Two part question:
a) Can the US go it alone (or virtually alone) in a war on Iraq? Consider that many Mid-East nations will not grant us the use of their airspace, bases, etc… The odds are that they will not be as cooperative as in the Gulf War. And, along these lines, could we ever piss off the Saudis by attacking their Arab “brothers”? What about other silent Arab nations, like Libya?
b) Would a war in Iraq spark a tinderbox in world events opening the pathway to WWIII by N Korea claim S Korea while we’re distracted? And/or, maybe China invade Taiwan while we’re distracted? Etc., etc., etc.? In short, could we open a Pandora’s box of problems?
Curious about your comments on A and/or B above…
-Jinx
a) Yes. The US could go it alone and beat Iraq. It’s not even close. While not having land bases in neighboring countries would be a pain in the butt, a carrier battle group would be able to clear the beaches for a marine landing. It wouldn’t be ideal, but the US would almost certainly win.
b) No. North Korea can’t claim South Korea, as the South Korean military is not too shabby and almost certainly a match for the North. North Korea almost certainly knows this. Furthermore China will not allow North Korea to invade South Korea, since China no more wants to see a war that will likely entangle both them and the US on its doorstep. Which leads to Taiwan, again, the Chinese are not going to militarily invade Taiwan. They simply couldn’t afford a war with the US, even while the US was “distracted” by Iraq. Any Pandora’s Box resulting from a US invasion of Iraq will have nothing to do with Asia, but with the “Arab street” and terrorism.
As an annendum on to the China invading Taiwan dealie, the Chinese are currently unable to invade Taiwan. That’s not to say they can’t blow the crap out of it many times over; but in regards to putting ground troops in to occupy or invade, they just don’t have enough boats; unless they rounded up fishing boats and floated them across the strait, they just can’t do it right now.
For those who aren’t current and qualified on military acronyms, in censored 's post above the PLAN is not some Dr. Evil-like master plan but the P eople’s L iberation A rmy N avy.
The PLA being the acronym for basically the entire Chinese miltary, and the PLAN being the Naval arm. Yes, it’s an “Army Navy” in the title, but the US had the “Army Air Forces” in WWII.
Let there be no doubts, the US could and would absolutely obliterate Iraqi forces in any war. As for other countries not allowing the US access, I really think its almost a non-issue for a few reasons. IIRC, bother Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will let them use bases and Israel almost certainly would. Even disregarding the carriers in the Gulf, these countries alone are more than what’s required. Even Yemen will supposedly let the US Navy dock (they’re scared shitless of getting cut off from financial aid like they were in Desert Storm) and Iran will reportedly even allow US rescue missions through their airspace. Even without that, the US military machine would fly missions from the friendly bases that would allow it, even if they are relatively far away. Hell, the US is perfectly capable of attacking any country in the world from the US if necessary, its just a hell of a lot more expensive, difficult and time consuming.
You’ve gotta remember, Saddam is not exactly a well liked man, even down there.
2)It may create a mess, but I think WW3 is a stretch. Russia is losing its patience with Iraq now, and China isn’t happy with Saddam either. As for the “middle powers?” I dunno. I actually am more concerned about Pakistan and India finally coming to blows than N. Korea doing anything more than sabre rattling. I don’t think they can afford a war and if they decided to lob a nuke or two at S. Korea or Japan, they know their country would in all likelyhood cease to exist shortly thereafter.
The US military is still structured so that two simultaneous “major” conflicts could be successfully fought - a lesson from WWII. Even if the North Koreans used a war in Iraq as an excuse to invade the South, our forces would still be able to help the South resist (besides, the North Korean economy wouldn’t support a long-term military campaign - they’d have to hope for a swift victory, which isn’t likely.)
Thursday, January 30, 2003 Posted: 7:31 AM EST (1231 GMT)
LONDON, England – Eight European leaders have backed U.S. President George W. Bush calling for tough action to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm, breaking ranks with France and Germany.
In an article in Britain’s Times newspaper and several other papers in Europe and America, the leaders of EU members Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Denmark and applicants Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, appealed for unity in the bloc.
…
