I read that Rummy's plan, now, is to lay siege to Baghdad and hope that the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam. And for a while, I've been thinking about what Saddam might be trying to accomplish. One way (completely theoretical) that Saddam might win is by driving the coalition forces back to Kuwait. Obviously, there's zero percent chance of that. Another way would be for the coalition casualties to be so large that Bush and/or Blair tries to get a negotiated settlement. Before Rummy's strategy, the chance of that was probably zero. But if we're gonna try to lay siege to Baghdad, then clearly the chance of that is zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg. OK, what's left? For the campaign to drag on and for domestic and international pressure to force Bush'n'Blair to the negotiating table. Now, I don't think this is likely, but I do think it's possible. So how does Rummy's plan to lay siege to Baghdad play into that? To me, it's another gamble. On the one hand, it will limit casualties on both sides, which lessens the pressure. OTOH, it's not a quick strategy. So I guess it comes down to this...do you think time is on our side, or Saddam's? PS...the good news is, if I'm right that Saddam thinks he can pull this off, that means he has a huge disincentive for using chemical weapons.
Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" strategy play i time is clearly on our side - every day is one more day for target practice against the Republican Guard - and one day sooner to the 4th ID and 3rd ACR offloading and proceeding north.
If nothing happens, time is on our side (as per the bombing of Serbia over Kosovo). If we do nothing and "civilians" keep killing a couple of our guys every day, then time is on their side. But I don't think anything - not loss of life, not loss of prestege, not humiliation, not even the threat of world wide nuclear destruction will make Bush give up. He is totally, absolutly, religiously commited to taking over Iraq. He has not only bet his presidency, but the nation on it. And of course, if Saddam lights up the large northern and smaller central oil fields he still controls, then we lose. I wonder why he hasn't done it yet. Maybe he has a greater expectation of winning (or at least drawing) than is commonly believed.
I disagree here. As I stated in another thread there are a couple of wars going on here. The actual war and the war of public opinion (especially in the Arab world). Every day that goes by with Saddam in power the dynamic of the war changes. It goes from a war to liberate the people of Iraq from a dictator that the Arab world for the most part would like to see dead, to a war of "sovereignty". Every day that goes by, Saddam becomes more of a "defender of Arab and Islamic Sovereignty" and less of a brutal dictator that he is. It has little to do with facts, but this is the perception. Therefore, if we have a long siege of Baghdad, I think we have lost this war regardless of the outcome because the majority of the Arab and Islamic world at that point will be cheering for Saddam.
Too many variables How to say whose side time is on? Does Saddam use chemical weapons? Is Basra taken and, if so, does Anglo-American coalition begin to score points in the eyes of Basra residents and by proxy, in eyes of the world? We are already at the bottom of the list as far as Arab perception goes, so I continue to think that post-war will be more telling than the actual prosecution of the war as to whether we can improve that perception.
The only public opinion is that of the American people. The Arabs don't count. The worst they can do to us is try to crash 4 planes into buildings, which isn't nearly enough to get us to change our minds or really affect us in any way that might help the Iraqi cause. They do have the one powerful weapon - oil. But Syria and Egypt don't have any, Iran and Lybia don't export to the US, the tiny emerates are all in our pocket, and if the Saudis so much as switch to using euros, they will see a first hand demonstration of our military might.
Dude, your not serious right? By your logic there would be no point in conducting a war on terrorism. In today's world the opinion of the Arab World counts greatly towards US Security. If we learn one thing from this war and from our Israeli friends it is that we cannot simply bomb and kill our way to national security. 9/11 taught us that if someone hates you enough they will find a way to kill you, even if it means taking their own lives. Israel is learning this lesson first hand every day. The only way to reduce that hatred is to reduce the ingredients that fuel the extremism. Ignorance, poverty, closed borders etc etc. There will always be extremists in every country (including the US... i.e. Timothy McVeigh) but we can certainly reduce the number of extremists. To say that the only opinion that matters is the American public is about as intelligent and subtle as the Diplomacy that has forced us to go into this war without our friends besides us.
And if you don;t think we have a problem in the rest of the world with this war check out some of these pictures http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2893147.stm
Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" strategy play i Why do all those people hate our freedoms?
Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" strategy play i The War on Terrorism has a point - to serve as cover for tasks the government wants accomplished. It does not serve to protect us because you simply cannot do that against a crafty enemy. You can't get better protection against terrorists than Israel, and they still get bombed whenever the Palestinians feel like it. I consider Sept 11 the cost of business in running an empire. Exactly. You can't stop terrorism by force. You have to take away the reasons for terrorism in the first place. The reasons for Al Queda violence is our meddling in Saudi Arabia and other muslim nations. But we cannot stop doing that. The benefit we get from controling the area is far more than the cost. We are the most powerful nation on earth. We may be more powerful than everyone else put together. As long as people are willing to fight, it does not matter what the rest of the world says - they cannot stop us from attacking Iraq. I believe that this is the basic assumption that Bush is working under. It is not an efficent policy, and I had hoped that more Americans would be against it. But it seems most Americans love a good ass-kicking and will not be denied.
I stopped reading after "Rummy" and "plan". Those two words in the same sentence mean two things, 1) a lot of dead civilians and 2) politicalsuicide for the U.S. internationally.
spejic - Sound like we are in agreement my friend. The only difference being that you seem to think that our (U.S. under Bush Regime) actions as inevitable while I still got enough piss and vinegar in me to go on (or down )swinging. Of all of the protest signs I have seen in the past 6 months there was one (okay two) that succintly summed up our intentions in the world and what could be the eventual result. It simply stated: "Rome Fell" My other favorite, while not particulrily on topic to the war in Iraq was: "Some Village in Texas is Missing it's Idiot". LMAO off at that one.
Re: Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" strategy pl I love these little marches. They're so cute and colorful. Especially with all the Red (Marxists who live in a democracy make me laugh at the irony).
Re: Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" strategy pl Hell, that's some straight-forward ***************. Now, I can't tell if you are for American Empire or against it. Me, I'm for it. However, this war is a big gamble and I don't want to see American hegemony (from which I benefit) jeopardized by it.
Re: Re: Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" strateg In a WHAT? (Okay, I'm being needlessly obnoxious...from now on I'll only be as obnoxious as necessary)
> I can't tell if you are for American Empire or against it. Neither can I. However, I don't like this war because I think that Bush is using very bad methods to create the empire.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How might Saddam "win," and how does Rummy's "siege Baghdad" str Ah, I see. You are one who thinks that since democracy has obviously failed in this country, we should just create a socialist state. (Okay, I'm being needlessly obnoxious...from now on I'll only be as obnoxious as necessary)
Only time will tell. Perhaps the war will end and the US will have greater power and influence in the region. We will help install (over time) an Iraqi government that is pro-American and we can put pressure on other Arab states (through them). The administration can then get a more favorable (to the Israelis) Palestinian peace resoluation. This is the theory. Of course, all the multi-lateral institutions (UN, WTO, etc.) that were created in the post-war era could be annhilated and the globe could plunge into global chaos and economic depression.
Sarcasm, I recognize that. Of course, you realize I posted both the best case and worst case scenarios, right?