Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Let’s have a little mental exercise.
Let’s hear some thoughts about the endgame for the current Iraq debacle. Think of what the Middle East will look like in February, 2008, and the world in relation to the Middle East. Try looking ahead 5 years.
Here are the rules:
First off, I don’t want this to be a flame-war. If someone presents a scenario you disagree with, please try to come up with your own, reasoned scenario, instead of calling people names.
These are the most likely short-term outcomes I can predict:
1) After no action by the UN, Iraq is invaded unilaterally by the U.S., along with perhaps Britain and a few other allies in early spring 2003.
2) After no action by the UN, The U.S. backs down to international pressure and does not attack. As fuel and parts supplies dwindle in late spring 2003, American carrier groups start to head home, leaving only one or two carriers on station at one time.
3) The UN inspectors find incriminating evidence, but cannot get a majority in the Security Council to authorize the use of force. Following this, the US attacks unilaterally.
4) The UN becomes convinced of Iraqi deception and the Security Council authorizes an attack.
5) The UN finds incriminating evidence, but cannot get a majority in the Security Council to authorize the use of force. Following this, the US does not attack unilaterally.
6) Saddam Bails out and goes into exile.
Pick one of these starting points (perhaps the most likely one in your view, or perhaps simply the most interesting), and go from there. Come up with your own starting point if you fell I may have missed something.
The point of the exercise is, as Hercule Poirot said, “to exercise the little grey cells”. Imagine you are an analyst working for the White House or 10 Downing Street (or whichever government you choose), and pretend that this outline will go to your government as the most likely outcome of all of this. This shouldn’t be a feel-good report, but gut-honest.
This might be an interesting thread to see how people think.
Good luck, and remember, no horsing around. Treat this as seriously as a post-graduate level Foreign Relations exam. If you have comments on someone else's post, we can start a different thread for comments.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 990 times:
Pity Charles' poor, neglected post here....Charles, you've learned the first rule of talk radio and pundit media in general.....don't ask people to actually think a lot. Or, to quote Auto Parts king Ray Zilinsky, "What the American people don't know is what makes them the American people."
But your premise is strong and I find it mentally challenging. So here goes:
The most likely scenario I see is 1) After no action by the UN, Iraq is invaded unilaterally by the U.S., along with perhaps Britain and a few other allies in early spring 2003.. What follows afterward? Anyone's guess. It would make life so much easier to paint a clear picture, and as First Worlders I'm sure you'll agree that we become mentally selfish on things like this...after all, we can predict the weather, health issues, the ride to work, even something as archaic as the stock market. We are a society that craves 'ballpark figures' and that's what makes the coming storm so ominous. It could be over in a week, with an epic Blitzkrieg to Baghdad, a violent dispatch of Saddam by his own men, and a Nuremburg-style filming of those ridiculous giant swords Saddam fancied riding under being blown into dust by the conquering foe.
By all practical purposes, the Iraqi military machine has banked on the fact that attempting to fight in the open desert will mean lots of flaming tanks and carbonized soldiers. Their forces will withdraw and are likely even now encamping in the cities. Basra. Baghdad. Tikrit. Tanks bivouacked next to apartment buildings, schools, hospitals. Places they won't be quite the hopeless targets they were in Gulf War I. Soldiers hiding amongst the concrete. Come in and get us. With that in mind, I will foward a personal opinion that may be a shocker....if we're going to do it, and I am vehemently against doing it, we have to do it now. No politics. No pandering. With every passing day we get closer and closer to the Iraqi summer....lots of daylight to kill in, lots of heat to stifle in. Each passing hour is a tactical waste. Hans, baby, you did your best, but you had too many masters who would settle for nothing else. No sit, rest and watch.
Our first response will be to drain Iraqi cities of power, guaranteeing darkness, which will be our single biggest tactical advantage. Cruise missles carrying EMP producing 'pinches' will overfly and saturate the big cities, frying the simple electronics and capacitors used to run the electrical grid....as well as most things electrical themselves. Development of this weapon has been very secret, and it has not been used wholesale in actual combat. The more successful it is, the more we'll be.
If the Allied military hopes to close the urban combat environment as quickly as possible, it will abide by the notion that the entire city is a war zone. It will not purposely target civies and non-combatants....but it will not radically alter its' tactics to avoid them either. And this is probably not going to happen, which will mean a huge, life-consuming tactical disadvantage for us. In an effort to keep a lid on Iraqi civillian deaths and the inevitable gruesome video footage that will enflame Arab & world opinion even more, Allied generals will rely on tactics and 'smart' weaponry to pinpoint their targets, with minimum collateral damage. Very unwise. In Mogadishu in 93, cut off US forces found that the only way to survive was to shoot at everything. Estimates put the Somali death toll at well over a thousand (versus 18 US soldiers). Clearly not all of those dead Somalis were carrying AK-47s. So if the fighting is to be house to house, lots and lots of people are going to get in the way. And lots are going to die. If the Iraqi tank that's picking off Humvees and troops is hising secure behind a class full of kids, the M1 sent to kill it must shoot through the school. That's war. That's why so many people from Pentagon analysts and retired military people to Dutch teenagers are squirming, grunting and protesting the 'no other option' attitude going into this one.
One other tried and true military demon will be back to haunt the cities, this time used in a way it was never intended...but with shocking effectiveness. Should the Iraqis in any way dabble in chemical warfare, they will feel once again the wrath of the Daisy Cutter. This time the massive fuel air bomb will be used in an urban setting, over the highest concentrations of Saddam's forces. Indeed, chemicals or not, I wouldn't be surprised to see Daisy Cutters used in benign areas on city outskirts, purely for psychological effect.....the message to Iraqi civies: get out, even if Saddam's guys say you'll be killed if you try leaving. Cause clearly you will if you stay.
So now we're grinding through the cities, probably faster than expected, and victory is near. Personally, I cannot fathom the punk, thug and world class coward Saddam making one last martyr's stand in his bunker. He may be spirited out of the city, east to the Iranian frontier, where, with a shave and a clothes change, he becomes just another swarthy dude, off into hiding with his brothers in blood and sadness, Osama and Omar. He may try an airborne escape, and end up in a smoking heap of what was once a Lear Jet. He'll most likely, at a time when misery is thick in the streets of his cities, make a desperate deal to end it all if only one of his fellow Arab countries agrees to take him in. The other countries may be all for it. But by that time, though, you may be looking at upwards of one to two thousand dead Americans coming home in bags, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. Allied forces will have one goal....to visit upon Saddam the personal kind of justice that eluded us on Omar and Osama.
Then what? Iraqi is now a wholly owned subsidiary of 'Coalition Forces' (provided no one else got involved....another VERY ominous prospect is just one chemical tipped Scud landing in an Ariel Sharon-run Israel. What happens after that? I don't know. At best, a 'spirited' Israeli response could mean a 1970s style shutoff of mideast oil to the West...which may yet happen anyway. At worst? It may be the final check off on the list towards World War III).
A post-Saddam Iraq will be a teeming soup of animosity and payback. In an effort to try and maintain peace, Allied forces may find themselves killing the same people who helped them just a few days before....rampaging Kurds or Shiites hell bent on exacting years of pent up vengence on Saddam's Baathists, military elements, tribe. Friedman in the Times is right when he says post-Saddam Iraq will be a 'Balkanized mess'. It will also be an environmental mess, with Saddam already promising a 'scorched Earth' retreat of sabotaged oil wells and heads, destroyed dams..... any jolly free marketer pining about free flowing Iraqi oil opening up the economic morass we sit in better realize it may actually take years to bring that oil to market in the West.
This brings us to your larger question, Charles, of what the Middle East will look like in 2008. Answer: Not much different. The shieks are wont to protect their oil cash-drenched equillibrium, and since we'll by all accounts in 2008 still be very dependent on oil (in classic American shortsightedness, watch a surge of SUV buying once Iraq is settled...and talks of hydrogen power or fuel efficient hybrids will be drowned by the cynical pompousness of the right wing media. Back to 'tree hugging', you wackos)....the shieks will still have their power structure.
Oh, there may be an Iraq struggling at making democracy work, having been become almost entirely addicted to the aid flowing from the States, like Afghanistan has. There might even be a new and fresh voice of reform in the region, spear headed by the success of burgeoning democracy in the Gulf States, and visionaries like King Abdullah in Jordan. But not much will have changed. There's nothing happening in Israel right now to lead me to believe that any of the core issues are even near being approached again. The Settlements will continue gangbusters under Sharon, and the violence will be the hopeless, empty response. Israelis may be getting hopeful at the early prospects of 'The Palestinians-after-Arafat', but they shouldn't get their hopes up. The Palestinians will accept nothing less than 'Israel-After-Likud' dominance. Let's just hope the big walls will be built by then.
No, the real question I'm fascinated with is not what the Middle East will look like in 2008, Charles. It's what the United States will look like.
At some point in the next few weeks, those 30 to 40 percent of the population in this country who have a problem with George W. Bush's governance from the far right of our national spectrum are going to wake up and turn on CNN to find that US forces are rumbling towards Baghdad. "He actually went and did it..." will be the first response. Liberals and moderates are living in this street demonstration fantasy world that maybe such an overt display of opinion will change Hopalong's mind. Please. There's bidness to be done.
Now, if the best case scenarios transpire, anti-war grumbling will simmer down and be forgotten. But if the body count of young Americans goes beyond a few hundred, things will start to become ugly. If it hits a thousand, welcome to 1968. Over a thousand? Then that seeting hate for liberalism that lives inside every staunch rightie will grow proportionately in a larger and larger symphony of liberal & moderate voices towards Bush-brand conservatism. The streets of Paris & Berlin today could become the streets of Atlanta & Denver tommorow. The marches this weekend were peaceful. When a new generation of young people watches their brothers, sisters & PlayStation II buddies come home with a toe tag, you may rest assured the ornreyness of the Baby Boom in the 60s will return tenfold. One year from today we could be living in a country returning to some sense of balance after a banner Iraqi campaign. Or we could be living in a culture tearing itself to shreds, split evenly and unmovably as to whether George Bush remains their President or not. And all of this is based on there not being another 9/11 style attack on America, for I guarantee you that the national unity that followed that Tuesday morning is gone. After 9/11 all of America united behind George Bush. After the next one, half of America will be calling for his impeachment, feeling he's unable to protect the country he swore to defend , too busy with a personal(and, after another major domestic terror attack, moot) crusade in the Iraqi desert and his never ending quest to satisfy his right wing and super-rich cores. All of this will hinge on those body bags.
As much of a soothsayer as I have attempted to be, there are, in this modern world, any number of variables that could radically throw off this time line. Kim Jong Il put out another exhortation of victory over America over the weekend. He clearly is using the fear of the Great Satan to glue together what may be a society even closer to hopeless implosion than anyone guessed. Many very intelligent people from all across the poilitical spectrum are demanding that the North Korea issue be dealt with.....right now. We're sending 250,000 soldiers to deal with Saddam and leaving 30,000 to the mercy of Kim, who may decide to steamroll into Seoul on the very day we tiptoe into Baghdad. This could be a bitter spring.
And after all that, I'm exhausted at the possibilities, except to say this, and I say it without malice or slant towards or away from any opinion or sense of right that my fellow Americans may ascribe toward.....whatever does happen to us, whether as an action or response to action, happens to us all courtesy of a leadership we deserve.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13303 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 979 times:
Outstanding post, Heavymetal, sadly I agree with it too.
Blair in the UK puts a convincing moral case, and lazy 'Bush's poodle' jibes ignore that using force to confront what he sees as unaccepable regimes or groups, is part of his political make up, he's demonstrated that a lot since becoming PM in 1997, but he's a very odd Labour leader, most of his own party are not with him on Iraq, at least without a clear UN resolution allowing force.
So over here we are faced with an unusual situation, while there has always been a minority opposed to any military action, having a large slice of the forces going into an unpopular war is unknown here, at least since Suez in 1956.
Wide support for the Falklands, (a small, but difficult and bloody conflict), the Gulf in 1991, Kosovo in 1999.
Even the nastiness of Northern Ireland was accepted, if only due the realization that not to deploy, or to just leave, could have meant a bloody little civil war in the province.
When the shooting starts, most will back the troops out of instinct, that may well not carry over to the PM though, however the huge size of the anti-war demo in London last Saturday, (biggest one in UK history), has emboldened the anti's, who talk of civil disobedience, disruptions against military bases, (maybe not a smart idea with this terrorist alert going on).
If Iraq is bloody, with an unsatisfactory conclusion, Blair is history, won't help the Conservatives as most of them are more pro-war than the PM, Gordon Brown will be a much more domestically inclined PM, much less keen to use the forces, the US won't lose their best ally, but they won't be as anywhere near as proactive in support of the US, I should point out that most of the anti-war people are not anti-US, just anti-Bush, the PM should worry when many of them supported the 1991 war, Kosovo, even many ex-military people.
Hopefully if war does come, not many body bags will come home, but if they do, we'll soon see if Bush really is a 'war leader'.
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 973 times:
After following world politics for the last 20 years, I'll make it very short:
1. In the Middle East nothing will change because,
a. there remains an Israel-Palestine conflict unsolved, therefore all criteria for ongoing violence are fully active.
b. Western governments do not actually want the situation in the ME to change, as it could strengthen OPEC, which could use its power over most of the world's oil reserves to the bad of USA/EU.
c. With the exception of the USA (sometimes, at least, though I'm not sure if it is so) there are no elections to be one by foreign policy achievements.
2. In Korea there will be changes, North Korea will cease to exist sooner or later, there are many things there that remind of the situation of Eastern Germany in the 80ies, with well-known consequences. It might take a little longer though.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13303 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 970 times:
I'm not optimistic about DPRK, in East Germany, most knew what life in the west was like, in DPRK the cult of personality and paranoia is much stronger, plus all TVs and radios (for those that have them), are set to only receive government propaganda.
They'll fight, most have no knowledge of any other way of life.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 950 times:
Nice overview. You've identified many of the issues and possible outcomes of the situation.
It's really tough to write down in a short (post-sized) report the probable outcome. I notice that you don't really try to do that, and I don't blame you. When I started mine (I still have to finish it), I started with a probability tree, which I suppose many of you are familiar with. If you are familiar with the concept, you'll know that the number of possible outcomes is staggering - something I probably underestimated when I set up the thread.
Anyway, good start (thanks for saving the thread from death ) and I'll post my thought tomorrow. I hope others will chip in as well.