NEAR BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 3 — American marines chased away a Republican Guard division this morning and raced almost unimpeded toward the outskirts of Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/03/international/worldspecial/03CND-MARINE.html

If idle speculation is not too dangerous a thought, I ask this question: If by some unforeseen event this situation blossomed into a larger conflict which countries would would ally with one another?

The Best Way Into Baghdad

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/03/opinion/03HENK.html

wizlander

Ain't gonna' happen. I'm not beating the drums but no world leader can miss the fact that the coalition is taking Iraq apart with little more than 3 combat divisions.

We should take Mohammed Khatmi's warnings very seriously. Our actions might increase violence and instability in the world.

If we're not careful, they might start flying airplanes into our buildings.

"If idle speculation is not too dangerous a thought, I ask this question: If by some unforeseen event this situation blossomed into a larger conflict which countries would would ally with one another?"

"Woolsey told the audience of about 300, most of whom are students at the University of California at Los Angeles, that all three enemies have waged war against the United States for several years but the United States has just "finally noticed."
Woolsey called this WWIV and said it might last decades. Countries named as enemies? read the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/

Babelfish.com can translate russian, although not perfectly - try reading the site through them. It says the Generals were there for some kind of award but that they cannot say what it was for.

SARS: 5 Pennsylvanians suspected of having SARS, including 1 Philadelphia Doctor.

http://www.nbc10.com/health/2085589/detail.html

9:10 EST US Forces are very close to the Baghdad airport, reports CNN. There is hard fighting in some places, and in others Republican Guards are just melting away.

What I wish we had some intelligence on: whether those "melting away" are giving up, backing up into the city for a stand there (their only, albeit very very limited, chance), or melting into the population for guerilla attacks outside of Baghdad.

It's probably some combination of the 3, but I wish more analysis was being done. One NPR reporter vaguely mentioned this issue this morning, but with little detail.

Anyone got any articles that give estimates as to what portions of the RG are doing what?

From the Russian site via Bablefish:

Their particular trips to Iraq fall under neither the sanctions OF UNITED NATIONS nor for any other limitations, superimposed By sovbezom OF UNITED NATIONS in Baghdad.However, the fact of the indirect participation of Russia in training of Iraqi army for the reflection of the intrusion of the forces of the coalition (iraktsy used a unique experiment/experience of its high, let and retired, officers) was capable to substantially complicate the relations between Moscow and Washington.

Stephen Sherman: If we're not careful, they might start flying airplanes into buildings other than big, showy, expensive office buildings.

"Anyone got any articles that give estimates as to what portions of the RG are doing what?"

With what is going on and how fast things are going today, it could only be speculation on anyone's part. Stay tuned, we should all know in a few hours.

Gotta go to work. Be back later.

Khatami sounds a little nervous:

http://www.irna.com/en/head/030403145600.ehe.shtml

Check yesterday's British papers: UK is categorically not going to participate in any action against Iran or Syria, according to Jack Straw.

James Woolsey was shopping the "attack Saddam, Syria, Iran" plan on September 12, suggesting direct ties between Hussein and bin Laden. He has an agenda.

"Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has warned the US-led military assault on Iraq would increase violence and extremism in the world. "

Sounds like someone is increasingly convinced they're going to be next. Hey, if I was an oppressive government on the border of where the most powerful military force is operating, I'd be scared my rule was coming to an end too.

wizlander;

Your Question: "If by some unforeseen event this situation blossomed into a larger conflict which countries would would ally with one another?"

is not very relevant. Alliances are made by countries that have either leaders who agree or people who agree or a combination of the two. Your question would be more relevant if you started with a list of Middle East countries that have leaders or people who agree on something (constructive as opposed to simply being driven by hate for Israel and America). Once the hate is expended, there is only continued bickering about "who knows best what God has to say" - The unanswered question of the milleniums that is usually behind all wars. The point of wars is they are an assertion of power over others, just like religion.

In addition, it is difficult to find a country in the ME that has the vast majority of its people who are content with its potentate.

I don't think we (the US) will have to worry about these impossible "alliances" for quite some time.

About that story with the Russian generals: That's also in this week's edition of Germany's most important weekly Der Spiegel. The article is not online.

Quote from NYT article (Iraqi Shadow Government Cools Its Heels in Kuwait) in reference to American officals waiting in Kuwait.

"Few of these people are Iraqi experts. But some have come armed with books and articles on the history of Iraq."

Oh dear. Only some? Oh dear.

Iran is a considerably more homogenous nation with more than twice as many people as Iraq. It's not been crippled with sanctions, nor is it in any way isolated from its neighbors (like Pakistan) which do not consider it a threat. An attack on Iran would strengthen, rather than weaken, the clerics. Besides, the US-UK already installed a puppet in Tehran. How'd that work out for us?

Carruthers;

You should support these fantastic claims:

"the US-UK already installed a puppet in Tehran. How'd that work out for us?"

What kind of propaganda have you been reading that leads you to such a ridiculous conclusion?

"Few of these people are Iraqi experts. But some have come armed with books and articles on the history of Iraq."

You know, the CIA blames the Iraqi National Congress for blowing the 1997(?) coup attempt it sponsored in Baghdad, the betrayal that took the lives of many of its Iraqi "assets," because the CIA had lost faith that the Iraqis would accept Chalabi (hasn't lived in Iraq proper since 1956) as anything other than a puppet. Hence, if the coup succeeded, Chalabi and his hangers-on and patrons (read "AEI Fellows") would have been out of luck. If this gets solidly proven, somehow, perhaps through Iraqi records, imagine the bitterness: this whole Gulf enterprise, all the dead, could have been avoided if the INC hadn't been so selfish and machiavellian.

Watch what happens to the records of the Baghdad security apparatus. Will they fall into public hands, somehow? If the CIA gets them, will there be "unhelpful" leaks? Or will the case agents be selected from the Cheney Wolfowitz True Believer Squad?

I am cheered by the fact that they're reading a bit on Arab culture. Oh, yeah.

"the US-UK already installed a puppet in Tehran. How'd that work out for us?"

The Palavi Dynasty was installed by a coup sponsored by the UK and US security agencies (MI6 and the CIA) in 1956, when the elected leader of Iran (Mossedegh) threatened to nationalize British Petroleum. It was that regime that came undone in the 1970s. I imagine that there are a few Iranians who remember that sponsorship, and will insist, mullahs or no, that Iran will solve its own problems.

I considered you were referring to Palavi, but then discounted your reference as being ridiculous. What the US did in the 1950's may have been relevant in the mid 1970's but it is almost without relevance today. Iranians who were 18 years old then to observe the Khomeini revolution, would now be mid 40's.

Only propaganda from Clerics, which prop is being discounted by a large fraction of the population, to maintain their power is using this history. A more recent history is now driving their passions - The Saddam instigated war of 1980-88. After his removal, and Iraq liberation, allowing fellow Shiite's to worship in freedom, the people of Iran will have a different view of the US.

One main thing that has changed since the 1950's - 1970's is that information is much, much more available. Islamic regimes and secular regimes in the Middle East will - indeed it has already started - lose control of the propanganda. This losing of control will be ugly and have "fits and starts", but the history of the world is that it will change peoples passions.

"I imagine that there are a few Iranians who remember that sponsorship, and will insist, mullahs or no, that Iran will solve its own problems." - I don't see anyone in the US government, including chicken hawks Cheny and Wolfowitz, stopping Iran from solving its own problems. They simply are trying to make the point that they should do it by leaving us alone. The point will be made. And, it will be accepted as the truth by the Iranian people.

The bullshit that is Islam, (and the bullshit that is evangelical christianity) simply cannot survive, in the long run, the onslaught of information. Religious and secular potentates cannot survive in an onslaught of information. This is the change that has been at whirlwind speed in the last 20 years, where old measuring methods (CIA and Palavi) simply don't fit any more.

Posted by Carruthers at April 3, 2003

MacW: of course Iranians will consider the West's involvement in their history as irrelevant. I mean, it's not like political leaders in the West would make use of, say, the Second World War in their quest to justify war...

There's an English version of the Soviet Generals story right on the gazeta.ru website. Here's the url:

http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/04/02/Wedidntflyto.shtml

According to the article two of the named generals were involved in the coup that briefly deposed Gorbachev right at the end of the Soviet break-up.