Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Da Ha'artez - tutto quello che potrebbe andare male nella guerra all'Irak

(ripreso da ICE - Liang potevi postarlo anche qua, mi sembra interessante!)
Da Ha'aretz 14-02-03
If things go badly wrong 
 
By Ze'ev Schiff 
 
What is disturbing in the American approach to a war in Iraq is the
unequivocal win-win scenarios they generate. In these, only one outcome is
possible - total victory. 
It is doubtful that a proper examination of the alternatives has been
made, just in case something does go wrong. That, after all, can happen in
war. Did any of the planners, for example, predict the possibility of a
developing crisis in NATO and Europe? For some European states, the
problem is not how to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction. Their problem is how to get along with the United States. 
A determinedly optimistic approach appears all the more strange to those
who have had experience in numerous wars and who usually have had to take
into account the possibility that something is liable to go awry. In 1973,
for example, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) thought everything was going
fine - and everyone knows what happened in the Yom Kippur War. 
True, it is hard to imagine the United States not winning a military clash
with Iraq, but mere logic demands that we also consider some of the
potential hitches, and the high price that could be exacted for a military
victory. Among them are: 
l Saddam Hussein survives the war and is acclaimed a hero in the Arab
world for daring to challenge the world's superpower. 
l The war is dragged out well beyond the planned time and American forces
get bogged down in combat in built-up areas. The Iraqi civilian population
sustains heavy casualties, a development that inflames the Arab and Muslim
world, triggering violent demonstrations and rioting. The stability of the
Middle East is shaken and moderate, pro-American regimes find themselves
in serious danger. 
l Israel is attacked by weapons of mass destruction and rejects
Washington's appeal not to launch a massive retaliation. The Israeli
response generates an unexpected chain of new reactions. 
l The Turkish army conquers parts of northern Iraq to prevent Kurdish
political autonomy, which Ankara views as a threat. This causes a new
crisis in relations between the United States and Turkey. 
l A benefactor of the Iraqi defeat is Iran and Iranian influence among the
Shi'ites in Iraq increases. 
l The American presence in Iran becomes protracted and an "enlightened
presence" that was supposed to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi
people, becomes a despised occupation. Israel can offer free lessons in a
course on its negative experiences in this field. 
l The American army overruns Iraq, carries out searches in every possible
corner and uncovers no weapons of mass destruction. A frustrated
Washington decides to prolong the U.S. presence in Iraq. 
Such negative developments outlined above are not inevitable, but are
possible. If victory is swift and decisive, many who are now against the
operation will align themselves on the side of the Americans. But at the
same time, we have to take account of the ramifications of any American
withdrawal of its stated intention to disarm Saddam Hussein if he does not
do so voluntarily. 
Saddam probably thinks something in the American plan will go drastically
wrong. The rift between Washington and some European states - plus the
split in NATO over the refusal of some members, led by France, to ensure
the defense of Turkey if it is attacked - is undoubtedly encouraging for
Saddam. 
Otherwise it is difficult to explain his stubbornness, given the dangers
he, his family and Iraq face. The same attitude was apparent in 1991 when
he refused to relinquish his hold on occupied Kuwait despite the massive
coalition forces arrayed against him.
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 coalition forces arrayed against him.
Veramente interessante.
Alcune di queste ipotesi non sembrano avere molte possibilità di attuarsi,
ad esempio ritengo che Israele sia al sicuro da un attacco massiccio da
parte dell'Iraq, e non risponderebbe per qualche vittima causata da un colpo
fortunato.
Altre saranno state previste, immagino che USA e Turchia abbiano già
concordato come andranno le cose nel Kurdistan.
Quanto alla guerra qualcuno diceva che "nessun piano di battaglia sopravvive
al contatto con il nemico", e sicuramente una strenua difesa delle città che
si protragga per + di qualche giorno e causi vittime fra popolazione civile
e/o soldati americani potrebbe dare seri grattacapi politici a Bush.
Il fatto è che Saddam non è uno stupido, è già uscito indenne da una guerra
con una coalizione alleata e per di + ha rifiutato i caschi blu sul suo
territorio, la cui presenza sul territorio avrebbe impedito l'attacco
anglo-americano.
Deve avere una sua strategia, e chissà che anche stavolta non risulti
vincente.
Saluti
Basileus
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it