A "peace initiative" was proposed by the Soviet Union that would allow the Iraqi forces to eventually "withdraw" from the theatre and accept a Soviet plan for the resolution for the Persian Gulf Conflict. It is an eight point plan which contains language which would allow the "unconditional withdrawal" of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and subsequent agreements regarding the resolution of the conflict. Unfortunately, the plan gives various allowances to the Iraqi forces in regard to future "cease-fires" that might occur.
U.S. military veterans would suggest that "cease-fires" are frequently used to re-supply and re-orient battlefield troops, while providing them with updated intelligence and logistical capabilities during the period of "no-fire". Viet- Nam veterans are sincerely aware of the use of "cease-fires" arrangements that occured during the conflict. All too frequently, following a "cease-fire", the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) choose to infiltrate new areas and re-supply `beleaguered' units during the "naive" effort at reconciliation.
If they were aware, and all frequently, the "well-meaning" advocates of peace would then find that a "communist" offensive would follow the "period of peace" and "liberation of new areas" would soon occur. To suggest otherwise, would be to disregard history. The records speak for themselves. On the other hand, a far more realistic and effective analysis would suggest that the time to attack is when an enemy "asks for a cease-fire"...it usually means that the combatants desire a respite from the damaging effects of a superior force.
According to Clark Staten of the Emergency Response and Research Institute in Chicago, Ill., "the time to press an attack is when your enemy will suffer the greatest indignity and and loss of life... due to a lack of will". "To do otherwise, is to disregard the advantage of the psychological and military advantage that has been gained through the shock effect of insistent bombing and harrasment of the enemy troops.", Staten said. "Should the U.S officials allow a cease-fire and partial withdrawal of Iraqi forces, we will undoubtedly be faced with the inevitable resurgence of Iraq", Staten continued. " To do so, would suggest that we will again, eventually, face the tyranny of Saddam Hussein", the anti-terrorist expert predicted.
"It is likely that, if the Soviet initative is accepted, that the Iraqi forces will remain intact and that Mr. Hussein's will judge the Coalition as weak.....to negotiate an incomplete peace at this point is counter-productive and disgraceful to those who have given their lives for the effort in the Persian Gulf", Staten said. " A far more productive proposal would involve the complete dismantlement of the Iraqi military and little, if any, Soviet involvement in the eventual resolution in the conflict", he continued. "To suggest otherwise, is to allow for an eventual resurgence of `revolutionary forces' in the region", Staten continued.
"I would merely suggest that Mr. Hussein can not be trusted and that his reason for resolution, at his point, involves his actual capitulation to the superior forces of the coalition", Staten said. "Were he to be given a real opportunity to damage the United States or Coalition nations ....now... or in the future, I feel sure that he would avail himself and his people the opportunity for revenge", Staten concluded.
A far more rational approach would appear to be that the Coalition forces insure that Iraq and Mr. Saddam Hussein would be debilitated or unable to further threaten the international community. To do so, will undoubtably involve a massive ground war that has been anticipated. It would appear necessary to insure world peace, that Mr. Hussein and his "renegade nation" be subjected to the ultimate forces of the Coalition nations.
(c) EMERGENCY RESONSE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 1991, All rights reserved.