War!? What is it good for?

[davywavy]

As I've mentioend before, I have a pal who is fairly highly placed in the Middle-East department of the Foreign Office. As there's a fiver on it, I asked him last night if there's gonna be a war, in his opinion.

His answer: "I think that we may see things begin to move in the next few days".

Bloody diplomats: they never answer the bleedin' question :)
So, I'm no wiser than before despite my highly plaved contacts: but it's nice to know that having signed the Official Secrets Act, he won't let anything slip. Just knowing him makes me feel more secure; there's nobody I can think of who I'd rather have on the phone to Baghdad, trying to sort this whole mess out.

Comments

Re:

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The thing is...he didn't say move in what way - he could mean that an Iraqi backdown has been negotiated...

War?

[(Anonymous)]

I have to admit to being a bit sanguine about the whole thing. Having lived both sides of the iron curtain during the Cold War, I'm a bit 'comfortably numb' to the whole rhetoric of catastrophe.

No matter one's feelings about the matter, I think this US administration is *determined* to have a military interdiction/invasion/strike - no matter world opinion.

I think this will have the desired effect (by this administration) of generating a deterrence effect, but the very fear that will fuel that deterrence will also impart anti-American paranoia which will influence politics for decades to come.

What this means for Britain is worrying, to be fair. Is Blair putting the UK amid the maelstrom, or does he intend to surf the mess by always shifting to stay in the calm eye of the storm?

As for the war itself, I expect the countryside to fall quickly, with cities like Basra falling soon afterwards. Baghdad, however, I expect to be a real mess with many false identifications, accidental massacres, ambushes, and a good chance that Saddam can spirit himself away at the worst. A chem-bio weapon revenge attack might also be probable, unless Saddam again chooses to play the political game to drive (widen?) a wedge between the world and the US.

---

There was another thought I had about this 'nuclear weapon in 1 year' talk. Given that there's a fair chance that the US brokered a sale of radioactive materials to Saddam during the 80s from South Africa (or knows about it), perhaps that - in conjunction with their inability to find the materials during the 1990s inspections, is what is making Bush & Blair crying bloody atomic murder on Saddam.

A bit conspiratorial, I'll admit, but highly possible

Re:

[atrophy-angel.livejournal.com]

well, this bex is still scared... :(

the silver lining

[(Anonymous)]

Well, should it all fall apart after an invasion and the Yanks come and go (as I think it all will), the strife will be regional - it'll have very little violent impact on everyday people in GB or the US.

Also, I simply do not buy the whole Al Qaeda-Iraq connection allegation, and Saddam is not the sort who wins fantatical dedication from his own. For a militarist statesman, at least Hitler managed that much. :)

In the unravelling, the various factions will be too busy fighting eachother to bother with the American and Brits (unless they place themselves in the middle of it - and then it'll be soldiers, not civilians who will be taking the risk, in the main). Even if Iran invades (which I doubt, but some in the Pentagon doubtlessly imagine is probable), this'll be a regional problem - not global, per se.

We might not even be paying far higher energy costs even, since markets like military regimes/regimens who keep order...and if Iraq goes kaput, we can be sure that the US and UK will keep Gulf clear of piracy and Saudi & Kuwaiti fields will be protected