 |
| |
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
Everyone:
Now I'm not talking strictly in the military sense — from what I've gleaned, the Coalition forces can pretty much do what they want with the Iraqi military. I'm talking about the fanatical Saddam Hussein backers, chemical/biological weapons and urban warfare, the triumverate that would make life miserable for the Coalition.
What happens if the worst-case scenario comes to pass — namely, the use of chemical and biological weapons on the Coalition, and ensuing urban fighting with Saddam's fanatics? Would the sheer bloodshed make the democratic populations of the Coalition nations blanch and force a withdrawal from the battlefield? Would George W. Bush, et al., be forced by their own people to settle for a cease-fire and/or peace treaty and a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq?
How would an Iraqi "victory" in this sense affect it? Would Iraq become more assertive again once it was done rebuilding? Would Saddam's rule get even harsher?
How would the West look in the eyes of the Middle East (especially the Coalition members, but also the West in general ... remember, the fanatics don't necessarily care where you live in the West)? How would the United Nations be affected?
Or is all of this moot, and we will see something along the lines of Berlin at the end of World War II — heavy urban fighting with the last, dying fanatics of a dead regime going down and taking as many people as they can to hell with them?
***
I shall address the "loser" option, as I don't think it will come to pass (thus, it should be "safer" to predict):
Coalition loses: In this case, I predict that George W. Bush will get his buttocks kicked in during the next presidential election, thus ending his presidency on the same note as his father: a one-term president, except he didn't win in the Persian Gulf like his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did. I suspect a Democrat would win the presidency, but that's not a guarantee, either, as their presidential field is packed with wannabes. It's possible another GOP contender will win in the primaries — John McCain, perhaps? Or would Colin Powell say the hell with it and run? (These two men, obviously, are my favorites ...)
On the diplomatic front, I think that such an outcome would be disastrous for U.S. policy. We would lose allies, and other nations would think thrice before joining in any adventure with us, particularly if they see no threat to their own security on the global horizon. We would still retain our seat on the U.N. Security Council, and our 25 percent of its total funding might keep U.N. officials themselves quiet, but not actual U.N. members, who would likely take every opportunity to rub our faces in the defeat.
Economically, the economy would likely stay the same or get slightly worse. I'm no economist, but I think that the markets might stabilize if some sort of predictable future were secured, even if it's one where the Coalition doesn't win in Iraq. Both the GOP and Democrats will claim credit for this stabilization, of course. The wild card, of course, is the halving of Bush's proposed tax cut so far, the markets don't seem to like the prospect of losing out on tax-free dividends. But taxpayers might not mind having smaller deficits as a result ...
Militarily, I think our men and women in the armed forces will suffer morale problems. Plus we would have a surge in the use of the Veterans Affairs healthcare system, so that would mean extra funding would be necessary to properly handle the influx over the years. Whether Congress appropriates the funds is unknown, but judging from past track records, it wouldn't be likely.
In the Middle East, democracy will be as dead as a doornail. Even its ghost will be chased out of the region, and I expect we would see more and more militarized, nationalistic or theocratic governments either coming to power, or staying in power (the latter more likely). Afghanistan might be the exception to that trend, knowing all-too-well what life is like under strict theocracies.
Oh, and Iran will get nuclear weapons, which might mean Israel will go after them, which in turn sets off a chain of events that could lead to the utter devastation of the Middle East if moderating influences aren't brought to bear.
Gatekeeper (who's out of ideas at this time of the morning to address the possible ramifications of a Coalition victory)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
Bush would definitely be out in 2004. I doubt he would lose to a primary contender; no sitting president has been denied renomination by his party since Franklin Pierce in 1856. But given that the economy is likely to be in the crapper, too (win or lose; the IMF today predicted that a war that didn't end quickly would result in worldwide recession, regardless of the war's outcome), even one of the lame-o Dems could probably beat him. He could, of course, pull an LBJ, see the writing on the wall, and not run.
The wider repercussions would to a great extent be determined by the willingness of the next president to demonize what happened as "Bush's War." A concerted diplomatic effort that stressed that the war was actually out of keeping with American values, attitudes, and political behavior since WWII -- that it was an aberration, and that the Aberrant in Chief has been sent packing -- would heal a lot of wounds in places other than the Middle East. In the Middle East, much much more would be needed; I suspect the US playing midwife at the birth of a Palestinian State would not even do the job completely, though it would be a good start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
There is no way the US/UK can withdraw without taking out Saddam. We will escalate the tolerance for Iraqi casualties and do whatever it takes to take Saddam out. We're in this thing now, we can't back out. Going in was bad for US relations around the world, we have too much at stake, failure is not an option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
Unfortunately, I fear that Frogman may be right and the US may have to step up the firepower in urban areas in order to win militarily. THis will make the political win harder as the civilian casualties increase
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The political win seems to have disappeared, at least at world level. What is left is whether the US can say "do it our way or we kick your ass" or whether other countries will ignore US wishes. A US military win in Iraq asserts US power, a defeat will encourage other countries to do their own thing.
What is certain is that the US administration cannot easily back down and shows no sign of wishing to do so. The UK will probably stick it out, particularly if UK forces remain mostly in the south and the situation in that area stabilises.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
So far we have avoided infrastructure targets that we'd rather not have to rebuild, like power plants which were targeted in GW1. We won't target civilians, but the loss of power would be a hardship for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not going full force? Iraqi cities have been being pounded repeatedly by missiles and bombs. There has been more of that junk than Gulf War I already.
Unless by full force you mean "indiscriminate," i.e., not making a distinction between civil and military targets. In this case, Bush, Blair and company will definitely become war criminals and should be tried. |
In the first instance, you're wrong. Far more ordnance was put in and around Baghdad, and we dropped bridges all up and down the supply route from Baghdad to Kuwait. The Iraqis had built up and concentrated a lot more supply and material, plus we wanted to take out airfields and military aircraft and obvious weapons production facilities such as the "Baby Milk Plant." We flew about five times the number of sorties over Baghdad on a daily basis than we are flying now.
Here's an ugly fact for all to remember: If the hardcore elements of the Iraqi regime pull back into residential areas and try to blend in with the population to continue the fight, those former "civilian" areas become military targets. A fedayin or SRG fighting out of uniform doesn't become a civilian. Minimizing collateral damage is a goal, but not a positive obligation, i.e. we're not obligated to get our people killed on the ground getting armed resistance out of civilian areas.
Ultimately, a lot of armed civilians will rebel against the regime, they just have to be sure that the balance has tipped decisively against Saddam and his murdering *******s. The Saddamites' treatment of mild dissidents is well known, and so is their treatment of rebels 12 years ago. Fear of retribution still dominates Iraqis, just as it did for an eight year murderous war against Iran, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts' lives were expended as so much cannon fodder. They didn't do that out of love for the Hussein regime, or patriotism, any more than they sat and took what the coalition did last time out of love for the Hussein regime or patriotism. They did it, and many will resist us until the relative last minute, because for most people, there are far worse things than a high probability of one's own death.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
Not a bad assessment, although the "shock and awe" show didn't really start until that little column out of Baghdad suddenly found itself in a landscape of craters and hot steel rain. 
One of the dirty tricks we have up our sleeves to discourage counterattacks in the north is that wide open desert to the west allows us to stack up B-52s, keep them on station, and have JSTARS call them in for strike missions against mobile targets. The Iraqi air force hasn't flown a single sortie (makes me think they'll be set for kamikaze use), and the 52's are beyond reach of any mobile air defense system. They can't be seen or heard, and the bombs are just there.
An enemy that realizes he can't make any offensive moves, anywhere, without them being almost immediately liquidated, has a hard time keeping morale and control of their units. It's just a matter of time - the IRG units in GW 1 ran like screaming girlies when their time came, too.
The only "negative" in this campaign so far is that it was based on an unrealistic timetable. Four days to get to Baghdad was the most nonsensical thing since Monty's timetable for XXX Corps to relieve the Red Devils in Arnhem. The difference is that the chickenhawks who created this timetable don't control the troops, so now that their fantasy has gone down the toilet, the professionals can go to work and win the war.
If we'd said it was going to take a month of cautious advances and hard fighting to reach Baghdad, people would be thrilled with the progress so far and the casualty levels - it's all about creating expectations.
Our two basic defects are being cured with time - our initial insufficiency of force is cured by the arrival of scheduled forces in theater, and the Iraqi "civilian" reaction is conditioned to their perception of the balance of power - they remember what happened twelve years ago, and nobody wants to risk a repeat. It was unrealistic for the US to expect help from an immediate Iraqi rebellion, but the finishing blows are likely to come from that source, or at least with the active help of an Iraqi uprising. The time to defect or to rise up is when the regime's enforcers are too busy thinking about how to cover their own asses to try to shoot yours, and that time hasn't come yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
A coalition loss is one where they leave Saddam in power. Saddam claimed victory in GW1, because he managed to stay in power. I just don't see Saddam able to manage that this time... even if it takes months to occur. Rules of engagement will be changed to get the job done, even if its more unpopular than the current rules.
The US forces really haven't engaged the enemy in a meaningful way yet.... except from the air. Facing tens of thousands of well equiped troops will have a definite demotivating effect to the Iraqi morale.
The US are picking the place of this engagement. The guerrilla tactics are, in a military sense, almost irrelevent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Here's an ugly fact for all to remember: If the hardcore elements of the Iraqi regime pull back into residential areas and try to blend in with the population to continue the fight, those former "civilian" areas become military targets. A fedayin or SRG fighting out of uniform doesn't become a civilian. Minimizing collateral damage is a goal, but not a positive obligation, i.e. we're not obligated to get our people killed on the ground getting armed resistance out of civilian areas. |
Is the coalition willing to show that they do care about the Iraqi civilians, which is what they have been asserting, by not bombing civilian targets? If they don't, i.e, start bombing everywhere, they lose this last sherd of legitimacy, which is to liberate the average Iraqi.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ultimately, a lot of armed civilians will rebel against the regime, they just have to be sure that the balance has tipped decisively against Saddam and his murdering *******s. The Saddamites' treatment of mild dissidents is well known, and so is their treatment of rebels 12 years ago. Fear of retribution still dominates Iraqis, just as it did for an eight year murderous war against Iran, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts' lives were expended as so much cannon fodder. They didn't do that out of love for the Hussein regime, or patriotism, any more than they sat and took what the coalition did last time out of love for the Hussein regime or patriotism. They did it, and many will resist us until the relative last minute, because for most people, there are far worse things than a high probability of one's own death. |
I am not an expert on the Middle East, but the excellent thread Jaakko has linked to in another thread contains some very good firsthand information by the author.
The overall sentiment is this: they may not like Saddam, but they like Uncle Sam even less. News of Iraqi refugees in Jordan flocking back to defend their country is just but one of the pieces of evidence. Not only the Iraqis are worked up against the coalition, but it seems like the entire region is pretty much up in arms. The King of Jordan is getting a tad nervous. If this war doesn't stop soon, something very bad is going to happen. In fact, this is the worst case scenario: regardless of whether there will be a coalition military victory, the political climate in the whole Middle East region is going to turn decidedly fudamentalist, with religious uprisings topping many of the pro-Western rulers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is the coalition willing to show that they do care about the Iraqi civilians, which is what they have been asserting, by not bombing civilian targets? If they don't, i.e, start bombing everywhere, they lose this last sherd of legitimacy, which is to liberate the average Iraqi. |
I assume you're familiar with the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. The coalition hasn't been targeting civilian targets, although the Iraqis disguise plenty of military activities in civilian areas.
quote:
The overall sentiment is this: they may not like Saddam, but they like Uncle Sam even less. News of Iraqi refugees in Jordan flocking back to defend their country is just but one of the pieces of evidence. |
Not many "refugees" it would seem, and a lot of Saddam's boys, just like the last war. I keep waiting for that same guy to badger a western journalist until he asks his name, and then the guy says "Uy um Saddam Hussein. We ur all Saddam Hussein." 
The Iraqis are doing the same propaganda crap they did last time. As far as the rest of the arab world goes, they were jumping up and down over the whole US-Israel-Palestine business, so it's a little early to see what the long term balance is.
quote:
The King of Jordan is getting a tad nervous.
|
If you were a Hashemite King who signed a peace treaty with Israel, governing an Arab country full of Palestinians, and your economy was based largely on kissing Uncle Sam's ass while smuggling for Saddam, you'd be a tad nervous too.
quote:
If this war doesn't stop soon, something very bad is going to happen. |
It will, it will. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I assume you're familiar with the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. The coalition hasn't been targeting civilian targets, although the Iraqis disguise plenty of military activities in civilian areas. |
That's not my point. My point is whether the coalition is willing to risk lives of their own soldiers for the Iraqi civilians or the other way around. A number of civilian targets have been hit - sure, it is probably just honest mistakes, but try to tell that to the Iraqis on the streets.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not many "refugees" it would seem, and a lot of Saddam's boys, just like the last war. I keep waiting for that same guy to badger a western journalist until he asks his name, and then the guy says "Uy um Saddam Hussein. We ur all Saddam Hussein." |
The news is coming out from Jordan, so I'd presume it's not some Iraqi propaganda.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If you were a Hashemite King who signed a peace treaty with Israel, governing an Arab country full of Palestinians, and your economy was based largely on kissing Uncle Sam's ass while smuggling for Saddam, you'd be a tad nervous too. |
My take is he is nervous about popular uprisings. From what I gathered the Arabs are gathering around Hussein. It's like "he's a nasty bastard, but he is our nasty bastard."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's not my point. My point is whether the coalition is willing to risk lives of their own soldiers for the Iraqi civilians or the other way around. A number of civilian targets have been hit - sure, it is probably just honest mistakes, but try to tell that to the Iraqis on the streets. |
First, it's spurious to think that going in on the ground and applying ground firepower to enemy holdouts blending with the civilian population is going to result in less civilian casualties, if the scale of action is such that airpower would be used.
There's no overall criteria, it's case by case on the tactical situation and availabity at the moment of different assets.
But if you've got a battalion of fedayin holding out in a highrise residential area, you can be that airpower may become an option, if a localized siege or some other type of operation isn't feasible. We're not going to squander hundreds of casualties proving some BS propaganda point that won't mean anything once the first civilian gets hurt anyway.
quote:
The news is coming out from Jordan, so I'd presume it's not some Iraqi propaganda.
|
Iraqi government agents operate everywhere there is significant Iraqi emigre populations. It's certainly not hard for a bunch of Baathist, ISSS and fedayin to drive out, check on the "refugees," then later make a big show of patriotically driving back as "ordinary Iraqi citizens" showing their "devotion to Saddam Hussein, without whom we'd be nothing."
It may be coming out of Jordan, but it's being done by Iraqis.
quote:
My take is he is nervous about popular uprisings. From what I gathered the Arabs are gathering around Hussein. It's like "he's a nasty bastard, but he is our nasty bastard." |
Most Arabs always do that when it comes to an outsider against an Arab. The thing that fried Saddam last time is that it was considered intolerable for one arab state to openly attack another.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-03-2003 13:21
|