Tracy,

This Iraq invasion is the FIRST TIME that the U.S. (or any other country) has ever had civilian welfare incorporated into its battle planning! The usual tactic - employed by all warring parties until now - is to make it hell for the population too so as to cause added pressure on their government.

Even in the NATO Serbian (Kosovo) 'action', though some regard for civilians was claimed, the bombing of electrical distribution facilities and oil refining/distribution facilities and bridges and television stations and other civil targets were fully incorporated into the NATO plans.
The Afghanistan war had virtually nothing of that sort to bomb, as the Taliban were running a virtually stone-age society, yet plenty of civilians were killed. And that job still has a very long way to go before it is finished.

Now on the one hand I am greatly relieved that General Franks has devised a plan that he and his peers and master agree can do the job WHILE GREATLY MINIMIZING CIVILIAN IMPACT/CASUALTIES. It is obvious that the U.S. could bomb Baghdad and Basra and Kirkuk into oblivion had it chosen to and if it operated in the regular old-fashioned methods of war! I dearly hope tht they can retain this strategy until Saddam is gone (DEAD) but I fear there is a chance that it may have to be foregone if things drag on much longer.

ON THE OTHER HAND a success with minimal civilian impact is, I fear, MOST DANGEROUS FOR THE WORLD. Simply put, if the U.S. can show that war can now be conducted in a "clean" and "clinical" fashion then the Administration itself and probably a majority of the U.S. people will be far less hesitant to wage the NEXT WAR.

In fact it may become the PRIMARY OPTION when things aren't to the liking of the U.S. government!

Sure this is another "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation in the eyes of the U.S. But this is not about the perception within the U.S., but rather about how the rest of the world sees it. You are damned for going in in the first place. You are damned for making yourself the policeman/judge/jury OF THE WORLD.

Your government - and I'll let it be that it is the influence of the cabal rather than the Administration generally - has stated as policy that they will unilaterally attack any country or entity that the determine is a threat to their security and they have proven it by going into Iraq under the pretext of a threat.
Naturally the rest of the world is fearful that any one of them can be categorized as a "threat" on any whim of some senior Administration official. So, to protect themselves they face the sole choice of doing as the U.S. instructs. Failure to do so increases their chance of being labelled a "threat" and so being dealt with in another clean and clinical war!

I am confident at this time that the Congress and the PEOPLE of the U.S. would not share this modus operandi. But the Administration (and especially the cabal) have succeeded with a multi-faceted public relations campaign to convince the American people and Congress that a contained and embargoed and militarily diminished and poverty-stricken country represents a serious threat and that it can be HANDILY defeated for the benefit of the world.
Success in this lop-sided campaign can only make the next "sale" easier (Afghanistan was first, then Iraq, and only the cabal knows who's next) and if it can be done cleanly and clinically then that sale will be even easier!
THAT IS WHAT THE WORLD IS WORRIED ABOUT!!!!

By the way, the "equation" is a simple one. The reason that Iraq represents a "threat" - at least as related to the world by the Administration - is that:
1) they have weapons of WMD and these WILL be used on the U.S. some day, some way;
2) Saddam is a maniac who kills and gasses and rapes and imprisons and tortures his own people;
3) Saddam has stolen the riches of his people, while they starve and cower in fear, to build palaces and consolidate his stranglehold further by spending money on military.
In other words, Iraq and Saddam flout all rules of common decency. Of course these are much more stringent than any rule of war.
Yet daily, in CENTCOM briefings and Pantagon briefings, we hear gloating reports that Iraq is breaching the "rules of war"!

The sham is that the reasoning formed the basis for the war and yet it is being used again to sanitize and sanctify the aggression. We can be sure that neither the Pentagon nor CENTCOM would be saying "WOW, we're very surprised that Iraq is playing fully by the rules of war" if that was the case.

And I don't know that the "rules of war" are applicable to the agressed/invaded side of things. It really wouldn't make sense to me, actually, and it seems more likely that it is the onus of an invader to comply to the "rules of war". After having a war imposed on them, a country is also expected to follow prescribed rules?

I look at history and I don't quite see it working that way. I look at Poland being invaded by Germany. The Polish underground was under no compunction to follow any rule of war. Now Britain, VOLUNTARILY entering the war by reason of a treaty, of course has to follow the rules of war because they inserted themselves into it.
So, in fact, I'd like to know if Iraq is actually compelled to follow any "rules of war".

I sure hope that the cabal that instigated this war is FIRED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. They are dangerous people!



>I don't see the equation. There is a difference between 'flouting the rules' and performing acts in direct contradiction of the rules of war. The rules of war are meant to protect civilians as much as possible from being targets during wartime. It is meant to restrict military action to military targets and prevent military action from targeting anything that does not present a clear military advantage. While there will always be civilian casualties, they are not the target and never should be. If civilians were not protected (to the best of our ability and not made intentional targets) during wartime, then there would be no civilians left after war, only military. Also, I do not agree with the premise that the U.S. invaded Iraq simply for flouting the rules. There are very strong reasons the U.S. is fighting in Iraq which have been reiterated numerous times in these threads so I will not repeat them. While many do not believe those reasons and even do not support this military
>action, that does not excuse the actions of a dying regime in sacrificing their own citizens intentionally for small insignificant military advantages. Those actions do nothing except further destroy the humanity of the Iraqi citizens and provide no real military advantages. War is not pretty and is pretty barbaric on its own without intentionally bringing civilians into it-and your own civilians at that.
>
>
>>Tracy
>>
>>So: having invaded Iraq for flouting the rules, people seem surprised/shocked to "discover" that Iraq flouts the rules.
>>
>>A reasonable person would conclude that one of the sides of the above equation is a sham.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>JR