What concept of military action should have been implemented against Iraq?

As Saddam Hussein is making many false excuses to delay and prevent the Inspectors to come back in Iraq to find the sites where these weapons are stored, the DESTRUCTION of ILLEGAL SITES OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SHOULD RESUME and SHOULD HAVE RESUMED a LONG TIME AGO.
When Saddam did not want to let the UN inspectors find and destroy ILLEGAL WEAPONS then Saddam should have suffered the consequences which are bombing sites that US and allies intelligence believe are hiding weapons of mass destruction . We would have had to bomb many more sites that if the weapons inspectors would have discovered but it would have been Saddam fault not wanting to allow UN inspector to do their job

We the USA are a Nation of law who abides by the values of Democracy and the law of the United Nation and we are helping in destroying the weapons of mass destruction which is exactly the goal of the UN resolutions

If we go to WAR against Saddam it is not conceivable to risk many American and allied lives from ground forces to punish a thug and a bandit with limited military power.
Saddam will be only too happy to drag the USA in a street fight where American soldiers do not have technology superiority.
An absolute PRINCIPLE in beating an enemy is NOT to fight on his OWN TERMS.
INTENSE, CONTINUOUS, BOMBING CAMPAIGN with ground forces composed of indigenous soldiers from Saddam opposition, guided by a handful of American Special forces is the answer.


                 We will start from the beginning and assess what kind of war plan should be conducted against Iraq :
In the beginning although no link to terrorism has been proven or even mentioned, the President of the USA George Bush Junior decided it was time to go to war against Iraq. At this time it was a surprise.

However it is the role of the President if he sees any danger for the Nation to lead the Nation into an action that will eliminate this danger.
His first argument was Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction and could use them against his neighbors . However at this time and now there was an absolute certainty that Iraq had no capacity to strike at the USA.

Only after his first argument was poorly received by the world community including Iraq neighbors did he strengthen his case by adding a second argument which is that Iraq having not complied with the program voted by the United Nations of weapons inspections, the USA should go to war.
His reluctance to includes the United Nations is very clear from the beginning.
The right course of  thoughts and action should have been the following.

I the President of the United States am reminding the world that Saddam Hussein the Iraq absolute and ruthless dictator, perpetrator of war crimes by massacring his own people with the use of weapon of mass destruction  has been   for the last ten years in complete violation of the United Nations resolutions regarding the disarmament of Iraq.

The very reason that the United Nations voted resolutions setting a program of weapon inspectors in charge of controlling and destroying Iraq's weapon of mass destruction is that Saddam Hussein showed no qualm about using building and using weapons of mass destruction.

However we can be assured that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and therefore is a threat to his neighbors.

What should have been done instead of Bragging to go unilaterally to a full scale war is the following:

Inform the Americans and the world that Iraq cannot be allowed not to comply with the United Nation resolutions which were adopted by a huge Majority 12 years ago and that these Weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed which was the will of the United Nations.
As Saddam Hussein is making many false excuses to delay and prevent the Inspectors to come back in Iraq to find the sites where these weapons are stored, the DESTRUCTION SHOULD GO ON
by bombing sites that US and allies intelligence believe are hiding weapons of mass destruction .

The answer to American or world opposition to this kind of Military action is  that:
We the USA are a Nation of law who abides by the values of Democracy and the law of the United Nation and we are helping in destroying the weapons of mass destruction which is exactly the goal of the UN resolutions

Using this strategy the USA should hold the moral ground by being simply the arm of the United Nation and enforcing resolutions that were Unanimous.
Using this strategy the USA could have totally shifted the blame on Saddam Hussein who would then be the renegade that do not abide by the law of the United Nations.
Using this strategy the USA should put the United nations in a spot where it is almost impossible for the United Nations to say
" No I do not want any nation to help us enforce our laws"

The USA should Bomb with a 15 minutes warning to civilians Iraq weapons sites very intensively starting by simultaneously bomb the eight Saddam Hussein Palaces - Compounds. and continue bombing until all suspected sites are destroyed .
We are talking of a massive sustained campaign that should not be stopped if Saddam after the first round of bombing declare that he will welcome back the UN inspectors, Saddam by his constant lies has forfeited his right to be trusted in any way shape or form.
IF the UN inspectors resume their inspection but Saddam stops them again then BOMBING OF SUSPECTED SITES should be implemented in a dense and continuous way

The US army can be assured that Saddam will retaliate by using some action, may be even using
weapons of mass destruction or opening his arms to Terrorists which will the allow the USA
to systematically by precision bombing destroy each and every tank, gun or missile launcher.
Regime change will come as a consequence, a Military dictator without even the trace of an Army is so weak that it becomes very easy to topple him.


Why when your are the most powerful Democracy in the world, the first Democracy created in the Modern world, a Democracy that worship the rule of law inside the country, would you  from the beginning reject every course of action that reflect the values of Democracy.

The problem is that the President and his adviser want to finished the UNFINISHED BUSINESS
that was President Bush Senior mediocre termination of the Gulf war.
They wanted so bad a full scale war USA versus Saddam that they do not even understand the Equation and How to solve it and the ramification around the world.
A full blown war with ground troops against Iraq will be worst for the USA than 10 Vietnam wars.
 LA Nov 11  02  02



There is a recent combination of developments that is interesting to study from the point of view of Democracy in the USA.-

1) After the election of President George W. Bush, he appointed his most trusted Republican advisors to executive positions in his administration. All are men who held executive positions in Defense or the military in previous administrations: Vice President Dick Cheney was a Secretary of Defense; Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld was a former Secretary in the Department of Defense and Secretary of State, Colin Powell was formerly Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Instead of an influential civilian leadership President Bush appointed an influential Military leadership

2) The new budget shows a projected 20% increase in Military expenses, the biggest increase in twenty years.

Big increase in Military budget

3) The war against the Taliban Government in Afghanistan demonstrated to the world the enormous technological superiority of US weapons as well as the overwhelming power of the US Army. Every element in the US military is vastly superior to any army in the world including training and the quality of soldiers and commanders.

An extremely powerful army

4) Due to the nature of terrorism, the war against global terrorism is going to continue for years on one part of the planet or the other.

Continuing conflict

The following question arises in looking at these developments:

How will Democracy and the Civil Rights at home be effected and what transformations will there be now that we carry the biggest stick. How will we conduct ourselves and how will our relations with our allies and foes change in this new environment?


In the recent past what are the most famous countries with these same characteristics?

The rise of an influential Military leadership instead of an influential civilian leadership
Big increases in Military spending
An extremely powerful army
continuing conflict

The countries are:

USSR (Russia being the core) from 1922 to 1991
Germany under Hitler's Nazi regime from 1934 to 1945
Japan and its massacres of populations in occupied countries from 1932 to 1945

In light of these similarities we should be rightfully anguished that the USA shares the same very strong elements with countries that became the most infamous and aggressive in the world.

There is only one difference, only one but a major one, the United States of America is a DEMOCRACY.

Will the American Government fully adhere to its Democratic values?
Will the Government stray from Democracy in favor invoking efficiency in dealing with domestic issues?
Will the Government stray from Democratic values and put forward efficiency in dealing with foreign issues?

The answer is YES, most probably yes although we cannot predict the future. Today the Constitution, a powerful free press and the high level of education of American citizens should ensure respect for and adherence to Democratic principles.

As of February 28 2002 there are already some facts that give partial answers to these huge questions.


(H1) An interesting victory for modern Democracy is drawn from a parallel between the way Americans of Japanese descent were treated in world war II and Americans of Islamic faith are being treated today.
During World War II Americans of Japanese descent, including innocent families, were interned in concentration camps in the USA.
Not even a hint of the same treatment was ever suggested towards Americans of Islamic faith today although the circumstances are very similar. This is a huge victory for Democracy.

(H2) Very recently we heard that an office that will be in charge of spreading false information abroad to be fed to the foreign press was going to be created inside the Pentagon structure. It is a small problem but very revealing. First and foremost the fact that this office of Misinformation was to be attached to the Pentagon shows that the executive branch and its military leaders want the Pentagon, which is the military, to control as many things as possible. It is an affirmation of the prominence the Pentagon is given over any other service.

Second the plan itself was extremely unwise, and the free press made such a strong argument against the plan that it was withdrawn. It is the job of the CIA to act in the field of intelligence and counter intelligence. This would have clearly been a counter intelligence operation, but would anyone organize a counter intelligence operation which has to remain secret because it is the essence of counter intelligence and then announce it to the world? It is unbelievable. Due to the globalization of information false news spread in Pakistan will quickly end up on the computer, TV set or radio of someone living in Kansas by the next day.

To top it all off executive leadership decided to attach this office of Misinformation to the Pentagon which has worked so hard for so long to achieve the credibility it has now.

The failure of the plan is indirectly a victory for Democratic values, but it is mostly a victory of common sense carried by the free press into battle against a poorly conceived plan.

Future analysis will examine the quality of US foreign policy and whether or not the Bush Administration's foreign policy is endangering the USA as the only powerful Democracy in the world for the long term.

MAY 2002 B

   Back to Index


     In order to conduct a comprehensive study of the interaction of terrorism and Democracy we need to define the two terms in there modern meaning and in there slightly expanded  actual meaning.

        Our readers and students should already be well acquainted with the principal concept of Democracy which is a form of government define as the " GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE"
   Already in Ancient Greece the birth of Democracy was spurred by the original idea at this time that any citizen was as valuable as the other and that subsequently his voice was as important as any voice and should be heard freely without being repressed.
    Along the century Democracy values were defined more clearly and expanded to what is now the bases for the constitution of most modern civilized countries.
The constitution of the United States of America is a good example of the value of modern Democracy which includes for example: The right to vote and elect its leaders, Freedom of speech, Freedom of reunion, Freedom of religion and others. In the 19 Th and 20 Th centuries The constitution was amended to ban Slavery in the USA and in most modern   countries and to evolve towards non discrimination towards Women and Minorities.
In  later years and even  recent years Democracy values have been enhanced by the People of America and some other Democracies to include values that literally do not have a constitutional background or a legal background or a political background although politician try to get votes by riding on these values.
I am talking of the values that are directly a product of the good heart of the soul of the American people.
Although not written in the constitution, the law that were passed reflect that the majority of the American People deeply care about their fellow country men and women particularly if they have not been advantaged by nature, birth, race, education or wealth.
These actual and recent enhancement of modern Democracy are often extended to other less favored countries and can also be seen in other modern Democracies.


    Terrorism of course come from the world terror which mean a fear so great that it renders the recipients unable to be rational and   makes them ready to accept anything in order to avoid the repetition of experiencing terror.
In ancient times all the way to very recent history with the exception of Democracies Terrorism was a way of life . Raiding civilian villages, killing civilian, raping, torturing was a way of life continuously and as recently as 1995 with tribal fights in Africa where not only one faction massacred unarmed men, women, and children but they chopped of the right arm of men, women and children of the opposing party to create terror.
    In recent time 40', 50', 60' in Democracies an act of terror was generally the bombing or killing of armed forces soldiers and officers and destruction of their building which is basically what war is, the difference being that some of the fighters were resident of the same land as opposed as two armies clashing from two different lands clashing on the battle field.
A notable exception in world war II was after Hitler bombed London the bombing by allied forces of German cities.
However the use of terrorism by Democracy is an exception among a constant tendency to abandon terrorism as a form of relation with other human beings.

Taliban government and its supporters such as Osaman bin ladin and the Al quada network is a perfect example of an absolutely non Democratic government where Fundamentalist Islamic law was the rule.
They specifically targeted civilian people in the bombing of the world trade center in New York.
Less known to the American people they are responsible as part of the network of Fundamentalists Islamic International terrorist Network for ten of thousands murder of civilians.

Democracy and Terrorism

We can clearly see now that Terrorism has disappeared or is disappearing from Modern Democracies and is flourishing in Barbarians tyrannies.
It took so much effort from so many good men for so long to make the values of modern   Democracy the base for a non violent world that it is very sad to see a religion Fundamentalism Islam trying to pull us back into barbarian ages where Terrorism was the rule.


JUNE 2002

Back to INDEX