Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

I am provoking a bit here, but just some quick thoughts.

Some time ago, September 2002 in fact, George Bush addressed the UN on Iraq.

Bush came to the UN and pled his case. Nearly six months later and Iraq is receiving its latest "last chance."

So we have come to a point where the US and some allies have surrounded Iraq with many times what would be required to remove the current Iraqi government from power. Saddam Hussein, as is typical, waits til just before the hammer drops to throw out some more crumbs. This time Iraq says it will destroy al Samoud missiles.

Going forward there can be only two results:

1. Iraq disarms as a result of US/UK (& allies) pressure and complies to UN resolutions.
2. The US/UK (& allies) remove Hussein from power, establish a more open government rebuild Iraq as a modern state. (Iraq is far weaker than during Desert Storm, also western military technology has increased greatly. The idea that is would be a long drawn-out war is pretty ridiculous).

Of course, there's possibilty 3:

3. Following result 2, radicals overthrow the new government and Iraq goes from being a military dictatorship to a fanatic Islamist state.

If 3 happens, then the exercise is a complete failure.

In any other case US policy wins the day. I would wager that some would say scenario 1 would be a loss to the US, but in reality it is only through the threat of US military action that 1 is even possible. Scenario 2 is obviously the most desireable outcome because it removes a menace to the region, puts in place a government that will be open for business and provides relief to the citizens of Iraq.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

If there was a delay sufficient that action weren't taken against Iraq until Autumn (which the French plan might cause, for example) then although the US and the UK would still get what they want eventually, Bush himself might not look so strong to his domestic audience, which might cause him some personal pain (although not the US as a whole). Blair would benefit from that, because he desperately wants UN sanction for any military action that might be taken; he may not fall on account of this, indeed he may be planning on stepping down anyway, but the unpopularity of a war taken without UNSC approval does pose a risk to him.

It is a win-win pretty much, I think, although that isn't much of a surprise; the US has the military might to topple Saddam and to make any threat to do so credible, and the diplomatic (and financial, significantly) might to bring other countries into line. As the former UK ambassador to the UN pointed out, everyone wants Saddam disarmed, that is not the disagreement in the UNSC; the disagreement relates to the timescale on which military action might be taken. If it wasn't for the fact of the Iraqi Summer and no one wanting to fight then, this wouldn't be so much of a problem at all anyway; the French four month inspections plan could be pared down through negotiation and we could still have an invasion, if necessary, by Summer. But of course, that is the same as saying that we will go in Autumn and that isn't acceptable, at present, to the UN hawks. The US will win in the end anyway, but the cost (diplomatic and financial) might not be insignificant (referring to the deals that have been, or will need to be, cut). But that is something that time will be the judge of.

If there was an uprising elsewhere in the arab world that was spurred by the action, that would be an adjunct to item 3 that you mention, I would imagine. Worst case would probably be an uprising in Saudi for a variety of reasons; imagine if we then took action against an upstart fundamentalist regime that controlled Saudi and therefore Mecca; there could be a firestorm of protest and action throughout the moslem world, potentially.

On the Today program I heard this morning that the Russian Foreign Minister, speaking in Beijing, implied that Russia might still use its veto (although I personally don't think that it will, but it will need to be bought off too).

Last edited by Smug Git on 02-28-2003 at 09:34 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

How many surrounding Gulf and Arab states are going to be happy to see an open, representative and, most importantly, democratic government set up in their midst in Iraq? This is why the Palestinian problem hasn't been resolved yet, because too many Arab nations would see an open and liberal Palestine reflect badly on themselves. I think the US will most probably attempt to keep a military style regime, but one that is friendly to US interests. Either that, or it forces the Arab world to adopt democracy, rather than oligarchy, regime, dictatorship or non-secular rule.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

Morale is low in the Iraqi army and many soldiers are preparing white flags of surrender, we are told by someone in northern Iraq who recently interviewed two defectors from Saddam Hussein's army.
One was a captain who defected from the 5th Mechanized Division of the 1st Corps, based near the northern city of Kirkuk. The captain told our informant that the heavy division was only 35 percent combat-effective. The captain said morale was so low that younger soldiers are speaking openly about surrendering — before the first shot has been fired.
A second soldier, a senior noncommissioned officer, defected from the same division's 34th Brigade, based south of the northern city of Mosul.
This soldier said that of the 28 tanks in his care, only six were working. The others were broken down or otherwise in need of repair.
"He said the whole division was at about 25 percent effectiveness and most soldiers were hiding their white flags," said our source, who spoke recently to both defectors.
Intelligence sources in northern Iraq, where both CIA Special Operations Group officers and Army Special Forces are active, said there have been dozens of defectors in the past several weeks. There also are reports that Saddam's henchmen have issued orders to commanders to shoot any deserters they can catch.
The poor state of Saddam's regular army recalls that of some units in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when Iraqi soldiers were so eager to surrender that some gave up to an Italian film crew that was covering the war.

Special ops
We hear that Thomas W. O'Connell is the pick to become the Pentagon's assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict (SOIC). Now an employee of defense contractor Raytheon Co., Mr. O'Connell is a former special operations commando and CIA analyst.
He declined to comment yesterday through a Raytheon spokesman.
The Pentagon last year tried to get rid of the SOIC post, but the move was rejected by lawmakers who want special operations to have an advocate in the Pentagon. Our sources say the Pentagon now plans to ask Congress to give it more flexibility in deciding what duties the assistant secretary performs.

Sink CINC
It's official. The law of the land. CINC is no more.
A message went out of the Pentagon on Feb. 20 from Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs chairman, telling the commands to stop using "commander in chief" or CINC, to describe four-star regional military commanders.
From now on, commanders such as Gen. Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, will be known as "commander." They will appear in acronyms as CDR. The deputy commander will appear as DCDR.
The message accomplishes Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's goal of ending any confusion between the president, who constitutionally is the commander in chief, and regional commanders.
"The secretary of defense signed a memorandum stating that the title 'commander in chief' shall be used only to connote or indicate the president of the United States of America," the Myers message states. "The memorandum also discontinued use of the acronym 'CINC' for military commanders and provided a list of new titles to be used."
Gen. Myers offers further instruction:
"The abbreviation 'CDR' will be used to replace the acronym 'CINC' and DCDR will replace 'DCINC.' To avoid confusion and associate 'CDR' with the appropriate echelon, the following writing conventions will be adopted in all joint publications, messages and general correspondence. When referring to the commander of a combatant command, 'CDR' will be used in conjunction with the organizational name. Example, commander, U.S. European Command, will be referred to as CDRUSEUCOM. When referring to the collective group formerly known as 'CINCS,' the term 'Combatant Commanders' will be used ... All organizational messaging addresses must be updated not later than 28 February 2003."

Secret fight
The pretrial hearing for Air Force Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach may be over, but that has not stopped the defense attorneys and prosecutors from continuing the fight.
Air Force Col. John Odom, the lead government attorney, has accused Charles Gittins, Maj. Schmidt's defense attorney, of submitting a final written argument to the judge that contains classified information. The two pilots are charged with manslaughter for mistakenly bombing Canadians in Afghanistan in April, killing four soldiers.
Mr. Gittins vehemently denies his brief contains any secret data. He says Col. Odom went so far as to have authorities search the laptops of attorneys for Air Force defendants. He said one defense counsel is now under investigation.
"It's intimidation because we were more effective in our brief than they expected," Mr. Gittins tells us.
Col. Odom sent an e-mail to military lawyers that said, in part, "If you have a printed-out version of the briefs, they should be appropriately secured, since they contain classified information (classified 'Secret') which has been distributed in an inappropriate manner. Obviously, any release of the briefs to news media for any purpose by any counsel would constitute a federal offense."

Keeping command
Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon, in a daily message report, told officers Monday that commanders are the key to the military criminal-justice system.
"Taking the commander out of the system is a formula for battlefield defeat," the "Aim Points" message says.
"Commanders have unique insight into their people and what is needed to maintain high morale and effectiveness; this unique insight makes the UCMJ different from the civilian criminal-justice system by vesting commanders with broad authority over disciplinary matters."

Rummy's press party
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld often delights in poking his finger in the eyes of news reporters, challenging the premises of their questions or correcting their English.
The defense secretary buried the hatchet, at least for one night Saturday. He hosted an exclusive, off-the-record gathering of his favorite Pentagon reporters at his home in Washington for cocktails and snacks.
His perceived enemies were not invited, including us and Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks. Most of the other regular Pentagon scribes attended the soiree, along with Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke, who set the invite list.
Mrs. Clarke could not be reached for comment.

Disconnected
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked on PBS Feb. 20 whether U.S. forces are now ready to carry out a presidential order to invade Iraq. He responded by saying: "Yes, we are at a point where, if the president makes that decision, the Department of Defense is prepared and has the capabilities and the strategy to do that."
Four days later, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of any U.S. invasion of Iraq, told the Associated Press' Robert Burns: "There may come a day when [Mr. Rumsfeld] asks me: 'Are you satisfied that you have enough?' And I will tell you truthfully he has not asked me that question."


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030228-22388785.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: The Bad Side of Mayberry
Posts: 220

DevilMoon, your scenarios are good, but as we all know, once war breaks out, all bets are off. Anything goes and usually does. The best laid plans...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged