Post Iraq - What Next?

bertiebowl

Okay I think we can assume UN or no UN war is going ahead in Iraq with the Americans/Brits probably going it alone in their "coalition of willing nations".

What I'm wondering is what will happen next?

How long will the troops be in Baghdad?

Will it be a new Vietnam?

Is Toady Blair history once the bodybags come home or will the Iraqis welcome the yanks with open arms?

What I'm wondering is what will happen next?

If you mean once they invade, then in my opinion, the Iraqi military will be swamped and destroyed. By the time the US invades they'll have almost 1/2 million troops, which gives them alot of leeway for a ground war. The Iraqi divisions outside of cities will be destroyed in less than 2 days. The cities are a different story. Surgical strikes, and sieges will be the rule. Cordoning off cities, and then using artillery to take out facilities, and key buildings. Bring the cities to their knees without sending in any troops. Once starvation and lack of water sets in, send in the troops.

This is where i see things getting messy. Cities will be turned into fortresses due to the bombing, just as in WW2 stalingrad became a fortress. Also Saddam will have learned from Vietnam, and in all likelyhood will have a honeycomb of tunnels for rapid redeployment, and hit & run attacks.

Once the troops go in you'll see the body bags on the TV, and the American Generals asking for carpet bombing & nukes. Anything can happen at that stage.

The war won't last as long as vietnam. In all likelyhood it'll be over in abt 3 months. However the number of dead on both sides, will be dreadful. More so for the Iraqi's.

How long will the troops be in Baghdad?

Ten Years +.
America still has troops in both Germany and Japan. Iraq has Oil which America will use to rebuild the countryside, and to pay for its own war-effort. & probably pay for their next campaign aswell.

Will it be a new Vietnam?

No. Because in Vietnam, Generals acted stupid. Also tactics have changed from that time, as have weapons. Iraq will be conquered in a few months, simply because America is just too powerful, and Iraq has no big brother to give supplies.

Is Toady Blair history once the bodybags come home or will the Iraqis welcome the yanks with open arms?

Welcome with open arms? Yes probably. But so would you when your army is destroyed, and you're faced with an occupying army. Then once their backs have turned, become Freedom fighters. Iraq will be a mess for years to come, especially when most arab nations decide to send suicide bombers, and "terrorists" to free their neighbour from western influence.

Blair will probably survive this. At least i hope he does. While i don't agree with this war, Blair is good for the UK.

Éomer of Rohan

Intersting post. Do you really think that Blair, considering all presently going on in the Labour party at present will order in the troops? I don't - I think toady will cave before a self righteous and right Claire Short. Our only fear then is Gordon Brown taking power lol!!

The war won't last as long as vietnam. In all likelyhood it'll be over in abt 3 months. However the number of dead on both sides, will be dreadful. More so for the Iraqi's.

I have no doubt, that given GWB's determination we will soon see, if this and other projections about the coming months are right.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

I am sure we will unfortunately but consider the really frightening prospect; if GWB wins outright and then goes after someone bigger and more powerful than Saddam all because he has overinflated his own ego. Let us not forget that Kim Il Jong has now stated publicly that if the is a US strike on NK, there WILL be a nuclear war - which will have devastating repercussions for the whole world.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
if GWB wins outright and then goes after someone bigger and more powerful than Saddam all because he has overinflated his own ego. Let us not forget that Kim Il Jong has now stated publicly that if the is a US strike on NK, there WILL be a nuclear war - which will have devastating repercussions for the whole world.

Do you seriously believe that? You believe that one man would be able to lead his nation into a war that the common man in the street could see was suicidal? That his clique of advisors, his entire government, and indeed his nation would idly stand by and say "Rah, Dubya, You the Man" and equally buy into the stupidity of attacking a nation who could actually pose a threat?

Come on - even if Bush were the stupidest man on the planet, he'd still have to be surrounded by morons of a similar scale before being that dumb.

In fact, I dont think even stupid is strong enough for any nation who would risk attacking North Korea while it has a small nation called China sitting behind it saying to all agressors to back the fsck away.

Besides, the only possible way the US would ever attack North Korea would be if it had a first-strike capability which could remove North Korea's nuclear capability, and if they could use it without the Chinese getting involved.

jc

jc

bertiebowl

Do you seriously believe that? You believe that one man would be able to lead his nation into a war that the common man in the street could see was suicidal? That his clique of advisors, his entire government, and indeed his nation would idly stand by and say "Rah, Dubya, You the Man" and equally buy into the stupidity of attacking a nation who could actually pose a threat?

I think the point is that the Bush moron is just a puppet for the real government of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz - who do believe that it would be okay to attack other countries - including North Korea - to "sort 'em out once and for all".

gandalf

The other thing to consider here is do you believe George W Bush is in charge at all. I certainly don't the guy is a puppet being controlled by others like Dick Chaney and Daddy Bush.

I doubt that they will go after North Korea, they have the capacity to really cause serious casulties while defending themselves. If I was living in Iran however I would be quite nervous judging by the noises coming from the Oil Junta at the moment. Iran is a country that is gradually moving into a democratic society and that is probably under threat because the "good old boys" still hold a grudge over the Shah & Tehrangate.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I think the point is that the Bush moron is just a puppet for the real government of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz - who do believe that it would be okay to attack other countries - including North Korea - to "sort 'em out once and for all".

OK - so you're saying that there's a small "administrative" clique which is clever enough to run the country "by proxy" through a mouthpiece, but is not clever enough to see "the obviousness" of how bad it would be to attack North Korea?

Look - these people are not morons. If they have put themselves in a position to run the US without getting elected as president, then you can be damned sure that if they are far more aware than anyone here about if the US could manage to survive a war with North Korea, and exactly how they would go about doing it.

However, I must say that I have serious concerns about any line of thinking which goes "how can they be so stupid", because they quite clearly arent. Different priorities, sure, but stupid? No.

jc

bertiebowl

The good ole boys running the US of A are not morons - they are meglomaniacs with a moron fronting the show.

It would be quite easy for the USA to take out N.Korea...a few nukes would do the job (which the current administration are proposing to use if Iraq respond with chemical weapons).

Johnmb

It would be quite easy for the USA to take out N.Korea...a few nukes would do the job (which the current administration are proposing to use if Iraq respond with chemical weapons).

There's no way the US would nuke NK except in retaliation, as the political fallout would be emense. The US would not only risk losing all its allies in the area (some very important economically), they would also risk retaliation by China if the nuclear fallout had any kind of major impact on them (as well as possible retaliation by NK assuming they get their nukes operational in time).

bertiebowl

They don't even have to use nukes - the Americans have so much other technology for bombing countries back to the stone age

- and remember when asked "what's next?" in the parliament Toady Blair replied "north korea - the UN security council will have to accept its responsiblity for north korea".

'nuff said....

Johnmb

and remember when asked "what's next?" in the parliament Toady Blair replied "north korea - the UN security council will have to accept its responsiblity for north korea".

Although the US have been making noises about Iran over the last few days. (Iran having a vote on OPEC would be more beneficial financially for the US to go after).

Slightly off topic, on what grounds can the Security Council act regarding NK? They have withdrawn from the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (which is allowed by said treaty), so it is no longer withing the remit of the UN, as they can only enforce the treaty on countries that have volunteered to sign up to it and remain. The only legal punishment for NK AFAICS is that they are no longer entitled to any nuclear advances regarding non military uses.

gandalf

Ahh bertie I really don't think the US or UK will be attacking NK. The North Koreans have enough artillary in place to land 500,000 shells on Seoul in a hour (I'll see if I can find a link to where I read that). They will negotiate a way out with them but leave Kim Il Dong in power which is really waht NK want. They have established a aggressive stance to give themselves a stronger position in the negotiations.

Iran on the other hand holds bitter memories for the US administration especially the hawks. They can conjour up links to terrorists and get support from Isreal (who seem to have a fair old imput into the policies out there) to go in. And after all the troops will already be out there it would a shame for them to turn up such a wondeful opportunity (and another oil bonus!!).

Gandalf.

Sand

I think the war will be over rather quickly - but there will almost certainly be civillian casualties as apparently Saddam is going to play mind games involving Iraqi troops dressed in American/British uniforms slaughtering Iraqi civillians live on Arab TV. Also he apparently viewed his release of Western hostages/human shields as a major mistake during the first gulf war - luckily this time around he has volunteers coming from Europe to be used as hostages.

No doubt hell be seeking to either engineer a civillian catastrophe or create one - Powell stopped bombings of Baghdad in the first war after a US bombing misson hit and killed 400 civillians in an underground bunker, so Saddam will be looking for a similar reprieve.

It wont be a new vietnam, the terrain is perfect for the US milatary philosophy (bomb, bomb em again, third times a charm) and the "irregulars" are easily bought off once Saddam is bloodied, and the regulars are conscripts - badly trained and equipped people who only wish to go home extremely aware of the last time they clashed with the americans, theyve no interest in dying for Saddam.

Troops will be there for a long while I think - it took 5 years before Germany was trusted to raise its own army again. Certainly a quick in and out would be foolish. Seeing as everyones chatting about Iran, from what I gather the Iranians dont mind the Americans overthrowing Saddam ( Theyre good mates ) but they want to leave ASAP, to clear the way for their own Iraqi factions to take control. Failure to do so would lead to tension at the very least.

The average Iraqi will welcome the Americans with open arms imo - if not immediately certainly when the reconstruction begins and sanctions are lifted due to redundancy.

pyure

the war in iraq (im 90% certain it will take place at this stage, even without UN backing) wont last very long. two/three days at most of air strikes will finish of iraqs air force and air defence systems
10 days or less will see american troops in charge of everywhere except major cities.
artillary strikes against cities packed with civillians are unlikely, it wouldnt look good on CNN.
more likely is a siege situation with percission incursions by us special forces both for combat/demolitan but also as pathfinders for 'smart' bomb attacks.

thats how id do it anyways.

Éomer of Rohan

Has anyone seen pictures of Stalingrad from around March 1943? The Luftwaffe before the assault on the city launched a bombing campaign which pretty much flattened the city for the PAnzer MK IV's to roll over; as we are well aware, a qualitatively inferior army held back and ultimately smashed the German VI Army and IV Pz Army. Does anyone think that the same could be true of Baghdad when it comes down to the street fighting? I think it might especially considering Saddam has brought quite a few units of the Republican Guard into the city's garrisons.

Lemming

An interesting point which has been overlooked.

The americans have no exit strategies for Iraq (well, at the least they've not stated any viable strategies).

As for the conflict, what I see is something a la the following:

(assuming the US decides to go with the "shock & awe" tactic) There will be serious civilian casualties during the first 48 hours, followed by an horrific humanitarian crisis from lack of sanitation/spread of disease, lack of food and water and no power since the US plans to take out all public utilities. This, needless to say, will not endear the americans to the joe-bloggs in the street which will lead to some unforunate incidents I'm sure.

Militarily the US will trounce the Iraqi army, but beyond "conventional military conflict" I think the US may be setting itself up for something oh-so-very-bloody when it enters urban areas.

There is also the spectre of chemical weapons being used, but I'm not so sure that Saddam will use them since it'll publically play to the US mantra about WMDs and perhaps add some legitimacy to their [US] actions.

Éomer of Rohan

The americans have no exit strategies for Iraq

Correct, however even if the US suffers massive bloodshed, at this stage, it is a matter of interantional prestige and it is quite possible that the US could simply use cruise missiles to annihilate all resistance pockets, civilians and all. IF looked at closely, this presents a real possibilty since it may be civilians who help to fight the US, having seen their towns destroyed, their power, water and communications cut of etc. I don't think that America would 'do a Viet Nam' and pull out; it would finish Bush politically and damage the republican image of the hawks - which would be a good thing but not something they would be willing to allow to happen eh?

Lemming

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Correct, however even if the US suffers massive bloodshed, at this stage, it is a matter of interantional prestige and it is quite possible that the US could simply use cruise missiles to annihilate all resistance pockets, civilians and all. IF looked at closely, this presents a real possibilty since it may be civilians who help to fight the US, having seen their towns destroyed, their power, water and communications cut of etc. I don't think that America would 'do a Viet Nam' and pull out; it would finish Bush politically and damage the republican image of the hawks - which would be a good thing but not something they would be willing to allow to happen eh?

Ah .. here's were things get interesting Eomer and I'm glad you mentioned it. If the US pulls out, references to Vietnam are made.

If the US conducts a brutal supression of the Iraqi people (the same people it claims are not who it has a fight with yet decides to anhilate their very means of survival) news will eventually filter through to it's own people who will no doubt begin to express disgust at what is being done in their name. Vietnam scenario again.

Added to that the turning of America into something of a pariah-state within internation circles (assuming the above happens), Bush is digging himself into a corner where he will have two choices - loose power along with crippling the US or ... loose power alogn with crippling the US.

One other point to consider is that Saddam is hardly going to want to be taken prisoner by the US, since its unlikely they'd let him go. Theres a chance that if Saddam does indeed have WMD's he might use them as a last ditch move to do as much damage as possible.

Since countries like India and Pakistan can get their hands on Nukes, its possible that Saddam is capable of purchasing such weapons. Especially with the help of the other Arab Nations. He could use a nuke to take out both the Americans and himself.

Stranger things have happened.

Lemming

Originally posted by klaz
One other point to consider is that Saddam is hardly going to want to be taken prisoner by the US, since its unlikely they'd let him go. Theres a chance that if Saddam does indeed have WMD's he might use them as a last ditch move to do as much damage as possible.

I would emphasis "last ditch" with the enemy at the proverbial gates. If he uses them he will, as I mentioned, be playing to the US mantra about the need to remove said weapons from him. He's a sly bugger and I have no doubts he's WELL aware of this.

Éomer of Rohan

I think it unlikely that Saddam would use biological or chemical weapons, not because I think he doesn't have them but because it might give the US justification to pull out troops and just drop a hydrogen bomb on Iraq to 'save our boys' lives' just as Harry S Truman did in Japan. As to nukes, it is unlikely and improbable that Saddam could get a nuke; other people would be scared to deal with him especially the likely sources of Russia and Pakistan, both of whom are trying to cultivate good relatioships with the US.

Éomer of Rohan

One other point to consider is that Saddam is hardly going to want to be taken prisoner by the US, since its unlikely they'd let him go

Or even try him fairly judging by the stated reservations of the US administration to ratifying the Rome statute of the ICC and by their treatment of Taliban / Al - Quaeda prisoners.

think it unlikely that Saddam would use biological or chemical weapons, not because I think he doesn't have them but because it might give the US justification to pull out troops and just drop a hydrogen bomb on Iraq to 'save our boys' lives' just as Harry S Truman did in Japan.

I agree. He's unlikely to use em during the war. However what i meant, was when his army is destroyed, the allies are about to beat down the door to his sanctum, he presses the trigger. Alternatively, it might be fun from his perspective to make the oil fields radioative for the next 100 years.

As to nukes, it is unlikely and improbable that Saddam could get a nuke;

oddly enough i can see him getting one within the next few weeks. The US are not making that many friends worldwide in their current stance. N.Korea might consider sending nuclear material to Iraq, for them to make a dirty bomb. Or the other Arab Nations might act as a front for him. As it stands, many nations would be more than happy to see the US punished for their aggressive behaviour.

So i wouldn't rule out the possibility.