Preparing for war

[billvon 3,107]

As the US prepares for war overseas, we should think a bit about how we prepare for war here. Much of the effects will be psychological rather than physical; terrorism is, after all, a weapon of fear, not of significant physical danger. Being prepared for the outcomes will prevent the kind of shock and horror, the "how could this have happen?" sort of thinking we saw after 9/11.

First, we have to be prepared for a dramatic increase in terrorism attempts. A war against the Iraqis will certainly drive more arabs into anti-american terrorist groups; people like Bin Laden will start making more sense to people, and some of those people will have a lot of money. They will take out their agressions both against americans overseas and americans here in the US. Will our dramatically beefed up security be a match for this new wave of terrorism? We can hope, but we have to be prepared for another incident like 9/11. Even today, there's absolutely nothing to stop a terrorist from renting a King Air, loading it with explosives and flying it into the Sears Tower.

Second, we have to prepare emotionally for the losses we will suffer as some of our troops don't make it home. We only lost ~300 troops during the first Gulf War; this will be a ground war in an enemy city, and our casualties will most likely be much higher. In addition, any military government set up afterwards will be the victim of a lot of terrorist attacks. After all, Iraq is a country of violent factions kept from warring only by the actions of a ruthless dictator; the US will provide a handy target for their aggressions. We'll be setting up a US military presence for 12-18 months in a land where suicide bombers are national heroes and we have been made out as evil incarnate for a decade.

Third, we have to prepare for a war that will seem more like Vietnam than the last Gulf War. Even if we defeat Hussein in one massive strike (i.e. the "fear and awe" approach) we will still be occupying a country with dozens of warring factions, a country where the locals are much better at desert survival than we are. We will call our attempts to quell the resultant fighting pacification or something like that; the international press may well call it massacre. We may be 'doing the right thing' but we must be willing to pay the price for that. (Note that a war under a UN resolution would help immensely with this.)

Fourth, we have to be prepared to not succeed 100%. We missed Bin Laden; we may well miss Hussein and his top lieutenants, whose abilities at deception are legendary. We must face the prospect of turning a contained Hussein into a less-potent but mobile force.

Finally, we have to be willing to pay, literally. That price will come both as direct and indirect costs. The indirect costs include much higher gas prices (well above $2.00) a stock market that reacts poorly to uncertainty and a possible loss of trade with some nations (like France, Germany etc.) There will also be direct costs. No matter how the government tries to spin this, we will end up paying for what we spend. The CBO estimates, based on a four-month war and an 18 month occupation, will cost around $128 billion, with congressional staff estimates closer to $200 billion. That's well over $1000 per family in the US, and that will come primarily from increases in taxes.

I'm not in favor of war, but sometimes it's neccessary when all else fails. If we do get to that point, we should prepare ourselves mentally for the sacrifices we will have to make. If they seem hard, remember that there are thousands of americans overseas right now who may sacrifice a lot more than that for us.

[wildblue 7]

Quote

We only lost ~300 troops during the first Gulf War; this will be a ground war in an enemy city, and our casualties will most likely be much higher.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the last number I heard was that the government ordered 45,000 body bags
I really hope most of those are for "them" not "us"

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[Guest]

It's nice to see it put in real, first-person terms.

I find the whole thing discouraging and myopic. I don't believe the Administration is looking far enough down the road. Obviously, the idea is to depose Saddam Hussein, but even if that succeeds, who or what will take his place? Democracy? Not a chance. The Iraqi opposition is all for overthrowing Saddam, but don't look for them to be in the front lines.

Harju's prediction (remember, you read it here first) is that the long-oppressed Shia majority in Iraq, once having been freed from Saddam's Sunnis, will engage in some major blood-letting. The Persians (Shias) will be only too happy to help them establish another Islamic Republic. This will in turn threaten the oil kingdoms, which are containing fundamentalism with only so much success.

I don't think the US should be saber-rattling like this; further, I think we should focus on getting Bin Laden and those like him, and less on getting that tinpot dictator.

As I have mentioned before, I am a student of military analyst and wargamer James F. Dunnigan.

In his phenomenal book, "How to Make War", Dunnigan remarks "No country goes to war until it has convinced itself that it's worth the cost."

This will make or break the UN.

It may also make or break the US for all time.

Something that hasn't been talked about here or elsewhere (but I'll bet Dunnigan has been mulling it) is how a misadventure like this could lead to the dissolution of the United States itself.

If there is enough domestic opposition to war, it could lead state governments (like California, for example) to invoke their constitutional right to secede from the union in protest of the Federal government's actions abroad.

This would lead to a serious split in the ranks, and maybe even another civil war, as troops ordered into the streets to quell secession / sedition refuse to raise their arms against citizens.

There are recent historic precedents. Russia's misadventure in Afghanistan led indirectly to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Other precedents in history:

WESTMORELAND
"But there's a saying very old and true,
'If that you will France win,
Then with Scotland first begin:'
For once the eagle England being in prey,
To her unguarded nest the weasel Scot
Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,
Playing the mouse in absence of the cat,
To tear and havoc more than she can eat."

-- Henry V

IRAQ: Shia Brigades Enter Iraq From Iran

February 19, 2003: Over the last week, some 5,000 fighters belonging to the Iranian backed Iraqi Shia Badr Brigade have moved into Kurdish controlled territory in northern Iraq. Normally, the Badr Brigade operates in southern Iran and is backed by the Islamic conservatives in Iran. Over the last two months, the Badr Brigade fighters have been moving north. The movement of the Badr Brigade was said to be a defensive measure, to protect Iran from an attack by Iraqi backed Iranian rebels in northern Iraq. But in the last, the Iranian army had dealt with such situations. Iran has a keen interest in what happens if the Shiite majority in Iraq gains political power in Iraq.

Meanwhile, throughout Iraq, real estate prices are soaring as Iraqis try and get rid of their Iraqi currency by buying assets (especially real estate.) The attitude seems to be that Saddam and his government are toast and the smart money is repositioning itself for the new political landscape.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."