- As a brief overview of recent events in the current war
with Iraq, the US has successfully bombarded the life out of the two Iraqi
Republican Guard divisions south of Baghdad, and is now attempting to make
sure the survivors don;t retreat back into the city. Some have already
escaped into the city, leaving their heavy equipment behind. The US claims
to have destroyed at least 1,000 of Iraq's 2,500 tanks in the southern
zone - which I don't doubt, given the billions the US has spent in the
massive air campaign. Saddam;s generals made a tactical error by positioning
their armored divisions outside the city where they could be easily targeted
by US missiles and planes. No matter how well such divisions are dug in
and shielded by revetments, an offensive with unlimited time and a virtually
unlimited budget for aerial bombardment will eventually kill everyone on
the ground. It's a good thing the American public is shielded from having
to directly confront the costs of this hugely expensive aerial war
-
- Now the tough part of the war is about to begin. The
US has to decide whether to start reducing the city of Baghdad to rubble
as it roots out the defenders building by building, or to lay siege to
the city, hoping to cause a civilian uprising after a period of starvation.
They may do a combination of both. Here are the issues:
-
- Baghdad has approximately 5 million inhabitants. The
Iraqi government has stockpiled enough food for several months of siege
conditions. It would therefore take a while to generate enough civilian
hardship to cause unrest. In the meantime, media publicity of civilian
suffering would not be good for the US image. As for the street fighting
option, Baghdad is a sprawling city, mostly composed of low masonry buildings
with ample modern streets. In contrast, European cities primarily consist
of tightly packed urban alleys lined with high buildings,which are ideal
for urban defenders. With Baghdad's wide boulevards, even tanks can maneuver
inside the city, so the US will probably opt to take the risk of entering
into street fighting rather than subject the civilians to a siege. If it
does, the city will likely sustain a high degree of damage since the US
tends to use overwhelming force in any combat situation. Houses and buildings
will be blown away at any point that US troops are taking fire and it is
probable that the civilian occupants have fled. Again, the American deficit
will pick up the tab for reconstruction.
-
- Once the city is taken, the huge expanse of territory
occupied by Baghdad will make it extremely difficult for the US to hold
the city. Guerrilla styled attacks could erupt at any time after pacification
begins, causing US troops to get mired down in constant small scale skirmishes.
In addition, I believe the level of hatred of America is sufficient in
the capitol to make real pacification a difficult and long-term process.
-
- WHO'S NEXT?
-
- The US State Department is putting out warnings that
the US will target Iran and North Korea next. Asst. Sec. of State John
Bolton said on Thursday that, "In the aftermath of Iraq, dealing with
the Iranian nuclear weapons program will be of equal importance as dealing
with the North Korean nuclear weapons program." However, I fully believe
that the US intends to "confront" these two surrogates with diplomacy-not
armed force.
-
- If there is to be any more armed confrontation, it looks
like Syria is next on the list. The US could easily use the longstanding
Syrian occupation of Lebanon as the excuse-another "liberation."
Notice US hypocrisy here: the US has defended and protected Syria's occupation
of Lebanon as a "peacekeeping operation" (which it clearly was
not!) for nearly two decades. Recently, the US also supported Syria's membership
in the UN Security Council, even though it was and still is on the US black
list of terror-sponsoring nations. Now, suddenly, Syria is the bad guy
(true, enough). This dichotomy is all too reminiscent of US duplicity regarding
Communism and its surrogates. The US State Department has aided, defended,
and covered for Communist regimes around the world since WWII. Yet we are
to believe they are now serious about attacking the "enemies of democracy"
in the name of liberty? Why the sudden change? And, why are they still
protecting the Russia and China who control these surrogates?
-
- This week, US Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took pains
to charge Syria with aiding Iraq. Among his charges, Rumsfeldâs claims
that Syria was shipping Russian night vision goggles into Iraq are particularly
suspect, as are the further charges that thousands of suicide bombers are
traveling from Palestine and Syria into Iraq to join in the defense of
Baghdad. First, the US currently controls all the roads leading into or
near Baghdad. There is no way thousands of suicide bombers in trucks or
on foot, or even shipments of military equipment, could get past US surveillance
or interdiction forces on the ground. Second, the Russians and Syrians
have known for months this war is coming. Specialized equipment like night
vision goggles would have long since been supplied to Iraq. As usual, Rumsfeld
refused to document his charges with specifics. Either he is picking up
an old piece of intelligence and making it appear as if it is current (as
they did in the UN briefings), or his claims are a fabrication, generated
by any number of spies and defectors the US uses and controls for political
purposes.
-
- Syria clearly sees the handwriting on the wall and is
actively making preparations to defend itself. Syria's president Assad
was publicly defiant this week as he declared, "We will not wait to
be the next target of US aggression!" If attacked, Syria is capable
of doing a lot of damage to Israel and/or US and British forces in the
region. Unlike Iraq, Syria has not been the object of years of inspections
and sanctions. It therefore has a burgeoning stockpile of biological and
chemical weapons, augmented by weapons shipments from Iraq (of which US
and Israeli intelligence are fully aware). Syria also has hundreds of Russia
anti-aircraft missile batteries and between 800 and 1000 medium range Scud
missiles.
-
- How soon will the US make its move against the next target?
If the US has its way, it won't be soon, but it won't be a long time from
now either. The US will have used up over half of its high tech weapons
inventory by the time Iraq is subdued. Those stocks will take time to replenish.
Factories are in full production right now, and will probably never slow
down. Politically, US globalists would like to have at least six months
of pacification in Iraq, to be able to declare that operation a "success"
before moving on to Syria or Iran. But bearing in mind the increasing costs
of the Iraq war, I donât think the US will want to ship all the troops
and equipment back home and then bring them all back again to attack Syria.
I believe that the pacification of Iraq will be sufficiently difficult
to justify our forces remaining in the Middle East long enough to tackle
the next target. Troop rotations will occur, but the equipment will stay.
-
- I also expect to see the US bring over its new Stryker
Brigades to test them in battle. These light armored mobile divisions,
which are undergoing intensive training right now, were deemed unready
and too light to stand up to Russian heavy tanks in the current war. However,
given that the strategy of using bombardment to disable enemy heavy tanks
is working in Iraq, the Army may bring over the new Stryker vehicles to
test them in mop up and urban warfare.
-
- THE RUSSIAN COMPONENT OF THE WAR
-
- Iraq has been a surrogate for Russia's Arab support strategy
for many decades. During the Gulf War, Russia made daily resupply flights
into Iraq despite public proclamations by the US that Russia was an ally
in the war. The G.H.W. Bush administration, desperate to promote the presidentâs
vaunted NWO agenda, covered for this Russian deception during the entire
war. Things have only slightly changed. Russia still has things to hide
in Iraq. That may explain why, as the Russian publication Nezavisimaya
Gazeta reports, "Russian intelligence agents are in Iraq, possibly
to evacuate the Iraqi special services' archives before Saddam Hussein's
regime falls." The Russian source continues, "The agents are
in daily contact with their Iraqi counterparts and are trying to preempt
the CIA and Britain's MI-6, which have also sent agents into Iraq to get
hold of the archives." These archives detail Russian weapons involvement
in Iraq.
-
- Despite Russiaâs willingness to let Iraq fall (to
allow the US to paint itself with the black image of the aggressor) there
are distinct advantages for Russia's future war plans in allowing the Iraq
war to be drawn out for the time being. With the US eagerly testing out
its new experimental equipment in wartime conditions, Russia has numerous
advisors and intelligence teams in Baghdad keeping tabs on the latest US
tactics and equipment. You can bet they are learning everything they can
about US electronic countermeasures and air combat tactics. Russia has
listening stations in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf waters, monitoring
and deciphering US coded tactical communications. Russia is also evaluating
the effectiveness of its own anti-missile systems in Iraq (one brought
down a US F-18 Hornet Wednesday). The Russians sent in a limited number
of their newest Kornet-E anti-tank missiles, which have scored a few kills
on the powerful US Abrams main battle tank. One Russian defense contractor,
Aviaconversiya Ltd., is in Baghdad with a portable GPS-jamming device that
can seriously impair U.S. satellite-based guidance systems in Iraq.
-
- The only thing surprising to me in terms of Russian contributions
to the war has been the relative absence of Russian shoulder-fired SA-7
Strela missiles. In Afghanistan, US shoulder fired Stinger missiles proved
the nemesis of Russian helicopter gunships. . There should be thousands
of these missiles in the hands of Iraqi troops. Yet we see video of dozens
of US helicopter gunships circling around smaller Iraqi cities in support
of our troops, seemingly without ever having to encounter or evade these
deadly missiles. This is odd.
-
- Partial quotations with attribution permitted
- Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
- http://www.JoelSkousen.com
|
