http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19221-2003Jan20.html I found this part interesting, since France is basically admitting that they believe Iraq has ongoing WMD programs: "If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end," de Villepin told reporters. "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process." The German perspective: ""Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground," Fischer said." So the weapons declaration and the list of scientists that Iraq supplied, and even Blix said were incomplete and 'not a serious effort', are signs of full compliance? This statement is absolutely ridiculous, and flies in the face of 12 years of Iraqi noncooperation.
"If the United Nations is going to be relevant," he (Colin Powell) added, "it has to take a firm stand." Wow, either you are with us or are irrelevant. Will Bush tear down the UN building in New York if France vetos a resolution to attack Iraq? Hopefully I'm wrong but it seems that with so many troops being sent to the Persian Gulf the President has his mind made up. If we don't wait for the UN or worse have a resolution to attack vetoed and enter Iraq anyway it's going to be an absolute nightmare.
Here's a basic decision tree on this whole thing. 1. We go to the UN for a resolution to go in. France and Germany veto. 2. We express our outrage. 3a. We either go in 3b. or don't...if we're not in by March 1st, we're probably not in. 4a. Assume 3a -- we go in; then its either 5a. Terrible destruction, huge civilian casualties, Republican guards fighting to the last man, scuds coming over with chemical weapons or... 5b. Slick, quick, relatively surgical with --air defenses taken out in the first six hours --troops in day 2 --Iraqui troops putting up minimal if any fight --we're in Baghdad by day 3 --Saddam is lunching with Khaddafi Day 4 --minimal civilian and US/Brit casualties --new government established 5b. is clearly the most optimistic scenario, but I put the odds of THAT happening as way greater than the odds of 5a happening. So, let's suppose the decision tree leads to 5b...then what?? for our French and German friends? Is this the "dead end" that they think is so inevitable? It will be VERY interesting to see how it plays out.
The French are just looking for some attention. They're not as "powerful" as they once were and they're feeling left out.
On a related story, the Iraqi army recently bought a number of French weapons. They're 60 years old, but still in excellent condition--never fired, only dropped once. Alex
France and Germany will be good little boys and toe the line. France just likes to act like a teenager shrieking to her parent that she is an independent adult. Okay, whatever, Francine. The vote was already 15-0 to authorize force and Iraq has already non-complied. Case closed. It will be another unanimous vote when the time comes, shortly I imagine, within the next month.
Karl, there was a UN report that was revealed by a anti-war group in England recently. The UN, needing to prepare for war, estimated 500,000 Iraqi casualties and three million refugees. So while our casualties may be minimal, relatively speaking, that is not telling the whole story. Unless Iraqi civilians don't count in the equation. Naturally the thing that gets a humanitarian crisis of that scale started is the tactics of modern warfare. The first thing we will do is take out all the infrastructure in the country. There is actually a debate going on right now on whether, perhaps this time around the initial annihilation of Iraqi infrastructure can be less than the last time around. In the words of the military, a "constrained" target list, as opposed to a more "robust" one. "The administration and military officials also are finalizing a list of targets for the air campaign that would start a war. Officials said in interviews that some State Department officials argue for a "constrained" target list, while some commanders want a more robust one. Whichever side prevails, the air-war phase will not be as broad-based or long-lasting as Desert Storm in 1991." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030120-17104955.htm The French position of continuing with inspections makes sense for a number of reasons, one of which is that this type of disaster might be avoided.
If this happens, opinion both domestically and internationally will turn against the war pretty quickly.
France has a traditional of saying this kind of thing. They also said the same thing 10 years when French troops were actually in the Persian Gulf. They voted "yes".
Agreed. We cannot plan for a battle that has this as a possible outcome. And I bet we haven't. I would surmise that the success of our plan depends on Iraqi troops surrendering/not fighting, much as they did in Desert Storm. I would also surmise that throught the use of Special Forces and other methods we have been in ongoing contact with key military leaders there and have paved the way for pretty much unforced entry. And lastly, I would not be surprised if fairly elaborate coup d'etat plans are in place. But if the Iraqi Army decides to withdraw into urban areas, get into the seige mentality, and engage in street fighting, house to house combat...then it is quagmire. I think in that case we simply stand off, and wait them out. If we have control of vast quantities of Iraqi territory, I think only a few pockets of the truly fanatical will fight to the bitter end...if that.
You would bet we have not planned for a battle that has that outcome, but I am not so sure. First, I have not seen any evidence that a humanitarian crisis will be averted by a quick war. It might be lessened, but no one seems to think that even in a best case scenario there will not be tremendous consequences. Part of the reason for this is that Iraq has already been weakened by a decade of sanctions. Interestingly, I have seen evidence that Iran -- part of the supposed "Axis of Evil" -- and Turkey are making contingency plans to accomodate massive amounts of refugees. Their ability to cope is unlikely (see quote below). I have not, however, seen evidence that the U.S. is making serious plans for this expected result of an invasion. Perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary. "Iran is determined to prevent entry of Iraqi refugees to its territory and will shelter them at its borders," Deputy Interior Minister for Refugees Ahmad Hosseini said last year. "We foresee 16 places for sheltering the refugees with a capacity of 700,000, but we have food only for 50,000." http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/...d2a7660bab9cb040c1256cad005ee2eb?OpenDocument
FOUL! Non sequiter. "Bush" and "Plan" do not belong in the same sentence without the qualifier "complete and total lack thereof". I don't think there is a plan. There certainly is no long-term plan. The idea that there's some "plan" in place to prevent the impending humanitarian crisis is as illusory as the "evidence" that Bush keeps pointing to. I'm afraid we're going to have to go with a shave from Mr. Occam on this one--"There's evidence but we can't tell you what it is" equates to "We've got no evidence, but we're doing it anyway". And our so-called allies know full well that's what we're doing.
> I don't think there is a plan The thing is that there are actually many plans, and we keep switching between them. Rumsfeld and others prefered a war on the cheap, with lightning strikes by small forces. Powell and the military prefer a slower, overwhelming force. Just in the last few weeks it seems we switched to the military plan, with the sending of large ground units like the Army 4th division.
There is also the idea that has been floated about that although Saddam is a terrible person who has committed atrocious crimes that necessitate a massive and immediate military invasion, if he would abdicate he and his family would be given safe haven and immunity from a war crimes tribunal, no questions asked.
Saddam isn't the problem. Just because he leaves does not mean that the various reasons for us going to war will automatically solve themselves.
spejic, you're ruining the deep "conversation" here. Don't you know the US can put beneficial political economic institutions wherever it wants.