Language: You won't be hear "on schedule" and "Iraq" in the same sentence from anyone in the administration any more. There is no schedule, never was... You also wont hear fedayeen Saddam to describe Ba'athist gunmen --the preferred term is now "militia" or "paramilitaries". But you will hear "underestimate" as in Gen Brig.Vincent Brooks' statement yesterday: "Our enemy always has a vote in how the circumstances go. I don't think that we have necessarily underestimated (the enemy). No one can ever predict how battle will unfold."
Developments: Looks like Jim "Jordan" Bassett was right: UK press (via Agonist) is now reporting the recent transit of US armor on transporters through Jordan. I just wanted to hear it from disgruntled Bedouin themselves, that's all.
Be sceptical of reports the Iraqi Army is abandoning positions around Kirkuk ahead of Kurdish fighters and US airborne troops. It's a city of 600,000 people after all, and it sounds too good to be true. The Turkish Army has once again threatened to complicate matters if the Kurds enter Kirkuk itself.
Aftermath: Got into a spirited discussion last night about how a post-war Baghdad regime acquires legitimacy. Friend took the position that this administration won't seek or need any international legal mandate for the new guys it installs. I disagreed. Friend said these guys (Cheney et al) don't care about multilateralism, or what anybody else thinks, because they control the IMF and World Bank. I reckon that would wreck international trade. They aren't afraid of putative boycotts or trade wars, friend says, full speed ahead, let Tony Blair invoke the UN al he wants. To modify Clausewitz, isn't this a template for trade wars: "the continuation of war by other means"?
There's no hurry to settle the point. But if my friend is right, it would be very inconvenient for the go-it-alone crowd if there was an alternative government around for non-coalition parties (e.g. Russia, China, France -- rembember Cambodia in the '70, '80s and 90s?) to recognize. Doesn't preventing this outcome mean arresting and maybe trying thousands of Ba'athist militant and officials? Can trials on this scale --let alone elections later on -- be credibly handled without international courts?
Might want to take a look at this lincolnplawg post: What legal regime for post-Saddam Iraq?
Also, to be fair, the outrageous part of my Jordan prediction was landing the troops in Israel, and there is certainly no evidence of that having happened. The rest wasn't too hard to guess - something has to come through either Turkey or Jordan, so it was 50/50. Still, I'll take the press where I can get it.
The agonist link doesn't work.
|
Developments: Looks like Jim "Jordan" Bassett was right: UK press (via Agonist) is now reporting the recent transit of US armor on transporters through Jordan. I just wanted to hear it from disgruntled Bedouin themselves, that's all.
Be sceptical of reports the Iraqi Army is abandoning positions around Kirkuk ahead of Kurdish fighters and US airborne troops. It's a city of 600,000 people after all, and it sounds too good to be true. The Turkish Army has once again threatened to complicate matters if the Kurds enter Kirkuk itself.
Aftermath: Got into a spirited discussion last night about how a post-war Baghdad regime acquires legitimacy. Friend took the position that this administration won't seek or need any international legal mandate for the new guys it installs. I disagreed. Friend said these guys (Cheney et al) don't care about multilateralism, or what anybody else thinks, because they control the IMF and World Bank. I reckon that would wreck international trade. They aren't afraid of putative boycotts or trade wars, friend says, full speed ahead, let Tony Blair invoke the UN al he wants. To modify Clausewitz, isn't this a template for trade wars: "the continuation of war by other means"?
There's no hurry to settle the point. But if my friend is right, it would be very inconvenient for the go-it-alone crowd if there was an alternative government around for non-coalition parties (e.g. Russia, China, France -- rembember Cambodia in the '70, '80s and 90s?) to recognize. Doesn't preventing this outcome mean arresting and maybe trying thousands of Ba'athist militant and officials? Can trials on this scale --let alone elections later on -- be credibly handled without international courts?
- bruno 3-28-2003 6:31 pm
Might want to take a look at this lincolnplawg post: What legal regime for post-Saddam Iraq?
Also, to be fair, the outrageous part of my Jordan prediction was landing the troops in Israel, and there is certainly no evidence of that having happened. The rest wasn't too hard to guess - something has to come through either Turkey or Jordan, so it was 50/50. Still, I'll take the press where I can get it.
- jim 3-28-2003 6:43 pm
The agonist link doesn't work.
- steve 4-01-2003 7:58 am