POLL: Iraq, Yes or No

Remove all ads!

but, doesnt that just kill the idea of democracy?

 

No, because if I don't agree with my government and the way my elected officials are running the government, then it is my duty as a member of that democratic society to vote in the next election for an official who shares my views.
But regardless of who I voted for and whether that person won an election, I feel that I should still support my government. I am still free though to disagree publicly with an policies I don't agree with.
There is aspects of this whole thing I agree with and some I don't agree with.

 

ive got one question, america keeps coming up with results from polls saying that they are in support of war;

have any of the americans on this board actually seen a poll to be able to vote on it?

 

Let me tell you a little bit about how polls work in this country. I worked on George Bush senior's campaign when I lived in Illinois. I worked for the county I lived in for the Republican Headquarters there. One of the many things we did was polling.
One thing to keep in mind here is polls give you statistics. You can make statistics say pretty much anything you want. Anyone who has taken a statistics class should be able to tell you that.

We have a republican president who wants to go to war. First of all, for this kind of poll, we'd only call registered voters. We'd also focus mainly on Republican voters. We'd want to see results that support our party. By mainly polling registered republican voters, we'd be more likely to get the results we want. Sure, we'd poll some democrats too, but that would be just to ensure the results are not too lopsided.
There are formulas you can apply to polls that, theoretically, will give you a good idea of what the results would be if you polled more people. You can roll a dice so many times and get a set of results, apply the formula and it will give you an idea of what results you would get if you rolled the dice a million times, for example. The problem with using that in polling is it is designed for an ideal situation where everythig is equal. But when you poll only one side and apply it, it gives you skewed results.
You can also ask a question in so many ways. Different ways will get different results. Simply changing one word can get different results as well.
Another thing that can be done is simply not to mention every aspect of the results.
Say you get a result of 40% in favor, 60% not in favor. Well you wanted results showing 'in favor'
So in press release, we'd just say 40% were in favor. People tend to jump on the bandwagon. If we want people jumping on the 'in favor' bandwagon, reporting results of the 'not in favor' bandwagon is not the best idea.
Ive seen the polls showing a majority of people in the US are in favor of an attack. I've also seen results showing a majority is not in favor. Kinda wierd how you could have both, isn't it?
Well its because by some of what I said and other techniques that you can make numbers say anything you want.

 

The US are determined to defeat Iraq and to occupy it for a while. I wonder how easy that might be, especially after a war. I will not discuss the grim prospects of the use of WMDs in Iraq, IMO Bush is closer to provoke a use of nuclear weapons than reaan was in the cold war, but anyway.

The US stress that they are freeing a country from a dictator which is doubtless true. However, it pretty plausible that the Iraqi people, even when rid of Saddam, are not overly thankful for the heavenly blessings they received from the allieds and the sanctions over the last decade. Will it be a liberation or perhaps rather the start for a new conflict where the US would have to quell uprisings in the cities of Iraq, like an Intifada en gros?

The US will also have to find a workable solution to deal with the perhaps ambitious kurds at the turkish border - a sovereign kurd state will be unaceptable for Turkey as it would most likely end up as a safehaven for kurdish infiltration into Turkey.

The US will have to find a way to integrate the Shiites in the south into Iraq as they are traditionally closer to Iran, where their religious peers are, than to Iraq.

An insulted arab self esteem might be the consequence of a longer US presence in Iraq, resulting in terror as a response. And most likely the US occupation will not be a question of months but of years. Provocation guaranteed?
Or is that when the UN and the allies come in the game - the US mess up the country and leave the cleanup to the UN and the rest of the world?

I remember I read Gen. Clark, ret., NATO commander in the Kosovo war, in a newspaper a few weeks ago. He said that after Iraq Syrian and then Iran are next. Great prospects.

As for the motivation of the Bush administration: These are open to wild speculation and I don't hesitate to add my wildly off theories:

Bush sr. is iirc one of the three heads, with Weinberger and Baker, of the Carlyle Group, a military investment house investing in aerospace and defence companies. They most likely profit from the increaseed defence budged of the US over the last years, and one day Bush jr. will be his heir. Amusingly this house is partly owned by the Bin Ladens who also took a share in the US reaction on 9/11. Of course, Osama has been removed from family business so he won't profit from the US force buildup

Is the war about Iraqi oil? Maybe on long term. But why not about US oil? From a war, and rising oil prices, the US oil companies profit much earlier - without investment - and Bush jr. has his share there. Maybe people look too far when they search for reasons and motives.

Wouldn't it be most ironic had the US managed to kill Bin Laden in afganistan only to bury is body 300ft deep in a crashed cave so they'll never find a proof of their success? Who knows, when the next elections are the war against Iraq might be Bush's only success - as the US still failed to find their Public Enemy Nr.1, Bin Laden, remember, he's the very reason why this war against terror started

Now let's have a look at the map: Iraq as a base offers various advantages: It lacks the two vulnerable maritime bottlenecks of the persian gulf and the red sea - it could be supplied via Turkey and Syria via the mediterranean secured by NATO forces - and it would be shorter and safer anyway, even eliminating the dependence on the suez canal. The US is reportedly investing in expanding harbors in southern Turkey to accomodate larger ships.
In a recent exercise US OPFOR sunk a US naval combat group simulating forced entrance through the Straits of Hormuz.

Iraq as a base might also be an advantageous ground to settle the kurdish dispute, one of the conditions for a stable tranfer from the central asian oil to Turkey, that is the solution the US prefer for this oil. The russians want to lead a pipeline through .... chechnya - what a chance. The chinese of course are interested in this oil either to feed the growing demand in their country.

Iraq as a base is even more advantageous when one considers the growing hostility in Saudi Arabia towards US troops - the islamic wahabites, among them Bin Laden, have always seen the US presence in the holy land where Mekka is as an insult. Who knows what might happen when the current king dies? Seemingly that's just a question of a few years. Iraq is all about the UN resolutions and Saddams failure to meet them? Really?

Just my two cents.

[ February 25, 2003, 12:56: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Absolutly not...

I know he is a 'bad' man, but, for once, he didn't do much to provoke anything except for his mere existence. I tend to veiw this as a personal vendetta that Bush has.

 

I thought that this was an interesting take on the Iraq situation. Please remember that this was originially written before Bush's "state of the union" address, and thus is about 3 weeks old at this point.

Sorry if this is too long:

"Tomorrow evening, President Bush will give his annual State of the Union address. While he will certainly address numerous topics both foreign and
domestic, it is widely anticipated that the primary goal of the address will be to speak to the nation and the world about war with Iraq. For weeks, foreign policy thinkers, political pundits and news media analysts have
previewed his likely remarks and reached similar conclusions that he will outline the case for war against Iraq yet again, perhaps unveil new evidence of Saddam Hussein's perfidy, and seek to unite the American people behind
military action. There is every reason to believe that this is exactly what President Bush will do, and that he will be successful in achieving his
goals for the speech.

Thus, rather than rehash ground that has been capably covered by many others in recent weeks, it is the intent of this white paper to explore several topics that will not be mentioned by either the President or the news media
this evening. Although the profile of these topics is much lower than the issues that will be discussed tonight, they nonetheless are central and vital to the events that are likely to unfold in the Middle East over the
next several months.

Deployment of Necessary Forces is Incomplete As I mentioned in my paper last summer on this subject, it is widely believed that any U.S. force
attacking into Iraq must consist of at least 5-6 full divisions, plus support troops and strong contingent of U.S. Marines. At the present time,
nowhere near this level of force has yet been deployed to the region, and it will be at least several more weeks before a force of the necessary size could conceivably be assembled.

Currently, U.S. land forces in the region consist of a single full-strength combat division, the 3rd Infantry (Mechanized), which is in Kuwait. A Marine Expeditionary Unit is in the Persian Gulf, two Navy carrier battle groups are in-theater, and several wings of U.S. and U.K. aircraft are currently deployed enforcing the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones. Several special
forces units, as well as CIA operatives are present in the region, and it is highly likely that they are already undertaking various missions inside Iraq. Also in the region are the headquarters for the U.S. Central Command,
U.S. Third Army, U.S. V Corps, and the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps. The early presence of these headquarters will be a significant boost for U.S. forces, as they enable the rapid assimilation of new units as they enter the theater
in the weeks to come. Finally, it can safely be assumed that over the past 12-15 months, the U.S. has successfully stockpiled the vast amounts of fuel, ammunition, and other supplies needed for a campaign at depots in Kuwait,
Qatar, Bahrain, and Turkey.

However, the bulk of American and Allied combat power remains outside of the Gulf region and weeks away from availability for combat. Unless the U.S. is counting on a massive defection of Iraqi army units who would then fight
against Saddam (a highly risky assumption), several other substantial American units must be committed to the Gulf prior to any attack:

The 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) America's premier heavy armor division, it is equipped with the latest and most sophisticated equipment of
any U.S. army unit, including the fearsome M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. This division is probably capable of destroying Saddam's entire Republican Guard Corps by itself. It has been activated and is currently loading onto
ships in Texas for the 3 week voyage to the Gulf. It should be ready for
combat in late February.

The 1st Cavalry Division Another heavy armor division, the 1st Cavalry is likely to be teamed with the 3rd and 4th Mechanized Infantry Divisions
attacking along an axis from Kuwait to Baghdad. The 1st Cavalry has been activated, but has yet to even begin the loading process at its bases in
Texas for the move to the Gulf.

The 1st Armored and 1st Mechanized Infantry Divisions Both of these units are based in Europe. They have yet to receive full deployment orders, but the attack helicopter squadrons of both have been recently spotted being
loaded onto ships in the Belgian port of Antwerp. It is thought likely that either or both divisions will be sent to Turkey, to attack Iraq from the north. Neither unit can be expected to be in position until late February.

The 101st Air Assault Division The 101st is a fast moving, highly mobile, helicopter-based assault force. It played a key role in the first Gulf War, and is likely to be once again conducting lighting-fast helicopter-borne
attacks across hundreds of miles of open desert, outflanking the Iraqi army. However, it has yet to receive deployment orders. It will take nearly a month for this unit to move to the Gulf and be ready for action.

The 1st UK Armoured Division Britain's famed 'Desert Rats' from World War
II have been ordered to the Gulf by Prime Minister Blair. They have completed their embarkation, and should arrive in Kuwait in about two weeks.

Navy/Marine Corps deployments The U.S. Navy is moving three additional carrier battle groups to the theater, representing nearly half of all U.S.
carrier power. These ships will be on combat station by the last week in February. Two Marine Corps expeditionary forces are en-route to the region, and their pre-positioned tanks and armored vehicles have already unloaded in
Gulf ports.

U.S. Air Force The U.S. Air Force has alerted four more wings for Gulf duty, but has yet to deploy any of them. These include the 1st Fighter Wing (F-15s and F-16s), the 4th Fighter Wing (F-16s and F15E Strike Eagles), the
28th Bombardment Wing (B-1B bombers) and the 49th Fighter Wing (F-117A stealth fighters). It is inconceivable that any attack on Iraq will be
launched without the air supremacy these units, along with Navy and Marine carrier aircraft, will provide. While they can deploy much quicker than
ground units and ships, their immediate effectiveness will be limited by just how many supplies and munitions have already been stockpiled and how many need to be shipped in before operations begin.

So, at this juncture, with the current level of troops deployed, any attack
would be a highly risky venture unless it was guaranteed that the Iraqi army
would defect en masse. It is quite surprising that given as much time,
effort, and rhetoric as has been deployed by the Bush Administration towards
a campaign against Iraq, is that more of the necessary forces are not already in the Gulf. In fact, this would indicate that contrary to what his critics have accused, the President and his advisers have truly sought to avoid war, or look at it as a last resort. As a consequence, rather than an immediate attack within the next few days or weeks, a much more likely scenario will be that troops will continue to be brought into the region, perhaps with greater rapidity, and any military assault will not commence until early March. Fortunately for the American forces involved, that coincides with the window for optimal weather for operations, a period that
starts in early March and lasts six to eight weeks.

France and Germany are Irrelevant

While the American and international news media have given great attention to the recent non-cooperation and timidity of the governments of France and Germany, the fact of the matter is that they have misplayed their hands badly. Not only are their opinions now irrelevant to the course of events about to unfold, but their actions prior to this moment of irrelevancy have
virtually guaranteed a violent outcome.

In the case of Germany, the opposition to action against Saddam Hussein has come from the most base of political motives. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is amongst the least popular politicians in German history. His political
party is on the verge of two crushing defeats in elections scheduled to be held next month in Hessen and North Saxony. As a last, desperate attempt to stave off defeat, Schroeder is hoping to revive the strategy of extreme anti-Americanism that worked for him in last fall's elections, barely saving his chancellorship.

In France, the situation is even less explicable. Only a few months after voting in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called on Iraq to disarm or face the consequences of military action, France has totally reversed its position. Harkening back to the policies of arch-appeaser
Prime Minister Eduoard Daladier in 1938/39, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has declared that France will 'not insist on Iraqi
compliance with the resolution or serious consequences if Iraq fails to comply'. In fact, he told the Security Council recently that 'Nothing justifies envisaging military action, nothing'.

So, for varying reasons of political expediency or commitment to appeasement, the governments of France and Germany have taken an anti-war
position from which there is virtually no return. For this, they are applauded by anti-war groups, while their positions are used by many critics in the American news media to hector President Bush for taking a 'unilateralist' approach to Iraq that 'isolates' America from its allies. However, the real facts of the matter regarding Franco-German pacifist position are quite different than are reported to or understood by most Americans. In fact, the parties that are most hurt by the Franco-German
position are the United Nations, the peace movement, and France and Germany
themselves.

To begin with, France's 'peace at any price' promise of a veto on any UN Security Council action on Iraq virtually guarantees that the World Body will not be asked for any further resolution or input on the matter. Why would the U.S. and Great Britain waste their time presenting new resolutions only to have them vetoed by the French, when the Resolution 1441 already authorizes military force? Isn't Saddam Hussein further emboldened to defy the United Nations when he knows France and Germany do not have the stomach to confront him? Doesn't this in turn make combat more, rather than less likely? Additionally, an actual French veto would do precisely what George Bush predicted several months ago irreparably harm the creditability of the Security Council and mark it as a sham organization that can be easily
defied.

The second effect of the miscalculation of the French and Germans is to immeasurably strengthen the hands of the hawks in the Bush Administration.
The best ally the doves had, both in America and overseas, was U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. His prestige was immense, and was the
primary reason the Bush Administration agreed to go to the UN Security Council with the Iraqi matter in the first place. Powell laid his
credibility on the line, in the face of hawks such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, who predicted (correctly, it is now revealed) that the UN route would lead to another round of fruitless debates and delays, and produce no results. Now, as a result of the French veto threat and anti-American German activities, no one in President Bush's inner circle can seriously think that
the UN will have the will to do anything regarding Iraq other than continue with the charade of inspections. Even France has admitted that it does not think that stopping Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is even
a goal, and will settle for slowing down their progress. All of this has moved Colin Powell into the camp of the hawks. Having sincerely tried to work with the UN and the French, only to be betrayed, Powell now believes inspections will not work, it would be ridiculous to extend the inspection regime, and that we must now go in and disarm Iraq by force.

Finally, far from being isolated in an attack on Iraq, America will have plenty of allies. The Bush Administration has already lined up commitments of support from the majority of members of both NATO and the European Union.
Countries supporting the U.S. attack include Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Greece, and Turkey. In fact, only two European nations stand with the Franco-German position, Belgium and Luxembourg. Far from isolating America, France and Germany have actually isolated themselves. They are encircled in their own continent by nations
who have chose to follow Americas lead, rather then theirs. When America succeeds in installing a new regime in Baghdad, as it surely will, France
and Germany will no doubt further deplete their credibility by seeking to profit from the sacrifice and leadership of others and pursue lucrative financial deals with the new government. Unfortunately for them, they will
find their opportunities extremely limited the Poles, Italians, and Turks will already be there.

Iraqi Battle Strategy

Despite their overwhelming defeat in the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq did in fact have a military strategy that it attempted to execute. Saddam Hussein's plan was twofold; first, to attack Israel and provoke it into joining the
fight, thus splitting the Arab Coalition, and to attempt to cause as many American casualties as possible, assuming the American would have a low
tolerance for casualties and force a quick withdrawal. As history records,
neither strategy worked.

Now, in 2003, it is widely assumed that Saddam will once again follow a similar strategy of hoping to inflict massive American casualties. There is no doubt that he is encouraged by the actions of the peace movement in the
United States to think that if only he can bog the U.S. down for a few months, public support for war will evaporate. However, Saddam's ability to force this outcome will be extremely limited, and it will most likely fail
miserably again.

Much has been made of Saddam having 'learned the lesson' of not deploying his forces out in the open, especially in the desert where they are easy
targets for overwhelming U.S. air power. There have been many reports that his plan is to lure Americans into urban fighting, block by block, where heavy casualties are the norm. Many also believe this idea has the additional benefit of putting Iraqi soldiers in areas with lots of
civilians, guaranteeing civilian deaths that would undermine the American cause.

These plans, however, have serious drawbacks for Saddam. First, the Iraqis have been placing armored vehicles and anti-aircraft batteries in urban areas for years. American and British pilots are familiar with the ruse, and have developed new tactics to counter it. Many of the bombs allied planes have dropped on Iraq in recent years have not contained any explosives at all they have been made of concrete. Concrete-filled bomb shells dropped from a height of several miles and laser-guided onto target
will destroy virtually any vehicle, without the explosions and civilian deaths that accompany traditional high-explosive bombs. And mixing Iraqi
soldiers in with the civilian population is highly dangerous for Saddam, as most will be likely to immediately desert under the cover of anonymity a city provides. So, Saddam will be forced to keep his troops in barracks,
away from most civilians and under close watch, until the battle begins. Troops held in barracks under such conditions will be less motivated to
fight, and easier to target and kill with high explosive weapons and special
forces attacks.

After a U.S. invasion begins, Iraqi soldiers will be bombarded with radio messages and leaflets urging them to either surrender or die, with promises that those who surrender will be treated leniently at war crimes trials. Messages to this effect have been delivered to Iraqi soldiers for over a year now. Saddam has certainly felt the impact of this effort. Now, even the Republican Guard is not allowed near Baghdad for fear of revolt. Only the Special Republican Guard, smaller in number, is allowed in the city,
along with another force of Ba'ath party paramilitary thugs. This is certainly a sign that Saddam has little faith that many will fight on his behalf, and a strong incentive for him to keep soldiers out of the cities,
thus undermining his 'massive U.S. casualties' strategy.

In an interesting footnote, history also provides a clue as to what Iraqi resistance to an American invasion would be like. The last time Iraq was
invaded was in 1941, during World War II. British troops invaded in response to a coup by Axis-sympathizing army officers, who had threatened to ally with Hitler, provide him vital supplies of oil, and deny access to the
British. The British were outnumbered three to one, the Iraqi army was supported by modern German aircraft, and the majority of Iraqis supported the coup government. In spite of all this, Iraqi resistance collapsed in about three weeks, giving the British an easy victory against the numerical odds.

No Blood for Oil!!!

While this has been a popular chant at war protests by those opposed to U.S. intervention in the Persian Gulf for over a decade, it is one that does not stand up to factual scrutiny. Although many on the left have asserted that
a war with Iraq is a war about oil, it is most clearly not. If America were seeking a war to control more oil, the 82nd Airborne would be loading onto transports bound for Caracas this week, rather than Baghdad next month.
However, war in the Middle East is likely to have some effects on international oil supply and prices just nowhere near the effect that many
expect it to have.

Iraq is a less important supplier of oil to the western industrialized nations now than it was 12 years ago during the first Gulf War. During the
past year, its exports were about 25% less than what they were in 1990. In the mean time, the supply of oil from other sources has increased, in some cases substantially. Kuwait, Venezuela, and Russia all sell significantly more oil on the world market now than they did in 1990/91. Strategic reserves of oil in the U.S. and elsewhere are roughly 50% higher than what
they were in 1991. Finally, the issue of oil in the first Gulf War was never about controlling the oil within the borders of Iraq proper, rather,
it was about making sure that Saddam Hussein did not gain control of the reserves of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well, which would then have put him in a powerful position in the world oil market. This situation from 1991
simply doesn't exist today.

So, what effects will 2003's Iraqi crisis have on petroleum prices? Bear
Stearns economist Frederick Leuffer believes that we are currently paying a
'war premium' of around $5-8 per barrel on today's $30 barrel of oil, as American forces prepare to attack Iraq. Leuffer further believes that oil prices will then follow the pattern established during the first Gulf War
as soon as the U.S. attack commences, the price of oil will drop significantly, perhaps as much as $14 a barrel. After the conflict is over,
certainty over the availability of Iraqi oil as well as disappearance of the 'war premium' should help power economic growth and recovery. He foresees prices hovering steadily around the $18-20 a barrel range. In the long
run, a democratic Iraq that steadily increases its production capacity and rebuilds its oil sector will be in the best interests of both the average Iraqi citizen and the stability of the world economy. At the same time, there is likely to be a real adverse impact on Mexico, Venezuela and other such oil producing nations.

Iran, the Real Prize

While virtually all of the attention of the news media and general public has been focused on Iraq, over the long run what happens there is of
secondary importance to what happens in Iran. In fact, many of the actions the U.S. is taking with respect to Iraq will have direct consequences on, or are designed to influence, events that are about to unfold in Iran.

A democratic and prosperous Iran is the key to the stability of the entire Gulf region. Prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution, few if any of our
current problems with terrorism or Islamic extremism existed. The fall of the Shah and rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini's hard-line Islamic regime has resulted in a 25-year destabilization of the region. Many modern Islamic terror groups first found a home and inspiration in the Iranian regime. The fundamental rejection of all things western and secular as preached by Iranian ayatollahs and mullahs closely parallels the beliefs of Al-Qaeda and its followers. Iran's central position strongly effects every other
geopolitical and strategic decision the United States makes in the region one of the primary reasons that Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain in power after the first Gulf War was the belief that his Iraqi regime was needed to provide a balance of power to the larger, long term threat to regional stability, the Iranian Islamic Republic. However, much has changed during the last twelve years, greatly to the personal detriment of Saddam Hussein. Fast moving events in Iran have made the decision to remove him
much easier.

Perhaps the least-reported international news story of the last few years is the death of the Islamic Revolution in the place that gave it birth, Iran. After nearly 25 years of living under the rule of fundamentalist clerics,
the Iranian people have had enough. They are demanding change, and demanding it now. Each week, thousands take to the street to demonstrate
against the regime, an act unthinkable a scant few years ago. While these protests once largely consisted of students, they have now been joined by teachers, oil and textile workers, other ordinary citizens, and most importantly, some Islamic mullahs. Prominent clerics, including Ayatollah Taheri, the former prayer leader in the Holy City of Qom, have come out openly against the hard-liners in the government. Twenty five years of terror, hardship, and privation are provoking a strong backlash against the
government by those old enough to remember better economic times under the Shah, and a strong desire for a better life by Iranians under 30 who have no memory of the excesses of his regime. This latter age cohort represents over 50% of the population of the entire country young, seeking
opportunity, and seething under the stifling oppression of the fundamentalist Islamist regime.

Thus, the rule of the ayatollahs in Iran is entering its final phase. The theocrats themselves are aware of this, and have tried a mix of increased repressive measures along with a small dose of reforms that permit slightly
greater freedoms. They no doubt hope that this combination will preserve their rule, but in thinking so they ignore the lessons of history. Mikhail Gorbachev, in the waning years of the Soviet Union, tried a similar mix of
reforms and crackdowns, and ultimately learned that once the door to freedom is cracked ajar, even a little, eventually it will be kicked wide open. Granting limited freedoms only whets the appetite of the people for more freedoms. While Iran's ruling ayatollahs are still a threat to lash out to lash out against the United States and the West during the death throes of
their regime through sponsoring terrorist acts, they are no longer the military threat to the region that they once were, as it is unlikely that
Iranian forces would be inspired to launch a fight to expand their repressive regime to neighboring states.

The United States is now hoping to step in and influence this volatile but promising mix of circumstances in Iran. If the Islamic Revolution were to swept from power in Iran, it could signal a new era of peace and prosperity in the Middle East. The single best way to inspire the Iranian people to oust their regime would be for them to see first-hand the benefits of regime
change in the neighboring state of Iraq. U.S. forces occupying Iraq would also present several challenges to the ayatollahs. The Iranian people would see they came as liberators, not conquerors, and that they made war not on
Islam but on tyranny. Also, U.S. forces on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border would be in a stong position to covertly assist pro-democracy forces inside Iran. None of these events bodes well for the government in Tehran.

The benefits of this 'domino effect' in regime change could be substantial. Iran was once the most modern, powerful, and prosperous nation in the Gulf.
With different rulers, it has the capacity to be so once again. A Middle
East that has a stable, pro-western government in Iran and Saddam Hussein
removed from power in Iraq would have an entirely different dynamic. Under
this scenario, the key U.S. allies would be Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain,
Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Since the west would no longer be
dependent on their oil, the corrupt Saudi Arabian regime would be
unnecessary and probably fall, and with their ouster would go the major
source of funding for terrorism and the teachings of the extreme Islamic
tenets of Wahhabism. Once removed from power, the House of Saud might even
be replaced as guardians of Mecca and Medina by the more moderate government
of Jordan, as a significant number of scholars believe the Hashemite
Kingdom's claims to Mecca and Medina are more legitimate than those of Saud.

A pro-western Iran would also cause dominoes in the Southwest Asian region
to fall the other way as well. No longer would the United States need to be
tied to the corrupt and duplicit Pakistani regime out of the necessity of
having a regional ally. With Iran, and to a lesser degree Afghanistan,
taking that role, the United States would be free to take a much harder line
with Islamabad on many issues, from their lack of cooperation in the hunt
for Al-Qaeda to nuclear saber-rattling with India. And of course the
opportunity to remove the Pakistani obstacle to closer American relations
with India of paramount importance. In the future, a close American
alliance with India, the world's largest democracy, is likely to be one of
the single most important relationships for preserving peace and stability
in Asia.

Conclusion

America is going to war with Iraq. It will not happen immediately, because we are not yet ready, but it will happen soon, most likely the first two
weeks of March. Iraq has developed strategies that it hopes will delay the inevitable, but ultimately, they will not. In the end, the opposition of France and Germany will be seen as having the three effects of weakening
their own positions in Europe and the world, weakening their credibility,
and having emboldened Saddam Hussein to fight. Finally, the war is far less about oil than about regime change, and remaking the politics of a critical region for decades to come.

 

@ Llandon: I am impressed. Mostly by the long text, but impressed all the same.

I didn't read everything. I'm going to do this later, but I have one detail to add:

The Saudi-Arabien crown prince announced two weeks ago in front of various other powerful saudis , that he is willing to make a few democratic changes, and that he's going to ram them down their throats, if needs be. *g*

 

Yes. I'm sory about the length of the post, but I thought it was an interesting read. I considered making it a new topic....I kind of wish I had, so more people would read it.

Tal..could this be moved to a new topic in the "Alley"? Should it be moved?

 

I would like to make few comments on the article and especially on its military part.

First of all the author forgets that a soldier, who defends his country is more motivated that a soldier, who attacks another country. Also, many of these men (especially the elite forces) know that if Saddam falls, they have no future and this means that they will fight till death. In addition, as far the promises of fair trial are concerned, I think that the fate of the Taliban prisoners will make Iraqi soldies very cautious.

As far as the urban fighting is concerned, the author seems to ignore the fact that Iraq has 7 millions armed civilians, which make the situation very complicated. The armed civilian has not the effectiveness of a trained soldier but he can a real pain in the ass for the attacker. Just see what happened during the battle of Crete in 1941 and you'll understand what I mean.

Also, his claim about destroying iraqi tanks with bombs made of concrete is stupid, it makes me wonder if he has ever seen a tank closely. All the anti-tank shells are designed to penetrate the armor of the tank and then explode in its interior and he is going to destroy them by bombing them with concrete? Therefore, the attacking force has to options:
1)Level the city to the ground witj airforce and artilery. This will cause huge civilian causalties, while many iraqi soldiers will be hiding safe in underground shelters. Also, the ruins in the streets will be major obstacle for the attacker's armor and vehicles.
2)A combined attack of infantry and armor, which means heavy causalties for the attacker, since every building will be a forttress as well as high probabilty of causalties because of friendly fire.

Finally, his example on WWII make me doubt for his credability. German aircrafts supported the iraqi army? Where was their base? The closest german airports was in the islands of Aegean sea and Germans didn't have long range bombers. The only German presence in this event would be some Brandeburg commandos or Abwehr secret agents and nothing more.

 

The author of the article is a retired air force general. I believe you might have been confused on the concrete bombs. These are not bombs made out of concrete, but rather conventional munitions with the explosives removed and replaced with concrete. The "penetrator" on the weapon remains intact, but with out the explosive munitions there is lower chance of massive secondary explosions, and no explosion at all for misses. Here is a link to a cnn article on these bombs:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9910/07/us.iraq/

I consider myself a bit of a military history buff, and I had never heard of a revolt in Iraq during the second world war. I have a GREAT 27 volume set on WWII and here is what I was able to find: "...military mission commanded by Gen. Hellmuth Felmy...task was to prepare for action squadrons of bf 109 fighters and Himkel He 111 bombers." These aircraft were based at Habaniyah, and airfield on the right bank of the Euphraties river 30 miles from Baghdad.

[ February 26, 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: Llandon ]

 

On 3.4.1941 in Iraq there was a the so-called "palace-revolt" led by Rashid Ali el-Gailani against the british installed King Feisal, still a kid, and his emir Abd Al-Ilah.

That threatened the british for two reasons: They had to secure their landlines to India their borders to vichy ruled syrian as well as turkey. Military they had to ensure that Iraq continued to supply oil and fuel to the british mediterranean fleet. There were to english bases in Iraq, Habbaniya and Shaibach.

El-Gailani was the leader of the extreme right "fatherlandish brotherhood" and he admired Hitler. On 18.5.1941 british troops under Admiral Fraser land in Basra to reinforce the troops already in country and to aid the evacuation of british specialist personnel from the oil fields. The most reliable troops in country were the "arab legion", native troops tasked with securing the english pipelines and oilfields in Iraq. Hostilities started on 2.4.1941 and the Iraqis, almost immediately suffering from the absolute british air superiority, asked Berlin for help.

Hitler, hoping on a general arab uprising that would keep the british busy, granted support. The large distances and the political situation in Iraq's neighboutr countries clearly limited the aid germany would have been able to supply. That only left the supply of arms and support by air and railway (via turkey and syria).

Eventually germanys support was quite meager, a whole 600 tons of supplies by rail and some more 100 in an air bridge using Ju-52 and Ju-90 transports (they types designations are for Llandon ). With the supplies germany brings experts from the Abwehr and Brandenburger commandoes. German key figure was Dr. Fritz Grobba as the special administrator of germany tasked with the liaison of the german economical and military activities.
German air force units detached were the KG-4 (He-111) and the a squadron heavy fighters (Bf-110 - since their use was a question of range - the Bf-109 were shortlegged interceptors unable to even get to Iraq ). Very inventive this operation was named "IRAK".

The british notice the german reinforcements for Iraq only on 11.4.1941 when three Bf-110 were forced by two Vichy Morane 406 to land in syrian airfield of Palmyra as they weren't announced to overfly vichy territory. Generally the operation was executed hastily and so the mashines lacked dust filters (leading to engine failures), poor fuel in Iraq (necessiating the use of additives) as well as proper maps of Iraq and most important - ammunition and bombs.

In the operations against the germans in Palmyra, Syria the british use their first US supplied fighters Curtiss Tomahawk aka P-40 and in the chain of events the british loose a few aircraft and the germans all in all 10 aircraft, 5 of them at the ground.
On 25.5.1941 the Iraqis start negotiations with the british. By 29.5.1941 the germans decide to leave Iraq as a result of that and the rapidly worsening situation for the iraqi ground troops. 30.5.1941 the british march into Bagdad and on 4.6.1941 the war in Iraq ended with the british troops taking Mossul.

First of all the Iraq debacle was a propaganda victroy for great britain as the fighting was light. Right after the british attacked vichy syria as a result of their support for germany in the operation "IRAK". But that is another story.

There the heavy fighting begins for the british with high losses of coomonwealth troops. The british air force suffers serious losses from the well trained french pilots and their superior D.520 fighters. The french also had modern equipment including modern tanks and professional officers in a well organised army unlike the iraqis. Eventually australian troops with massive naval gunfire support take Beirut advancing along the mediterranean coast. Indian and british troops attack Damaskus from Jordan. British forces from iraq, among them the arab legion cross the desert, beeing delayed by the foreign legion. On 15.7.1941 the fights in syria stop after 5 weeks of intense fighting.

PS: General Felmy is to my knowledge only known for his involvement in the Mechelen incident from 10.1.1940, when a german liaison aircraft lost its path and landed in belgium - giving secret documents into belgian hands.

[ February 27, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Llandon

First of all I have to admit that I was wrong about the WWII example. This is the information that I have found about german presence in Iraq.

As far as the concrete bombs are concerned, I know that they are munitions with the explosives removed and not bombs made of concrete. They are precision munition or gravity bombs. Until now they have been used against A/A guns and against other targets which have no armor for protection. Even if they can penetrate the armor of a T-80 (which,I think, is the main iraqi heavy tank), they are not going to destroy it since the shell cannot explode. In my opinion, the only damage that a concrete bomb can do to a heavy tank is to immobilize it, if it hits the engine. Also, the fact that this bomb cannot explode means that the shot must be extremely accurate, something that is very difficult to do in an urban area.

 

WOW.

Thanks for the info Ragusa. You must be a military history fan as well.

Lets just think about the kind of damage a lazer guided munition weighing about 900 kilograms, and travel approximately 800 kilometers per hour, will do to a T-80 tank. Will it utterly obliterate it? Probably not. But I don't think the tank will be very useful afterwards. Remember that the weakest armor on the T-80 is on the top of the tank. It doesn't take much to damage an engine, tank cannon, loader, sight, or crew once you've gotten through the armor...and I would certinly think that such a weapon would easily rupture the armor on any tank in service today. The American M1-A1 included. As far as accuracy...all one need to do is turn on the history channel to see how accurate laser guided bombs were 13 years ago, let alone today.

But then again this is certinly off topic. I just wanted to give a little rebuttle to the "claim about destroying iraqi tanks with bombs made of concrete is stupid," and the "his example on WWII make me doubt for his credability" comments.

 

"Peace sells but who is buying?"...A great song from Megadeth .I can't understand why so many people are for war.Bush has no right to declare a war on Iraq.I know that Saddam is a dictator and that he treats his people very badly but come on this can not be an argument for war.The main argument that people,who are for a war against Iraq,have is that Iraq has many weapons of mass destruction.i think it is a quite exagerated statement.We all know that he used chemical and biological weapons against his own people in the past and many died because of his tyranny.But i am quite sure that he no longer posses such weapons because after the first war most of his weapons were destroyed by the U.N. officials.There is always a chance that he saved one or two of such deadly weapons but come on he can no longer be a danger to the world outside his borders.Because after the first gulf war Iraq was divided into three sections and Saddam's army was very heavyly defeated by the allied troops led by the USA and now his economy is in ruins so he isn't a real threat to anyone except to his people.Do you know how many children died after the gulf war in 1991:500.000.This number can be even more i don't know it correctly and think of the number of the disabled people and children.The number rises faster each year because of the politics of the western countries espeacially of the USA.A new war will only bring more destruction upon Iraqi people.Please be more understanding and don't see this war as a computer game because it is a real one killing can be a bussiness but it is no good...

 

I would like to add one thing to the paper you posted Llandon. It seems to claim that the Shah rule was a rule of freedom and prosperity while it was for from that. The uprising of the ayatollahs was a popular uprising of the people rising up against a cruel and evil dictator. It is understandable that an american general puts a good light on the regime as it was put in power by the americans but it was still a ruthless dictatorship. But as the paper said if the door of freedom had been open slightly it will be kicked open completely, that what was happened to the Shah, too bad the new people in power didnt prove to be champions of freedom. But you have to keep in mind that the iranian people were fully aware of what they put in power, they wanted a theocratic rule and thought that it was the one true way to go.

 

It is true that the Shaw was a ruthless Dictator. It is also true that the Iranian people traded one opperssive form of government for another. Is Iran better off today than it was under the rule of the Shaw? I really don't know, but I would think not. Would Iran be a better place (for it's own population) if it were a democracy? I think so. And apparantly, many of the Iranian people think so as well(or at least want many more freedoms).

There have been countless "popular" uprisings throughout history that turned out to be really bad ideas in the long run. The October revolution of 1917 comes to mind.