Who's Next ?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
With what? The US is having a bit of a problem with Iraq now, and that's with nice staging areas and bases in the region.

What is "a bit of a problem?" We had to stop to sleep and refuel?

We own the skies - the Iraqi air forces aren't even attempting to contest us. We own the sea, even the little sliver the Iraqis had.

Our forces are moving virtually unopposed everywhere, cutting off and isolating small pockets of (possible) resistance.

The war part was always going to be easy. The peace part, we'll have to see what happens, but to say the US has any problems now is just laughable.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What is "a bit of a problem?" We had to stop to sleep and refuel?

We own the skies - the Iraqi air forces aren't even attempting to contest us. We own the sea, even the little sliver the Iraqis had.

Our forces are moving virtually unopposed everywhere, cutting off and isolating small pockets of (possible) resistance.

The war part was always going to be easy. The peace part, we'll have to see what happens, but to say the US has any problems now is just laughable.

But you'll be tied down for awhile during the reconstruction phase. Your going to need a fair amount of troops in there just to prevent the Kurds and Shiites from getting thier pound of flesh from the Sunnis. It would be sheer folly to pull out and wage another war before this one has been fully completed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's the main reason I said Bushie and the chickenhawks should have waited until they raised six more army divisions.

One thing about the Iraqi army surrendering in large chunks, though, is that the US will want to rely as much as possible on the non-political part of that army - with US training and oversight, to act as security forces. Occupation is going to be a problem, but UR seemed to imply that there were problems now, while still in the warfighting phase.

I think the whole "who's next" question would be insane, if it wasn't for the current administration. The DPRK may force a who's next on us, but everyone else is probably content to just paw the ground and whistle "Dixie" for a while, hoping they escape the attentions of Bush & Co.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think the whole "who's next" question would be insane, if it wasn't for the current administration.

It will be interesting to see whether this is just an episode or not. Seeing how the Iraq issue was handled, I think they will go for another target.

[Guynemer]

This is part of the reason why I don't understand this war.

Iraq is, relatively speaking, small potatoes. Nasty dictator, sure, but there are worse. There are countries with far more ties to terrorism. There are countries that pose a larger threat to the world.

And yet, we go after Iraq, where the post-war campaign will tie us down for years, possibly decades.

There are bigger fish to fry.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Occupation is going to be a problem, but UR seemed to imply that there were problems now, while still in the warfighting phase.

Though you are already starting to have a substantial budget deficit. If that begins to increase further, the options will be to raise interest rates or let inflation spiral upwards, neither of which will sit very well with the people at home. On that basis alone I'd say that you've pretty much reached your limit for the time being, especially if things start getting nasty with N. Korea.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Guynemer
This is part of the reason why I don't understand this war.

Iraq is, relatively speaking, small potatoes. Nasty dictator, sure, but there are worse. There are countries with far more ties to terrorism. There are countries that pose a larger threat to the world.

And yet, we go after Iraq, where the post-war campaign will tie us down for years, possibly decades.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Because they're weak and isolated both politically and militarily; an easy target.

[Elok]

Of course, none of our opinions matter, since they come from people with no power to put them into action, who arrived at their conclusions via information obtained from the daily news rather than the detailed intelligence reports available to those who ARE in power...that's why I don't take a stand on Iraq. I'm with Socrates on most issues; I know nothing.
Which is not to say we should all stay silent, but really, do we actually *know* enough (as in facts, not just cynical second-guessing) to make this kind of decision?
With that said, at Krotopkin's suggestion, I nominate Sweden.

[Lancer]

MtG, are you aware of any effort to raise new divisions?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Willem


But you'll be tied down for awhile during the reconstruction phase. Your going to need a fair amount of troops in there just to prevent the Kurds and Shiites from getting thier pound of flesh from the Sunnis. It would be sheer folly to pull out and wage another war before this one has been fully completed.

Maybe they´ll do it like in Afghanistan where they lost interest after a short while and left rebuilding and peacekeeping for large parts to the UN-Forces

[Willem]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Maybe they´ll do it like in Afghanistan where they lost interest after a short while and left rebuilding and peacekeeping for large parts to the UN-Forces

Different situation. In order to counter the world wide backlash caused by invading Iraq, they'll have to stay and show the rest of us that they really are sincere about their altrustic reasons for going in. If not, everyone will say, "See, it was just about oil after all, they are just being imperialists."

Besides, the last thing Karzai needs is to give the Afghanis the impression that their country is under the rule of an occupying force. He has enough trouble controlling the warlords as it is. Bringing in the UN was a good move in that country, it provides more legitimacy for a fragile government.

Not to mention the fact that the UN has far more expertise in situations like that. That's why they'll have to play a role in Iraq as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
MtG, are you aware of any effort to raise new divisions?

Yes. I'm aware that there's not only no effort to do so, but there's no interest in the chickenhawk side of the DoD to wasting money on something as useless as ground forces.

[HershOstropoler]

Well after fighting this campaign with imaginary allies, they'll fight the next one with imagenary divisions. Shock and awe, baby, shock and awe...

[Lancer]

Well, as you pointed out once Mike, NG and reserves can't hold the place for long, as they'll lose their jobs. So, no new divisions means nobody is next for quite a while.

[Ned]

North Korea