Reply
Tue 18 Mar, 2003 11:05 am
By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent
According to a new joke in Jordan, U.S. President George W. Bush will announce Tuesday that the final oppotunity to prevent a war against Iraq is if French President Jacques Chirac and his family leave France of their own volition and be exiled to Baghdad. Arab commentators are not taking the real American ultimatum seriously, according to which Saddam Hussein's departure from Iraq could actually prevent war.
It also appears as if the U.S. president has no illusions regarding Saddam's intentions, which have already been clarified by Iraq. The ultimatum will provide a short delay for anyone wishing to leave Iraq before the bombing gets underway.
UN inspectors already received the first evacuation warning on Sunday, and on Monday received a public order; diplomatic delegations, UN monitors and foreign businessmen were also ordered to leave Iraq.
For Washington, the diplomatic window has closed, after it said that it has no intention of submitting its doomed proposal to the UN Security Council. But it is possible that on Tuesday the council's foreign ministers, especially Russia, will try to make an effort to get another postponement.
Another possibility is that the Security Council will attempt to undertake a resolution condemning the unilateral step taken by the United States and Britain, which according to the UN Secretary General, will be in violation of the organization's treaty. This proposal does not have a real chance to be accepted, and if it is submitted, it would serve only as a declarative step by the opposing countries.
By the end of the week, the United States (together with 40,000 British troops) will launch a war to oust Saddam's regime. This will be an American war, and it seems as if an American military victory would constitute only the first part of the campaign. This time around the war against Iraq will take place without an international coalition (while crushing the UN's status), without a northern front in Turkey and without Arab support; but with a British ally whose status is threatened by internal political dissent, with negative world opinion and American public opinion that is, at best, divided on the military step, and with a good chance of generating two internal civil wars parallel to the war on Iraq - amid Iraqi factions that will race for control over the country, and between Turkey and the Kurds.
Washington warned Turkey on Monday not to launch its army into Kurdish areas, and in talks held between Kurdish and Turkish officials, the two sides promised not to sabotage the U.S. war efforts. But according to Turkish sources, too many suspicions exist, and if Turkey learns that Kurdish forces, trained by U.S. troops, intend to move south, it may violate its commitment to the United States and send forces to the Kurdish enclave.
Turkey is also concerned by the entrance of several thousands of armed Shi'ite opposition members, belonging to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, also known as the Badr Brigades. These people arrived in northern Iraq from Iran and plan to join the Kurds as a fighting force.
Against all these threats the U.S. has to win not only a resounding and mainly quick victory, but must also demonstrate the ability and willingness to conduct a civilian conquest that would not stir regional unrest in Arab countries and among terror organizations.
Regarding the preparations in Iraq, Saddam Hussein has ordered his troops to refrain from any response during the first stage of the war, and to try and ride out the stage of heavy bombings with minimal losses. The Iraqi president is taking his chances on the second stage, the ground assault, and especially on the exhausting strategy of urban warfare.
According to a senior Jordanian source, Saddam understands that he does not have the military strength to deal with American power and technology, but he believes that a high number of U.S. casualties may increase internal U.S. opposition to the the war and curb the offensive before it is complete.
Saddam has divided his country to four military regions, and appointed his close aides to head them. This division is intended to ensure his presence on all the fronts, and to allow for decentralization among his close associates, in the event that U.S. bombs break communications between Saddam's headquarters and field HQs. Under such conditions, each of the supreme commanders is entitled to activate forces according to his understanding, without prior consultations with Saddam.
It's amazing.
If I weren't living through it, I would suppose it to be the work of a not especially gifted political novelist -- trying out a "they'll never buy it" plot line.
George Bush and his handlers are pissing on our country -- and getting many Americans to acquiesce to the point where they actually seem to be saying: "Aim some of that stream over here."
Only one solution: cry out your anger. PRO the **** TEST !
frolic - thanks for the article, even though it may give me nightmares of a holocaustic 3rd world war.
Yes, the US is almost alone, except of course for the 34 other nations joining them. (And that's just so far. Other nations are still coming on board.)
Powell said 45 countries were supporting them. But of which 15 wanted to stay anomynous. And who are that 30 other countries? Some colonies like Great-Britain, Australia, Afghanistan, South Korea and Japan + Some underdevelopped countries like Spain, Portugal and almost entire East-Europe.
Spain is so supportive they refuse to sent troops and the others are so underdevelopped the US refuses to accept troops of them.
BTW,some coutries Powell named supported the Ultimatum, that does not mean they support war. Even I supported (in some sense) the ultimatum because that was the only innocent victims ccould be avoided. But we shall wait until the war breaks out and then see how many countries will say in public they support this unilateral agressive action
frolic,
insightful commentary, and I agree.
Most of Europeans seem to have been illusioned by a rhetoric of a game, and it is easy to oppose a war, as the general opposition to the violence reflects some kind of truths (I oppose to the violence of course as a rule).
The attitude of makeing mockery of the inspection by the international organization should be blamed, as the results of the behavior must have been seen by players from the outset of this severe game, if not by general public.
It is not so much the U.S. as Saddam Hussein that has chosen the worst choice.
Or, professional European politicians may be manipulating their rhetoric, as they should be, in this game of international politics.
The 30 countries listed by the State Department as members with the United States of a "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq":
-Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (post-conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said all agreed to be designated as coalition members, but he would not specify their prospective contributions. He said 15 or more additional countries, all unidentified, could offer help under certain conditions.
Beyond the countries named by the State Department, other countries have indicated a willingness to offer help:
Bahrain - Sent a frigate and troops on Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup.
Belgium - Allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights.
Bulgaria - Approved U.S. use of military airport and airspace, dispatching 150-member Bulgarian noncombat unit. Stationing of up to 18 coalition aircraft and 400 U.S. troops.
Canada - Will not join military action without U.N. backing. A destroyer and two frigates patrolling in the gulf area as part of war on terrorism could be reassigned, but Prime Minister Jean Chretien suggested Monday the ships will not be transferred.
Croatia - Allowing refueling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.
Egypt - Keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to gulf.
France (If you even count France in then the only country not supporting the US is Iraq) - Allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations, but no direct participation.
Germany - Ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany. About 60 German soldiers are in Kuwait as part of the U.N. border monitoring force, operating specialized vehicles for detecting chemical or germ warfare; parliament has barred them from entering Iraq. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS crews and Patriot anti-missile rockets.
Greece - U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. 6th Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Allowing use of airspace under NATO and bilateral defense agreements, but will not send troops.
Jordan - "Several hundred" or more U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops training in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq.
Portugal - Granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refueling stop.
Qatar - U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al-Udeid air base opened for in-flight refueling squadron, F-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars.
Saudi Arabia - Won't participate directly in any military action. Pentagon says it has assurances the United States could launch air support missions from Saudi bases, although Saudi officials say decision not yet made. Defense Minister Prince Sultan confirmed this month that Araar Airport, near Iraqi border, was closed to civilian traffic. He said it was to make way for humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees, not U.S. military operations.
The COW is almost laughable !! Does the State Department even know where some of the countries listed are on the world map ??
Ethopia ? Eritrea ? Latvia ? ROFL
Choice by nations in international politics is not like that by individuals. It has much more egoistic flavor than idealistic in the former case.
frolic wrote:The 30 countries listed by the State Department as members with the United States of a "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq":
-Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (post-conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
Thirty countries, counting the likes of Albania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea and Nicaragua ...
Australia, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the UK would thus be the only major countries unequivocally supporting the war.
Except "unequivocally" isn't really the right word. For example, the list includes the Netherlands. What is the position of the Netherlands? The demissionary government has stated yesterday that "politically", it supports the ultimatum. In a typical halfhearted compromise conclusion, however, it added that it would not participate in any active way during the war and would offer no military support. This way the PM's Christian Democratic party is probably hoping to save the coalition talks now underway for the new government with the Labour party, which is explicitly opposed to the war.
How many more of this already modest list of 30 countries pay only a lip service of a "support" to this war?
Australia, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the UK would thus be the only major countries unequivocally supporting the war.
And, believe me nimh, the vast majority of Australians are not at all happy to be included in this list! ... 75% of those polled oppose involvement. All other major political parties (apart from the Liberal government) & the Senate are also in opposition.
Yet our government goes ahead & commits us anyway.
And we are supposed to call it a democracy !!
Yes, outrageous isn't it?
How is the mood in London, Gautam?
(Weren't you at Parliament House yesterday?)
I live in Houston. 'Nuff said.
Mood in LOndon is the same as the rest of the world - hardly anyone is supporting the war.
Nah, watched it live on TV - have no intention of going to the Parliament house, as I have a massive aversion to politicians...
trespassers will wrote:Yes, the US is almost alone, except of course for the 34 other nations joining them. (And that's just so far. Other nations are still coming on board.)
Thats 34 nations out of 192. And for the most part that is 34 of the most obscure, unimportant, poor countruies in the world. These nations would do anything to get in good graces with the US and they see the impending war as a great oppertunity. Furthermore, most of these nations have plainly obvious alterior motives. For example, Uzbekistan is being paid, and Turkey has been offered 15 billion for co-operation.
Please, just accept the truth. Most nations, even America's greatest allies, are against the American invasion. It is a unilateral action.
trespassers will=> You better tell us how many stable democracies are supporting the US?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace