Further Initiatives
tbZBeAst
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12755Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12755Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">where to next?</div> Now that the conflict in Iraq is largely over -quickly, and with minimal casualties - and rebuilding can begin, <a href='http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1708304' target='_blank'>its already all planned</a>. and it even looks like there might be movement on the diplomatic front with North Korea <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2951819.stm' target='_blank'>shown here</a> (which is good news, particularly the involvement of the Chinese ) the only thorn in the coallition's side is Saddam's disappearing act. (ok, the Korean issue is more US specific, but its still good news)
I know it alarmed some people that Rumsfeld quickly identified and disclosed Syria as possibly sheltering the deposed-former-leader. Syria have always been part of Bush's axis of evil or terror or whatever it was, so its not a surprise that they should be "next" on the list for attention. Unfortunately Britain has always had a good relationship with Syria, so I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks the UK's ties will be immediately ignored should the US decide to push into Syria, or whether our closer relationship would allow a diplomatic solution, with the UK as a mediator?
As a state, sure Syria has a bad human rights record, but then so does Turkey, and the government is at least rotated a <i>bit</i> more democratically than Iraq's was, so given that the US has accused Syria of sponsoring terrorism, and posessing WMD, can a peaceful solution be found? or is there a longer term plan <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2951713.stm' target='_blank'>as some in the Middle East believe</a> to create stability through the creation of the new mini-US discussed elsewhere in this forum?
I know it alarmed some people that Rumsfeld quickly identified and disclosed Syria as possibly sheltering the deposed-former-leader. Syria have always been part of Bush's axis of evil or terror or whatever it was, so its not a surprise that they should be "next" on the list for attention. Unfortunately Britain has always had a good relationship with Syria, so I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks the UK's ties will be immediately ignored should the US decide to push into Syria, or whether our closer relationship would allow a diplomatic solution, with the UK as a mediator?
As a state, sure Syria has a bad human rights record, but then so does Turkey, and the government is at least rotated a <i>bit</i> more democratically than Iraq's was, so given that the US has accused Syria of sponsoring terrorism, and posessing WMD, can a peaceful solution be found? or is there a longer term plan <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2951713.stm' target='_blank'>as some in the Middle East believe</a> to create stability through the creation of the new mini-US discussed elsewhere in this forum?
Comments
Saddam escaped from Iraq to Syria -> reason for war(+ the usual)
Syrias leader escapes from Syria to Iran -> reason for war(+ the usual stuff)
Irans leader escapes to Saudi-Arabia -> reason for war(+ already standard procedure)
Saudi-Arabias leader escapes to <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> -> coalition troops go home because there are no one left to attack
Just a wild guess how the war(bunch of wars) go. And in the end none of the former leaders are captured because they all go to north-korea and they <b>really</b> have WMDs so it's better to find a diplomatic solution.
Lets see if I have have talents as a psychic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Syria is not a member of the so-called Axis of Evil nations.
The Syrian government has not rotated democratically once in its entire history. It is run by the son of the last dictator, monarchial-style. That former Assad ran the place for 30 years before him.
The US government has repeatedly stated that they have no plans or intentions of invading Syria.
So... to the topic at hand. Syria is basically being muscled, and from diplomatic circles, justifiably so. They appear to have been illegaly importing Iraqi oil to the tune of $2 Million a day (money which went directly into Saddam's hands, and bypassed the oil-for-food programs). They almost certainly are harboring former iraqi-baath leaders and such (far too many iraqi conoys went into Syria to think otherwise, plus today's news on specific individuals <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030416/pl_afp/iraq_war_us_plotter&cid=1521&ncid=1473' target='_blank'>for example</a>).
But basically, the US is just doing a standard diplomatic tactic -- they are leaning on them. A few sabers get rattled and theoretically Syria hands over the scumbags that are going to get tried for crimes against humanity. If what the US government is doing now doesn't work, the iraqi's themselves are going to start clammering for once their situation stabilizes and they have time to start seeking justice for those that oppressed them. Who knows, maybe we'll see some famous 'baath-hunter' iraqi's over the next few decades, modeled after Israel's Simon Wiesenthal, who hunted Nazi's in south america for decades...
For the record, I think Syria has a good chance of becoming a democracy someday. Their dictator is pretty moderate, and has made big strides trying to modernize the country and secularize it to some extent (he's a british-school Optometrist who was not supposed to lead the country, but his older brother was killed in a car accident). He's had some fits and starts though, as after trying to remove laws against free speech and freedom of the press for some time, he revoked the privileges and imprisoned most people all those had excerised the rights. The problem with democracy in the region is that it threatens the power of the clerics and mullahs - I rather doubt Assad will be getting too far with reform before being assasinated for his sometimes moderate tendencies. But that's neither here nor there.
As for getting a 'man', I'm not sure how important that really is. One man can do nothing, especially if his bases of power, money, weapons, leverage, etc. are removed from his hands. If Saddam survives (and he won't - there will probably be the 'Irai Simon Wisesenthals' if nothing else), so what? He no longer tortures, kills, oppresses, etc. 24 million people.
So Syria, a nation that openly condemned the Sept 11th attacks, supported res. 1441 and weapons inspectors, and threatened Baghdad with "serious consequences" should it fail to comply is being leaned on. What happens should it fail to respond? An escalation? Or would Bush have enough nouse to see that removing the current government would give fuel to those claiming a campagin against Islam/Arabs? At what point does sabre rattling become sabre withdrawing? Concrete proof? HUMINT? Can the coallition strtch the justification of liberatig people to the most westernised Islamic government in the region? (again, I'm ignoring Turkey, as a full member of the UN, and supporter, however reluctantly, of the last war)
Finally Jobabob, if we're going to be pedantic, you can't successfully conclude a war by not going to war. For a conflict it was, from the perspective of the coallition, a low bodycount affair.
The Iraqi war demonstrated that this government is not afraid to go to war. It also demonstrated that if the American people think you are able to and willing to help or cause 'The Next 9/11', they will support a war. Finally, and most importantly, it proved that you will lose.
An <a href='http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/73105.htm' target='_blank'>article</a> from the NYPost talks about this 'New War'. Saddam's forces were grounded in tactics from the the 20th Century- the same tactics used in World War II, Vietnam, and even Gulf War I. The US moved into a new breed of warfare, leaving Saddam and his 'elite' Republican Gaurd in the bloody dust.
So what do I think about the future of the Middle East? Well, in my <i>expert</i> opinion and 18 vast years of experience... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Iran- There is already a young and strong reform movement in Iraq. Theres an interesting power struggle between the religious leadership and the secular leadership. The Supreme Religious leader Kotammi (sic) recently sentenced the best friend of president Khatami for suggesting the Muslim world is backwards and can learn from the West. Expect a youth revolution eventually.
Saudi Arabia- As long as thier government supports us, we won't do anything. Is it the most moral policy? Of course not. But we need to do it if we want to influence other, worse nations.
Kuwait- They remember what the US did for them unlike other FRANCE GERMANY unnamed countries.
Syria- This country is most likely going to be influenced by a democratic Iraq. Don't expect war though.
North Korea- Shatting themselves as we squeak. That potbellied dictator saw what the US did in Iraq and he knows his Nukes won't be a detterent... Bush is just crazy to fight fire with fire. After months of demanding 1 on 1 talks with the US, he is all the sudden willing to have regional talks. Looks like someone's attempt at Nuclear blackmail failed!
So Syria, a nation that openly condemned the Sept 11th attacks, supported res. 1441 and weapons inspectors, and threatened Baghdad with "serious consequences" should it fail to comply is being leaned on. What happens should it fail to respond? An escalation? Or would Bush have enough nouse to see that removing the current government would give fuel to those claiming a campagin against Islam/Arabs? At what point does sabre rattling become sabre withdrawing? Concrete proof? HUMINT? Can the coallition strtch the justification of liberatig people to the most westernised Islamic government in the region? (again, I'm ignoring Turkey, as a full member of the UN, and supporter, however reluctantly, of the last war)
Finally Jobabob, if we're going to be pedantic, you can't successfully conclude a war by not going to war. For a conflict it was, from the perspective of the coallition, a low bodycount affair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Nope. A dictator by any other name is still a Dictator. There are no free elections in Damascus.
2. A bit of a philosophical exercise, don't you think? What if Kruschev had not backed down from the cuban missile crisis? What if the israelis had ignored our threats not to fight the iraqi's in the first gulf war? What if a pig had toothpick legs and a long neck? He'd be a giraffe. The magic eight-ball says 'There is no harm in leaning on people being bad, as you always have options to stop, lean more, embargo, or whatever. Try back again later!'
3. I agree. You cannot compare US war fighting in the 2nd Iraqi conflict to Dresden, Stalingrad, or Agincourt. You can't really compare it to anything, if you are a study of military history, or just plain history. Which I wish more people here were... -_-
When the worlds only super power talks tough, you're not going to challange it until it looks like they will act, especially if you are in their sights. France supported the US UNTIL it declared that the inspections were failing and that a 2nd resolution was on its way. Same with Syria, as all the Arab League blew a load over the idea that the Zionist Imperialist Evil Great White Satan would attack the free and prosperous nation of Iraq (... well, thats how THEY saw it).
I might be wrong, but I beleive that Iraq's Baath and Syria's political party are related.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you can't really compare the war to previous conflicts mainly because there is such a differance in technology, training and equipment. Stalingrad for example pitted two fairly equally motivated and equipped
forces against each other, comparing that to an army with B-2s and M1A2 MBT's vs Mig-17's and T-55's is understandably impossible. it is interesting in that there was so little resistance by the Iraqi people though.
However looking at 21st century military tactics is a tough one anyway, namely because the United States occupies a position where they are essentially untouchable militarily and possessing of technology beyond the rest of the world. As such they have no equal and any comparisons will always result in the US coming out on top; there would be no force in the world today which could defeat the US in a conventional war. The US military today is being shaped by the roles it is having to undertake: a heavy emphasis on air power for example, with it's minimal casualites and maximum firepower against foes who can't really counter it. I think if you pitted the US against a carbon copy of itself you'd see changes in the US military and tactics.
However that's all hypothetical <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
forces against each other,
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Russian forces were under trained and under equiped, but they had numbers and the motivation of expelling invading forces. The germans had excellent training for officers and field commanders, plenty of equipment, and their motivation was to get it done because it was their duty to their Fuher. Equally motivated and equiped? I think this is why Monse was lamenting that their weren't more who studied history.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
However looking at 21st century military tactics is a tough one anyway, namely because the United States occupies a position where they are essentially untouchable militarily and possessing of technology beyond the rest of the world. As such they have no equal and any comparisons will always result in the US coming out on top; there would be no force in the world today which could defeat the US in a conventional war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, someone hasn't taken a look at the numbers that China has enlisted in its military forces, all those male baby boys had to do something when they grew up... Equipment does not an army make, we don't have cyborgs and androids enlisted in various military forces just yet, just some robots driven by humans, so be careful that you don't underestimate potential opponents.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Russians were less trained, correct but they made up for it in force of numbers. Both sides were equally motivated, if anything it was the German will to fight which would eventually break after German forces were encircled. As for equipment the Germans faced major problems trying to bring in supplies from their industrial base in Germany all the way across occupied Russia. New rail-lines had to be laid, partizan attacks particularly by this stage of the war were becoming much more dangerous, and once there german panzers faced urban warfare against an opponent who was recieveing equipment in larger amounts from the new Russian industrial base behind the Urals mountains. The Soviets at Stalingrad were able to hold the Germans in place which is exactly what they wanted to do, because whilst the massive infantry battle raged in the city itself massive stockpiles of equipment were bing built up behind Stalingrad. Once sufficient force was in place the Soviets undertook a huge encircling operation, eventually trapping the entire German 6th army. They would then slowly throttle it to death with denial of suplies and the crippling Russian winter. If you want to pit a German panzer IV against a Soviet T-34/85 then you're going to get a fairly even match, and if anything the Soviet vehicle would win. The 2 sides at the start of Stalingrad were, in terms of force, equal opponants. It was after the battle locked down for a struggle for the city that the Soviets were able to put their superior numbers to their advantage and encircle the German forces.
I'm in my 4th year of a degree in modern military history. So yeah, I lament WITH Monse.
Much as I hate to admit it NK's climbdown and its timing is too coincidental, whatever justification they give for the change of heart, the general perception will be that they were forced to make a "tactical re-position". I think this is more than likely not as a direct result of the coallition attacking Iraq, but more that they ignored other G7's etc. to do so. If they will ignore Russia, France, Germany, Russia and even China, why would the US balk at offending China over NK? (in reality I doubt even Bush would have taken the risk, but the impression has been inferred).
I'm in agreement with Jammer (shock!) that the nations closest to Iraq will be affected by a more democratic Iraq, to the probable benefit of the region as a whole.
Saudi Arabia is a whole 'nother issue. For a "friendly" nation its got a remarkably bad record. Human rights abuses, segregation of its populace, evidence of sponsorship of terrorist organisations (including Al Quida - guess where the majority of the Sept. 11th attackers came from?), anti-west radical Islam, and so on.
I'm incredibly cynical, as I'm sure you're aware :/ so I'd hate to be the one to suggest that they need the West's airbase income and oil money whilst condemning us with the other face (ooh! cutting!)
The one salient lesson I think we can all agree on is that this was a war unlike any other. I'm a great believer in technology being a force for change, and nowhere has it been more evident than the past few conflicts in the middle east. An early 21st century force vs a mid 20th century one.
I would point out though that quite a few Russian conscripts were 'motivated' by Commisars and their NKVD machine gunners being behind them if they failed to advance. Not to question Russian courage, but most people who fought for the Soviets in WW2 despised Russia and the Soviets as well and would have been quite content to stay home instead of becoming one of 35,000,000 dead on that side...
But yes, I do love that my favorite anti-war activist on the board is getting a military history degree. Knowing your enemy, I take it? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back on topic... ehhh... jeebus, we are so far off topic now it's barely worth continuing. Quick, someone accuse the US of colonialism!
edit: I can't count... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I would point out though that quite a few Russian conscripts were 'motivated' by Commisars and their NKVD machine gunners being behind them if they failed to advance. Not to question Russian courage, but most people who fought for the Soviets in WW2 despised Russia and the Soviets as well and would have been quite content to stay home instead of becoming one of 35,000,000,000 dead on that side...
But yes, I do love that my favorite anti-war activist on the board is getting a military history degree. Knowing your enemy, I take it? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back on topic... ehhh... jeebus, we are so far off topic now it's barely worth continuing. Quick, someone accuse the US of colonialism! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<off topic>
too many 0's there, monse
35 million... not billion. Stalin was bad, but not Darth Vader...
Why do you think I major in US history? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, if we can make Iraq into a prosperous country and have at least a some form of popular rule, it will do far more towards freeing the middle east of despots and tyrants than would invading Iraq 10 times. At least that's what my opinion is.
This is why I will be the next US Secretary of State, and all the hippies in here will be standing around the headshops begging for spare change...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
/me waits to see who will take offense, and how no one will say 'hmmm... I was wrong and others were right. I guess I am not an infallible teenager after all!!!'
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
On a serious note, I do intend to go into politics some day.
And yes, we need to take 1 step @ a time. Afghanistan's new government has been set up- we are just 'aiding' them now. Iraq still needs to be set up. So here's the plan
1- Rebuild Iraq.
2- Scare N. Korea, Iran, and Syria into compliance.
3- Eat some puddings.