There is a lot of different opinion about what is going to happen in Iraq, and I thought this might be a good place to note your predictions and analysis, as well as discuss it.
My analysis and prediction is as follows:
Bush has specific information concerning Saddam’s weapons programs gained from Humint, and this has colored his actions as well as the wording of the UN resolution.
On or about Dec 8, Saddam is required to disclose the full extend of his proscribed weaponry and his programs in relation to it. He will fail to do so completely and shortly thereafter Bush will likely reveal the “smoking gun” evidence he has against Saddam. I say “likely” because there is a possibility that that source[s] is still in country and needs to be extracted first.
Our bombing of targets in the “no fly” zone suggests that we already have a military presence inside Iraq, probably of the small special forces variety, just as we had in Afghanistan. They may be involved in extractions and preparations for war against Iraq.
By February our troops will be committed inside Iraq in a large scale invasion along with a coalition.
Given the instability in Israel/Palestine, I predict that Saddam will attempt to lob either a small nuke or some nasty chemicals into Israel. Whether he succeeds or not, Israel will most likely respond, which will ignite a widespread Muslim resistance to all western nations.
Vietnam will look like a cakewalk compared to what’s coming, unless W and Gen. Powell can keep the Israelis from responding.
Whether one believes it’s because of Saddam’s inherent Eevill-ness, or because we’ve set things up that way, there will be a “material breach” by Iraq. This will be followed quickly by mobilization of US and British forces; the case for action will be made congruently at the UN.
Al Basra will fall within the first days, possibly hours. The entire territory south of the Euphrates and below Al Kut will quickly be under Coalition control.
In the North, the Kurds will retain control until they either engage with Iraqi forces or with Coalition troops, or until the Turks get too concerned about an independent Kurdish state and invade from the north. Turks, Iraqis or Coalition forces will then be subjected to the tactics Kurds have employed for millenia; they will harass, resist and generally make occupation of the North miserable and expensive.
Republican Guard and regular Army will take entrenched positions in and around Bagdhad, and will be quickly isolated by Coalition bombing and land forces. As the entirety of Iraqi home defense becomes concentrated in Bagdhad, and it becomes clear that there will be no coup or expulsion of Saddam, the Coalition’s choices will simplify into three possibilities:[ul][li]Settle into a long, brutal siege, starving and tactically bombing the Iraqis into eventual surrender and execution of Saddam. Massive suffering in Bagdhad, minimal loss of Coalition forces. Backlash of world opinion against the US strengthens the longer the siege continues. Moderate peace protests in US.[]Begin a tactical siege, with stepped-up bombing to soften up enemy forces followed by intensive fighting within the city. Massive death and destruction, high loss of Coalition forces, but quicker resolution. Heavy peace protests in US, tapering off upon liberation of Bagdhad; moderate increase in anti-US sentiment abroad.[]Tactical troop placements keeping Iraqi troops entrenched enables total bombing campaign. Bagdhad reduced to ruins. Massive death and destruction. Minimal loss of Coalition forces. Brief but spectacular peace protests in the US; spectacular increase in anti-US sentiment world wide.[/ul]The second option evokes images of flag draped coffins and slipping popularity numbers for the sitting President; option 2 is out. Americans are interested in a decisive resolution with as little loss of American lives as we can get away with, so option 3 may be considered. However, this is a first term President who wishes to have a 2nd term, and who may therefor see the advantages of a victory optimally timed for Autumn, 2004. If this looks as if it can be achieved with minimal American bodybags, option 1 will get the nod.[/li]
I’m neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently heartless to speculate on the nightmarish blowback possibilities of this war. However, a scenario similar to Ex Tank’s missiles-into-Israel gambit seems entirely plausible.
Oh, I suppose I should state why not, huh? [ul][]Saddam is not suicidal.[]Saudi Arabia has already told us to piss off, and they ain’t changing their minds.[]The U.S. plus Britain is not a coalition, and ain’t nobody else joining up.[]All Iraq has to do is give up some of his toys, then six months from now the sanctions will be over and he can do whatever the hell he wants.[/ul]There will be no war.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**three possibilities:[ul][li]Settle into a long, brutal siege, starving and tactically bombing the Iraqis into eventual surrender and execution of Saddam. Massive suffering in Bagdhad, minimal loss of Coalition forces. Backlash of world opinion against the US strengthens the longer the siege continues. Moderate peace protests in US.[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]
Ben Stein gave a slightly different version of the siege of Baghdad when he was on one of the late night talk shows. In his version, a ring of moving tanks would continually circle the city, allowing innocents to flee the city between the gaps.
Ring of tanks, eh? Did Ben mention any monkeys flying out of Rumsfeld’s butt, by any chance? -Seriously, though, no siege would be airtight; there would certainly be refugees out of the city. Going south.