The Next War?

[Knave]

Just as a poll... a hypothetical question; Do you think we'll see an armed conflict with any of the 'traditional' adversaries to US policy in the near future?

[Knave]

Syria looks to be pretty popular. Is that because of their support of Palestinian terrorists, the fact they've got a dictatorship and police state in place, much like Iraq... or that they're already sheltering WW2 Nazi War Criminals and are likely to hide Iraqi ones as well?

All of the above? :)

[hood]

I think the highest probability would go to surgical strikes like that predator strike on the vehicle in Yemen a few months back. It's been said in various places that we're not going to attack Syria, but diplomatic pressure is definitely possible. Unlike Iraq, these other countries do have working militaries, and although we could win, they wouldn't be nearly as much of a push over as Iraq.

[Knave]

The argument can be made that the United States could go toe-to-toe with an army such as Syria's or North Korea's and surgically strike from the top down, disassembling the regime and then attacking; then use the overwhelming force of their Army and Marine units to defeat the armies on the ground.

The Israelis have had large successes against the Syrians nearly every time the two have met on the battlefield; the Americans have overwhelming air superiority and the ability to strike with impunity, as well as far greater resources than the Israelis.

The North Koreans have a 'cult of personality' dictatorship based on the Stalinist model; much like Iraq. If one were to remove or even distance the leadership from their armies, either through direct strikes or by strikes on communications assets, the morale and ability to fight would diminish markedly. Remember that the North Korean army has political officers in charge as well; so removing their upper echelons of command would sow confusion too.

Not that it'd be an easy fight, but an organized army could be made into a push-over quite quickly with the overwhelming power possessed by the United States. One hopes that these countries are paying attention to the object lesson in Iraq.

[Bootneck]

Bekha Valley, Lebanon

[hood]

I agree with Syria, but North Korea is a whole different story. They have 1 million men standing at the border of South Korea. Their military is far better paid and fed than the rest of the population. This isn't some small group like the Republican Guard in Iraq that has filled in its ranks with random people who don't want to fight. It's been admitted that they have several times the number of special forces troops than the US does. They also have long range missiles and possibly nukes. If we attack, South Korea is going to sustain very serious damage, including possible long term nuclear contamination. They have tunnels that run under the border between the countries so they could emerge behind the SK's front lines. In a word, it would be catastrophic for a full scale conflict to happen there. Many tens, if not over 100 thousand dead in such an event. I know it's a potentially bad thing to say, but these communist Asian armies have a different mentality than most Arab fighting forces. There's a willingness to fight that we luckily haven't had to deal with in our recent conflicts.

[Ratamacue]

North Korea will be a war within the next 10-15 years, and, quite possibly, the start of a 3rd World War. I don't think China would be too happy if we launched an invasion on North Korea, quite like what happened in the 1950-53 Korean War.

While they military is positively massive and well-trained, it's not nearly as strong in comparison to the forces that the Coalition that attacks them would be (most likely US/UK/Australia among others). I believe, though, that the reason we're trying to take a more diplomatic solution with Korea is because of their military might, and what casualties would be like for both sides if a war were to break out.

[Vance]

Syria looks to be pretty popular. Is that because of their support of Palestinian terrorists, the fact they've got a dictatorship and police state in place, much like Iraq... or that they're already sheltering WW2 Nazi War Criminals and are likely to hide Iraqi ones as well?

All of the above? :)
Syria has a republic, but under a military regime

[Zach R.]

Wait!You forgot France

[FallenAngel]

Invade France?


*thinking*


Now THAT's a good idea woot we can call it "Overlord...the Sequal" :D

[kimouche]

I think it would also do the region a lot of good if there were a regime change in Syria. Even though the dictatorship there has kept a low profile it treats people the same way it did in Iraq, emprisoning, torturing and killing the opposition. Plus syria is occupying lebanon where it has created and is supporting the Hezbullah terrorist organization. I really think it's time those arrogant regimes whose sole purpose is to build armies and terrorize their neighbors understood the message. The time for diplomacy and sweet talk is over, it's time somebody finally understood that.

[Knave]

I think it would also do the region a lot of good if there were a regime change in Syria. Even though the dictatorship there has kept a low profile it treats people the same way it did in Iraq, emprisoning, torturing and killing the opposition. Plus syria is occupying lebanon where it has created and is supporting the Hezbullah terrorist organization. I really think it's time those arrogant regimes whose sole purpose is to build armies and terrorize their neighbors understood the message. The time for diplomacy and sweet talk is over, it's time somebody finally understood that.

It's also persued an aggressive path against its neighbours; you've mentioned Lebanon, but also incursions against Israeli territory go on as well. Now, the Israelis aren't lily-white on the international stage, but... they are one of the only recognizeable democracies in the region.

I do agree that the Syrians and their policy of harbouring international terrorists makes them a threat to stability in the region and abroad, especially with the shift in focus of the Islamic terrorist networks from Israel to the United States and her allies. It must be dealt with.

As for North Korea; I agree, the Americans and the West have not dealt with an Asian adversary in nearly 30 years.... but times have certainly changed since the First Korean War and the Vietnam War. Most of the command-and-control mechanisms are necessary for the million-man North Korean army to function. Without it, they would most likely descend into confusion and disarray.

Conditions in North Korea are terrible for the average citizen living there.... and, despite the possible presence of nuclear weapons by the North, I have no doubt that the Americans have adequate intelligence and anti-missile capability to destroy any missile strike before it landed in a populated area. Most estimates place the maximum nuclear capability of the North at about two warheads. Even then, there's no guarantee that their missiles would be able to deliver them accurately. It's more than likely that a concentrated strike on North Korean communications assets and the timely arrival of special forces would incapacitate or remove the threat of a second Korean conflict going nuclear.

The Koreans aren't stupid; they most likely realize that going nuclear would also bring world condemnation, and they would quickly lose any possible support for them from abroad.

As for possible Chinese intervention.... I don't really think so. Sure, it's possible... but I don't think the Chinese would risk the wrath of the United States and the possibility of international sanctions by intervening on behalf of a rogue nation bent on acquiring WMD for aggressive policies. They aren't that stupid, either... and the "Communist Brotherhood" isn't as strong as it once was... compared to the almighty dollar.

[steel bonnet]

Well without coming across as a War mongerer.

l beleive whilst we have the large military present in the Mid east,we may as well us it for Sorting out such a troubled area.

Africa you may say needs it,though that`s a Region where no amount of military/Aide will EVER make a difference. There hang ups with there ancient tribal roots,have made it a place where no amount of effort will EVER help them ALL.

As for the Mid East,well since The UK caused most & the US takes most of the flak for the region (damned if you do,damned if you don`t principle).
Why not sort out the region. Israel would no doubt welcome it & also aide in it too. As for the UK though,hard to say,now our Blair is aiming for Euro leader once again :D
l was truely shocked that a US poll,would have Blair as there President,please take him.................please!!
He craps on the UK Armed forces with cuts & still no new/Better kit & then sends them every where in his name,opps the Queens name (or maybe l was right first time ;) ).

Whilst we have the military might there,lets make the middle East a safer Peacefull region for the future & put a stop to the bickering of Mid East nations & all there religions too.

Ja
Steel bonnet

[yellowking]

Africa you may say needs it,though that`s a Region where no amount of military/Aide will EVER make a difference. There hang ups with there ancient tribal roots,have made it a place where no amount of effort will EVER help them ALL.
Most of that continent has only been independant (post-Colonialism) for less than fifty years. That's not enough time to draw such sweeping conclusions. Our first hundred and fifty years after our revolution was marked by ethnic (tribal) conflict including slavery and oppression against blacks, genocide against the Indians, civil war, etc... Not so different than Africa now.

For an interesting background on pre-Colonial development worldwide, see Guns, Germs and Steel by Diamond. He makes the argument that modern development has been largely based on Geography. The main strikes against Africa IIRC were the Sahara as an idea/trade barrier, a narrow landmass (crops/agri techniques move easily across latitudes, but not longitudes due to environmental changes) and, despite the large variety of fauna, a real dearth of animals suitable for domestication.

[Seiyuuki]

It was reported that President Bush is absolute in his decision not to go to war with Syria. I was for the war with Iraq, but personally, I don't want us to continue onto Syria because the case for going into Syria would be harder to make than going into Iraq, and if we do go into Syria...the image of us as Imperialist is going to get a major boost and that is not a good thing. Plus, with this situation, we have another opportunity to show the rest of the world that we do value diplomacy and that we do adamantly persue it.

[venture160]

syria has a far more capable army than Iraq had. rather than hundreds of outdated t-52's it is equipped with the more modern t-72, and has a special forces unit which numbers over 10,000 strong. Its no question that the Sryian army is far more capable than the Iraqi army in terms of organization and technology, but since russia has been in finanncial troubles for some time, syria has had a hard time maintaining and fixing their russian equipment, and it is largely rumored that many items are in need of heavy partys replacement. Also an interesting point, the majority of Syria's forces are on the west bordering Israel where they are heavily dug in... with minimal forces to the east.. next to Iraq... Syria knows this and eventually they will be forced to co-operate.

and people who talk of attacking North Korea as something that is viable...... i sure hope to hell that we wont. Their general fighting will is far stronger than most armies... and it is fairly advanced and has spent DECADES planning for massive defensive/offensive operations... even if the US or some allied force army did eventually win.. there would be massive casualities... but in the end.. i believe they will come to the bargaining table... as they are now...

[yellowking]

syria has a far more capable army than Iraq had.
I'd like to see any evidence of this. Jane's WA 2000 has their military badly underfunded and Russia not extending any credit to them. They probably do have some decent commandos (all I know of is '72, long time ago), but decent is not good enough. They have poor equipment, few weapons, no spares and horrible leadership. If I am mistaken, and Syria does have a half-way decent military ("far more capable" than Iraq may still suck! :-)), please offer up some evidence to correct me.

[Seiyuuki]

and people who talk of attacking North Korea as something that is viable...... i sure hope to hell that we wont. Their general fighting will is far stronger than most armies... and it is fairly advanced and has spent DECADES planning for massive defensive/offensive operations... even if the US or some allied force army did eventually win.. there would be massive casualities... but in the end.. i believe they will come to the bargaining table... as they are now...

The North Korean fighting strength will be resorted to human wave attack which can be mow down by our troops. Their military is advance as Iraq was...they spent decades trying to keep what they have running, not much in advancing their lethality or capability.

[venture160]

excellent point... many people have argued that because of North Korea's aging military hardwear... literally rusting away.. they may just say the hell with it and use it... you never know what those crazy bastards are gonna do

also i found the information from the georgetown school of international relations website a little while back.. im trying to dig it up.. also yes, more capable than the Iraqi army isn't saying a whole lot.

[GazB]

You guys are so interested in bringing democracy to the region... why not start with kuwaite and saudi arabia... you already have troops there.

[Trigger]

Actually, I think we were interested in bringing Freedom to IRAQ.