The United States is Going to War

Jan 23, 2003

After a day of announcements of major U.S. military deployments, Wednesday, Jan. 22, dawned with one thing perfectly clear: The United States is going to war against Iraq.

More than 78,000 reservists and National Guard troops have been called up, with more mobilizations in the works. More than 60,000 U.S. troops are already in the Persian Gulf region, with 120,000 scheduled to arrive over the next two weeks. Four U.S. aircraft carriers are in or bound for the region, as are four U.S. amphibious groups and the largest British flotilla to put to sea since the Falklands war. Two more U.S. carriers and two more amphibious groups are on alert to deploy within 96 hours of receiving orders.

On Wednesday, Air Force Gen. Richard Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that though deployments continue, the United States already has sufficient air and ground forces in theater to launch a war if and when the order is given.

Though its official justification remains a bit muddy, Washington's policy on Iraq is pretty unmistakable. Barring the highly unlikely, complete capitulation of the Iraqi regime, the United States intends to terminate said regime with extreme prejudice. It intends to do so regardless of the protestations of its erstwhile European allies. It intends to do so regardless of the presence or absence of a new and enabling U.N. Security Council resolution on the subject. It intends to do so regardless of the domestic political duress its Middle Eastern allies might feel.

And so, a clear calculus is emerging for all involved. If a U.S. attack on Iraq is certain, where do we want to be on the other side? A major factor in that calculation is how they believe the United States will fare in the fight.

Wednesday saw the results of these calculations emerge.

Despite some grumbling within his Labor Party, British Prime Minister Tony Blair remains staunchly committed to the United Kingdom's role as Washington's foremost European ally. Addressing Parliament on Wednesday, Blair declared his support for a war on Iraq -- even without U.N. backing -- and British troops continued to flow toward the Gulf.

Standing by its role as Washington's deputy in Asia, Australia prepared to dispatch commandos to the Gulf, and elsewhere, Italy pledged on Jan. 21 to back an attack on Iraq - provided it has a U.N. mandate.

Interestingly, top U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix appears to have made a calculation of his own that may benefit Washington. Blix has stepped up his chastisement of Baghdad for its allegedly inadequate cooperation with inspectors. On Wednesday, he criticized Iraq's resistance to the use of U.S. U-2 reconnaissance aircraft in support of the inspections.

Baghdad rightly decried the U-2s as spy planes; that's why Washington offered them. But Blix's decision to play along suggests the U.N.'s calculation: If the United States is going to war, and it does so without U.N. backing or perhaps even despite U.N. censure, it will place the international body in direct confrontation with the global hegemon, and holding the weaker hand. Faced with the possibility of complete marginalization in subsequent U.S. actions, the U.N. leadership ultimately may opt to lend its half-hearted approval to U.S. action against Iraq.

The Islamist-led Turkish government already has capitulated to its secular military on the subject. Ankara's position is that if it opposes the military now, it faces a potential coup. If the war goes well for the United States, it can claim a share of the spoils for having cooperated, however grudgingly. And if the war goes poorly for the United States, Ankara may muster the domestic strength to challenge the Turkish military.

Iran's last-ditch effort to forge a regional bloc against the war appears to have run aground in Damascus, with the scheduled visit of Syrian President Bashar al Assad to Tehran slipping back down the calendar. Both countries fear the establishment of a major U.S. military presence in Iraq. Damascus is in a weak position, and calculates that if it attempts to thwart U.S. action, it will be crushed. But if it cooperates with Washington, it may avoid being targeted next.

Iran, though perhaps the strongest player in the region, believes that regardless of whether it cooperates with Washington, it will be targeted next; the difference lies only in the method. With Turkey, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states out of the picture, Tehran now will look to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to stand with it against U.S. action. Cairo may sit this one out, but Riyadh considers itself somewhere near Tehran on the U.S. hit list and may be receptive, though to what end is unclear.

Meanwhile, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted a high-ranking source in the General Staff as saying intelligence had confirmed the United States will begin military operations against Iraq in mid-February. But Moscow continues its now admittedly futile warning against precipitous U.S. military action. Russia is in no position to lead the stand against U.S. action, but its strategic position will only deteriorate in the face of a U.S. victory in Iraq. Moscow therefore is looking at the constellation of opposition to the war and may see an opportunity to the west.

There, the big news came out of Paris, where French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced their resolute opposition to the war. Their ambassadors to NATO simultaneously tied up discussion in Brussels on whether to take supportive measures if the U.S. attacks Iraq, postponing a vote on the matter.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested Monday that France would use its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block any resolution backing an attack. Schroeder said Tuesday he would oppose a U.N. resolution favoring the attack.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed back at the Paris announcement in a press conference, saying, "Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem. But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States." Rumsfeld went on to say that France and Germany represented "old Europe," and the center of gravity in NATO and Europe was shifting to the east.

This is big. The post-World War II alliance structure is crumbling fast.

Leaving no doubt that the two countries are of one mind, Germany and France on Tuesday also announced plans to hold joint cabinet meetings and establish dual citizenship. Clearly, the calculation in Paris and Brussels is that Washington will attack Iraq, without U.N. sanction and at odds with much of the world. With any luck, in their view, the war will go poorly for the United States, and perhaps teach Washington a little lesson on the value of coalitions. Regardless, the two countries see a post-war world in which the United States remains the sole superpower, the United Nations is discredited as the leading agent for multilateral opposition to U.S. action, and a vast sea of embittered and threatened countries are looking for some means of resisting U.S. pressure.

France and Germany apparently propose to form the core of a new multilateral opposition to U.S. dominance. Russia, tied closely to the European economy and threatened by U.S. deployments to the south and west, seems interested in joining. China could be interested as well. Iran would join, and perhaps others.

But Washington already has announced its response, and it was anything but contrite. To paraphrase: "Go ahead. Let's see what kind of superpower centuries of Franco-German cooperation and decades of Euro-socialist economics can generate. Hell, toss in the Russian economic and military powerhouse as well. The United States has troops and allies to your east, west and south. Oh, yeah, between and within you as well. The United States has a functional military -- while France and Germany are downsizing, can't seem to get the Eurofighter off the factory floor and still can't muster the troops or will to take decisive action in the Balkans. And let's not talk economics. We don't have to bury you. We can ignore you."

Painful realities aside, the battle lines have been drawn. The war on Iraq will reshape the politics of the Middle East. The political war thereafter could reshape the global political alignment.

From Stratfor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827976/posts