So far the war is going well for the aggressors, U.S. and British forces has advanced very quickly without much losses, and within the next 48 hours I suspect they will be knocking on the ports of Baghdad. But then what happen? Will they fight their way into the city?
I think not. The U.S., no, the public of the world has surprised me with their ultra sensibility for losses. Are people really that naive that they believe that a war can be fought without casualties?
Speaking on naive, did really the U.S. army expect to be welcomed with flowers and kisses?
Did they believe that the Iraqi army would surrender itself without a fight?
I don’t think they did, but that was one scenario presented to the public. This is not a war about liberation. Sure, most Iraqis I know of will gladly take a few bullets to get rid of Saddam and many of them has already done so, but I have not met a single one that wants a U.S. occupation.
Here’s three problems facing the alliance. To keep it short,
U.S. and British casualties. So far not much but already people are shocked. Sooner or later the alliance have to take the battle to where the enemy is. The regime will not collapse by its own weight.
Underestimation of the Middle east mentality. People wont stand for an occupation, and if Saddam or a local tribesman can present himself as a Saladin reborn, people will follow. Even if Saddam is removed, which I have no doubt about, many people will follow a man strong enough to defy the occupation power.
Democracy can not be implemented in Iraq. When Tito died, Yugoslavia felled apart. I believe much the same will happen in Iraq and the world wont allow Iraq with all its oil to split up into three different countries. Therefor either A) a nondemocracy will be installed, or B) U.S. forces has to remain in Iraq for a considerable long time. In either case, the whole project will be viewed as a failure by much of the world.
I’m deeply worried about the current situation. I was strongly against this war, but now when blood is being spilled , my only wish is that it will be a short one, a devastating victory for the alliance and that all the scenarios presented by the Alliance will be profiled. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it will be the case.
So, what do you think? Fiasco?..…
And yes, my English is lame, hope you could understand though.
I share some of your concerns, but I do not have a crystal ball. The war isn’t going to be easy, but let’s get it over and then worry about the post-war period. Much of what unfolds in the war will have influence on what comes afterward.
Actually, yes it will. With the exception of a few Saddam loyals, no one in Iraq is fighting because they want to. They’re fighting because they believe that the consequences of not fighting - a messy death from Saddam - are worse than the consequences of fighting - quick death from the Allies. Once the nation at large begins to feel that defeat is inevitable, they will simply give up. I’ve yet to see evidence that there’s a strong sense of nationality in Iraq. Most of these people just want to live, and return to their families as soon as possible.
The reason we haven’t seen more surrenders is two-fold: First of all, there is the Great Saddamite Propoganda Machine, telling everyone that the US Aggressor is going to give up soon, and that Iraq will win the war. And if Iraq wins, woe be to anyone who surrendered. Secondly, in order to surrender, you first must show up to fight. From what I’ve been seeing, many Iraqi soldiers are just never showing up to begin with. In the first Gulf War, surrenders were much more prevalent, because the Iraqis were relying on the Allied forces to get them home. They couldn’t simply up and leave, they were too far away. Now it’s easier - just walk away.
That being said, this war is going about how I expected it to. There’s some degree of resistence, and some Allied casualties, but overall we’re doing pretty damned well. We’ll soon get to Baghdad, and then one of two things will happen. If we were able to negotiate enough RG surrenders beforehand, Baghdad will pretty much fall on its own, and we just go in to mop up. If the RG decides to bury itself in the town and hide amongst the civilians, then we’ll pretty much surround the city and wait them out, perhaps coming up with some clever methods of flushing them out gradually. Either way, I guarantee you won’t see a massive urban slaughter, unless Saddam decides to use WMDs on his own capital.
Jeff
Interesting, people not showing up to fight. Is that why Basra hasn’t fell yet? Is that why no city is truly captured? They have already shown that they are going to make it a guerrilla war. It will go on forever. Seemingly anyway. Even after the collapse of the regime. Pockets of resistance will hold out for a long time.
ElJeffe, You are absolutely right that much of the Iraqi military wishes for nothing but to surrender and to get rid of Mr. Hussein, but still……
….as long as they are fighting, does it matter why they are fighting as long as they fight?
Besides that…
…I believe there are enough troops with high morale to put up a big fight against the allies once they enter the cities.
Still, while I’m concerned by this since I want the war to end quickly, my biggest concern is what happens when the war is won. There is a real possibility that if the war is not ended quickly enough, people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East will be angered enough to defy the American presence with violent methods. I’ve heard enough talk from people from the M.E. not to believe that there will be some sort of organized resistance once the occupation takes place.
The OP has laid it out pretty much as I’ve envisioned it.
The Sunni minority is doubtlessly fearful of what will happen in Iraq in a post-Saddam world; so some will fight fiercely. Given the unbelievably low expectations as far as the Iraqi resistance to this invasion, that’s all you need to cause shock among the press corps (not the soldiers themselves, who I’m sure aren’t that naive).
The resistance so far has been sporadic and disorganized. That’s both the good news and the bad news, because guerilla warfare may go on for quite some time here, depending on how much loyalty Saddam has built up amongst that portion of the Iraqi populace that would be susceptible to him. Given that he’s been in power for something like 30 years, it would be better for us to overestimate his power base rather than underestimate it.
Also, they should cut Baghdad some slack. The more they pound it, the angrier the people who live there will get, and the more they’ll rally around Saddam. That’s not the outcome the coalition wants. I hear that most of the bombing tonight is taking place on RG positions, and that should continue. Those are the guys that need to be taken out. To the extent that it’s possible, Baghdad should be spared.
When this is all over, I’m going to open up a front against Bush in the Pit, but for now I’ll wait. Saddam, like any ruthless dictator, needed to be taken out, and our soldiers are doing a masterful job of it, and I’ve already raised a glass of wine in their honor. As soon as it’s over, I’m going to unleash some fireworks on the White House. But for now, all I can say is, I hope they get it done as quickly and as painlessly as possible, and then get out before the place does turn into another Yugoslavia. Because, as I’ve noted before, when Saddam is gone they’ll forget about hating him and go back to hating each other. And the U.S., too.
We’ll take the brunt over here in the big cities, which is what I’m steamed about. But that’s a rant for another day.
To be fair, it was the press in the first few days of coverage that gave the impression ofa potentially easy fight. The administration has been consistent in its warnings that the war may not be short.
El Jeffe, however, is being very misleading. In that part of the world, they have a saying: “I’ll fight my brother, but I will stand together with my brother against my uncle. And I will stand together with my uncle against my neighbor.” Saddam is not truly loved by almost anyone, and quietly hated by almost everyone, but neither are the U.S. or the British beloved. The reasons go back to before the start of the century. They may be utterly wrong about us, but that is the perception. You get lots in the media lately about how all the common people really want is for occupiers to liberate them. But this picture selectively cuts out a huge portion of the population that has as many bad feelings for the potential occupiers as for Saddam.
I always hear a hint of racism when people say that the Iraqi’s think differently from people “like us”. All the Iraqi’s I know place a high value on being educated and take a reasonable stand on most matters. I think they would be angry if Iraq were a nice place to live until the Americans showed up and started brutalizing the population.
After the war I think the US and UK take care to make such a large and oil-rich country somewhat stabil like Turkey. Afghanistan? North Korea? What do they have? They might go to hell… but they don’t really matter.
Alright, Apos raises the issue, but I’m calling it.
If you haven’t seen the evidence, you haven’t been watching. I’ve been reading alot of arabic press recently, and it seems to be a resounding theme - that the Iraqi’s will view the US as conquerors, and that the US government is deluded to expect to be treated as liberators.
I’d be glad to link some of those articles, but I can anticipate the criticism of the bias. So how 'bout USA Today:
Nah, USA Today sucks, so how about the Washington Post:
Don’t like American Press, how about the Guardian:
So, if you haven’t seen the evidence, you are uninformed. In fact, can you provide any evidence that the Iraqi public at large wants the US to liberate them?
Japan was officially a democratic nation before WWII, and some would argue that the occupation didn’t really change the government structure. The emperor has been a figurehead for centuries, and the US didn’t change that. I don’t see how it the example is related to the situation in Iraq.
Both Japan and Germany was also fairly homogeneous countries. I dont say that democracy can’t be implemented in a multicultural society, but it makes it alot harder, specially if different ethnical/cultural groups have a long tradition of mistrusting eachother.
ElJeffe, don’t feel the need to respond to my last question. I am aware of evidence that Iraqis do wish to be liberated. Most of that evidence (that I have seen) has come from Iraqi expatriots, however, and I fear their motivations are not the same as those who remain in Iraq.
As I supported, I also see evidence that the majority of Iraq does not desire to be “liberated” by US/UK troops. I find that evidence more compelling, personally.
Oh, that’s true. I’d forgotten about Carol Mosely Braun. Maybe Janie’s prediction will come true after all!
asterion, you’re making Republicans look bad. If you’re not going to try harder on the satire, you should just grunt, “Clinton … bad” over and over in a Frankenstein voice . Maybe you’ll get to host a talk radio show.
