Pretty much what has happened is exactly as I predicted it would back in January: city seige. However, what I didn't forsee is that Iraq's other major cities like Basara, Mosul and Kirkuk would be similar. Essentially, the US-Brit forces raced to Baghdad, failing to capture any large-sized city, and doesn't even control all of the oil wells. And the reception of the Iraqi people, who never asked to be "liberated," at best, has been lukewarm.
So let's assume the loosely-labeled Coalition is able to capture some of these cities. Will they then become sitting ducks for Jordanans, Egyptians, Saudis, Iranians, Yemenese, etc., either with or independent of Al Qaeda, some of whom have already arrived, who'll eventually enter Iraq and try to pick off and terrorize the occupiers and the objectives of the occupiers? Whether pro-war, or anti-war, rough waters are ahead!
Regarding Baghdad, there's no way urban combat can happen to any great extreme. The analysis is absolutely correct that they'll be large numbers of deaths and casulaties both for the US-Brits and Iraqi civilians who'll be caught in the high-tech and low-tech crossfire. So, whether you're pro-war or anti-war, the seige is on, folks. Get used to it.
And this will play out in the American media where reports and talking head analysis will do their utmost to back up the US forces. But even that'll be hard to do as the internatonal media will rise to take center stage. Much like Bush before was trapped with worldwide opinion vs. his military on the edge of Iraq to a point where he was forced to use it (he wanted to anyway!), now he's trapped again.
As The Nation Magazine has aptly labeled, Bush is again confronting, the "Other Superpower." It's comprised of world opinion. Once again, this worldly voice, unlike any time before in the history, will rise to call, in even stronger numbers, for peace. Worldwide protest will be everywhere!
And the FoxNews analysts will squirm in their seats, completely taken aback that their quick war theories didn't work and they'll blabber for anything that'll help to make Bush look good, when he can't! The Beltway Boys never had it so bad!!! Besides, they're seem forever busy trying to continue moving the goalposts. Heck, they're still stuck on whether Saddam is dead or a alive. And now that it seems he's alive, they say, "oh, well--it doesn't matter." Take my advice, folks. Anyone who pays heed to the FoxNews cheerleading is doomed to come down on the wrong side, completely out of touch with reality, at least wisdom.
Anyway, back to Baghdad. Saddam ain't gonna surrender no matter what. And Bush, though he may try, ain't gonna militarily take Baghdad in an urban war theater--those Arabs wanting in from other nations, in a follow up to massive civilian casualties won't let him. And the hawks, whether they want to or not, will have to consider this.
So the next best strategy for the Coalition is to shore up the rest of the country and try to institute a new Iraqi government. But that's where the new big rub comes in.
Who'll recognize this new government? Will the Security Council? Will the United Nations? Will the European Union? Will NATO? Will the Arab Conference of Nations? And, of course, the really big question: Will Britian or Spain?
Indeed, the table will become set for a whole new round of diplomacy at the UN. And, of course, we all know how Bush scores at that! Read: most likely, if he refuses to compromise, the Bush Admnistration will meet more failure. The only way Bush will succeed here is if he acquieses to the United Nations leading in the rebuilding effort instead of just the U.S.
So how to interpret all of the above? John Kerry is 100 percent correct: Time for a regime change in America! Early elections anyone--lol?
PS: There's an outside chance that an exit strategy from the seige could come from resolving the Israeli-Palestinan dispute. But that's a longshot. A real longshot! |
