Bush decides to topple Saddam

Seth Ackerman sia at nyc.rr.com
Fri Feb 15 07:46:43 PST 2002


Michael Pollak wrote:


> What do you make of reports like that appended below that say that a third
> plan is now afoot, relying on 150,000 or more US troops and scheduled for
> the Fall or later? Zinni, in the course of scoffing at Kurds and the INC,
> specifically gave that as the number of troops he thought would be
> necessary to topple Saddam, implying it would be possible if he had them.
> And 6-8 months seems like reasonable time to amass them. Do you think
> there is any reason we should consider this plan as being as inherently
> logistically fanciful as the two you discussed? Or could it possibly
> represent the debouching of what has been a long-cherished fantasy into a
> new reality -- and one we perhaps should take seriously?

I thought the Guardian piece was vague on details, and sort of garbled. Besides, it also includes this line: "However, it may be that the actual force used will be less numerous, relying more on covert and special forces operations."

I think the signals are pretty clear that the administration has given up on the INC. But that doesn't mean the number of US forces deployed will be zero.

Seth



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list