[solops]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by solops:
I was thinking more in terms of assassination via sniper or smart bomb. Perhaps even a bounty or bribe. Fomenting unrest in a police state like Iraq is futile.

As far as the rebellions after the first Gulf war, that was a no-go. The US's allies did not want Saddam out due to fear of the Iranians. Therefore Iraq proper was not entered and the Republican Guard was allowed to escape so that it could maintain Saddam in power. I guess they hoped he'd be chastened.

I would expect that in a year or three Saddam could be eliminated, if the US was both serious and secretive enough. Or perhaps not.

They weren't paying for a quiet arrest, you know. The idea was exactly what you suggest, to foment a military coup. Guns, grenades, shrapnel. Nasty stuff. And every officer they recruited was caught. Some Colonel in the Iraqi intelligence services would pick up the fancy encrypted satellite phone they had given their chosen 'covert operative' to keep in touch with and tell them he had been arrested. *click* End of coup attempt. The Iraqi intelligence services are good. After many attempts they have decided to get rid of Saddam the hard way.

---

Oh, I don't disagree. But I think a military coup or popular uprising are both low probability events, for the reason you give. Assassination by anyone (sniper, son, whatever) or death by smart bomb, much better odds over a longer term, especially given the intel surveillance we have now. Clinton never really tried. I think all of the above should have been pushed longer and harder....much cheaper and more justifiable (or deniable)in all ways than a war.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:09: Message edited by: solops ]