible, unwavering leadership. George W. Bush is a leader.
---
Gen. Franks, until recently director of Central Command, is author of "American Soldier" (Regan, 2004) and a member of Veterans for Bush.

[DNeurococo]

Is that the same Tommy Franks that let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora?