Some Strategic analyst report

jlbetin

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
6
Location
France/EuropeanUnion
Country
llFrance
Hi,

On TV this evening we had had a director of the High Strategic Studies school who was presenting a possible evolution of the conflict.

1st) Saddam will try to drive fights in the holy Shiits towns, in the way to have a great numbet of colateral damages, and imply Schiits in the hatres of US and UK, to push some "Martyrs" as human bombs against coalition.

2nd) It seems real that both Iran and Syria give indirect or direct help to IRAK, and that can push US to act against them, so it will go within Saddam strategy to imply Chiits in the conflict as active oponents

2nd)If Schiits follow this direction, even if Saddam die, the conflict will continue with the possible entry of IRAN in the conflict. Especially as Mollah won't accept a pro-american governement in this region . don't forget that US is the great Satan. So the conflict could shift to an reaction against coalition seen no more as liberators but as Cruzaders against Muslim.

If that occurs it will the opening of the Pandora box

Your Opinion Gentlemen

Best Regards

Der Wanderer
 

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by jlbetin
Hi,

On TV this evening we had had a director of the High Strategic Studies school who was presenting a possible evolution of the conflict.

1st) Saddam will try to drive fights in the holy Shiits towns, in the way to have a great numbet of colateral damages, and imply Schiits in the hatres of US and UK, to push some "Martyrs" as human bombs against coalition.
Shiits? May I assume you mean Shiites? If so, then I highly doubt this. Most of so-called suicide bombers are Saddam's loyalists rather than a part of any religious group, except perhaps Arab Sunnis, which make up a majority of Baghdad's population. Nearly all Shiites live in southern Iraq and near Iran's borders. So, as far I can discern, there has only been one incident involving suicide bombings. If these Shiites indeed do hate the US, then we would have seen more in the opening hours of the invasion. Obviously this has not happened yet.


2nd) It seems real that both Iran and Syria give indirect or direct help to IRAK, and that can push US to act against them, so it will go within Saddam strategy to imply Chiits in the conflict as active oponents
Irak? It's Iraq, not Irak.

Again, it's unlikely Syria or Iran will be drawn into Iraq conflict for very reasons they fear the US respisals. Syria and Iran may have used indirect means, however, in most likely scenario, they are merely jacking for more power in the post-war Iraq or at least satisfy the general Arab population whose feelings are hotly anti-USA.

It wouldn't surprise me if Syria and Iran do this in secret, using the indirect means to sell weapons, then informing the US to blow the cover and drag it out into open, this will show that the Arabs in their respective countries are doing something to alleviate Saddam's "apparent" sufferings.

However, to me, it's utterly stupid to even try that sort of thing.

Plain dumb politics just like France, no offense, kid.


3nd) If Schiits follow this direction, even if Saddam die, the conflict will continue with the possible entry of IRAN in the conflict. Especially as Mollah won't accept a pro-american governement in this region . don't forget that US is the great Satan. So the conflict could shift to an reaction against coalition seen no more as liberators but as Cruzaders against Muslim.
It's unlikely Iran will even want to enter the conflict because it knows it cannot stand very well against the US armed forces. If it does that, then it wouldn't last very long, and will likely incite these young people which make up a majority of Iran's population want to revolt and instill a moderate government.

You need to understand that Iran is currently being led by hard-line Islamistic supporters whose stance is decidedly based on Koran, and don't allow moderation in Iran. Many young people are getting restless, and want to see better changes. Iran has failed to satisfy these young people, and soon, perhaps within 10 or 20 years, there will be a revolution taking place.

Iran's ultra-religious conservatives failed to solve the growing economic problems and facing the US wrath over its nuclear programs. It's unlikely they will last very long.


If that occurs it will the opening of the Pandora box

Your Opinion Gentlemen

Best Regards

Der Wanderer
I doubt this will open up a pandora box, Syria and Iran don't want to double-cross the USA any more than is already necessary.

Both are registered to giving up any dreams or hopes of having a purely pro-Arab Iraq, more than likely it will be a pro-US Iraq. Since Syria and Iran have rejected any idea of cooperating fully with the US in the war with Iraq, thus, they have lost any political capital or clout in shaping the post-war Iraq.

It goes the same for Turkey whose future is already shakey since it rejected the US economic aid amounting to $24 billion, and could see its stock market crashing. Turkey will never be able to shape Iraq the way it wants because of delays and blungeoning diplomacy with the USA.

More than likely, the Kurds will get a greater say in the post-war Iraq because they have proven to be more cooperative then most of the countries, and many Iraqi exiles who lived in America, and influenced by democratic principles will be more than happy to work with them in order to ensure a new Iraq with Kurdish areas given autonomuous self-government will emerge peacefully.

The real losers are Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saundi Arabia, and Jordan. They all failed to capitulate or exploit the advantages of supporting the US-led coalition in invading Iraq. The biggest loser is probably Turkey simply because it failed to satisfy USA in the Kurdish matters.

No matter what happens, Kurds will get their wish in getting a big chunk of Iraq as a new Kurdistan.

Dan
 

tigersqn

WWII Forum Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
800
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
Iran will not directly enter the conflict, but may, and probably will, allow the Badr Bde to foment unrest after the war. In the view of the Iranian hardliners an unstable Iraq is preferable to an Iraq aligned with the US. A situation such as this would also strengthen the hardliners hand domesticaly.

I would agree with Cheetah772 that Turkey stands to loss a great deal economically through their failure to support the US. However, the position of the Turkish public could very well harden vis a vis the US.

I can't see the Shia in the south supporting Saddam in any appreciable fashion. They are dead set against Saddam's regime. Of course they'll want to see the US leave ASAP, but depending on Iraq's stability after the war, that probably won't happen in the near future.

And that is where the troubles will take place. Iran covertly supporting a Shia rebellion through the Badr Bde, forcing the US to maintain a military presence in the area and in turn inciting hatred towards their presence. Something like a Catch-22.
 

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Aw why not....

Why not let us to....

Undo the British mistake of creating Iraq in the first place? May I suggest that we divide Iraq, into three distinct parts? One for Kurdistan, one for Sunni Arabs, and finally one for Shiites in southern Iraq?

Each of these parts would have their own oil fields to compete with. And they won't get what they truly want, an entire Iraq, so in that, everybody will be unhappy, just the way we want it!

If we could negotiate with Turkey to agree with partition of its one-fourth land in southwest part of Turkey to Kurdistan, then we'll walk away extremely unhappy just the way we want it.

No, seriously, no matter what post-war Iraq may look like, nobody will be really happy with how it's going to be shaped.

The US may have no choice but to part a strong-handed man, but with pro-US political beliefs, in the control of Iraq.

The Arabs would never allow a strong, but a religious fundamentalist Iraq just because it is precisely what they fear in the first place by supplying Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War (1980-88).

It would be in the best interest for everybody to avoid having a fundamentalist Iraq. It's a no-no for everybody, especially Israelis who need a lot of peace on its side.

Dan
 

Tzar

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Country
llCanada
Re: Aw why not....

Originally posted by Cheetah772
Why not let us to....

Undo the British mistake of creating Iraq in the first place? May I suggest that we divide Iraq, into three distinct parts? One for Kurdistan, one for Sunni Arabs, and finally one for Shiites in southern Iraq?


This is not in the long term interest of the U.S. Washington wants to make Iraq its new anchor point in the Middle East. Washington wants a strong, united, democratic and friendly Iraq, which would share American interests and act as a stabilizing force. If you divide Iraq, you completely weaken it and you just invite for continuing unrest and tensions in the region.

Also, all Arab neighboring countries would probably be seriously opposed to it due to the fact that a Shia state in southern Iraq would be perceived as a threat to them, or possibly as a state that could be annexed to Iran in the near future (which also would be very detrimental to the U.S. since vast quantities of oil would then fall into Iran's hands).

The biggest obstable to this would be an independent Kurdistan. Turkey would go at war for that and break its relationship with NATO and the U.S., I don't think there is any doubt about that.
 

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Re: Re: Aw why not....

Originally posted by Tzar


This is not in the long term interest of the U.S. Washington wants to make Iraq its new anchor point in the Middle East. Washington wants a strong, united, democratic and friendly Iraq, which would share American interests and act as a stabilizing force. If you divide Iraq, you completely weaken it and you just invite for continuing unrest and tensions in the region.

Also, all Arab neighboring countries would probably be seriously opposed to it due to the fact that a Shia state in southern Iraq would be perceived as a threat to them, or possibly as a state that could be annexed to Iran in the near future (which also would be very detrimental to the U.S. since vast quantities of oil would then fall into Iran's hands).

The biggest obstable to this would be an independent Kurdistan. Turkey would go at war for that and break its relationship with NATO and the U.S., I don't think there is any doubt about that.
Yes Tzar,

I only meant it as sacrastic, obviously, I am poor at writing sacrastic phrases....

However, letting Kurds grab a bit of land in northern Iraq after the war is over is realistic and doable simply because we do need their cooperation and willingness to help us out. They will never have full Kurdistan ever, but what we can do is to give them de facto control of northern Iraq which will make some of them happy, but not all of them.

This is best we can do under any cirmcustances.

Dan
 

John Paul

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
287
Reaction score
1
Location
Pittsburgh PA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Hey Cheetah772 how bout chillin with the grammer lessons a bit,don't forget he is from a different country and they may spell them that way,or he may just have trouble writing in English.Why not write a reply in French and see how that turns out;)

But besides that glad to see that you have regained your morale,keep those constitution supported right-wing guns blazing

:flag: :rifle:
 

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by John Paul
Hey Cheetah772 how bout chillin with the grammer lessons a bit,don't forget he is from a different country and they may spell them that way,or he may just have trouble writing in English.Why not write a reply in French and see how that turns out;)

But besides that glad to see that you have regained your morale,keep those constitution supported right-wing guns blazing

:flag: :rifle:
Okay I have taken your advice:

It is meant as a joke!

In French:

1.) Je veux se rendre si mal!

2.) J'aime des frites de la liberté.

Translation:

1.) I want to surrender so badly!

2.) I love freedom fries.

Disclaimer: I used Bowne Global Solution which can be reached at bowneglobal.com, so if I have made any mistake in French language, please correct me!

Thank you,
Dan
 

jlbetin

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
6
Location
France/EuropeanUnion
Country
llFrance
Gents,

sorry for my grammar mistakes. In french Irak in English Iraq

I often read Shia it means Chiites(in french) yes Shiites (thanks for correct translation).

You know brits speak of the "channel", we say La Manche.

I want to surrender badly need an more deeper explanation from your side, as the translation given by cheetah software means nothing in french. does it means something like I badly want to surrender. If yes the translation could be " J'ai méchament envie de me rendre" The translation problem for me is "so badly" at the end of the sentence because the software translation is word to word the following "I want to surrender so bad"
Or could it means something like I serioulsy want to surrender.

Langage in this case is dangerous as the meaning you think could be seen an other way by the original speaking people, worst you have plenty of words an acronims I can't translate/understand especialy the one concerning military forces. MEF could mean Marines expedition forces and there is plent y of others which let me dry

But the translation for freedom fries is correct. On my side I love freedom fries except too much fat, but if you eat those fries in belgium, they taste better as they are made with horse fat hummmm so nice!
Yes we are barbarian we still eat horses ( less than before but we continue)
Better Freedom fries with frog legs and garlic butter yeah !! that's civilization gents. Add a nice Loire valey red Wine hummmm, just a women is missing and life would be perfect

Friendship From Paris to your all guys
 
Last edited:

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by jlbetin
Gents,

sorry for my grammar mistakes. In french Irak in English Iraq

I often read Shia it means Chiites(in french) yes Shiites (thanks for correct translation).

You know brits speak of the "channel", we say La Manche.

I want to surrender badly need an more deeper explanation from your side, as the translation given by cheetah software means nothing in french. does it means something like I badly want to surrender. If yes the translation could be " J'ai méchament envie de me rendre" The translation problem for me is "so badly" at the end of the sentence because the software translation is word to word the following "I want to surrender so bad"
Or could it means something like I serioulsy want to surrender.

Langage in this case is dangerous as the meaning you think could be seen and other way by the original speaking people, worst you have plenty of words I can't translate

But the translation for freedom fries is correct. On my side I love freedom fries except too much fat, but if you eat those fries in belgium, they taste better as they are made with horse fat hummmm so nice!
Yes we are barbarian we still eat horses ( less than before but we continue)
Better Freedom fries with frog legs and garlic butter yeah !! that's civilization gents. Add a nice Loire valey red Wine hummmm, just a women is missing and life would be perfect

Friendship From Paris to your all guys
Thanks for the correction, french kid.

Horse fat? Huh, no wonder you have Mad Cow disease, after all, you're eating the british cow meat! Just kidding, french kid. Maybe you'll have "Mad Horse Disease"!

By the way, what's the translation of your signature?

May I assume it's something like "For the honor of France and the glory of her Army."? I didn't take it from the translation software on internet, it's mostly from my guessimate work!

I took a Spanish class, and since it's a romance language just like yours, there were many similiar words in your language. For example, "de" is just like "of" in Spanish. In Spanish, you are required to use masciline and femine words, like "la" for femine, and I assume "ses" is a plural for "son" which is a femine word, I think.

Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Dan
 

jlbetin

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
6
Location
France/EuropeanUnion
Country
llFrance
for the honor of France and the glory of its weapons/arms but weapons must be took in very large scale meaning.

when a company change of Captain there is a company parade where all the officers of the company, lieutnant, under lieutnant and under officers give their word to be faithfull to him, "For the honor of France and the glory of its arms". yes I think this is a better traduction yes. This tradition was in my Cavalry regiment, I don't know if it exist in all other French regiment. I do it once in my reserve regiment (Dragoon) I'm warrant officer.

for your information the avatar is me as sergeant during my conscription period 25 years ago :laola:

Regards
 
Last edited:

jlbetin

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
6
Location
France/EuropeanUnion
Country
llFrance
Originally posted by Cheetah772


I took a Spanish class, and since it's a romance language just like yours, there were many similiar words in your language. For example, "de" is just like "of" in Spanish. In Spanish, you are required to use masciline and femine words, like "la" for femine, and I assume "ses" is a plural for "son" which is a femine word, I think.

Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Dan
no you are right. What is strange for english itself , is that this language is a melting of 2 languages, French( since 1066) and German since the begining, where there is a difference marked between masculin and feminine add the neutral for german. And in English this difference exist no more, even the "Tu" has disapeared, it was thou.
 

jlbetin

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
6
Location
France/EuropeanUnion
Country
llFrance
Continuing on this as some told it before, the true problem could be for Turkey the creation of an "autonomous" Kurdistan on its border. I really don't know your knowledge about the kurds situation in Turkey, but there is a kind of civil war there since a very long time, with murder of soldiers, policemen, bombs and so on.
One year ago a leader of the PKK ( party of kurds workers litteral traduction) was sentence to death, and EU told turks that is they want to join them they must renouce to that sentence.

In EU death penalty is forbidden same along being a facist governement; it gaves troubles when Austria was voting for a coalition of right party and extreme-right parti, 3 or 4 years ago, kind of political boycot, but realpolitic took place and after 6 month everything return to normal especialy that those extreme right ministers behave "correctly" along sensible subject as right of men and immigration.

so returning to Turkey it could be a big problem for coalition to maintain peace in IraQ (not K :)
)
 

jlbetin

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
6
Location
France/EuropeanUnion
Country
llFrance
Quote from Siberian Heath

In Powell's speech last night he specifically mentioned Syria AND Iran as being in danger of "being next" if they don't shape up.

To quote:

Carrying the threat a step forward, Powell on Sunday demanded Iran "stop its support for terrorism against Israel" and said Tehran also "must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

Not that I disagree in principle, but the timing seems pretty bad. Perhaps the feeling is that while we have the troops over there, we might as well sweep out other rogue nations? This could be the start of somthing very bad...
__________________

So gents who'next ?????? a bridge too far ????
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by jlbetin
Quote from Siberian Heath

In Powell's speech last night he specifically mentioned Syria AND Iran as being in danger of "being next" if they don't shape up.

To quote:

Carrying the threat a step forward, Powell on Sunday demanded Iran "stop its support for terrorism against Israel" and said Tehran also "must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

Not that I disagree in principle, but the timing seems pretty bad. Perhaps the feeling is that while we have the troops over there, we might as well sweep out other rogue nations? This could be the start of somthing very bad...
__________________

So gents who'next ?????? a bridge too far ????
I agree this might not be a good move right now. We're already getting creamed by the local media in the Middle East. We should not add fuel to the fire. If we're concerned with Iranian involvement in our efforts, the best solution available is to use back channels. With the present situation, I don't want to give any arab state another stick to beat us with.

Aside from it's nuclear weapons program, which is certainly a major problem, Iran doesn't pose a major threat to the region. It's military and economy are very weak. Pragmatists continue to increase in power. And the radical Islam of the Revolution is not as strong as it once was. The only strength Iran has to expand it's power right now is coercive diplomacy. Yet, unlike Iraq, Iran is not going to get very far because of the American military presence in the region and the lack of capability to carry out threats against Arab states.

Syria has been on the American radar screen for some time now. Members in the Republican party wanted Bush to go after Iraq, Iran, Syria, and any nation in the Middle East (barring Israel) who developed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush wasn't that stupid..........I hope.

I have little concern with Syria. I do believe both Iran and Syria should understand that just because Saddam is gone, they can try to settle political differences during the interim. Syria has been in a water dispute with Iraq for around 30yrs now. They almost went to war over it in the 1970's. One of my concerns at the outset of this crisis was that Syria would try to divert vital water flows away from Iraq. This would seriously threaten Iraq's agricultural market, and eventually lead to an humanitarian crisis.

Bush is flexing to show the Arab nations we're in no way damaged by the war in Iraq. I can understand that. However, I'm not in Power Projection mode right. I want to takedown Saddam, then we can assess our position in the Middle East and decide what to next.
 
Top