Can anybody give me a little political lesson? What's the deal with Jordan?
[I put the rest of this in the comments so it wasn't so long on this page...]
Here's what I'm thinking. Yes, I'm aware this sounds crazy. But I'm just thinking about those 60,000 troops (with armor!) floating in the Mediterranean, unable to land in Turkey. Are they really going to sail them all the way around to Kuwait (just to have all our troops together in one little tiny place?)
Don't you think someone is thinking about just landing them in Israel? Obviously it would be touchy to attack an arab country from Israel. And yes, I know Israel doesn't even border Iraq. But it almost does. And I'm sure the Israeli's wouldn't mind helping the U.S. out by securing a slightly wider perimeter for themselves. Say one that goes all the way to Iraq. We'll call it a "security corridor" or "highway of peace" or "isthmus or neverending harmony" or something....
Obviously this highway to Iraq could go through Syria (which seem maximumly dicey - but if successful a nice payoff for Israel, who is seriously threatened from exactly that direction,) or through Jordan, whose borders almost seem made for such an incursion. So what's the deal with Jordan?
Yes, I have too much time to think about these things. And like I said, I know it sounds crazy. I don't exactly believe it myself. But if you dismiss this plan, what exactly are they going to do with all those troops? Air drop them? (Hint: no way; impossible to resupply, and the tanks have to be resupplied.) Strange times.
But is it possible? This would make an already serious situation amazingly more serious. My fear is that this administration really seems to like taking risks. And this is the biggest one I can think of.
If you don't have a good map of the mid east, might I suggest this one (or the same as a higher quality .pdf.)
Crossin' Jordan I need not fear
'Cus Jesus gonna be my engineer..
Of course, my answer is turn the boat around and send Carlysle the bill. But answering hypothetically, just looking at the map, that's a lot of distance to move so many troops and armaments, even if the diplomatic hurdles could be cleared. It would probably take weeks, and they're aiming for shock and awe.
there's basically only one road from jordan to iraq, it's very long, through the desert, and you don't really get anywhere that matters any faster than you would coming up from kuwait and saudi. the key issue with turkey is getting quickly to those northern oil fields around mosul - long way from the south. only other places you could come in are Syria and Iran. not too likely. my suspicion is that if the war actually starts turkey will let us in...that will delay things by a few weeks of course...
The French are sending their nuclear aircraft carrier to the Gulf, to test their new carrier based strike aircraft once the shit starts .... Rumsfeld, whoever that guy is, sent those carrier groups to the Meditarranean maybe just because they cost so much to maintain, and Bush loses face if he withdraws, that it makes everything just more inevitable. Whatever. You read the news. But truly Jim, outlandish enough to take my mind off of me.
jim has been seduced by the dark side. we'll have to call him richard perle jr. back when perle was hired to work for netanyahu while he was prime minister of israel, he and wolfowitz worked up the gameplan that they are trying to impliment today. one of the options was to install the king of jordan, which is considered the most western oriented regime, as the head of iraq for which there is historical precedent. i had heard the idea was still in play not long ago before returning "democracy" to the region became our overriding concern. for more info check out the project for a new american century where the neocons think tanked. these are useful primers for iraq jordan and saudi arabia and syria although they dont cover current conditions.
I don't think I can claim to have actually posted this but it has definitely come up as a scenario...after all, the original British-appointed kings of jordan and iraq were cousins or something (Hashemites) -- basically they were the rivals of the Sauds in Arabia and got Jordan/Iraq as consolation prizes... but my bet currently is on whichever republican guard general takes the bait and whacks saddam (as I think I have previously said here)... the Musharraf of Iraq.
heres that report. i guess wolfie wasnt involved.
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Well, yes, there's only one road from Jordan into Iraq. But there's only one road from Kuwait north to Baghdad too. And that road has to cross three rivers!
Daily Kos has some interesting worse case scenarios. The comments are interesting as well. I mean, if you find worrying yourself over mass U.S. casualties interesting.
That's not to say I think there is a good chance things will go poorly for the U.S. Our strength is impressive. But it is a possibility, and it's strange that these possibilities aren't being discussed in the mainstream media. (Or, really, I guess this is business as usual - what's strange, maybe, is that these things are being discussed at all thanks to the internet.)
The great .pdf that Bruno linked to also makes clear the importance of Saddam being "whacked" by someone in his regime. Either early (better) or late (worse) in the war. But if that doesn't happen we might be in for some rather serious trouble as outlined by Kos. If Iraq digs in and defends Baghdad we either lose a lot of men taking it from them (think Jenin but with the defenders having RPGs and mortars and tanks,) or we lay seige to the city for a very long time killing lots of civilians. Neither of these options will be acceptible to the U.S. in light of the strong global anti-war movement.
I also agree with the Big J that Turkey is going to let us in. Maybe not the government, but we'll just go around them with the Turkish army support. (No, really, we're bringing democracy to the region.) But again, these all seem like big gambles. What if they don't? We either surrender the Kurds and the northern oil fields to the Turks, or we come in through Jordan. No other way. (And of course I can say this because of my long and distinguished career as a military tactician...)
Here's some more on possible Turkish motives for denying the U.S. access. This sounds logical, but I'm skeptical because we already have so many troops on the ground in Turkey, and I keep hearing that we continue to unload them despite the vote of Turkish parliment. But it's interesting nonetheless.
Sorry, can't resist following this up. They're not coming through Israel, but it looks like there might be a western front, with mechanized troops coming through Jordan. We absolutely must have another supply line to the north and this is the only option.
Very interesting. Good find. I'm surprised it hasn't been corroborated elsewhere yet, but it makes sense. Jordan has a large minority of Palestinian refugee origin, so its Hashemite government wouldn't talk about US troops on its soil. No doubt the USA wants its own forces up around Kirkuk and Mosul ASAP.
Another Hashemite monarchy for Iraq?
|
[I put the rest of this in the comments so it wasn't so long on this page...]
- jim 3-02-2003 7:49 pm
Here's what I'm thinking. Yes, I'm aware this sounds crazy. But I'm just thinking about those 60,000 troops (with armor!) floating in the Mediterranean, unable to land in Turkey. Are they really going to sail them all the way around to Kuwait (just to have all our troops together in one little tiny place?)
Don't you think someone is thinking about just landing them in Israel? Obviously it would be touchy to attack an arab country from Israel. And yes, I know Israel doesn't even border Iraq. But it almost does. And I'm sure the Israeli's wouldn't mind helping the U.S. out by securing a slightly wider perimeter for themselves. Say one that goes all the way to Iraq. We'll call it a "security corridor" or "highway of peace" or "isthmus or neverending harmony" or something....
Obviously this highway to Iraq could go through Syria (which seem maximumly dicey - but if successful a nice payoff for Israel, who is seriously threatened from exactly that direction,) or through Jordan, whose borders almost seem made for such an incursion. So what's the deal with Jordan?
Yes, I have too much time to think about these things. And like I said, I know it sounds crazy. I don't exactly believe it myself. But if you dismiss this plan, what exactly are they going to do with all those troops? Air drop them? (Hint: no way; impossible to resupply, and the tanks have to be resupplied.) Strange times.
But is it possible? This would make an already serious situation amazingly more serious. My fear is that this administration really seems to like taking risks. And this is the biggest one I can think of.
If you don't have a good map of the mid east, might I suggest this one (or the same as a higher quality .pdf.)
- jim 3-02-2003 8:34 pm [add a comment]
Crossin' Jordan I need not fear
'Cus Jesus gonna be my engineer..
- frank 3-02-2003 10:11 pm [add a comment]
Of course, my answer is turn the boat around and send Carlysle the bill. But answering hypothetically, just looking at the map, that's a lot of distance to move so many troops and armaments, even if the diplomatic hurdles could be cleared. It would probably take weeks, and they're aiming for shock and awe.
- tom moody 3-02-2003 10:19 pm [add a comment]
there's basically only one road from jordan to iraq, it's very long, through the desert, and you don't really get anywhere that matters any faster than you would coming up from kuwait and saudi. the key issue with turkey is getting quickly to those northern oil fields around mosul - long way from the south. only other places you could come in are Syria and Iran. not too likely. my suspicion is that if the war actually starts turkey will let us in...that will delay things by a few weeks of course...
- big jimmy 3-03-2003 2:28 am [add a comment]
The French are sending their nuclear aircraft carrier to the Gulf, to test their new carrier based strike aircraft once the shit starts .... Rumsfeld, whoever that guy is, sent those carrier groups to the Meditarranean maybe just because they cost so much to maintain, and Bush loses face if he withdraws, that it makes everything just more inevitable. Whatever. You read the news. But truly Jim, outlandish enough to take my mind off of me.
- jeff 3-03-2003 2:34 am [add a comment]
jim has been seduced by the dark side. we'll have to call him richard perle jr. back when perle was hired to work for netanyahu while he was prime minister of israel, he and wolfowitz worked up the gameplan that they are trying to impliment today. one of the options was to install the king of jordan, which is considered the most western oriented regime, as the head of iraq for which there is historical precedent. i had heard the idea was still in play not long ago before returning "democracy" to the region became our overriding concern. for more info check out the project for a new american century where the neocons think tanked. these are useful primers for iraq jordan and saudi arabia and syria although they dont cover current conditions.
- dave 3-03-2003 5:49 am [add a comment]
I don't think I can claim to have actually posted this but it has definitely come up as a scenario...after all, the original British-appointed kings of jordan and iraq were cousins or something (Hashemites) -- basically they were the rivals of the Sauds in Arabia and got Jordan/Iraq as consolation prizes... but my bet currently is on whichever republican guard general takes the bait and whacks saddam (as I think I have previously said here)... the Musharraf of Iraq.
- big jimmy 3-04-2003 2:55 pm [add a comment]
heres that report. i guess wolfie wasnt involved.
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
- dave 3-03-2003 7:07 am [add a comment]
Well, yes, there's only one road from Jordan into Iraq. But there's only one road from Kuwait north to Baghdad too. And that road has to cross three rivers!
Daily Kos has some interesting worse case scenarios. The comments are interesting as well. I mean, if you find worrying yourself over mass U.S. casualties interesting.
That's not to say I think there is a good chance things will go poorly for the U.S. Our strength is impressive. But it is a possibility, and it's strange that these possibilities aren't being discussed in the mainstream media. (Or, really, I guess this is business as usual - what's strange, maybe, is that these things are being discussed at all thanks to the internet.)
The great .pdf that Bruno linked to also makes clear the importance of Saddam being "whacked" by someone in his regime. Either early (better) or late (worse) in the war. But if that doesn't happen we might be in for some rather serious trouble as outlined by Kos. If Iraq digs in and defends Baghdad we either lose a lot of men taking it from them (think Jenin but with the defenders having RPGs and mortars and tanks,) or we lay seige to the city for a very long time killing lots of civilians. Neither of these options will be acceptible to the U.S. in light of the strong global anti-war movement.
I also agree with the Big J that Turkey is going to let us in. Maybe not the government, but we'll just go around them with the Turkish army support. (No, really, we're bringing democracy to the region.) But again, these all seem like big gambles. What if they don't? We either surrender the Kurds and the northern oil fields to the Turks, or we come in through Jordan. No other way. (And of course I can say this because of my long and distinguished career as a military tactician...)
- jim 3-05-2003 9:26 pm [add a comment]
Here's some more on possible Turkish motives for denying the U.S. access. This sounds logical, but I'm skeptical because we already have so many troops on the ground in Turkey, and I keep hearing that we continue to unload them despite the vote of Turkish parliment. But it's interesting nonetheless.
- jim 3-05-2003 9:32 pm [add a comment]
Sorry, can't resist following this up. They're not coming through Israel, but it looks like there might be a western front, with mechanized troops coming through Jordan. We absolutely must have another supply line to the north and this is the only option.
- jim 3-24-2003 5:50 pm [add a comment]
good call... maybe these troops are going to hold H1 and H2 so the special forces that seized them can move on...
- big jimmy 3-27-2003 10:50 am [add a comment]
Very interesting. Good find. I'm surprised it hasn't been corroborated elsewhere yet, but it makes sense. Jordan has a large minority of Palestinian refugee origin, so its Hashemite government wouldn't talk about US troops on its soil. No doubt the USA wants its own forces up around Kirkuk and Mosul ASAP.
- bruno 3-24-2003 7:31 pm [add a comment]
Another Hashemite monarchy for Iraq?
- mark 3-25-2003 3:18 am [add a comment]