This was an essay done by a CBC correspondent who covered the first Gulf War. http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/foreign/fa_essays/essay20030126.htm
Bush will need a lighting-quick decisive victory. I think the most recent polls show that about 60% of Americans support attacking Iraq. Well, the cynic in me thinks that among that 60% are people that enjoy wars and big news events because it makes their TV viewing more exciting. People are generally bored and wars & terrorist acts are exciting when you are sitting in the cocoon of your living room. People won't admit to this and it isn't likely a conscious decision but on some level, they support the war because it will spice up the doldrums of their lives. With that in mind, if the events of the war are not all fun "smart bomb-camera videos" and victory parades for the US, then those people looking for relief from their boring lives will turn against the war. Imagine this scenario: US attacks Iraq. Iraq uses chemical gases to attack US troops and Israel. Israel than retaliates. US pushes on despite horrorific pictures of dead US serviceman. Terrorist attacks spring up all over Israel as a result of Israel attacking an Arab state. The US reaches Baghad where there is a lengthy standoff in the streets. The pictures flashing across our TVs remind us of Somalia except that they continue for a month. Plus, in the middle of all this, terrorist attacks occur in the US...a bus explodes in Manhattan...a bomb is detonated at a NCAA Tournament game...a theater is gassed in DC. The DJIA drops below 7,000. The US eventually wins but then Iraq breaks out into civil war as various factions contend for power. The US is dragged into a long occupation with no pictures of Iraqis saying how happy they are that the US saved them from Saddam. How popular will Bush be then? Murf
Or imagine mass prearrranged surrenders of Iraqi forces in the desert, quick movement to the outskirts of Baghdad, IRaqis (seeing the weakness of Saddam and the handwriting on the wall) pull a Muussolini and hang his corpse by its toes. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, but it's every bit as likely, and probably less imaginative, than what you suggest.
I agree that this is a possible scenario. However, it is far from a guaranteed scenario. Bush would come out of it smelling like roses so he is clearly hoping for this scenario (and frankly, if they do go to war, then I also hope for this one). The problem is that you can't guarantee this scenario and you can't promise that my earlier scenario won't happen either. The original post of this thread regarded what Bushes needs to happen in Iraq. I was simply putting forth a possible chain of events that would be horrible for Bush. Murf
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by bmurphyfl but changed by Dante Imagine this scenario: US attacks Iraq. Iraq uses chemical gases to attack US troops and Israel. The US then levels a few Iraqi cities the next day. Iraq surrenders the following day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you implying that the US military would target civilians by "leveling a few Iraqi cities"? We would already be leveling every military target so the only things left to level would be civilian targets. If that is what you are saying, I think you are wrong. 1) The public relations fallout would be horrific for future US foreign relations. 2) Saddam has already shown that he doesn't care about his people so why would he care? Why would he surrender? It is always hard to fight someone who doesn't have anything to lose. They stop caring about the same things you care about. Murf
I'm saying exactly what I said, the US would level a city or two. Does that mean civilians will be casualties? You betcha. Although, I don't mean it in the same sense as levelling Dresden in WWII. Show some pictures of gassed US soldiers on tv and the American public will be clamoring for revenge. I never said Saddam would surrender, but Iraq would. Take it for what it's worth.
No way we "level cities" over Saddam's use of chem weapons. Go back and look at the comments of Bush I and his SecState after the Gulf War. Our soldiers would just don their suits and we'd wrap up the invasion quickly. I bet the rules of engagement would loosen up a bit but it's not like we'll carpet bomb Baghdad or nuke it. That would be taking a horrible situation (loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives) and making it much worse... Destroying cities...talk about finding oneself in a hole and digging it deeper...