I'm going to the roadhouse, gonna get myself a beer...

[khaosworks]

Best friend Logam, during our regular Saturday evening get-together, is betting that the war will start sometime next week, as the warmongers can't wait too long before the temperature starts going up and it's too hot to attack. I can't say he's wrong - part of me is thinking that the US will go ahead, with or without British assistance, and present the conquest of Iraq as a fait accompli and sort out the international ramifications later.

As far as I can see, Bush is in a Catch-22 situation. If the US pulls out now, after it's been so committed, then it will lose face in the eyes of the world - in particular, Saddam will be laughing. If the US proceeds, however, then it will have to face the world saying that the war is in violation of international law and deal with the political fallout arising thereof. Given these choices, Bush might just say go ahead, since that is the path of least resistance and the one that is more likely to produce dividends (a compliant Iraq, no more Saddam, control of the oil), damn the adverse consequences to foreign relations.

What worries me, really, is exactly what will happen post-war. The Bush administration isn't talking to the Council on Foreign Relations about how much the reconstruction of Iraq will cost - maybe $100 billion over the next five years? Will Iraq descend into civil war as pro-Saddam forces start an underground? Will Iran take advantage of the chaos to "reinforce" their borders and take a chunk out of Iraq in the bargan? Will Al-Qaeda actually retaliate? Or will Saddam's forces do so with a domestic terrorist attack?

Politically, what will happen to Bush? Will the war be long and protracted, or short and sharp? What will the war, and reconstruction of Iraq, do to the US economy? Will Bush ride this to win a new election or will the aftermath of the war tarnish like it did to his father after the 1991 Gulf War? How will the UN react? What will the UN's position be once the US has gone ahead and declared war unilaterally without its backing? Will the rest of the world cut the US off? Will it be business as usual? How long will it take to repair relations, if at all?

As Jim Morrison said, "the future's uncertain, and the end is very near"...

Let it roll, baby, roll. Taking bets, please.

Comments

[camwyn]

*sigh*

I don't know when. I wish I did. I expect he'll probably just go ahead - but that this time, unlike the last Gulf War, he'll go to Congress for an official declaration and get it. That way he'll look legitimate to his own little mind. Never mind the fact that it's basically an opinion poll of his friends at this point.

I'm going to have to throw a sleeping bag in my car, I can just tell. If he goes to war, I'll be working overtime at the Red Cross more likely than not, and it will not be office work. Oh, no, it will be being sent to New York or Philadelphia or all kinds of other places because he is fighting a war with people who make things go boom on a personal level.

Damn it. Damn it all to hell.

[mdlbear]

They'll want to move in the troops at night before moonrise (when it's harder to see them) -- the 27^th has been mentioned. The next new moon is April 1^st. But it's going to be pretty hot by then. Offhand I'd say their schedule has been thrown off by a couple of weeks.

I'm not a betting man, but I expect a fairly short war followed by a long occupation accompanied by worldwide terrorism against American targets. It's anybody's guess whether Palestine or Korea decides to take advantage of that.

If Saddam uses his stockpiles of anthrax, etc. the war might still be short, but the casualties will be higher, especially among the civilian population. Or he might just have them shipped out of the country beforehand and distributed to the terrorists.

And don't expect them to find the body. Count on Saddam to join Osama, Jimmy Hoffa, and Elvis; we'll be chasing rumors of signtings long after he's dead.

[shannachie.livejournal.com]

As far as I understand the situation, if there must be a war, it will be soon, because with the weather getting extremely hot in the summer in that region, chemical warfare protection suits can no longer be worn at a later time. You would problably drown in them.
So I dare say Bush will go to war pretty soon. With the promotion campaign running as it does, too, he probably has to sell the item while it is stil being advertised full-scale. Maybe the US can get back some of the military financing by selling merchandise?
But I should try not to be cynical. Living in Germany, and therefor being very close to the axis of evil, I should not take the piss...
Iif I thought that the war could be contained in this one country, I would not be so much against the adventure. But it is not a problem of a single dictator. It is a religious and psychological problem as well. Other Arab states might dislike Sadam, but I should be very asonished, if they cherished the idea of having a US-run satellite state in their midst. And it is not as if the other states in that regions were all nice-to-live-in democarcies. Sadam is one dictator of many.
Tip the first domino...

UN's credibility at stake

[osj.livejournal.com]

It's really the UN who are in a no-win situation...

If the US/UK somehow get their resolution, then the UN Security Council loses its last shreds of credibility.

If the US/UK attack Iraq without a UN resolution, and go on to defeat Saddam (which they WILL), then the UN loses its last shreds of credibility because it would've been demonstrably unable to prevent the US from getting its way.

I don't think this is accidental...Bush et. al. believe in US supremacy, and if they can hammer a couple more nails into the UN's coffin whilst re-emphasising US military dominance, they'll gladly do it.

History is written by the victors...once the US/UK have got rid of Saddam, there'll be no one left to object or complain. International outrage will be irrelevant. Resistance, in this instance, is futile.

Re: UN's credibility at stake

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's time to give up just yet ... though I do agree that this is a situation that will require careful handling, if the UN is to have any future at all.
Still, I think the recent joint announcement by Russia, Germany and France
::FX - blinks in astonishment::
is a step in the right direction.

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

Both the UN and The Pope have failed to convince Bush to knock it off. Normally, when those two forces are unsuccessful at telling someone to knock it off, we send in the tanks.
Bush will attack, no question about it. But the aftermath will make him look like a big doofus, and Howard Dean will beat him like a drum in 2004.
Now let's all go out for some hot freedom toast.

Buy Brie!

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

...the aftermath will make him look like a big doofus...
Oh, and that's such a difficult job??

Rumor hath it that the invasion starts Tuesday, 18 March, according to what an American Friends Service Committee member had to say about what per friends in Israel had to say about U.S. military radio traffic in the Middle East over the weekend. (How's that for hearsay!!!)

[playingpossum.livejournal.com]

what's going to happen is that bush is going to assume that the iraqis are going to welcome the united states' disguised imperialism when in actual fact, the so-called regime change that they want to execute is going to breed more violence, more resentment, and will just be another perpetuation of the united states wanting to forcefully exert their superpower role in this world order. and what worries me is the emergence of another saddam backed by the white house. and the whole cycle of 'oh but it's the lesser of two evils' is going to start up again and it's all going to go out of control.

or maybe i'm just babbling.