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...)
|
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