U.S. Tells Iran, Syria, N. Korea 'Learn from Iraq'

ROME (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday warned countries it has accused of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Syria and North Korea, to "draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq."

Story Link

US takes on Syria in war of stern words: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld charged again this week that Syria is harboring Iraqi regime members.

Story Link

Ouch. It doesn't sound good.

After Irak, may be Syria, Iran and even NK ?

I wonder what will happen if these nations try to do their own coalition. And they can do it. If they think ( fear ) that the USA and some of their allies are ready to attack them, may be that they'll set up their own little coalition.

That coalition would be :

- Iran.
- Syria.
- North-Korea.
- Libya.

Also, we have to keep an eye on Russia and China.They're not a little cake as Irak is/was.

This scenario is possible. While the USA and some of their allies are engaged in many fronts and battles with Libya, NK, Iran, Syria,Irak and Afghanistan, the Russians and the Chicoms are hitting the USA in the back. And like I know the EU ( except GB ), don't count too much on the EU to go in war with Russia and/or China.The EU will probably say that NATO is a defensive organisation ( and it's a defensive org, not an offensive one ) and they'll jump to a " good occasion " to don't help the USA.

Also, I don't like the way that France is acting now. She's allways standing up with Russia and China against the USA. Becarefull !!!

And don't forget Turkey. It seems that they are " forgetting " their US/EU/NATO allied.

Pushing a domino, yes. Pushing them all in the same time, I'm skeptic.It's dangerous. Too much dangerous.


P.S : Don't think that I changed my opinion.I'm still convinced that "we" have to put an end at all these dictatorships ( Libya, NK,Iran....etc.. ).

even for radical Arabs....

I'd expect to see a coalition more of Syria, Iran, Jordan, UAE, Yemen....

Syria's likely next, after all, it's ruled by the same party that controlled Iraq...

It would all be too insane, and too ill-timed if they were to move ahead with this though... Rumsfeld is an idiot! Why warn them? What good will come of that other than antagonizing them, and the rest of the Arab world? This administration has the poorest timing sense....

No, it would be better to let things simmer down, covertly work with the populace, and support an uprising (Syria's president was elected with 98% of the vote...sound like someone we know?), rather than an imperialistic-looking invasion.

I tend to agree that antagonizing Arab nations now would only fuel more anti-American feelings and motivate extremists to commit more acts of terrorism - and isn't wise that this time. The Arabic mentality sees them against the evil West, and threatened people band together for a greater sense of security.

I've been concerned about America creating tensions and possible conflicts in different theatres worldwide. America is the world's greatest superpower, but I hope we don't stretch ourselves too thin. Keeping eyes on so many countries, Homeland Security, hunting for bin Laden and maintaining credible deterrants to threats worldwide may become more difficult than Rumsfeld thinks.

I suspect that North Korea is acting as big brother Chinas' puppet. However, having a conflict in the East while doing everything else may be a very big job.

Personally, I've never trusted China as an ally. I think China has only been interested in U.S. trade and using American companies to bolster their economy, nothing more. If America were hanging over a cliff, I wouldn't want China to be the one holding the rope.

Originally posted by Gazrok
(Syria's president was elected with 98% of the vote...sound like someone we know?)

Are you talking about Jacques ChIRAK ?

Just pointing out that NO president who is honestly elected gets 98% of the vote...no way (well, maybe Bush's opponent in the next election, ) Sounds more like "Vote for Saddam or Death" tactics....

*In his best Eddie Izzard imitation*

"Saddam or Death?"
"Oh, and we're all out of Saddams"
"So my choices are or Death?"...."I'll have the chicken!"

There will be no Arab coalition. Damn, they can't even agree on the simplest issues at the Arab League.
Added to that is the fact that most of the Arab countries hate each other even more than they hate the US. Then there is the fact that at least one of these nations is actively seeking closer ties with the Western world - Libya has discovered (like Cuba) that the US dollar has already won any war before it is even fought. Even Iran is trying to come in from the cold by putting on an air of more moderacy.

The words were a threat to keep those countries on thier toes. Kinda like "We walked into this place, we can walk into yours if you mess with us".
It's far more likely that the next war in the Middle East will start internally within those countries. By hoping to place a democratic country slap bang in the middle of the region the US will have made the area ripe for revolutions.
Don't be suprised if you see the new Iraqi government supplied with top rate US military technology in a few years time. It happened in Kuwait. Then you've also got the option of using one Arab regime to bring down another.

He seems content to not want to lose any more family members by avoiding his old ways....

I disagree that they hate each other more than the US though....but I agree that such a coalition would be hard to engineer...but, let's face it...without interference from other superpowers, we could actually handle all of those I mentioned, even at the same time...(basically, it would be an air war on all targets, with ground force invasion on a one-at-a-time basis)

I only hope you are right, and that we don't have to find out though....but I think that the Bush cabinet has it's sights on genuinely overthrowing all of said countries....

I rather doubt that the US could take on all of the Middle Eastern countries at the same time. Remember that Iraq has been under crippling sanctions for 12 years, which has only really allowed them to repair existing dated equipment. Some of the Gulf States have modern US warplanes *and* the codes to the targetting computers (i.e. they can make the missiles lock on to US aircraft)

The biggest issue though... Syria has probably as many as 1000 SCUD missiles, which would undoubtedly start to rain down on Israel if the US attacked. And Israel would probably fire nukes back at Damascus. And once that happens... well, I don't think we want that to happen.

Sorry dude. The US could urinate all over those countries at the same time. They've managed to destroy the Iraqi regime in 20 days with one infantry division. They have another 43. Sure, some are national guard units. But don't forget the US only used half the planned force they wanted to use in Iraq. The 4th infantry sat in Kuwait after being told they couldn't invade from Turkey.
It's hard to even begin to understand the military superiority of the US. But when you look at their losses when compared to the Iraqis it's quite easy to see that they could easily shaft the whole region if they wanted to. It is only public opinion that would hold them back.
The problem is that people don't like the Yanks so they get blinded by the facts. And that's exactly what happened to Saddam. If you mess with the world's only superpower, you're gonna get burnt.

Except of course, that the Iraqi people were pretty glad to get rid of Saddam. Without that the last few days would have taken weeks if not months... and we could easily have seen 100's more US dead.

Ok, so let's assume that Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait decide to fight on the side of the Middle East, what do you think would happen to the US military bases on their soil? Or on Saudi soil?

No doubt the US could take them one at a time, assuming that none of those conflicts escalate, but taking them all on at the same time would get messy. We'd see huge casualties, and general anarchy in the region. It'd be difficult to keep Pakistan out of it aswell, and when they get involved they can nuke any target in the Middle East...

Massive first strikes, using Stealth to take out all most surface to air systems, as well as airfields...followed by conventional bombers with fighter escorts to then take out remaining surface to air, and command and control centers. Isreal, and Iraq's defenses would be bolstered by Patriot batteries and other systems to deal with the SCUDs...(this will be a prime motivator for keeping Isreal out of this). Troops would be used at this stage for sealing borders only, and positioning. Air strikes would continue, until the smallest threatening state is then green-lighted for land invasion. This would be far less surgical than what we saw in Iraq (but still surgical compared to other wars). While the invasion is happening in one state, bombing will continue in the others. Then, one by one, as enough targets are softening, the others would be invaded....leaving Yemen and UAE for last for ground invasion, as it would be primarily through airdrops and amphibious assault.

We could do it, and still keep our casualties down pretty well, but it would certainly reek of imperialism....

Pakistan would stay out of it...at least until actual invasion of Iran, but threats of further backing of India should keep that in check, and nukes out of the conflict.

[Edited on 11-4-2003 by Gazrok]

Kuwait and Bahrain would never fight against the US. They are the exact blueprint for what the US is trying to set up in Iraq. A pro western system that won't bite the hand that feeds it. Those countries now have more in common with the US than they do with the likes of Syria or Iran. They've got thriving economies, they are relatively safe, they have a guaranteed future. There is no way they would throw that all away to join an Arabic coalition.
As to wether the other countries would put up a fight? The Iranian regime is just as oppressive as the Iraqi one. The people there are desparate to see the back of it. They would probably act just as the Iraqi people did and look upon a US invasion as the lesser of two evils.

But all of that is a moot point. The fact is that the US is so frightenly militarily powerful, it could walk into anyone of those countries (even at the same time) and bring them down. Sure they would lose more troops but that's the nature of war. The only thing that would hold them back would be public opinion. Once our media started reporting US troops dying you always run the risk of trouble back home.
And if the US goes into all of those countries who says they're going to be gentle on the civilians next time. The only reason the war dragged on so long was because the US was sensitive to Arab opinion over civilian casualties. They could have wiped the Iraqis off the face off the planet in a day.
If they go to war against all of the Arab countries they aren't exactly going to care about Arab opinion. They'd go in a helluva lot harder.

Even if you could take over the whole Middle East, and I really think it'd be more difficult than you think (without using WMD's), the post-war situation would be incredibly messy. You'd just end up with the whole of the Middle East becoming the new West Bank, and this time the intifada would be that much bigger. You'd be talking about 5-6000 dead US troops every year.

Maybe the US could do it, but it'd be the most incredibly stupid course of action, that I can't believe even Rumsfield would promote the idea...

it would be incredibly stupid... I just hope you're right, but I'm not as optimistic as you are on Rumsfeld's sanity....

You call a few weeks dragging on?

Man, lets hope that view changes before the next conflict....

Actually dude, that's the point of my reasoning. It's the very fact that the US could have wrapped this up in days if they had gone in with the gloves off that I'm using to back my point. They took weeks because they tried to minimise the casualties.

As for the fact that they could control the whole Arab population - that's an entirely different thing. But the discussion is whether or not the US could take those regimes down. Not what would happen afterwards.

My point is that the US could easily take them down. Even without WoMD. Policing them afterwards is an entirely different matter - one that we're just about to see in Iraq.

hehe...

I agreed that we could take them down, even outlining how we could do so...

Originally posted by Leveller

Don't be suprised if you see the new Iraqi government supplied with top rate US military technology in a few years time. It happened in Kuwait. Then you've also got the option of using one Arab regime to bring down another.

Yes, it happened in Kuwait.But I don't remember that Kuwait was ( or now is ) a democracy.

And the middle-east nations ( I speak about the peoples, not the middle-east corrupted and tyranics governments ), are looking to live in peace and democracy. Wipping out those gov would be a good thing, for EVERYBODY. Them, and us.

I hate tyrants !

You're absolutely right dude. Kuwait isn't a democracy. Their regime certainly seems less repressive than their neighbours and their population seems to be a lot more satisfied though.
But who says that Iraq will be a democracy?
I've seen lots of reports about how Iraq is going to be governed by the Iraqi people, but I've yet to see the word democracy used to describe their new government.

I don't think the US will be too bothered if the new government is non democratic as long as it's pro West and doesn't repress it's people in the same manner as Saddam.

[Edited on 11-4-2003 by Leveller]