It's official... the war is starting in mid-February

@rchives

The Russian armed forces have obtained information that the United States and its allies have already decided to launch military action in Iraq from mid-February, according to a normally reliable news source in the former communist state.

The news agency Interfax's specialist military news wire AVN, today quotes an unnamed high-ranking source in the Russian general staff, saying US-led operations would be launched once an attacking force had been assembled in the Gulf.

The source did not indicate by what means the Russian military had obtained such information.

"According to the information we have, the operation is planned for the second half of February. The decision to launch it has been taken but not yet been made public," the source told the agency, which has generally authoritative contacts in the Russian military and political establishment.

The source said the US and its allies had amassed about 100,000 soldiers and officers in the region but were awaiting for a strength of 150,000 before launching an attack.

"The military operation against Iraq will be conducted by a combination of means - strikes will be from the air, land and sea. The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said.

source: The Irish Times

scojones

Originally posted by @rchives
The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said.

IF there is a war it will not be short. Do you have a link to this?

@rchives

Yes, but you have to have access to the premium content at Ireland.com, which is why I broke the rules by posting the whole thing, instead of a link... sorry.

It's appalling to think that the "protectors of democracy" can be so single minded intheir determination for war, regardless of the opinions of the public.

Its a shame Ireland can't throw its lot in with the French and Germans rather than pandering to the US constantly.

scojones

aye. It's a scary thought that war could be upon us. We all have speculated that there will be war due to the amounts of manpower and the like being put into position just in case. But i have a question: If bush strikes without UN approval what will that mean? Can the UN do anything about it?

Kell

Unfortunately, the US's military budget dwarfs the combined military budget of the rest of the world by a substantial amount, so in the event that the US does attack with or without UN approval, no one has the firepower to stop 'em. Thats the sick bit. They are so well equipped that they can pretty much do as they like as no-one has as many biig guns as they do.

scojones

Sky News said the other day that at the moment bush has the backing of his country. But if that changed and lets say < 20% agreed with striking, and the UN didn't agree, nor did much of the world for that matter - do you still think he would strike? He's powermad and to me it looks like he's the one going in search for a war that could be avoided.

Raskolnikov

Don't ye all pretend to be suprised, what do you think 100,000 armed troops, numerous aircraft carriers, sub and ships are doing in the Persian Gulf? Military excersises my arse hole. The whole cost of the operation has already run into billions, the US will want to recoup the losses with a nice victorious war in which they can plunder Iraqi oil to cover the war costs and ensure that freedom loving people can continue to drive 4 ton SUV's that get 8 miles to the gallon.

The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said

typical. Thats somewhat like the german army before attacking russia. This is going to turn into another Vietnam for America, especially since they're occupying the area for at least 8 months after the invasion.

Typedef

Originally posted by Kell
They are so well equipped that they can pretty much do as they like as no-one has as many biig guns as they do.

Except for all of those Russian Nukes, the principal of mutually assured destruction is still a valid proposition, thus, the US could never, for example effect an invasion of Russia or China, or of France or Britain for that matter.

dathi1

Bush has to go to war:
Since the Reps got into power the Economies books are gone mad and a massive deficit has been gained. The best way to keep eyes of the situation is to have a "quick" war and hope that oil prices level off. With this under his belt this will then insure a presidential victory in 04 even if there is a slight upturn in the economy. Also the spoils can be divided between BP (Britain) Amoco and Exxon. The oil fields are the first in line for the taking..then wear down the Iraqi troops (which might not happen at all) and enter Baghdad slowly with little resistance. If there is any resistance at all make it look good Hollywood style for the folks back home.
That's the way its going to happen in a nutshell.

Long term??? Yes the fifth column etc will kick into action. Pity.

Bush is screwed. Once the American Citizens start seeing a constant stream of bodybags coming in from Iraq, they'll begin to question his speeches/claims. Personally, i think the american forces will get bogged down. While America has shown that its capable of performing surgcal strikes, and quick(3-4 day) ground campaigns, their experience of taking & holding hostile territory over a long period of time is extremely limited. Say goodbye to Bush's Ratings in about 1 months time.

Raskolnikov

I disagree Klaz, US airpower will ensure that no Iraqi armoured vehicle in the open desert will be left intact. Once bombers, cruise missiles etc have all but eliminated the Iraqi army, the US will enter Iraq with armour unopposed. More likely than not they'll bypass the big cities until the USAF can suppress the troops in them. Even then they i doubt they'll send huge numbers of US troops in, i bet the Iraqi dissident's they're currently training will come in handy here. Also people have been blathering on about the US suffering another Vietnam, as they said with Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc. This won't happen because

• Massive technological gap between the two countries
• US troops are far better equiped than those who fought in Vietnam
• Other than the big cities and unpopulated north, Iraq is open ground. Unlike Vietnam
• There is nothing to suggest that the Iraqi troops will fold less quickly as they did in 1991

My prediction? Iraq army will be routed within two weeks, in four weeks the US flag will be flying above Baghdad and only a few pockets of resistance will remain. US will suffer light casualties, Iraq left with a few hundred thousand dead Not wanting to get off topic but if it does come down to war and Iraq suffers these casualties we'll have there blood on our hands for allowing US refuelling at Shannon, not that this is likely to bother anyone.

Chaos-Engine

I posted on thisLast month..

bonkey

Originally posted by @rchives
The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said.

Just like that short war in Afghanistan that the administration admit is still ongoing?

jc

DiscoStu

US airpower will ensure that no Iraqi armoured vehicle in the open desert will be left intact. Once bombers, cruise missiles etc have all but eliminated the Iraqi army, the US will enter Iraq with armour unopposed.

Do you really think that they will be left out in the middle of the desert with big signs saying "Insert Bomb Here ->" ?

Look at Kosovo the Serb army hid the vast majority of their armour and layed decoys in the open for the us to bomb to kingdom come, while that Nice Jamie shea was telling us that almost the entire Serb armoured forces were destroyed and everything was going swimmingly.

Personally i belive that Saddam will first destroy as much of the oil wells as he possibly can and then fortify all troops and armour in urban areas.

Saddam is as good at the PR game as Dubya. Once CNN and Fox(not forgetting Al-Jazzera) start showing apaches flying low to get that tank parked down an allyway beside a moqsue, baby food factory and childerens hospital people will not like it one bit.
Also once the ground forces enter into bagdahd and other cities it will probably make mogadishu look like a cakewalk.
These will be people with their backs to the wall and with nothing to loose which will make them all the more dangerous.

Another probability is that Saddam, knowing his is done for anyway lets loose with whatever Bio/Chem weapons he does have left over or hidden.

It will be very very messy imho.

Balfa

Raskolnikov, saddam has already explained he's learned from 1991, and will be keeping his tanks well hidden from the sky, keeping his troops huddled in cities. there's no way the USAF will carpet bomb the cities. Not even bush is that demented.

It's obvious 1991's tactics won't work this time.

I think the best tactics they could employ would be to drive all their tanks into the ocean, and drive all their boats onto the land, go home, get high, and chill.

gandalf

OK if war breaks out there are 2 scenarios that I see happening.

1. The Iraqi army crumbles and desert on masse and its over in matter of weeks or a few months. Very light US & UK casulties and moderate Iraqi ones (ie the low thousands, which I know is not nice but!).

2. The Iraqi army prepares for Urban warfare, leaves the borders undefended, lets the US roll up to the cities and then with the lessons of Somalia unleases a vicious urban warfare offensive with the full knowledge if body bags start shipping home to the US & UK that they will start to turn the tide of public opinion. This would mean heavy casulties for the US & UK and massive casulties for the Iraqis.

Remember the Iraqis have probably learnt their lesson from the Gulf War and will not engage in a old style battle plan (well maybe in a limited token fashion) they will have their forces well hidden in the cities.

Personally I hope if war breaks out option 1 is the outcome, eventhough it galls me to think that President Butthead (don't know which poster called him that but I think its very apt ) will get a victory.

Heres hoping that the brave stance by France & Germany will change some peoples minds (Hello Tony!!). They make me proud that we are a member of the EU (and thats the first time I've been proud of that in a while). I wonder what Taoiseach Ostrich is doing at the moment ??? One thing he is not stopping is making sure we aren't facilitating the build up of what could be a Illegal operation by allowing unconstitutional use of our airspace and airport.

Gandalf.

mike65

Originally posted by gandalf

Heres hoping that the brave stance by France & Germany will change some peoples minds (Hello Tony!!). They make me proud that we are a member of the EU (and thats the first time I've been proud of that in a while).

Gandalf.

C'mon now Gandalf. Do you belive the French and Germans are taking a principled stand? No, the French are owed a tonne of money by Saddam and would like so see it one day, while the German chancellor is presiding over a failed economic entity, he dare'nt buck his publics pacifist opinion right now. He already hugely unpopular.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
he dare'nt buck his publics pacifist opinion right now.

One could argue it is his job to obey public opinion on issues such as this. If the public are strongly against the war, it would be remiss of their elected officials to ignore that.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by mike65
C'mon now Gandalf. Do you belive the French and Germans are taking a principled stand? No, the French are owed a tonne of money by Saddam and would like so see it one day, while the German chancellor is presiding over a failed economic entity, he dare'nt buck his publics pacifist opinion right now. He already hugely unpopular.

Mike.

The people of France and Germany are ferociously anti-American (gratitude how are you) so their governments dare not support the US and Britain. It'd be political suicide.

Turnip

Originally posted by Balfa
Raskolnikov, saddam has already explained he's learned from 1991, and will be keeping his tanks well hidden from the sky, keeping his troops huddled in cities. there's no way the USAF will carpet bomb the cities. Not even bush is that demented.

It's obvious 1991's tactics won't work this time.

I wonder if Saddam will do what the Serbs did and deploy fake tanks and artillery and so on? I believe the war will be over quickly and the much hyped urban warfare just won't occur.

Thorbar

Originally posted by Turnip
The people of France and Germany are ferociously anti-American (gratitude how are you) so their governments dare not support the US and Britain. It'd be political suicide.

What exactly did America do to Germany that they should be greatful for?

I'm not sure comparing urban fighting in Iraqi to the disaster at Mogadishu is fair. In Mogadishu it was around 150 US troops who got isolated in a city of around 20,000(can't remember exact numbers) of complete nutters. And even then they managed to get out with only 18 dead soldiers. In Iraqi I'm guessing the Americans are going to give themselves better odds then that and also they'll be clearing the city and wont be completely surrounded and lost. Also I'm not too sure the Iraqi soldier is going to stand up to the huge strain of fighting an enemy that outclasses them in nearly ever department, we could easily see the army fall to bits like it did in 1991.

alastair

Originally posted by Thorbar
What exactly did America do to Germany that they should be greatful for?

I'd imagine that the marshall plan would play some part there, and maybe helping get rid of hitler? Keeping west berlin out of the DDR as well. If your point is that they aren't beholden to the US I'd agree fully though. Every country has the right to self determination (including democratic Iran. Bush take note)

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by gandalf
They make me proud that we are a member of the EU (and thats the first time I've been proud of that in a while).

Gandalf.

I don't think we have much too be proud of. We haven't used our position in either the EU or the security council to much effect in terms of expressing opposition to a war !

One could argue it is his job to obey public opinion on issues such as this. If the public are strongly against the war, it would be remiss of their elected officials to ignore that.

When have elected officials ever represented public opinion . . . if they did, there would be no war, no troops in Shannon and half of the threads in this forum would never have been opened !

PH01

Great! I can't wait for the TV coverage (must get cable for CNN and Sky News).
Hope it's better than the Afghan war last year - TV was shìte for that. Where were all the tanks and artillery? Bloody mountains get in the way of a good TV war.
And if the First Gulf War is anything to by, the second should be a great sequel?
And those laser guided missiles with the camera on their noses, what's the story with the black and white pictures? Colour, we want colour!

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by PH01

And those laser guided missiles with the camera on their noses, what's the story with the black and white pictures? Colour, we want colour!

Maybe we'll have "interactive TV" this time . . . press the red button for missile cam . . . !

If they were really clever we could choose our own targets from the comfort of our recliner !

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by DiscoStu
Do you really think that they will be left out in the middle of the desert with big signs saying "Insert Bomb Here ->" ?

Look at Kosovo the Serb army hid the vast majority of their armour and layed decoys in the open for the us to bomb to kingdom come, while that Nice Jamie shea was telling us that almost the entire Serb armoured forces were destroyed and everything was going swimmingly.

Personally i belive that Saddam will first destroy as much of the oil wells as he possibly can and then fortify all troops and armour in urban areas.

Saddam is as good at the PR game as Dubya. Once CNN and Fox(not forgetting Al-Jazzera) start showing apaches flying low to get that tank parked down an allyway beside a moqsue, baby food factory and childerens hospital people will not like it one bit.
Also once the ground forces enter into bagdahd and other cities it will probably make mogadishu look like a cakewalk.
These will be people with their backs to the wall and with nothing to loose which will make them all the more dangerous.

Another probability is that Saddam, knowing his is done for anyway lets loose with whatever Bio/Chem weapons he does have left over or hidden.

It will be very very messy imho.

The problem with that is you're making an awful lot of asumptions. The bulk of the Iraqi army is made up of unmotivated and ill-equipped conscripts. There is the better equiped but far smaller Republican Guard though. You've also got to remember that Sadaam hasn't got new equipment to replace what was destroyed in the Gulf War, unless it was smuggled, even if it was it would be low grade stuff. The bio/chem threat is almost non-existant imho, Sadaam has no effective delivery systems and despite UN efforts there have been no weapons found!

Typedef

It will be interesting I think to see if Saddam really does posess Weapons of Mass Destruction, this will be put to the test when the Americans do invade.

If Iraq uses Chemical weapons to defend itself, then the American position will be vindicated, if not, the war can be shown to be an invalid invasion to exponenciate oil interests.

That'd be my take anyway.

PH01

Originally posted by Typedef
It will be interesting I think to see if Saddam really does posess Weapons of Mass Destruction, this will be put to the test when the Americans do invade.

If Iraq uses Chemical weapons to defend itself, then the American position will be vindicated, if not, the war can be shown to be an invalid invasion to exponenciate oil interests.

That'd be my take anyway.

I doubt it if they'll find any WMD.
Saddam will keep saying he doesn't have any WMD - and draw them out until summer.
The EU (France and Germany) will press for more time to allow the UN inspections to finish.
The US and the UK don't really care about whether Iraq has or has not WMD and will press to a early resolution - i.e. invade in mid February and war over by mid March (April at the latest - they wouldn't want to see this going into summer - cost too much dollars).

If they're going to have a war I hope they get it over with ASAP. The world economy does like have this issue creating all this uncertainty.

And BTW, all politics in the middle east is about Oil.



First of all it's

DiscoStu

The problem with that is you're making an awful lot of asumptions.

we are all making assumptions, unless you are privvy to chats between the joint chiefs of staff that the rest of us as not.

Lessons will have been learnt after the first gulf war ie the iraqi army stands little(read no) chance of victory in open desert warfare. us air supremacy, superior battlefield intelligence and more advanced destructive weapons will ensure that.
Why would they risk swift and total defeat when they can bring battles into cities where it will be many time more difficult to defeat them?

US Air supremacy will be all but meaningless as there is no chance that the united states would risk large scale bombing of predominantly civilian areas.

Remedial Military Tactics 101 - Use what you have, as best you can.

PH01

You're right about the assumptions Disco. The American probably think that all they have to do is roll one tank over the Iraqi border and the Iraqi regime will wall to pieces.
Although there is a likelihood that this might happen