D-Day

[Marko]

So when will it happen ? How will it happen ? I found this article very amusing, I wonder if those poor Iraqi's believe that they won't be attacked ? And the one's that realise it will happen think they can actually put up a fight against the largest co-ordinated air/missile bombardment is history ?

Quote:

BAGHDAD - Iraq on Sunday gloated over the global outpouring of opposition to the U.S. threat of attack, saying anti-war demonstrations in dozens of countries signaled an Iraqi victory and "the defeat and isolation of America."

Iraq's tightly controlled news media gave prominent coverage to anti-war demonstrations staged around the world on Saturday. Iraqi television showed footage of millions marching in the world's cities - under the logo "International Day of Confronting the Aggression."

"The world said with one voice: 'No to aggression on Iraq,"' read a headline in the government daily Al-Jumhuriya. "The world rises against American aggression and the arrogance of naked force," read a front page headline in the army daily Al-Qadissiya.

"These demonstrations expressed in their spirit, meaning and slogans the decisive Iraqi victory and the defeat and isolation of America," Al-Jumhuriya said in a commentary.

Iraq staged its own demonstrations on Saturday, when tens of thousands of people, many carrying assault rifles and portraits of Saddam Hussein, took to the streets of several Iraqi cities to pledge their loyalty to the Iraqi leader in the face of U.S. threats to attack the Arab nation.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz left Italy on Sunday, capping a visit and a papal audience with an appeal to the United States to listen to protests against a war in Iraq.

"My message to the United States is that it should hear the voice of the international public opinion," Aziz said at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport.

The United States and Britain accuse Iraq of concealing weapons of mass destruction prohibited under U.N. resolutions adopted at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. They say they will disarm Iraq by force if necessary.

Saddam on Saturday reiterated that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction and said talk of deposing him was "impertinent."

"They talk about changing the Iraqi regime at a time when they also speak about respecting the will of nations and falsely boast about their so-called democracy," he told papal peace envoy Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on Saturday, official news media said.

In contrast to the international peace protests on Saturday, the mood of Iraq's demonstrations was defiant, echoing the official Iraqi rhetoric of the past several months: Iraq wants peace but it is also ready for war, should one start.

"On our land, thank God, we have enough resolve, determination and faith, and enough men and supplies, to fight for 10 years," Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said in Cairo on Saturday.

 

[Cheetah772]

LOL

Hello,

10 years? You have to be kidding me! 10 years! Germany didn't survive that long, and she had more people, better military training, and better military technology than Iraq, how the hell does Iraq expect survive a deadly onslaught of US Marines, airpower, Abram tanks, and airborne divisions?

In all honesty, I think it's going to be a quick war -- doesn't mean it won't be bloody, but a quick one. I estimate it will take at least a month to capture most of territory in Iraq easily, with another month (or at least a couple of weeks) of heavy fighting around Baghdad area.

Dan

 

[Marko]

Re: LOL

Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,

10 years? You have to be kidding me! 10 years! Germany didn't survive that long, and she had more people, better military training, and better military technology than Iraq, how the hell does Iraq expect survive a deadly onslaught of US Marines, airpower, Abram tanks, and airborne divisions?

In all honesty, I think it's going to be a quick war -- doesn't mean it won't be bloody, but a quick one. I estimate it will take at least a month to capture most of territory in Iraq easily, with another month (or at least a couple of weeks) of heavy fighting around Baghdad area.

Dan

...and the Challengers, the Royal Marines, the Paras etc.....

 

[Wolfe Tone]

War will start sometime between 3 March to 24 March. I think some action will begin around 3/5 March if the US/UK can get the SC to agree a new resolution next week.
However bear in mind that the ships carrying US 4th Division equipment are still in Greek ports and off the coast of Turkey.
As you know the Turks are taking a principled stand on the deployment of US invasion forves in their country. In other words they want MORE MONEY before they can acceed to the request for US rights of passage.
The British 'Desert Rats' are reported to be still in Germany. About 1,000 Paras flew out from the UK yesterday for the 'Gulf'. As it takes 2/3 weeks to get acclimatised they would just be about ready to go 3 March. Maybe the advance on Basra will begin then.

 

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Marko

"On our land, thank God, we have enough resolve, determination and faith, and enough men and supplies, to fight for 10 years," Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said in Cairo on Saturday.

10 years eh ? So that's what happened to all the supplies that were meant for the survival of the Iraqi people in the oil for food program.

Back to the question at hand. I think Wolf Tone got it pretty good. Though I would expect action to start a little later; somewhere around the 11th of March. These preliminary actions will hardly be noticed in my opinion. It will mainly be the advanced positioning of forces.

I would expect the real action to begin on or near the 23rd of March. There has been much said about what "experts" call "shock and awe" where up to 400 cruise missiles and several thousand JDAMs are launched within minutes of each other. Sorta like the ultimate "fire for effect" barrage.

The reasoning here is that an attack of this magnitude would simultaniously cripple all C3I systems in Iraq as well as the air defence network, rendering Saddam's control of his military forces impossible.

 

[Deltapooh]

"On our land, thank God, we have enough resolve, determination and faith, and enough men and supplies, to fight for 10 years," Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said in Cairo on Saturday.

Fine we'll just take it in the eleventh. (I recall someone making the same boast to the Roman Army. The Roman commander said they'll just take it in the 11th year.)

As Wolfe Tone suggested, March seems to be the time frame. If Turkey doesn't cooperate, the US might have to actually base units in Kurdish controlled terrorities in Northern Iraq. However, I think they will cooperate soon. The Turks need whatever aid they can get. The US made their final offer. Turkey might not like it, but it's better than nothing.

I believe we already have troops on the ground. Special Operations Forces are likely in the north, south, and west. US and UK jets continue their attacks on Iraqi ADA in southern Iraq. While we are waiting for the 101st and 4 ID, some speculate the war can go forward without these units. (I doubt it though.)

Either way Saddam is screwed unless he gets smart. He can really throw a monkey wrench in Bush's game by simply giving up large numbers of WMDs and promising to turnover more in the coming weeks and months. Saddam won't do that though. Like in 1990, he usually opts for all or nothing.

 

[Mantis]

Good.

Nothing is what I'd like to see him have.

 

[tigersqn]

Canada is pulling most of its diplomatic personnel out of most Middle Eastern countries. UK and the US have already given their citizens travel advisories.
Things are starting to heat up. Wolfe Tone's 3rd March date is looking better all the time.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

As it now looks that Turkey will agree next week to US requests,
the 4ID, + elements of 1 Cav and 1 Arm will start deploying and moving towards the Iraqi border within the next 7 days. However that really is 2-WEEK OPERATION before that transfer would be completed. Maybe ready to roll into northern Iraq on 10 March.


Heard last night that 101 + a brigade of 82nd are deploying in Kuwait but we are probably well into the 'disinformation' phase by now. Only time will tell I guess. Reports also say that British Paras will be used to seize the Fao peninsula but again who knows for sure outside of the Allied High Command.

I think though that Bush wants to get some military action underway sooner rather than later. As you know there is no moonlight on night of 3 March and a night attack by the US forces then will maximize their technological advantage over the Iraqis at that time. If they attack in mid March that effect will be lost.
Also why it makes good military sense to attack from two different directions against an inferior force it is not absolutely vital.

I get the feeling that the War will start before the northern element of the attack force is in place. By the time they are ready Basra will have fallen and the Iraqi military will be much reduced
in it's ability to respond to US moves. This would help the northern force as they are to some degree out on a limb. Of course the Turks will cross the border in strength but it remains to be seen whether they will see action or not, and also against whom they fight, the Sunnis or the Kurds!

 

[John Paul]

I thought one of the other sticking points the Turks had to an attack from their territory was that the Kurds want any Turkish forces entering northern Iraq to be under US command,something that the Turks were opposed to.Has something changed in that situation?

 

[Deltapooh]

CNN is reporting the UK and US will submit new Resolution next week with a vote coming in mid-March. This is outrageous. Why don't we just invite Saddam to view our battle plans to pass the time. This new resolution BS means it will probably early April before an invasion gets started. Our troops will have to combat the desert heat, as well as the Iraqi military.

Bush is taking a huge diplomatic risk by waiting this long. What if Saddam get's smart and gives up 1,000 tons of bio weapons? What if Blix's comes in a give Iraq a - A for cooperation? All these things don't have to signal long term commitment by Saddam, just delaying action. Why are we going to be so stupid as to give the man another opportunity to slap us in the face?

We should have been ready to go for a Februray to March invasion. End of story. All this back peddling diplomatic maneuvering will likely end with additional embarrassments, and give the enemy a political chance to pull off the upset just before the clocks runs out.

We need to end this game ASAP.

:sigh:

 

[Tim McBride]

Originally posted by John Paul
I thought one of the other sticking points the Turks had to an attack from their territory was that the Kurds want any Turkish forces entering northern Iraq to be under US command,something that the Turks were opposed to.Has something changed in that situation?

I've heard the US has agreed that no Kurdish State will be allowed. This was, IIRC, a huge sticking point along with the aid money Turkey wanted (can't blame them, last gulf war hurt their economy something fierce)

_Tim

 

[Marko]

Originally posted by Tim McBride


I've heard the US has agreed that no Kurdish State will be allowed. This was, IIRC, a huge sticking point along with the aid money Turkey wanted (can't blame them, last gulf war hurt their economy something fierce)

_Tim

Typical though eh ? You thought of all the good that could come out of this war would be a free Kurdish State - but no, they will be continually opressed by the Turks for more decades to come. Shame.

 

[Deltapooh]

Marko, I think you're confusing Bush with Blair. Blair is the one really pushing this invasion on moral reasons. Bush is going solely with the WMDs. Though he brings up the moral issue when convenient.

 

[Marko]

Originally posted by Deltapooh
Marko, I think you're confusing Bush with Blair. Blair is the one really pushing this invasion on moral reasons. Bush is going solely with the WMDs. Though he brings up the moral issue when convenient.

Bush is going for the oil, don't kid yourself. The WMD's are just an excuse for regime change to safeguard a future supply of oil in the future. Even if it's not for US consumption, the US would feel better if a mad tyrant did not have the world's second largest oil reserves. And Blair isn't doing it for moral reasons he is doing it for the Americans, he is Bush's puppet and is just doing his duty.

 

[John Paul]

Very interesting with the replies.According to the article i read,which by the way did not mention anything about a kurdish state,the Kurds are saying no Turkish troops in northern Iraq unless commanded by an American,the Turks are saying no way they will give troops if they have to be commanded by an American.This seems like a major sticking point,both sides cannot be equally pleased on this matter.My money bets that we will have to end up dsiding with the Turks on this one,which will leave some very peeved Kurds(very peeved armed Kurds,if you get my drift.)

Also according to another article the short term goverment of Iraq has already been decided by goverment planners.It is to be headed by an American of "stature" for at least several years,and will include an Iraqi component which will be merely consultive until it is felt that the country is ready to be democraticaly governed.There will aso be a De-Baathification campaign in the country,focusing upon the military and party apparatus,some are expected to take part in any future goverment while others who are considered too tainted will not.I can see many problems with these approaches but they do make sense.

 

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Deltapooh
CNN is reporting the UK and US will submit new Resolution next week with a vote coming in mid-March. This is outrageous. Why don't we just invite Saddam to view our battle plans to pass the time. This new resolution BS means it will probably early April before an invasion gets started. Our troops will have to combat the desert heat, as well as the Iraqi military.

Bush is taking a huge diplomatic risk by waiting this long. What if Saddam get's smart and gives up 1,000 tons of bio weapons? What if Blix's comes in a give Iraq a - A for cooperation? All these things don't have to signal long term commitment by Saddam, just delaying action. Why are we going to be so stupid as to give the man another opportunity to slap us in the face?

I beg your pardon ?? Bush is taking a diplomatic risk if he waits too long ?? He's only taking a military risk because the US would have to attack under not optimal conditions. Diplomacy demands to delay an outbreak of war, so Bushs only diplomatic risk is that he's not waiting long enough and is pissing off some more of the words nations. You have the military power to defeat Saddam (yes, hes soooo dangerous and such an enourmous risk to the USA that he can be defeated in 48-96 h ) but have you the economic power to rebuild the than totally ruined Iraq ?? A country that has just turned a huge plus left over from the democrats into a huge minus ? A country that had to spend 100 billion on high tech munition and another 30 billion to be allowed to attack from Turkey ? A country whos president seriously asked his citizen to work 4000h for free (so that he can buy more guns ?) ?? I very much doubt that America has the reserves to rebuild the Iraq without international support which you don't have if you jump straight at Iraq. Or are they indeed use Iraqs oil to pay the war ? Well, that would really piss off all neighboring arabic states and internationat partners because it would show that indeed the only goal for the USA was to get control over the middle east oil.

 

[Deltapooh]

I beg your pardon ?? Bush is taking a diplomatic risk if he waits too long ?? He's only taking a military risk because the US would have to attack under not optimal conditions. Diplomacy demands to delay an outbreak of war, so Bushs only diplomatic risk is that he's not waiting long enough and is pissing off some more of the words nations.

Yes, Bush is taking diplomatic and political risks by delaying military action. While the UN debates, Saddam can influence arguments by taking steps that would give the impression of full compliance, but really is just a delaying action. I'm certain Iraq is aware of our window of opportunity to attack. The hotter it gets, the more trouble we'll have. The conditions will strain our logistic lines. Furthermore, since most utilities will likely be damaged or destroyed, going to war in late Spring to Summer would likely see greater civilian casualties.

Kraut, with all due respect, this is not a popularity contest. Your country has it's own interest to attend to. I doubt there are many provisions in your country's national budget to ensure my well-being. The priority of any government is to it's people. Everyone else is secondary. So pissing off the world is the least of my concerns. It won't be the first time people got mad at the US. And it will not be the last.

I'm willing to listen to all valid arguments. However, I see the debating now more like a filibuster. The governments are using the UN and these resolutions to delay action, not resolve the problem.

You have the military power to defeat Saddam (yes, hes soooo dangerous and such an enourmous risk to the USA that he can be defeated in 48-96 h ) but have you the economic power to rebuild the than totally ruined Iraq ??

First Kraut, we didn't draw up this military operation overnight. There is more to war than just the fighting. We have the ability to defeat Iraq in 48-96 hrs given we have all the forces and logistics in place. So while I would not mind bragging about our *sskicking abilities, the fact is, we're not defeating Saddam in 96hrs. This has been in the planning for sometime.

As Tigersqn suggested, the timeframe indictates having achieved dominance and fought the most critical battles. It will take at least a month to consolidate our positions and declare the opposition neutralized.

Secondly, Iraq is not Afghanistan. It has the second largest oil reserve on earth. Once the oil flows, I believe Iraq will be able to rebuild itself.

Even if that were not the case, the world would have no choice but to help rebuild Iraq. That is unless, they are willing to leave the poor innocent people of Iraq to their own fate.

Or are they indeed use Iraqs oil to pay the war ? Well, that would really piss off all neighboring arabic states and internationat partners because it would show that indeed the only goal for the USA was to get control over the middle east oil.

The oil will pay for the war. As for the arabic neighbors, well we already know they would prefer to see Iraq not produce oil. However, what are they going to do. Tell the Iraqi people they can't see their oil? They will have little choice, but to accept the competition. they might try to stir up rebellion. However, as long as the Iraqi people are benefiting from the sales overall, they will just ignore them.

The only reason the allies will be pissed is because they're not getting our low oil prices. That's it. All that other talk about morality is about as true as Bush's statement he is going to war purely over WMDs.

Let's be honest, the only reason most of these countries give two hoots about what is or will happen in Iraq is because of oil. I highly doubt we'd see so much option if Bush were invading Togo. While I believe you and the general public might be concerned over the moral issues of invasion, government officials don't share such opinions.

There's no way on earth the US could ever maintain sole possession of Iraqi oil without incurring huge political and military risks. Everyone knows that. So the allies will get a piece of the pie, and the Iraqi people will see most, if not all the money.

This is about power projection. For decades, many nations have been given a loud voice in global politics because of their geographical importance to the US. Policies were considered and executed multilaterally.

Today, that's changed. Those nations have apparently lost their voice. Instead of dictating, they must negotiate. The US is listening to Asian concerns. While Europe is important, its level has deminished. The US doesn't want to share power with those it doesn't have to. And Europe wants just that.

If European nations are to preserve gain greater influence, they will have to adopt a more aggressive foriegn policy that is focused on strategic action. Screaming and fussing won't improve your status. Only firm direct action will. That doesn't mean going to war with the US. However, it does mean making one's nation's presence felt globally, instead of regionally.

So I don't see this war about anything more than global projection and the security of our interest. We have the opportunity to take a long term foe. America is taking it. Had the world leaders been more willing to be leaders, than just play the part, maybe they would have thought about the long term implications of those Resolutions.

I don't mean to challenge anyone's national pride. I am looking at the situation from the political point. I understand the general population have a more geniune view. However, this is not about what the average joe thinks. The world leaders feel justified in ignoring and abusing the opinion of the general public for the greater good.

If the governments of the world really carried their people's argument, maybe the US would be more inclined to listen and even backdown.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

Deltapooh:

Would you believe I'm reading another book on Iraq! This one is by American journalist Sandra Mackey called: 'The Reckoning: Iraq and the legacy of Saddam Hussein'.
Interesting enough but she mentions in one passage that since 1973 the US has had three broad principles that have governed Washington's attitude to the Gulf region, no matter who is in power in Washington.
These are first and foremost the unfettered flow of oil at reasonable prices.
The second is to preserve stability in the Gulf through security arrangements with regional Allies that twart the emerenge of a dominant power hostile to US interests.
The third principle operates in the regional context of the Middle East, the security of the State of Israel.

So the present course of action ties in pretty well with a US policy that has been around for the past three decades!

It's only now though that circumstances allow for a more robust inplementation of this 'power projection' as you so aptly put it.

 

[Deltapooh]

You are absolutely correct Wolfe Tone. The US and world in general have employed a doctrine of acceptance for decades in the Middle East. The fear of instability and chaos so frightens world leaders, they are more prepared to accept negative conditions than try to influence their position.

Current doctrine will not ensure long term stability. The political situation in the Middle East is bound to deteriorate. An invasion of Iraq might accelerate some of these events. However, failing to invade will certainly not prevent them.

The US is trying to influence and dictate in the Middle East political climate. Success will depend on how the Iraqi people see America in the decade to follow. Should they see us as oppressors, disaster will amost certainly befall us. However, if they continue to honestly view us as liberators, the results could be very positive.

In any case, Iraq is yet another test in for America's foriegn policy. Pass or failure depends not upon the success of the military operation. Ultimate success will depend on how Iraq stands on it's own two feet. We can influence, but not dictate the future of that nation. Eitherway, Saddam won't be in power to see it.