Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (34353)	7/16/2002 8:10:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As we move on Iraq, those 5000 Taliban and Al Qaeda troops, possibly reinforced by a substantial number of Pakistani sympathizers, move back into Afghanistan. Will the Afghan government be able to provide credible resistance? Will the US and allied forces be able to support their own presence there? 5,000 wouldn't be enough unless the US can do almost nothing to help and they also get subsantial help from a few of the "regional governors". Tim

To: Dayuhan who wrote (34353)	7/17/2002 11:33:42 AM
From: BigBull	Respond to of 281500

I would guess that it's possible to deploy and supply an armored force by air, but I would also guess that there are limits to the size of the force that could be delivered and supported. My guess is that the heavy armored blows would come via Kuwait. Scott Ritter has said in "Endgame" that Saddam has divided the Rupublican guard into two sections. One for the north and one for the south. He has also stated that neither is able to do more than suppressing the Kurd's or Shia populations. If the heaviest blow comes from the south and is cracked first, imo he would have withdraw a lot of his stuff in the north, therefore only divisional strength may be needed up there, certainly not Corps strength. The Turks and the Kurds don't much care for each other. The Kurds are downplaying their desire for a state and their willingness to use force to achieve that goal because they want American support We have incredible leverage over the Kurds. Without the no fly zones Saddam would wipe them out. He has armour positioned just south of Irbil. He is Arabizing Kirkuk. He has also demonstrated his willingness to exterminate them via chemical weapons. The Kurds will be asked to and accept something less full autonomy in a "New Iraq" but they will be promised safety and a cut of oil revenues. They can live with that. They cannot live without USAF protection - PERIOD! The Turks? The Turks seem to want entry into the EU. The Eu is pressing them heavily to lighten up on their indigenous Kurd population; never mind the Iraqi Kurds. Due to international pressure, imo they will have to make some small concession to their own population. How can they bitch at the US for making the same to Iraqi Kurds? Imo this is not as big a problem as you suggest. There is definitely a doable deal here that might be win-win to both parties. I'm not saying that these issues can't be resolved, at least for long enough to mount a campaign against Saddam. I'm just wondering if the people who confidently declare that there will be a three-pronged assault on Saddam have really worked through the issues raised by the locations of those prongs. Imo Wolfowitz is working out the details right now - In Turkey. I also wonder if these "leaks" of strategy weren't intentional. I think there's a psy-war component here, and I think we'll see a lot more of it. I could not agree more! :o}}}}}}}}}}}} Here's a nasty scenario to consider: Just as we set up for our Iraq campaign, Pakistani Islamists, with or without the tacit cooperation of Islamist elements in the Pakistani armed forces, slip into Kashmir and initiate a string of high-profile terrorist attacks on Indian civilians. India masses forces on the border. Pakistan does the same. The Pakistani army has a perfect excuse to ignore the Afghan border. As we move on Iraq, those 5000 Taliban and Al Qaeda troops, possibly reinforced by a substantial number of Pakistani sympathizers, move back into Afghanistan. Will the Afghan government be able to provide credible resistance? Will the US and allied forces be able to support their own presence there? Question is would the warlords let them back? Imo - No way Jose? Will Mushman jeopardize his millions in US aid?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (34353)	7/17/2002 12:26:13 PM
From: BigBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Talkin' Turkey. Report: Turkey lays down conditions for U.S. military action against Iraq nj.com By JAMES C. HELICKE The Associated Press 7/17/02 7:54 AM ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Turkey has agreed to back the United States if it takes military action to topple Saddam Hussein but has asked that Washington write off $5 billion in debt and guarantee that Kurds would not be given an independent state, according to news reports Wednesday. Turkish leaders publicly have opposed U.S. action against Saddam and had reacted coolly to the Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's visit to lobby Turkish leaders for support. But Turkey is in desperate need of foreign loans to recover from a deep financial crisis and is likely to have little choice but to agree to U.S. action. Turkey asked the United States to write off its $5 billion military debt and insisted that regime change in Baghdad should be acceptable to the Iraqi people, the daily Hurriyet newspaper reported. It also said Wolfowitz was asked for public guarantees that a Kurdish state would not be created in northern Iraq and that the military action would not harm Turkey's frail economy. If Iraq becomes a democratic state, "it won't be only the people of Iraq who benefit from this, but it would be the whole world, and very much this region ... Turkey stands to benefit enormously if Iraq becomes a normal country," said Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's No. 2 official who met with top Turkish leaders Tuesday and Wednesday. Turkey was a key base for U.S. warplanes during the Gulf War which drove Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. NATO-member Turkey still is base to 50 U.S. fighter jets enforcing a no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect Kurds who have an autonomous zone there from retribution from Baghdad. During a meeting with Wolfowitz, Turkey's military Chief of Staff, Gen. Huseyin Kivrikoglu, questioned how the United States was planning to prevent the creation of a Kurdish state, the daily Sabah reported. Turkey fears a Kurdish state in northern Iraq could encourage Kurdish rebels who have fought for 15 years for autonomy inside Turkey. The news reports said Wolfowitz assured Turkish leaders the United States was firmly opposed to a Kurdish state. Turkey also warned that the oil rich areas of Mosul and Kirkuk in northern Iraq should not be put under the control of Iraqi Kurds, Hurriyet said. The areas are just outside the autonomous Kurdish zone.