Reader F.H. writes in with this:
Bush has made his desire to invade Iraq well known. What he has not made well known is how the heck he intends to go about such a task.
On July 5, a Reuters report gives some insight into the current thinking in the Pentagon. It mentions a three pronged attack on Iraq from the north, south, and west. A glance at a map would indicate the Pentagon is counting on launching attacks from Turkey, Syria or Jordan, and Kuwait.
The most politically interesting scenario is that the Pentagon has formulated a plan that has certain prerequisites that the administration is unable to fulfill at this time. I think it unlikely that the President’s advisors who have pushed for an invasion of Iraq have actually done the math, so to speak, and figured out what the operation would entail. As long as the generals support the 250,000 troops option, it is likely that sufficient in theatre bases will be scarce or inadequate. If bases could be found, deployment could take a couple of months, during which time every Middle Eastern potentate who opposes the invasion and has the number of a Hamas splinter group in his rolodex could ratchet up the turmoil between Israel and Palestine.
It seems to me that the key issue for the administration is to get the generals to back off the 250,000 number. So far, the administration has one victory over the Pentagon, and that is canceling the Army’s pet project, the Crusader artillery system. General Tommy Franks would command the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks was an artillery officer for most of his career. Devoted, loyal, capable, and talented men may disagree over strategy and policy. I am sure that Gen. Franks is all of those things. He may feel that the administration was wrong to cancel the Crusader. He may feel that the administration would be wrong to invade with less than 250,000 troops. How successful can the administration be in persuading a man who was awarded the Purple Heart three times to pursue a strategy that he believes in risky in terms of American lives?
In my opinion, this is the issue upon which rests the fate of Iraq. It pits the armchair warriors against the warriors who have actually shed blood for their country in a bureaucratic backroom struggle in which both agree on the goal, and only differ on the means. Among the three most likely outcomes is that there will be no invasion of Iraq at all, and no regime change.
