Contrary to the constant pronounements of politicians and their mouthpieces in the corporate media, I don’t think an attack on Iraq is inevitable. There is still time to stop it, I think, if there is enough public opposition. As far as I know, I don’t think there has ever been this much opposition to a war before the war has even started. That said, I am wondering what people think are the possible outcomes of the war. In particular, what if the war does not go according to plan, which is quite likely.
It would appear that there will be problems with any outcome. On the one hand, if Iraq really has been mostly disarmed, as they claim, the war could go quickly. Bush could get his wish, the Republican Guard could turn on Saddam and surrender quickly, the people of Iraq will cheer the entrance of U.S. tanks into Bagdhad, and everyone will live happily ever after. If this happens, though, will Bush have to admit he was lying the whole time about the overwhelming threat posed to the world by Iraq?
Another possibility is that Iraq has been mostly disarmed, but does put up a fight anyway. We could see some pretty nasty house to house fighting. There are 5 million people living in Baghdad. Imagine the last 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. That’s what it would be like, but over a period of weeks or months, with massive loss of life.
Another possibility is that Iraq does have some massive weaponry, and will use it if the U.S. invades. If what Bush says is true about their weapons of mass destruction, then there could be heavy U.S. casualties.
I honestly don’t see how this can work out well for Bush. Given the already sizeable domestic resistance to the war, I can’t see but how this resistance will grow as the war goes on. This will not be like Desert Storm, unless the first possibility is realized, and the Iraqi military just gives up right off the bat. If the American populace is allowed to see the devastation the war will bring, popular opinion could quickly turn on Bush. Even if there is a quick victory, I can’t imagine that there won’t be significant resistance to the American occupation.
Bush himself is an idiot who only has the vaguest idea of what is going on, but the people behind him are pretty smart. There goals of regional domination are well-known, so they do see that up-side. But are they hiding their heads in the sand about the down-sides? Maybe I am missing something here.
The war could be stopped if the Iraqis overthrow Saddam. It might be stopped if Saddam fulfills his agreements regarding WMDs. It will not be stopped by anti-war protestors.
I think you’re incorrect about the war having the most opposition. There was enormous opposition to WWI. Most Americans felt that they needn’t get involved in a far-off battle. Many Amercans supported the Germans. Even WWII had less support. Note that the US held back until we were directly attacked.
No. It would mean that Bush was right to start the war before Iraq got nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the overthrow of Saddam would mean the the Iraqi people would no longer be ruled by a monster.
I’m not concerned about how it works for Bush. I’m concerned about how it works out for the people of the world.
I suspect that you are over-estimating the opposition because you hang out with opponents of the war. The war already has pretty good support, even though it hasn’t begun and the President hasn’t committed to war. Once the President says war is necessary and the war begins, support will be overwhelming.
It may not be fair to blame Saddam for 9/11, but polls show that most of public sees them as related. During the first Gulf War, Peter Arnett of CNN was broadcasting Iraqi propaganda from Beirut. His broadcasts cntributed to a decision to end the war too soon. However, this time, I think the American public would not be as upset at devastation in Iraq because of 9/11.
** j_kat_251** – wars that went well include the recent war with Afghanistan, the 1991 war with Iraq, as well as Panama and Grenada, and Clinton’s bombing in the former Yugoslavia, and the Falkland Islands. Obviously, any war includes human tragedies, but I believe these wars did more good than harm.
It’s impossible to predict what will happen in a play with so many actors, especially when all of them writing their own parts.
I would wager the crux is Saddam’s personal response. The accounts of the Gulf War I’ve read make him out to be a military dunderhead, on the same self-absorbed page as Hitler - his generals are realistic, but he isn’t.
Frankly, if I were an Iraqi general, I would be drafting my surrender terms about now, and making sure I can survive the intitial bombardment so I can deliver them. The RG units, however, may be too closely tied to Saddam to act on such thoughts. I would expect them to make an attempt at defense, if they are not broken by airstrikes before the grunts move in. The regular army units, however, shouldn’t offer much resistance - hell, even if they did, they’re completely outclassed.
There are also the concerns that the Pentagon is going to chuck the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force and use a small force to drive to Baghdad. Yes, I don’t like this war, but if it’s going to happen, I don’t want it fought half-assed in the interests of experimentation.
As for the chems, I don’t think Saddam is going to have a chance to use them. The ground attack is going to be fast, and his missile systems are inaccurate and better suited for terror than quick tactical use.
If I were Saddam, I’d want to make the Americans pay and go the scourched-earth route. I’d wire key buildings in Baghdad with explosives, some chemical dispersion maybe, then wait until U.S. troops enter said buildings. Blammo. And if I were really insane, I’d blanket the city with every nerve agent I had and blame it on the Americans. Saddam has some real supervillain opportunities coming up.
Even if the war goes well, I think it may have some long-term results that will come back to haunt us.
One of my fears is that war will ultimately result in casualties for American civilians. The may U.S. may successfully oust Hussein, but at a cost of further enflaming already militant anti-American Islamic groups. I wouldn’t be surprised if it lead to more acts of terrorism within the U.S.
I’m also very leary of adopting a pre-emptive strike policy. It sets a scary precedent, not only for the U.S., but for the rest of world.
As far as support at home, I think that as long as there are few American casualties, people will generally be supportive. However, if it turns into a lengthy occupation with a high body count, that support will evaporate.
Chumpsky, I’m pretty sure you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about. First off, I think its highly unlikely you will see Iraqi civilians taking to the streets with socks full of deisel fuel and C4 to throw at American M1 tanks.
All that aside, the only opposition I see to the war are some wackos with their arts and craft signs hanging out in Union Square. Most of us have more important things to worry about like not getting laid off.
The only REASON I am hearing for not invading Iraq is that “people might get killed”. That is not a valid reason. Personally I would rather not wait until there’s another massive attack on American soil before we act.
I would like to know if you know what you are talking about. Please tell us how you think the the Battle for Baghdad will play out.
If Saddam is smart, he would abandon the rest of the country, and pull the his entire military machine within the city limits, then fight an urban guerilla war, all the while lobbing his WMD’s at the Allies massed outside the city. What has got to lose?
If he tries to defend the borders, he is toast. But if he forces the Allies to fight it out in the streets, he can inflict heavy casualties, which will play well on the nightly news, and there will be high civialian loses as well, which will turn world opinion against the Bush Alliance.
Saddam’s only hope is a protracted war of attrition, and if he survives until after the 2004 election, President Gore will withdraw the troops to the great relief of a war-weary American public. Saddam will be the new Castro, only this time he has plenty of resources, like oil, to fund his anti-American activities, while the CIA plots devious schemes to make his moustache fall out.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
You can be sure it leads to more acts of terrorism, all over the world! And I do not think the terrorists are coming from Iraq. As they did not come from there the last time either.
Let me be the devils advocate for Saddam. (And I really mean devils advocate with a as sick brain as Saddam has. What has he to lose?):
First day of war I tell him to move and be seen in another town. Also his presumed 2 - 3 alias should go to other towns and stay in a very well guarded building or group of buildings.
After that he and his aliases should move to other towns.
His family members should also be scattered to different towns.
This so that there could be about ten different places where he can be supposed to be. In all these places there should remain heavy guards as usual, army units etc., and he should not go public after this in any circumstances.
(And when USA comes near Bagdad that should be the last place where Saddam should be).
This would make sure that USA do not know where to find him, as little as they know, after a victorious war in Afghanistan, where bin Laden is.
Secondly Saddam should make a will, or type of commitment: every cell of organized terrorism would be given money after results etc. If You do not believe he has money, You believe wrong.
Saddam should forget everything about his tanks etc. They can just be buried down , at the strategical points near the towns, near a many-level appartement buildings.
Do not drive them and show them for the cameras that recognize heat. Just hide. Let the US-planes fly as they like. Use the tanks like a artillery and let the US-artillery, when hitting back also demolish the building, ten meters away. Remove people from the buildings before attacks, show concern about them and tell that the army is here to protect them etc. etc. (People believe anything when “Hannibal ante portas”).
After the attacks and demolition, let the people see what has happened = every killed solidier is a martyr, every bombed building shouts for revange etc.
Scatter the residents to their relatives all over the town. better propaganda-makers You hardly find.
The real war has begun.
So what can USA do with their planes, what can the fleet do? Send planes flying around? Fly around and bomb the cities?
If people have not been against USA, they soon will, within hours or so.
If You want to know how it looks like, look at some news from Grozny, in Chechenia. I have not spotted there one building that is intact! Some of You probably has parabole antennas and can take in the Russian channels, Grozny is almost everyday news. Try 16.00 - 19.00 Greenwich time.
Last weekend I saw a film about sniper-equipment. It was a about 1,7 meter long gun that a sniper could easily move, I estimate it to be something like 20 kg.
It had a very powerful telescope, the recoil was not very bad when the guy shot with it.
I think there is nothing new about this?
But for me, not a general, just a poor devils advocate, the bullets where enourmous. The caliber was 12,7 mm (half an inch)!!! The range was 2 km and the guy could hit a melon!
The solidiers giving up fighting? Do the Stalin-thing: Work in groups of 5 - 20 solidiers with guns, no mmo in them, just two three politrucks that can shoot anyone who begins to load his gun without orders. When the enemy is near the politrucks stands behind with machine-guns. (See the film about Stalingrad from 2001, Paramouunt Pictures with Bob Hoskins. I do not know the name of the original film. It is very thruthful, and as a curiosity, no-one of my Russian friends wants to lend the video-tape from me about this film. [I collect historical films as a sub-hobby, when I anot Devil’s advocate.])
Saddam has bought very much weaponary from Russia. If he bought 10.000 or 30.000 of these, before mentioned sniper-guns, I do not know, but as a devils advocate I would like that he would do so.
It suits his army best, no offence, but it is so. Push the button/trigger from far away, that is the new war-fare style.
I just wonder where else he has bought “these or those toys”?
If You do not believe that almost everybody is selling, You believing is, let’s say, “not from this world”. To put it polite.
The sniper shoots from 1,5 km targeting a lorry, a solidier (he can even estimate the rank). How difficult do You think that the attacking solidiers have to locate from what house, shed or whatever it came from? Was it the farmers building over there, or was it the 3rd floor from that building, or the 5th of that building? Shall we bomb them all?
For Saddam, minas comes pretty handy. It slows down the attackers and 1, 5 km to 2 km is quite a long way to search for minas when there is snipers around.
What does a sniper need? Ammo, patience and Coca-cola? Well, I do not know about the Coca-cola…
Concentrating some 20 - 40 snipers at any route where the attacking army is known to come, will make a hell of disaster?
You do not believe me? Ask Grozny.
In Grozny was no ABC-TV telling “how’s things going?”
The Russian snipers are very effective in night-time. They just shoot on everything that moves and change places.
So did Vietcong have any planes? No! Saddam should just give away all planes.
A plane to every kamikaze-terrorist (or in this case kamikaze-patriot, it is a war isn’t it?). Fill it up and wave good-buy.
How far can a plane reach? I do not know.
I saw a film about the Iraqian woman battallion. No offence, but it looked funny when they trained for war. But again, with right equipment, they could be very determinated about their doing.
I would not like to meet these ladies.
“How much chemical weapons do You have Saddam?”
I, looking at the list he overhands to me: “Well, do not use them. Spread these to those guys that can use it in the terror attacks. Give them 100.000 USD each group and they can come through any border to the neighbouring countries. The Turkish border is the best. They have lots of ports, just use the coco-guys as usual. Pack everything in washing-mashine-powder packets. Use Procter & Gambler packages. The have this un-popular trademark “Ariel”, sold badly the last year all over in the Arabic countries, so it is natural to smuggle it to Turkey for re-selling. This kind of stuff needs only small bribes.
Syria has also many ports, and they do not love so much USA, but they love dollars.”
-“Why the fuck should I give away them?”
“First of all, if we give the lot to 20 groups and the money, it will only cost 2 million bucks. If 5 groups comes through, it is much more than we can do here. A reward for using it, could be 200.000 USD each, meaning max. 1 million.
And no compensation if they hit Israel, it will be too heavy guarded…, they just get caught.
But Rome or something… Hm, do You like Vatican? Neither do I.
Anyhow, the total will sum up max. 3 million USD.
That You can caugh up in a half an hour.
Secondly, when the US army does not find anything here, we can just laugh at our resort, sipping Bloody Mary’s. It is a pity that Osama does not drink.”
You have quite a lot of Semtex from former Chechoslowakia. Give also that away. Even CIA agreed on this the last month. They do not usually have good plans, but I am not working for them, am I?
Anyhow, if this stuff is situated here in Iraq, it is situated in the wrong country, don’t You think? I heard that You have bought as many train-wagons of Semtex that it will be enough to all the terrorists around the world, if this level of terrorism continues, for some 200 years?"
“I can clearly see that You are reading New York Times!
OK!, How long do You think the war will take?”
“Honestly; in this country about 2 - 4 months, in the world something like 20 - 30 years. It will be a good war, do not worry, The Devil is very pleased with You.”
OK guys!
You will say I am wrong. I am bad, I am sick, the world is much nicer than me. I hope You are right!
I really pray that I am wrong, but please tell me on what point, except on that that Saddam is not thinking so evil thoughts that I am.
Saddam has officially proclaimed that the next war is in the cities, he will not face the US army at the borders.
There is a lot more cities in Iraq than Bagdad, there is a lot of oil-idustries, pipelines etc.
M1 tanks in a city? A more foolish plan can’t be thought of. Exept by the Russian generals that tried it in Grozny. It ended in a disaster. For the Russians and the city.
msmith537 wrote:
I hope You open a window also to the world, not only to the Union Square.
Internet has many windows, in many languages other than English. Try some and You will be thinking that the whole world is filled with wackos.
I have myself tried to learn English, but even if I think I understand the lingua quite well, I usually do not understand the thinking from the other side of the Big Water. Nor my tribe.
Maybe we only understand the wackos over there.
I hope the next president in every country, naturally including Iraq, is a wacko.
Well, the wacko race is the biggest race in the world, as far as I can see, beginning with the EU-parlament, ending at the kolhos-workers here nearby, taking care of 24.000 pigs.
It does seem quite likely that we will see some pretty nasty urban warfare. As for the WMD, that seems unlikely.
World opinion is already against the Bush Alliance. This will only get worse, of course. The question is whether the rest of the world can do anything about it. I fear they will not be able to.
As for the “nightly news,” no doubt they will fulfill their traditional role as cheerleader for the U.S. military.
Unlikely. Saddam bears no resemblance to Castro, and Gore is just as much a war monger as Bush. You will recall that it was the Clinton/Gore regime that waged siege warfare against the population of Iraq for 8 years, and formulated the official policy of “regime change” in Iraq. Like most ultra-privileged elites, Gore loves war.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. **
[/QUOTE]
I think you might be underestimating the will of Iraqis to resist the invasion. While it is certainly true that most have no real love for Saddam, they rightly blame the U.S. for their torture over the last decade. Saddam was a brutal Fascist, but like some Fascists he did invest in the country. You will recall that at the end of the 1980’s, Iraq was by far the most advanced Arab country. They had a high literacy rate, free education through the Ph.D. level, free health care for all, etc. Iraq was described as “an emerging First World country,” on the verge of becoming as rich and advanced as some western European countries. It was no paradise, but there were very many good things about it, relatively. All of this was destroyed by the U.S. led coalition in 1991, and the sadistic sanctions destroyed what that war didn’t. Now Iraq has been pushed back deep into the Third World.
So, while there is probably little love for Saddam, there is far less for the U.S. Coupling that with the natural desire of people to not be invaded and occupied by a foreign power, I wouldn’t be surprised if Iraq put up a good fight before being ground underfoot by the U.S.
I don’t think this is unrelated to the Iraq war. The fact is that a U.S. victory in Iraq will be a severe blow to the working people of the world. This will only whet the appetites of U.S. imperialists for more war and more repression.
And, of course, you are mistaken about the quality and quantity of the anti-war movement.
Another? Perhaps I missed the first time Iraq attacked American soil.
However, since you have not learned about the reasons for opposing the war, perhaps it would behoove you to inform yourself before advertising your ignorance. There are numerous reasons for not going to war, aside from the fact that “people might (!?) get killed” is in itself a valid reason for not waging war. There are numerous resources on the net for finding out why people are opposed to war, for example: Stephen Zunes’, The case against war. Shalom/Albert Q&A on the case against war MERIP backgrounder on Iraq and war
Basically, what it boils down to is that every reason given for going to war is either a lie or the rankest hypocrisy, and the consequences for the vast majority will be negative to disastrous. The consequences for the usual beneficiaries of war–western capitalists–are questionable.
I am inclined to believe Scott Ritter and the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to Ritter, Iraq was 90-95% disarmed by 1998. According to the IAEA, Iraq is a decade away from developing one viable nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the U.S./U.K. have been constantly surveilling Iraq, and have not detected anything. Making WMD, at least the chemical or nuclear types, is not something that is easy to hide, especially when you are under a magnifying glass like Iraq has been.
When has that ever happened? The U.S. mass media has always supported the U.S.'s wars. They have always repeated every lie coming out of the White House as if it was gospel, and they have always downplayed the negative consequences of wars, or simply ignored them, as in the first Gulf War.
Only when the elite turns against war does the mass media follow suit. You will recall, for example, that the entire liberal establishment, almost without exception, supported the Vietnam War up until 1968. It was only after Tet, when it became clear that the war was unwinnable, that the business community turned against the war, since it was too costly. Only after this did some in the media become anti-war.
As it stands now, the mass media is 99% pro-war. I am trying to think of a mainstream voice that dissents from the pro-war line, but I can’t think of one. Sure, there are disagreements over tactics, but the morality or legality of such a war are beyond question, and on the fundamental assumptions, they all agree. Indeed, the propaganda coming out of the mass media is something I have never seen the likes of. It is really kind of amazing to watch. You would think that there would be at least one person with some intellectual integrity, but nope, they all tow the line. Such a collection of lapdogs is unlikely to ever make a principled stand, unless their masters have a change of heart and decide that the costs are too high.
The way to stop the war from happening is to make the cost of waging the war too high. This is still possible, I think.
Tell you what. If you like to invade Iraq so much, you should do it personally. All these people who are so in favour of invading, round them up - including Bush, Cheney, and Blair - give them some training, and send them as the first wave into Iraq.
When up close and personal, a lot of people will have second thoughts about “people might get killed.”
I agree. In fact, I think this is a virtual certainty. This is what puzzles me about the current rush to go to war. This is such an obvious down-side that you would think it would somewhat blunt the hyper-aggressive war posturing.
It is not a new precedent. It is the continuation of a very consistent U.S. policy, but cranked up a few notches. And, obviously the administration does not believe a word they are saying, since the consequences of their being taken seriously would be disastrous for the rest of the world. They do not believe that anybody–except them–has the right to “pre-emptive strikes.” It is a matter power. As George Bush the First put it, “What we say goes.”
I’m not so sure about that. I have talked to dozens of people over the last few weeks about their opinions on the war. I would say that about half and half were for it and against it. But, the thing is, the people who are for the war very quickly drop their support once you start questioning the reasons for going to war, and point out the lies they have been told.
The Bushites are playing on fear to press their own agenda. I wrote a letter to my senator (McCain) expressing my opposition to the war. His office wrote me back. The second sentence of the reply began, “The attacks of September 11…” You see, the attacks of 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Yet, they are using this to scare people into accepting what they want to do. If you can sort of interrupt that thought pattern, support for the war evaporates.
The question is, I think, is there enough time to reach enough people and interrupt their thought patterns, to sort of de-propagandize enough people to build enough resistance to the war to stop it. Maybe, maybe not.
I wanted to post this prediction in a public forum, to keep myself honest, and to document in a provable way that I made it.
This is not going to be a long-drawn-out, or (on the US side) bloody war. It is going to be roughly as quick as the Gulf War was, and with casualties on the same order of magnitude (on the US side).
Most likely scenario is that the bombs start to fall, and some member of Saddam’s palace guard empties a clip into the Glorious Leader, issues a statement that Saddam died in defense of Iraq, and opens negotiations with the US for a cease-fire. All this within about two weeks after the first US bombing raid.
I don’t believe the Iraqi people are going to fight.
Iraqis are going to die, probably quite a few of them. This is going to be nasty for them, make no mistake about it. But the dire predictions of a bogged-down US military waging door-to-door actions with a fight-to-the-last-gasp Iraqi military backed up by civilian guerrillas is not at all realistic.
There, a public prediction. If it works out like that, I am entitled to say “I told you so”.
If I am completely wrong, I can always hope nobody noticed.
Set aside the War on Terror and the threat of WMDs. From a standpoint of common humanity, we ought to overthrow Saddam’s evil government. Anyone who cares about the welfare of the Iraqi people should support the overthrow effort. Here are some horrifying details.
