I think you overestimate the fighting power of the Arab armies. "Paper tiger" seems more appropriate. The mother of all paper tigers is roaring again in Iraq.
arthur -----Original Message----- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 10:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV (was Re: Kenneth Lay in handcuffs? Jan, I may be wrong, but my view of what might happen in Gulf War II is much guided by the occasional reports from BBC correspondents in Saudi Arabia or thereabouts which, over the past year or so, suggest that Saudi Arabia is now close to insurrection for very much the same reasons (Islamic fundamentalism) as the revolution in Iran in '79 when the Shah was overthrown (and, ironically, why America teamed up with Saddam Hussein in that year, lavishing huge quantities of arms on Iraq in order to contain Iran's revolution spreading further). As you will know, the Saudi establishment are now so fearful of a similar uprising that they dare not allow America to develop air bases in the country as springboards for attacks on Iraq when, you might suppose, it should be only too happy to in order to have a more friendly Iraqi government. As I've written before, I think that Bush's purported reason for war on Saddam Hussein is a red herring. The sudden acceleration in Bush's plans in recent months has not been caused by anything that Saddam Hussein has done recently or is supposed to be planning in the future, but by the state of health of King Fahd, 82, now ailing fast in a Swiss hospital where he has been for the past two months. It would seem that he is now highly likely to die within weeks or months at most. I agree with you that the Islamic countries of the Middle East would not support Saddam Hussein on the sole basis of an America attack on Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not considered to be a good Muslim and Iraq is far from being a typical Muslim state. They didn't help Saddam Hussein during Gulf War I and there's no additional reason why they should do so now. *Except* in the event that a fundamentalist revolution also takes place in Saudi Arabia, either being sparked off by King Fahd's death and the subsequent in-fighting between five princely claimants of the royal family, or by the provocation of American troop landings in southern Iraq and Kuwait. If the fundamentalists take over in Saudi Arabia then American troops would have to invade the country in order to control the oil wells. It seems to me that Iran would attempt to prevent that by pouring in their troops against the Americans. As mentioned before, America couldn't fight a land-based war against foreign troops on three sides. Besides, the last time Iran was at war it sent in hundreds of thousands of children as suicide squads and the mullahs would be quite capable of organising these again. And would the mullahs and Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia do the same? Quite likely. Apart from the inevitable deaths of their own soldiers, would American public opinion stand for large scale massacres of children? (that is, middle class/intelligentsia opinion as opposed to the virulently anti-Muslim view of Christian fundamentalists which now holds sway). The only way that America could preempt such conventional military attacks and avoid a blood bath would be by threatening both countries with nuclear bombs. If America threatened to nuke Jeddah and an equivalent-sized city in Iran -- and perhaps even carry it out -- then this is about the only thing that America could do to keep the two countries out of the conflict while it got on with pursuing Saddam Hussein and trying to encourage a new Iraqi government. It seems so incredibly unreal to be calmly writing about nuclear warfare in such a way. Yet Bush himself broke through this incredibility barrier himself many months ago when he talked about the possible use of nuclear weapons against 'evil' countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. I would be very surprised if Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (deputy defence secretary) have not considered the scenario I have sketched above. Another likely consequence of all this is that Israel would take advantage of the situation and drive Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza into neighbouring countries. They drove 650,000 Palestinians out of Israel in 1948 when establishing the new state and, in van Creveld's opinion, Ariel Sharon is contemplating a repeat performance in the event of any extraordinary pretext. Martin van Creveld, one of the world's leading military specialists (quite beside being an Israeli) considers that such a pretext could be the assassination of the King of Jordan by Palestinian terrorists or an act of terror in Israel which kills hundreds rather than dozens of Israelis but the one I have sketched above is equivalent. (I think there's more than a hint that Rumsfeld is well aware of this possibility and that's why neither he nor Bush are getting themselves into a sweat in trying to solve the present problems in Israel.) Muslim fundamentalism, according to Prof Bernard Lewis, acknowledged to be one of the world's authorities on the history of Islam, is not simply virulent anti-Americanism. This is just the latest version of a bitter hatred of anything that seems to have caused the decline of what was once a powerful Muslim Empire for hundreds of years right up until comparitively recent times. In trying to find reasons for their decline, the mullahs of the Middle East Islam have increasingly fallen back on a defence of the pure form of their religion and in opposition to any technological or secular trend which reduces their power and influence. There are a handful of universities in Saudi Arabia and Iran (combined population of 35 million), which is amazing, considering their financial assets, and their industries (apart from oil) only manage to export as much as Finland (with 5 million population). For this reason, in addition to the necessity of Middle East oil supplies, American foreign policy experts have now given up on any possibility of rapprochement with Middle East Islam -- at least this side of 2100. So it seems to be a matter of needs must when the devil drives as far as America is concerned, and no amount of opposition from liberal opinion in Europe and elsewhere is going to persuade it otherwise. It may be just a 'simple' matter of dethroning Saddam Hussein, as you write below, but I doubt whether it will stop there (or even perhaps start there). Keith Hudson At 23:02 08/08/02 +0200, you wrote: >The second Irak war will not be Vietnam again for several reasons. First >and foremost Iraq doesn't have the Soviet or Chinese backing Vietnam had but >will be utterly isolated. Secondly the Iraqi people don't believe in Saddam >the way Vietnamese believed in Ho Chi Minh. Thirdly the Americans have now >more conventional firepower, high technology weaponry and satellite >intelligence etc. than during the Vietnam era. Fourthly everyone with a bit >of sense agrees Saddam Hoessein is a dictator and criminal, oppressing his >own people, which is quite something different from the north Vietnamese >leaders who at least were idealists. So there will be some protest from >Europe, but the anti-war movement within the US will be nothing like the >anti-Vietnam-war movement. The war will not go on and on, but most probably >will be over about as quickly as the Golf war of 1991 was; and that was very >quick, remember? >All Arabs unite behind Saddam? He would certainly like it, but there is >little or no chance of that. Nothing of the sort will happen in Iran, why >should it? They have been fighting Iraq for a decade, and Saddam is not >their friend nor even co-religionist. And why would any muslim >fundamentalists suddenly be able to take power in Saudi-Arabia next month, >when they weren't in the previous year when their precious friends the >Taliban were attacked? There is a point in the danger of fundamentalists >taking over Saudi Arabia in the long run though. This country has been >provided with weapons by the West for decades. But don't forget they fly >American planes, need American spare parts, don't have satellites etc. I >don't believe they stand a chance against US and British. And, guess what, >they are not stupid like Saddam seems to be. They know this too. >So, I'm sorry, but your scenario has a very small chances of becoming real. >The Bush scenario will probably unfold more or less as planned. The main >question is, what and who after Saddam... That's what keeps me busy. >In any case we seem to agree that 'the empire' is going to win this war. > >Jan Matthieu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
