The War on Iraq Will Be Launched in September...

February 6, 2002 10:33 AM

The War on Iraq Will Be Launched in September... or so a russian journalist says based on russian military intelligence. If any of this bears out it seems a lot like global domination vis-a-vis installing controllable pro-western leaders...what say the rest of you?
posted by bittennails (12 comments total)

hmmmmm, starting in september. right about when the election stuff really starts to crank up. huh.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 10:37 AM on February 6, 2002

Why wait?

Nuke 'em now, avoid the rush.
posted by ebarker at 10:41 AM on February 6, 2002

eh, what rush ebarker?
posted by bittennails at 10:47 AM on February 6, 2002

Actually, America has used that same strategy for many years. During the cold war, anyone not communist was deemed our friend, and so we supported many military dictators around the world . Why do you think everyone hates us so much?
posted by tcobretti at 10:54 AM on February 6, 2002

Jesus, reading that I was hoping there would be a great Alien area 51 cover-up somewhere.
posted by tiaka at 10:55 AM on February 6, 2002

"His all white Parliament passed a law protecting officials who took actions for the suppression of 'terrorism,' enabling the police and military to commit atrocities to 'suppress terrorism'." Sound familiar?
posted by tcobretti at 11:01 AM on February 6, 2002

Boy, are you guys paranoid. What would be wrong with world domination, if we could actually pull it off?
posted by Faze at 11:10 AM on February 6, 2002

Yes tcobretti, there is a great fondness for military dictators, my current personal favourite being Musharraf, (as I am sure my stalker would let you know had I not done so.) , there is also the uzbek chap in play. Any others that come to mind?
posted by bittennails at 11:43 AM on February 6, 2002

"Similar plans are to be carried out in Syria, Iran and Turkey. Under the bammer of a peacekeeping mission, the US and other NATO member states..."

Shouldn't someone tell Russian Military Intelligence that Turkey IS a NATO member state? Under the NATO pact, any hostilities against a member state are considered to be against all member states. What would the US do if it decided to attack Turkey and had to defend it at the same time? US Army vs. US Navy? North vs. South: the Rematch? Shirts and skins?
posted by joaquim at 11:46 AM on February 6, 2002

tcobretti- great dictator link above. Thanks.
posted by Voyageman at 11:47 AM on February 6, 2002

This is a rather breathless and thus less-than-credible piece. Simultaneous wars with Iran, Iraq, and Syria? Separation of Kurdistan from Turkey? Confident predictions of an eight-week war? This is just balderdash when you get down to it. For starters, Turkey has been a far more reliable help to us in Afghanistan than either Germany or Italy -- there's no way we're going to capriciously carve up their country. For the same reason we are unlikely to support an independent Kurdistan. And this presents the largest problem with any hypothetical action against Iraq: the Kurds are our biggest likely allies on the ground, but distrust has grown since Kurdish uprisings were suppressed by Saddam; the Kurds don't think we'll stand up for them, necessarily, and the US doesn't think the Kurds are up to the fight. Previous attempts at inciting rebellion via the Iraqi National Congress have met with indifference, or disaster -- one coup plan was penetrated and terminated. It hasn't gone well, to say the least.

Iran is definitely back on our shit list, after the Karine-A incident (now tied directly to both Iran and Arafat by elint) and their assistance to the erstwhile Ismail Khan in western Afghanistan. But there's real progress there, with pro-Western moderates heartened by Bush's strong line. This has narrowed the field of action for Khatami, and the hope is that the one-step-up, two-steps-back "reform" will now be shown up as an empty sop, with electoral majorities there clearly backing substantive change likely to be angered as their votes are consistently thrown away by the powerless parliament. The strategy for Iran will almost certainly not be military but political.

As for Syria, they remain a supporter of Hezbollah (along with Iran), but it's likely that they were not labeled part of the "Axis of Evil" in order to peel away fellow-traveler states like themselves or Saudi Arabia, who've been playing both sides and getting away with it. Syria's present leadership shows little flavor for further adventurism, and the Lebanese movement for troop withdrawal provides all by itself a useful wedge issue.

The Russians were dead wrong about what we'd do and how we'd fare in Afghanistan. This may very well be an accurate portrayal of what inner circles of the Kremlin are white-papering up, but they just don't seem to get it.
posted by dhartung at 12:00 PM on February 6, 2002

Coononsense ? not the best of sources. And Russian intelligence? It is fairly predictable that the Powell gang lost out to the Hawkish group in the Bush Ranch in DC and that is why we have been given the Evil Triangle.
What I do see, though, is Egypt, Israel, Jordan, US putting up a front of some kind against Syrian, Iraq, Iran (yes: those two had been enemies). In fact, Israel has request that the White House notify them in advance of any strike against Iran, a country they have lately seen as the arch foe, though they have gone on record of saying they have no intention of pre-emptive strikes against it.
posted by Postroad at 2:50 PM on February 6, 2002