If we go to war with Iraq...

[Neal in GA]

How big will this thing get? Which countries can we reasonably assume will jump into it on which sides? I'm under the impression it'll end up a much wider scale struggle than Desert Storm ever thought about being. Will this thing escalade to WWIII? Obviously I'm just looking for educated opinions here. It may end up hard to buy anything from several gun manufacturers after a while if they're focusing 95% of production on military arms, after all.

 

[Blackhawk]

It will be short and as sweet as war gets.

 

[Frohickey]

It could get big if Iraq attacks Israel, and Israel retaliates.

 

[WilderBill]

Frohickey:
Israel has already said that if attacked, they fully intend to defend themselves this time around.
It has been said that they posseses something like 400 nuclear devices, so it could indeed be over with very quickly...or spread and get really ugly just as quickly.

My guess is that the US can still take Iraq with one hand tied behind it's back. Damn good thing too, since all the downsizing that's about what it comes down to.
Most of the Arab counrties don't really like Iraq or trust them either. At the same time they do want to show solidarity as long as it doesn't get them put on a short list of targets or cost them their prime customer for oil.

Most of the EU would like to see SoDamn Insane gone, but don't want to be seen as warmongers, so they will try to stay out.
The funny thing about that is that the missles being developed in Iraq will only reach into Europe. You know, the folks that don't think there is any need for any sort of missle defense.

 

[lonegunman]

Britain will make a token effort to help us.

Israel will be on our side, but we won't use their help, for fear of inflaming other arab countries.

No government will support Saddam, though he will have a lot of support from some arab groups.

I believe our objective of removing Saddam will be acheived, but terrorism, and hatred of the US, will only grow as a result.

 

[Kaboom]

Anyone here Mandella's speech? This attitude is prevalent in several places. If we try Saddam on our own hook there will be lots of under the table support for him. Iran, the Saudi's and all the other countries in the area will make things real tough for us. The whole world would like to see the USA get a real lesson in humility. The only way to handle this is keep posturing while the individuals are trying to get into positoin. BANG Saddam is gone. We say alright who did it. Remove a problem and send the much needed message to the political leaders of the world. You aren't safe. Don't kill and wound the line soldiers. Kill the top leaders who think this foolishness up. There are things a lot more important that fighting anyway. Use this monitary drain for something useful for a change.

 

[Libertarian]

Blackhawk, war is never sweet unless you own a munitions plant and have no relatives or friends in the military. (Or you are a REMF who gets to trade for souvenirs from the guys coming back from the line and wear the patch when you get back CONUS.)

 

[stinger]

It could be a powder-keg. I keep going back and forth between an easily handled confrontation to something that escalates to weapons of mass destruction. I just don't know.

What I do know is that we need to stop Sadaam, just like we should have 10+ years ago.

But if we go in to stop him from developing these dangerous weapons, then we set the precedent of stopping anyone who creates these weapons. As other countries get the technology and knowledge, it really opens up Pandora's Box. Could be a domino effect. We went into Iraq, now we have to go into Country X because they too are creating weapons. Where does it end. I just don't have the answers.

Scares the heck out of me


Stinger

 

[SixGunner]

I'm thinking a low-yield Nuke detonated above Baghdad as a first strike (EMP hit).

Schwartzcof wanted to do that in Desert Storm, but GB1 stopped him. My advice to GWB is simple: Hold nothing back.

 

[SixGunner]

But if we go in to stop him from developing these dangerous weapons, then we set the precedent of stopping anyone who creates these weapons. As other countries get the technology and knowledge, it really opens up Pandora's Box. Could be a domino effect. We went into Iraq, now we have to go into Country X because they too are creating weapons. Where does it end. I just don't have the answers.

Not exactly true. We go to war with the countries that are a threat to us. WE decide who will have these weapons and who won't.

The USA is the most powerful nation on earth. It's time we act like it.

It won't gain us any friends, but we'll never have any friends in the Middle East we can trust except for Israel anyway.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

SixGunner, accuse me of holding a grudge if you must, but I still remember the USS liberty, and I still hold Israel responsible for a deliberate and sustained attack on a US vessel.

Having said that, the Israelis and the Turks are the only people in the region who will even pretend to be civilized.

Steve

 

[stinger]

I'm thinking a low-yield Nuke detonated above Baghdad as a first strike (EMP hit).

With all due respect, SixGunner, that is absolutely the worst solution available. We do have the mightiest country in the world. This has to be done conventially. There is a reason that nuclear/atomic power has only been weilded twice...It is too much.

If we do it to Iraq, then why can't somebody else do it to us? Why shouldn't they? Those weapons, no matter what the yeild, are for last result, or for battlefield only. Not civilian population, ever, never. I hope you are saying that in jest. Killing thousands of civilians with a device like that would make us no better than the cowards who struck us a year ago.

If you want Sadaam, get Sadaam. If you want the military, get the military. But unleashing nuclear power on their civilian population is ignorant, dispicable, and just plain wrong. Please do not take that as a personal attack, but I feel very strongly that that is the WRONG solution to almost every problem.

Not exactly true. We go to war with the countries that are a threat to us. WE decide who will have these weapons and who won't

That is exactly my point. With 200 or so nations in the world, that is a lot of police actions. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but it would not be a good thing to fight 100 wars with 100 nations in the next 25 years. After all, that is the only way to make sure they have no weapons.

edited by Stinger at 9:00 p.m.

 

[Selfdfenz]

There is always a chance something will happen to SH before the ballon goes up..... but the ballon is going to go up sooner rather than later.

Will SH use chem/bio weapons? Likely, esp if he can hit one of our troop concentartions. Assuming he still has the capability by the time we start to concentrate.
Will he strike out at Isreal on the way down? Less than 50/50 chance. It didn't work for him last time and won't this time either.
Will some other ME arab countries get involved? Not if there is anyway on earth they can stay out or it by sitting still and "just talking,bitching, whinning etc." These are people that say one thing, do another and may think something else alltogether.

If SH hits Israel they will end the war right in front of the whole US Army. Bang'ola pass out the iodine.
Look for a serious downgrading of support for the Palistinian Issue on the part of the main Arab countries in the months that follow use of nuclear weapons on Iraq. It will suddenly be a non issue. Don't expect any Arab nation to come to the material aid of SH.

Whatever happens will remain geographically isolated in the ME.

The level of terrorist activity in the US, post Iraq II has nothing to do with Saddam. Never has, never will.
We are not winning any popularity contests over there and we should forget about trying to. It was not capitulation to the Soviet Union that eventually won the day. Just the opposite.
We need to worry about the arab mindset to the same extent and in the same manner we worried about the Japanese and Germany mindset in the early 1940s.
If the ME Arab nations consider what we eventually do in Iraq too high a price to pay should they be caught playing footsie with people like OBL, terrorism will wither on the vine.

Mandella in an idiot and what the heii diff does it make what he says. Ditto for anyone in the UN esp. Coffee Anon-a-mouse (yeah I didn't spell it right and it was intentional) and all the gutless nations that have decided to sit on the sidelines.

If the hammer falls before somebody can shoot SH, I expect to be surprised sometime in November to see a quickly initiated and ended "action" in the Iraq. We were amazed last time and will be this time too. No Mother-of-All-Wars from that bunch.

I saw an interesting story on TV tonight about what the initial group of 75 Green Berets did in A'stan early in the "War". Remarkable. The US has some astonishingly good people in the armed forces and the GBs and Deltas are beyond awesome.

S-

 

[SixGunner]

Stinger

Actually I was referring to a basic EMP hit. If I understand the theory correctly, it destroys anything with electricity going through it within the blast radius. It isn't actually "nuking" someone since the shockwave doesn't reach the earth. We are just taking advantage of a side effect (think of the movie "Goldeneye.")

Also, I hate to say it but ICBM/Nuclear missles are designed to be used against high-value targets, including industrial centers (read that cites). It's a bloody aspect of war but that's the truth of it. Think about it - why would you need a 100 Megaton bomb to destroy a simple army base (most army bases are simple wooden structures and a fence of some kind - you could destroy them with a good match)? Point being that while I guess we need to try to avoid civilian casualties, the main goal is to eliminate the threat. Like I once said - the purpose of the US Military is to protect the US and it's citizens. Not citizens of the world, but US citizens.

Also, not long ago there was a change in US Nuclear Policy. It is now considered acceptable to use Nuclear weapons as a counter against chemical or biological weapons. Kind of a scary though, huh (microwaved germs)?

Now, I don't think nuclear war is a good idea in any sense. There are just too many variables. However, if necessary we must be willing to use it. And we can't let SH use his citizens as cover (brutal but possibly necessary). Keep in mind that, if SH does have nuclear capability, he won't hesitate to use it on us, so the strategy might turn out to be eliminate SH and his command structure before that can happen. Take a wild guess how that's gonna wind up getting done.

Bottom line - This thing's gonna get ugly. Maybe we can do it without bringing all the nasty stuff to the table (I really hope so, contrary to what you might think up to this point). I'd just hate to see 100,000 US Soldiers get killed to accomplish something that could have been done from the air with the push of a button (BTW, the reason Truman authorized the A-bomb on Japan was that McArthur estimated that to take over Japan would cost 1 Million American lives. No one ever tells that part of the story.)


Stephen,

I'm not at all familiar with the USS Liberty situation. What happened?

 

[Neal in GA]

I may be wrong, but I've gotten the impression Iraq/the SH regime is not the last group we'll be going after, just as al-quaida isn't now. I know in earlier speeches, terrorist cells in South America were mentioned at least in passing. I just hope this whole "war on terrorism" doesn't become an excuse to promote further military action in South America to fight the "war on drugs".

 

[Blackhawk]

Libertarian,

Blackhawk, war is never sweet unless you own a munitions plant and have no relatives or friends in the military.

Guess your chronic cognitive dissonance is kicking up again. What I said was:

It will be short and as sweet as war gets.

Read that again: "as sweet as war gets."

It is very sweet when it's so short your family and friends don't have to go because it's already over.

No, I wasn't a REMF. My two tours in Vietnam were combat tours, and my fruit salad is real.

 

[citizenguardian]

If the U.S. attacks Iraq, the war there will not widen unless America is attacked by some other nation in the area. I think that is unlikely. If Iran or Syria became involved in order to try and repel us from Iraq, they would only provide precisely what they know the president desires: an excuse to eliminate their governments and re-order the whole place. They understand this.

Of course, the Iranians may be fearful of the likely outcome if they don't get involved. They are looking at a restive domestic population along with an American army next door in just four or five months. They might decide that resisting now is worth it given that their ability to resisit their own "regime change", aided subtlely or not so subtlely by the American occupiers next door, will only decline as American strength in the area grows.

I doubt it, though. Iran is helpless, and its best bet is to sit tight and hope it can avoid provoking us to act.

 

[Ed Brunner]

IS IT POSSIBLE???

to nuke troops only and not any civilians???

 

[Smoker]

Hi Neal in GA,

I think I must have answered this question about four or five times on TFL so I am sure for some posters this is going to be repetitious and boring but if it can reassure you in any way please read on.

I do know a bit about the ME, Iraq and even speak broken Arabic (it used to be reasonably fluent) with a UAE accent.

My sandbox experience is getting a little dated but I can’t believe that conditions in Iraq are any different but don’t forget I haven’t been to visit Iraq since I moved to Thailand. When I lived in Dubai, United Arab Emirates I travelled through mostly southern Iraqi with a German engineer friend I met at the Mafraq Hotel outside Abu Dhabi. He was working for Iraq to help restore oil production for the “oil for food & smuggling” program and worked two months in Iraq and one month drinking in the UAE. Being a chronic world traveller after getting to know him I talked him into and bot him drinks into taking me in as a 4x4 chauffeur for a trip.

I am Canadian and got my visa as a “pretend” employee of the German oil services company. After driving from Dubai to Amman Jordan (with UAE residence visa could get overland transit visas for Saudi) we picked up our Iraqi business visas at the embassy in Jordan and then drove in from Amman in LandCruisers to Baghdad and then south to Basra, after driving around Southern Iraq (where most of the oil is and the transport hub) I caught the ferry from Basra (shat al arab) to Sharjah, UAE while my German engineer friend stayed for another five weeks and he then left the same route we took in.

So what you learn in a 4x4 trip to southern Iraq is the brutality of the sanctions to ordinary Iraqis is indescribable and in an nutshell Blackhawk is right about the fighting part: Quote: “It will be short and as sweet as war gets” but after the fighting things will get a bit complicated.

First off regarding US allies in Iraq: The Kurds and Shiites will rise up and fight once they are sure the US is not going to screw them over like all those other times. When you look at the History of how the US has betrayed the Kurds and Shiites you can understand why this time they are taking a wait and see attitude:

1972-75: The US and Shah of Iran give support to the Kurds and they rise up. When Saddam signs a treaty with Iran then Iran and Washington cut off the Kurds and Saddam crushes the Kurdish Rebellion.

1987-88: After arming Saddam to fight Khomeini's Iran the US turns a blind eye to Saddam using poison gas & US supplied weapons to crush another Kurdish Rebellion.

1991 Feb 15th radio address beamed into Iraq: Bush calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. The Kurds and Shiites try once again to do it but as usual the US pulls the carpet out from under the Kurds and also this time the Shiites and the men, woman and children involved in the rebellion are slaughtered by the Iraqi airforce while US and their allies look on from a front row seat in the sand.

The no fly zones are then put in place after the rebellion is crushed and thousands are dead. A bit late don't you think?

1995-96: the CIA initiates and runs a covert action to eliminate Saddam. The Kurds (true believers and suckers for punishment) launch yet another rebellion and offence against Baghdad. The US government gets cold feet and sends that now famous radio message of "your on your own" to the attacking Kurds. Those Kurds and Iraqi officers that believed and co-operated with the CIA and their families are liquidated to the third generation.

This time I don’t expect the Shiites or Kurds to commit until US troops are on the ground and after you have been screwed over as many times as they have who can blame them.

As for the rest of the Islamic world until the USA actually shows they are serious and are not just sabre rattling the Islamic world will be against it. Have some success and you will be surprised how quickly the Islamic countries shut up. The family run dictatorships of the Middle East will be too scared that with a US force on the ground in the Middle East they are next on the list.

As for cost of the Iraqi invasion, surprise, it’s completely self financing, secures the second largest oil fields in the world and would scare the piss out of the Mullahs in Iran and most likely the Iran army would side with the people and run the Mullahs out of office. The Mullahs are trying to ban soccer games because it gets too many excited pissed of Iranians in one spot with time on their hands after the game. Just the kind of this that scares a dictator.

As for the regular Iraqi Sunni Muslims, I can tell you with complete certainty that the Iraqi people will not fight for Saddam. All of them won’t be necessarily fighting against him but no relevant number will be fighting for him. Everyone just wants to be sure that the USA is going to do it this time and not once again pull the rug out from under them. Saddam kills the families of traitors to the third generation so they just have to be sure that the star of the show is going to show up this time before getting on stage.

Of course Bush senior should have taken Thatcher’s advice ten years ago rather than getting all “wobbly” but that was then and this is now so it’s too late to whine about what should have been done. Doing it today makes more sense than having to deal with this nut when he either makes or buys nuclear weapons. He will give these to terrorists to use against US targets.

There is going to be no fast and furious endgame so just deal with that reality now because whining about not having a fast exit strategy is not going to change the fact that the invasion has to be done. US is not going to have the luxury of a two-week job and then going home to a ticker tape parade. That’s the bad news. The good news is there is a solution but the solution is a long term one. First off you got to kill all of Saddam’s family and go to the village and province where he was born and where his core support is and give them a good dusting. All of his family has to die because his kids are even more nuts than he is.

Do a total job and you secure an important resource for the US for decades, make friends in a part of the world where the US could use a friend and have a good chance of taking down the mullahs as icing on the cake. Sit on your hands and one day there will be a nuclear explosion in a US city.

The US will need to have troops and an interim administration in Iraq for years. Kind of a post WW II Marshal Plan/occupying force type of thing like Post WW II Europe/Japan. After all American troops have been in Japan and Germany for years following WW II so there is precedent and a blue print.

This long occupation sucks but that is real life if you want to keep Sept 11 events from happening.

The experts (politicians/academics etc) that tell you that the Iraqi people will not accept an interim foreign ruler are liars and usually these same experts are the ones that want to grab the crown from the last despot dictator and put it on their own head.

Continued below!

 

[SamH]

If reports are correct, Iraq plans to fight an urban war. A nuke is going to result in a lot of needlessly dead civilians. If the US deploys NBC weapons against civilians without equal provocation, then it simply lowers itself to the standard of terrorists themselves.

And what the heck is with the so-called "token support" from Britain?

I'm not British, but they gave a lot more than just token support during the 91 Gulf War. The UK has been in-step with the US for the entire duration of UN sanctions on Iraq, and has been one of the staunchest allies of the US in its so-called "War on Terror".

If the US goes into Iraq, the Brits will throw in some muscle, and there will be nothing token about it.

By the way, Australia will probably pitch in as well. The SAS Regiment is being sought by the US command, and we have two ships doing MIF duty in the Gulf, with AP-3C Orion surveillance aircraft due for the Gulf in the coming weeks.