Attack Iraq: Who has family/friends in the military?

My brother is a Marine and is now in Saudi Arabia (Them b****es).

I talk to him about every two weeks and he is all for it.

It just pains me that I can't be there to go with him to Iraq or wherever he is going if they strike.

 

FranchiseBlade,

Re: what the Kuwaitis think, there are really two different populations with differing interests there - the people and the government. The government is, I assure you, quite concerned about another Iraqi takeover. That is why they allow us basing there, and why they are allowing us to quietly build up our forces for an attack (they are actually on board with us, they just don't like to advertise it). The mobilization and other preparations are already well underway, and the Kuwaiti govt is giving us free reign. They secretly want nothing less than another US invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam once and for all.

The people, on the other hand, admire Saddam because he is seen as the only Arab ruler willing to stand up against the infidel West. Saddam is actually quite popular there... It would seem that their hatred for the Jews and their infidel protectors (us) has clouded their memories of 1990-1. They appear to somewhat buy into Saddam's repeated calls for reconciliation in order to unite against us. These calls may sound ridiculous to us, but they resonate powerfully on the Arab street.

By Western standards, this is of course very irrational, but there it is. The people there sometimes tend to think with their hearts, not their heads. The government remembers the war, though...

China... We will have to deal with them later. Hopefully democratic reforms will arise before a confrontation does, but - in spite of their flawed nuclear strategy - the Chinese are more pragmatic opponents, and in general (but not certainly in every way) more rational than our Arab enemies. We will deal with them later, hopefully peacefully. Hell, maybe Taiwan and the mainland will eventually come to some kind of arrangement...

 

Good luck to your brother, Almu. The Marines are some tough mofos... He'll be fine.

 

Treeman:
I just wanted to point out that the risks of engaging a major war with a dangerous country can't be underestimated. Your concern of Hussein using mass destruction weapon, if he get them, against American interests is legit. Yet whether it's wise to risk civilian and military casualties to remove such a threat remains to be discussed.
I am all for removing threats from society, instead of just keeping them in check. Sadly, cost has to be considered before anything in reality. The cost of possible civilian and military casualties can't be ignored carrying out such operations. In this case, if the possible cost is too high, such as risking serious contamination or infection engineered by a cornered Hussein that results in massive casualities. Then maybe the wise way is just to keep him in check, as you don't know what will happen after a dog is being forced into a dead corner. I hope I'm not worrying too much on this aspect.
It's not a long term solution to remove weapons from murderers. On the other hand, keeping them in check avoids unacceptable cost. So it's not as clean cut as it seems, hence the hesitation on this matter.
Just my two cents.

 

My God! A treeman sighting!

My life has been empty with nobody to argue with...

Anyway - I have heard, in a couple of instances, of people in the Millitary who supported the first war, but not this (potential) one. I guess it probably has a bit to to with what you are actually doing. I'm pretty sure my Aunt, a patholigist and an Army Major, whose primary form of entertainment is raising cactii and reading SF novels, wouldn't be in favor of it. From what I've seen, most of the 'ground forces' would be down with the concept.

My question for you -

1. How would you assess the potential longterm political effects, both among governments and among the peoples of the middle east?

2. I saw a recent story from some muckety-muck from the Regan administration stating that we'd be required to provide peace-keepers to protect any new gov't from Iran at a cost of many billions, after a war. Would that be an acceptable "cost of war" for you?

 

Ottomaton:

Good to hear from you, too. I've missed our conversations...

I've commented quite a bit on this in previous posts in this thread, and I do dislike repeating myself, so 'see above'...

I would just add a general comment: I would expect the long term effects to be positive in nature, and that social attitudes in the region in question couldn't possibly get much worse than they are now. They will get worse in the short term, though. If it is possible for us to be even more hated than we already are, then we will be. And then it will get better... But only years after we 'act'.

The question is, "Acceptable as opposed to what?" Acceptable as opposed to knocking out Iraq's leadership and then not bothering to replace it with a viable govt? An occupation will be inevitable. The only question is whether it will be a 2-year occupation or a 20-year one. It could be either, but I would tend to look more in the range or 2-5 years. Possibly up to 10 - the investment in terms of both $ and troops will be enormous.

It will be a significant occupation - far larger than that which we currently hold in Bosnia/Kosovo, and far more involved. As you point out, the Iranians will be right there, and an occupation force in Iraq might be indistinguishable from a force that might be used to invade Iran - very large...

I have been saying all along that both Iran and Iraq need to be 'dealt with'. In Iran's case, military (and sociopolitical) pressure - not an actual attack - might be enough to bring about desired results (the fall of the mullah regime). They are next on the list after Iraq for regime change, though. Another 'must happen before we can declare victory in the War on Terrorism' situation...

Expect the Iraq occupation force to be quite large. Large enough to threaten, and if necessary invade, Iran.

 

I just want to say one more thing on containment. Pat Buchannon(I'm not normally in agreement with him) brought up the point that in the past we've been able to contain the Soviet Union From Stalin, Kruschev, etc. We've been able to contain China under Mao etc. We've contained N. Korea.

Somehow we aren't able to contain Saddam? I mean his military is even worse now than it was during the Gulf War and it wasn't too difficult to defeat him then.

Anyway just another thought on Containment

 

Assymetric warfare. Impossible to contain, and when mixed with WMD warfare, impossible to ignore.

Saddam is really 'un-containable'. There is nothing stopping him from unleashing an anthrax attack on us this very second.

You've gotta love 21st century warfare. You - or Saddam, for that matter - don't have to actually field any tanks or aircraft... Just a biolab and a few trustworthy souls. And you can safely ignore any security directives the UN feels like throwing at you - they can't enforce them.

BTW, N. Korea is far from 'contained'. 'Appeased' doesn't even fit as it was supposed to when we aggreed to the reactor-for-peace deal. The recent naval battle there should send up flags...

 

On the subject of international involvement, Pat Buchanan has always primarily distinguished himself from the "Republican Party Line" on the subject of foreign relations. He is an isolationist of the highest order, the type of guy who would have argued against American involvement in WWII. Irrespective of any of his other views, pro or con, good or bad, you can bet $$$ that he'll argue pathologicaly in favor of the hands off approach.

Again, I'm not saying that he's right or wrong, just that he's notoriously one-sided and inflexable on this issue, and you shouldn't expect anything but a kneejerk response on any type of foreign policy issue from him.

Offtopic -

The big issue with NBC attacks in terms of Iraq to US (and the like) has always been the delivery system. As China has recently found out, the technological knowledge for a long-range delivery and guidence system is much more difficult to engineer than a anthrax dispersal warhead or a nuke.

 

I know, and I normally disagree with Buchannon's ideas on both domestic and foreign policy. I think he's a xenophobe and a racist. But that doesn't mean he can't also occasionally make a good point. In this case I think he does make a good point. I was looking at his logic, and it makes sense to me.