11-26-2001, 03:37 PM
Today, in describing the future fight against international terrorism, Bush said "Afghanistan is just the beginning."
He also called on Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. inspection teams back into the country (they have been barred since 1998) "in order to prove to the world he's not developing weapons of mass destruction."
When asked what the consequences would be if Saddam refused, Bush said, "He'll find out."
What are the odds Saddam will "take the hint?"
My guess is he will balk and stall any way he thinks he can. He has a history of not responding to pressure until he sees that he absolutely has no choice. What this is likely means, IMO, is that his rhetoric and BS and perhaps a couple of empty symbolic gestures will lead to a scenario where he is bombed before he is convinced it is unavoidably imminent. This will probably take place when the U.S and coalition are mostly through with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush just might succeed, however, in getting his reluctant cooperation on this matter because of Saddam's memory of what happened with George Bush Senior, and the speed with which the coalition is overcoming the Taliban and soon al Qaeda. However my guess is that much of Europe will be opposed to taking the war to Iraq (Germany recently issued a statement to this effect) and very possibly opposed even to bombing to enforce Iraqi compliance with U.N. inspections. Saddam will miscalculate (again) by thinking that Dubya will not take unilateral action in the face of lack of European support or disapproval. However this quickly could become more involved than it might seem at the outset. If bombing of Iraq begins, Saddam will likely remain defiant because his history is one of showing great defiance. If Saddam is taken out, perhaps by a bomb, his close relative who may succeed to power is probably even worse than Saddam. The entire ruling clique would have to be removed somehow. This leaves the question of what would happen in the resulting power vacuum. On this I do not have enough information to speculate.
One thing I hope Dubya considers is that it would be extraordinarily useful to have an Islamic ally if it comes to a war with Iraq. One reason we are doing so well in Afghanistan is the Northern Alliance, and this also helps temper Islamic opinion around the world--it's not just the U.S. against the Muslims, but the "good Muslims, with the U.S." against the "bad Muslims." (of course there are still many in the Islamic world think the "bad Muslims" are on the side of right, which is another issue, but at least we have the support of many Muslims on this.) There was a fairly recent post which descibed Nixon's idea to allow the Islamic nation of Turkey to invade Northern Iraq with U.S. support, helping the Kurds and indirectly helping topple Saddam and gaining some land in the process for themselves. It sounds like it might be a good idea but I don't know what politically palatable reason could be given for allowing Turkey in essence to take over Northern Iraq, and I don't know what would be in it for Turkey to make such a huge commitmenmt without some such reward, although they well might participate in a much lesser fashion for many reasons. Are there any other Islamic or Arab states which might participate in a large manner against Iraq? I don't know, but I do hope Bush gets some sort of Islamic actively involved support when and if he begins bombing Iraq.
My guess on the odds:
80% that Saddam won't "take the hint" and Iraq will be bombed
22% that a larger war in Iraq will develop a while after the bombing begins
95% that if a larger war develops in Iraq, Saddam and his ruling clique will be toppled
He also called on Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. inspection teams back into the country (they have been barred since 1998) "in order to prove to the world he's not developing weapons of mass destruction."
When asked what the consequences would be if Saddam refused, Bush said, "He'll find out."
What are the odds Saddam will "take the hint?"
My guess is he will balk and stall any way he thinks he can. He has a history of not responding to pressure until he sees that he absolutely has no choice. What this is likely means, IMO, is that his rhetoric and BS and perhaps a couple of empty symbolic gestures will lead to a scenario where he is bombed before he is convinced it is unavoidably imminent. This will probably take place when the U.S and coalition are mostly through with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush just might succeed, however, in getting his reluctant cooperation on this matter because of Saddam's memory of what happened with George Bush Senior, and the speed with which the coalition is overcoming the Taliban and soon al Qaeda. However my guess is that much of Europe will be opposed to taking the war to Iraq (Germany recently issued a statement to this effect) and very possibly opposed even to bombing to enforce Iraqi compliance with U.N. inspections. Saddam will miscalculate (again) by thinking that Dubya will not take unilateral action in the face of lack of European support or disapproval. However this quickly could become more involved than it might seem at the outset. If bombing of Iraq begins, Saddam will likely remain defiant because his history is one of showing great defiance. If Saddam is taken out, perhaps by a bomb, his close relative who may succeed to power is probably even worse than Saddam. The entire ruling clique would have to be removed somehow. This leaves the question of what would happen in the resulting power vacuum. On this I do not have enough information to speculate.
One thing I hope Dubya considers is that it would be extraordinarily useful to have an Islamic ally if it comes to a war with Iraq. One reason we are doing so well in Afghanistan is the Northern Alliance, and this also helps temper Islamic opinion around the world--it's not just the U.S. against the Muslims, but the "good Muslims, with the U.S." against the "bad Muslims." (of course there are still many in the Islamic world think the "bad Muslims" are on the side of right, which is another issue, but at least we have the support of many Muslims on this.) There was a fairly recent post which descibed Nixon's idea to allow the Islamic nation of Turkey to invade Northern Iraq with U.S. support, helping the Kurds and indirectly helping topple Saddam and gaining some land in the process for themselves. It sounds like it might be a good idea but I don't know what politically palatable reason could be given for allowing Turkey in essence to take over Northern Iraq, and I don't know what would be in it for Turkey to make such a huge commitmenmt without some such reward, although they well might participate in a much lesser fashion for many reasons. Are there any other Islamic or Arab states which might participate in a large manner against Iraq? I don't know, but I do hope Bush gets some sort of Islamic actively involved support when and if he begins bombing Iraq.
My guess on the odds:
80% that Saddam won't "take the hint" and Iraq will be bombed
22% that a larger war in Iraq will develop a while after the bombing begins
95% that if a larger war develops in Iraq, Saddam and his ruling clique will be toppled