The Chaos Theory
Max Betivul
flowers." They're the buzzwords, from the Pentagon and from an exiled
Iraqi intellectual respectively, that sum up the Bush administration’s
vision of the coming war.
By Christopher Dickey
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
________________________________________________________________________
IT'S SUPPOSED TO be an ultra-high-tech blitzkrieg that takes out the
core of Saddam Hussein's regime in a matter of days, followed by the
ecstatic joy of liberated Iraqis who shower the arriving Americans with
bouquets and baklava. And, personally, I think that's just what's going
to happen—at first. Skeptics will be silenced. Even French President
Jacques Chirac will be shamed. But that's not all that's going to
happen. Because anarchy and atrocity are also a realistic part of the
scenario, and Saddam may well be counting on chaos as part of his
last-ditch strategy for salvation.
Why is Saddam passing out guns to every mustached thug from
Mosul to the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab? Does he think they're going to
crawl out of their cellars after they've been shocked and awed and turn
those guns on the American invaders? Few Iraq-watchers among the Middle
East's intelligence services believe Saddam can count on more than a
several thousand diehard cousins, tribesmen and genocidal accomplices to
defend him. And he probably knows that. So what's he up to?
These analysts expect that once the obsequious sweets and flowers
have been dispensed to those awesome guys from the 101st Airborne,
Iraqis will pick up their guns and turn them on each other, pillaging
and lynching, settling scores and carrying out vendettas that were both
encouraged and bottled up through 35 years of sinister, manipulative
totalitarian rule. And that's Saddam's plan. As the dancing in the
street gives way to neck-tie parties, the satellite-TV spectacle could
be grim indeed. Pressure on Washington to stop what was already an
unpopular war, to bring order at any cost, or to get out, could be
enormous. Perhaps Saddam, in his dreams, even thinks the bad publicity
will give him the room to survive in some sort of rump-state Iraq.
History would encourage him to think so. In Saddam's lifetime the
Middle East has seen many wars that started with a bang, but ended with
a whimper. Great plans go horribly wrong. Good intentions lead to
grotesque violence. Israel's armed forces are state of the art. Nobody
blitzes better than the Tsahal. Yet Israel's triumphant siege of Beirut
in 1982 was thwarted when its client forces massacred hundreds of old
men, women and children in Sabra and Shatila. Israel's 1996 "Grapes of
Wrath" offensive in southern Lebanon was brought up short after its
troops shelled a United Nations refugee camp, killing 107 people,
including 24 children, aged three months to nine years, who were lining
up for lunch. Such atrocities may or may not be provoked by enemy
forces. Inevitably some voices rationalize them as unfortunate
collateral damage, but they do have a way of ending offensives.
I don't think there's anything on earth that can keep Saddam from going
down once U.S. forces go in, whatever his delusions. But when the
intramural bloodletting begins, anarchy could push the United States
back out of Iraq more effectively than any Saddam-organized resistance.
And that's what many of Washington's friends in the region both fear,
and expect.
It doesn't help that the Bush administration has been so shy
about calculating the true costs of the coming occupation, or that the
civilians at the Pentagon publicly repudiated the Chief of Staff of the
Army's estimate that hundreds of thousands of troops would be required
in Iraq for many years. Fortunately for those who actually do want to be
informed, a Council on Foreign Relations task force headed by former
under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Defense Secretary
James Schlesinger has just done the number crunching for us. And the
bottom line is daunting.
The scale of American resources that will be required could amount to
some $20 billion per year for several years," says the task force's
report, "Iraq: The Day After." "This figure assumes a deployment of
75,000 troops for post-conflict peace stabilization (at about $16.8
billion annually), as well as funding for humanitarian and
reconstruction assistance..If the troop requirements are much larger
than 75,000—a genuine possibility—the funding requirement would be much
greater." Indeed, those estimates are very conservative. NATO had to put
50,000 troops into Bosnia to stabilize it in1995, and eight years later
there are still 12,000 there. Bosnia's population is fewer than 5
million.
"Iraq is not a small country," one spymaster in the region told
me the other day. "There are 26 million people. Many are trained, and
they have the tools to fight. When the Americans see there is a civil
war, I don't think they will put up with something worse than Vietnam.
The first thing they will do is say, 'We finished our job. Goodbye.'"
Who will pick up the pieces? And the cost? The countries that warned
this war was a bad idea in the first place? After the first Gulf War,
when Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf explained why Saddam wasn't taken out and
Iraq occupied, one of the reasons he gave is that the United States
wouldhave had to bear the burden alone. The rest of the coalition would
have backed away. That's already happened in this war, and it hasn't
even begun.
If the United States doesn't hang in there, at enormous cost and
great risk, Iraq's neighbors will try to defend their clients within the
country and carve it up in the process. The Turks already are preparing
to roll about 80,000 troops into northern Iraq to keep the Kurds from
declaring independence and to protect the Turkmen minority. That could
lead to a face-off with Iran, not to mention revolt by the Kurds. If
Iran gets aggressive, the Saudis will feel threatened. Very quickly, the
chaos could spread north, south, east and west, with American troops in
the middle, or the Middle East in utter chaos-or both.
The good news is that Saddam will be gone, and the weapons of
mass destruction he had will have been eliminated .. except, perhaps,
for those spirited away in the chaos by the private entrepreneurs of
terror. After the shock and awe, the sweets and flowers, the anarchy and
atrocity, Iraq could well be disarmed and dangerous.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
cristian
"Max Betivul" <maxbe...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:d231a4aad1a4f7053a5...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> The scale of American resources that will be required could amount to
> some $20 billion per year for several years," says the task force's
> report, "Iraq: The Day After." "This figure assumes a deployment of
> 75,000 troops for post-conflict peace stabilization (at about $16.8
> billion annually), as well as funding for humanitarian and
> reconstruction assistance..If the troop requirements are much larger
> greater." Indeed, those estimates are very conservative. NATO had to put
> 50,000 troops into Bosnia to stabilize it in1995, and eight years later
> there are still 12,000 there. Bosnia's population is fewer than 5
> million.
That is why being the self appointed policeman to the world is not a good
idea.
> If the United States doesn't hang in there, at enormous cost and
> great risk, Iraq's neighbors will try to defend their clients within the
> country and carve it up in the process. The Turks already are preparing
> to roll about 80,000 troops into northern Iraq to keep the Kurds from
> declaring independence and to protect the Turkmen minority. That could
> lead to a face-off with Iran, not to mention revolt by the Kurds. If
> Iran gets aggressive, the Saudis will feel threatened. Very quickly, the
> chaos could spread north, south, east and west, with American troops in
> the middle, or the Middle East in utter chaos-or both.
>
Does the world realy need an Iraq ?
> The good news is that Saddam will be gone, and the weapons of
Good news indeed. Californians are paying $ 4 to the gallon of gas, they
can't afford Saddam either.
Fredy
> Californians are paying $ 4 to the gallon of gas
2 dollars
Max Betivul
> cristian wrote:
>
> > Californians are paying $ 4 to the gallon of gas
>
> 2 dollars
Area Regular Change from Record Price
last week
Los Angeles-Long Beach $2.102 +7.7 cents $2.102 (3/14/03)/a
San Diego $2.148 +8.3 cents $2.148 (3/14/03)/a
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-
Lompoc $2.131 +7.1 cents $2.131 (3/14/03)/a
Las Vegas $1.993 +5.5 cents $1.993 (3/14/03)/a
Phoenix-Mesa, Ariz. $1.895 +12.4 cents $1.895 (3/14/03)/a
(a) New record
[end] --30--JP/np*
Fredy
Fã un dus rece si bea o cafea tare!!!
Te bagi ca musca-n curu calului
Fredy
> Exact ce am zis eu: 2 nu 4 cum a zis rãspândacul.
> Fã un dus rece si bea o cafea tare!!!
> Te bagi ca musca-n curu calului
Muscã beatã
cristian
"Fredy" <a...@jps.net> wrote in message news:3E720EA8...@jps.net...
> Fredy wrote:
>
> > Exact ce am zis eu: 2 nu 4 cum a zis rãspândacul.
> > Fã un dus rece si bea o cafea tare!!!
> > Te bagi ca musca-n curu calului
>
> Muscã beatã
Asa propagandizau raspandacii pe "news" acum vreo doua zile, am zis ce am
auzit. Nu am verificat ca nu-i important ptr. mine, nu plec curind in
California.
Max Betivul
> Exact ce am zis eu: 2 nu 4 cum a zis rãspândacul.
> Fã un dus rece si bea o cafea tare!!!
> Te bagi ca musca-n curu calului
> > > 2 dollars
2 = 2.102
tokma da ziua lui! savantule ai o noua teorie ? bzzzzzzzz behehehee
> >
> > Area Regular Change from Record Price
> > last week
> >
> > Los Angeles-Long Beach $2.102 +7.7 cents $2.102 (3/14/03)/a
> >
> > San Diego $2.148 +8.3 cents $2.148 (3/14/03)/a
> >
> > Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-
> > Lompoc $2.131 +7.1 cents $2.131 (3/14/03)/a
Max Betivul
> Fredy wrote:
> Muscă beată
bzzzzzzz ! beheeebehehee
Lupu Hraparetu
Fredy
> a...@jps.net> wrote in message news:3E720E2A...@jps.net
>
> > Exact ce am zis eu: 2 nu 4 cum a zis rãspândacul.
> > Fã un dus rece si bea o cafea tare!!!
> > Te bagi ca musca-n curu calului
>
> > > > 2 dollars
>
> 2 = 2.102
>
> tokma da ziua lui! savantule ai o noua teorie ? bzzzzzzzz behehehee
Ce descrie mai de aproape pretul, 2 sau 4 betivule?
Nu te credeam chiar asa tampit.
Aschiutza
In article <7afacc40f08d827e9cd...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Max
wrote:
>a...@jps.net> wrote in message news:3E720E2A...@jps.net
>
>> Exact ce am zis eu: 2 nu 4 cum a zis rãspândacul.
>> Fã un dus rece si bea o cafea tare!!!
>> Te bagi ca musca-n curu calului
>
>> > > 2 dollars
>
>2 = 2.102
>
>tokma da ziua lui! savantule ai o noua teorie ?
Realitatea e ca americanii nu prea se mai uita la aia 10 centi. Ce mi-e $2, ce
mi-e $2.10!
Max Betivul
Incerc sa-mi imaginez reactia dumitale in clipa in care cineva ar
incerca sa spuna : nu au fost atatzia mortzi domne ! care 1000 !
nu ierau decat 999 !
Mici, micutze detalii nesemnificative as spune detalii "beheheeshti"
> Ce descrie mai de aproape pretul, 2 sau 4 betivule?
> Nu te credeam chiar asa tampit.
Gica Spritz
>Babacule, de ce esti mitocan?
cu propiili lui vorbe:
"DA-L IN PIZDA MA-SII DE TAMPIT!"
gica
in vino veritas !
Anti Gunoaie
>dollars
>From: asch...@aol.com (Aschiutza)
Si pentru o asemenea perla de intelepciune te-ai te-ai deranjat sa scrii un
mesaj?
Eu nu cred ca cineva poate sa fie chiar atit de idiot cum te arata mesajele cu
care umplii scr-eaua. Cred ca vrei sa-l provoci pe Fredi sa te blagosloveasca
cu ceva injuraturi.
S-ar putea totusi sa ma insel, adica tu chiar sa fii exact la fel de anost ca
si mesajele tale.
Gica Spritz
>Realitatea e ca americanii nu prea se mai uita la aia 10 centi. Ce mi-e $2,
>ce
>mi-e $2.10!
mediea conteaza:0)
am auzit si Io la teve ca prin cacaforna s'a trecut da trei parai galonu.
acu depinde si da cate octane. mizutza akurai suge numa hi q da gazolina. :0)
Gica Spritz
>>>tokma da ziua lui! savantule ai o noua teorie ?
>>
>>
>>Realitatea e ca americanii nu prea se mai uita la aia 10 centi. Ce mi-e $2,
>>ce
>>mi-e $2.10!
>
>Si pentru o asemenea perla de intelepciune te-ai te-ai deranjat sa scrii un
>mesaj?
>Eu nu cred ca cineva poate sa fie chiar atit de idiot cum te arata mesajele
>cu
>care umplii scr-eaua. Cred ca vrei sa-l provoci pe Fredi sa te blagosloveasca
>cu ceva injuraturi.
>
>S-ar putea totusi sa ma insel, adica tu chiar sa fii exact la fel de anost ca
>si mesajele tale.
cum zici:
>Si pentru o asemenea perla de intelepciune te-ai te-ai deranjat sa scrii un
>mesaj?
o perla mai lunga si mai patimashe dacat alu ashkiea...
> Cred ca vrei sa-l provoci pe Fredi sa te blagosloveasca
>cu ceva injuraturi.
cine mai da doo parale pa ce zice bolovanu boshorog? mata?!
Odysseika
>>Babacule, de ce esti mitocan?
>
>cu propiili lui vorbe:
>
>
>"DA-L IN PIZDA MA-SII DE TAMPIT!"
>
>
I-am facut si io observatie mai la deal, se scrie cu un singur "i".
Gica Spritz
>>"DA-L IN PIZDA MA-SII DE TAMPIT!"
>>
>>
>
>I-am facut si io observatie mai la deal, se scrie cu un singur "i".
da in iesentza ramane la fel :0)
de Schlossburgh
>
>> Fredy wrote:
>
>> Muscă beată
>
> bzzzzzzz ! beheeebehehee
mai lipseshte the mother of all patrupedelor!
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?soc.culture.romanian
Max Betivul
news:1930...@web2news.com
> > a...@jps.net> wrote in message news:3E720EA8...@jps.net
> >
> >> Fredy wrote:
> >
> >> Muscã beatã
> >
> > bzzzzzzz ! beheeebehehee
>
> mai lipseshte the mother of all patrupedelor!
ie prezent hihihi
de Schlossburgh
>>>
>>> bzzzzzzz ! beheeebehehee
>>
>> mai lipseshte the mother of all patrupedelor!
>
> ie prezent hihihi
iote-al dreaku ca-l perdui din vizor! da tot ii atzin eu calea cu o
prashtie bine unsa!
Aschiutza
In article <20030314154536...@mb-mf.aol.com>, antig...@aol.com
mi-o besteleste:
>Si pentru o asemenea perla de intelepciune te-ai te-ai deranjat sa scrii
>un
>mesaj?
Nici vorba! Am asteptat sa-ti vad replica ca virgula sa te bag on 3.14z2-ul
ma-ti! (Odiseyko, aia cu virgula nu-i rea)
>Eu nu cred ca cineva poate sa fie chiar atit de idiot cum te arata mesajele
>cu
>care umplii scr-eaua.
Ei nu!? Ia arunca-ti o privire in oglinda, sa vezi ce bucurie ai!
Cred ca vrei sa-l provoci pe Fredi sa te blagosloveasca
>cu ceva injuraturi.
Fredy sa-mi suga pula! Si tu!
Odysseika
(Aschiutza) writes:
>(Odiseyko, aia cu virgula nu-i rea)
>
Mersi, draga. Apropos, am niste rochii pe care nu le-am imbracat, pot sa ti le
cadorisesc daca vrei.
In orice caz, ma flateaza atentia matale, ca-mi urmaresti fiecare detaliu. Cand
o fi la o adica, o sa zic ca esti cumsecade. Altfel, ce mai faci? Mai asculti
concerte ptr. viorica? Sibelius, Brahms?
Aschiutza
In article <20030317131006...@mb-dd.aol.com>, odys...@aol.com
wrote:
>(Aschiutza) writes:
>
>>(Odiseyko, aia cu virgula nu-i rea)
>>
>
>Mersi, draga. Apropos, am niste rochii pe care nu le-am imbracat, pot sa
>ti le
>cadorisesc daca vrei.
Ce vrei sa insinuezi, ca-mi pasezi rochiile matale de mireasa?
>In orice caz, ma flateaza atentia matale, ca-mi urmaresti fiecare detaliu.
>Cand
>o fi la o adica, o sa zic ca esti cumsecade. Altfel, ce mai faci? Mai asculti
>concerte ptr. viorica? Sibelius, Brahms?
Eu dupa cum ai constatat am trecut pe Wagner, spre necazul lui Fredy. Dar din
cind in cind ma delectez si cu niste nocturne de Chopin.
Matale tot la Boccherini ai ramas?
MOAB
>Eu dupa cum ai constatat am trecut pe Wagner
>Dar din
>cind in cind ma delectez si cu niste nocturne de Chopin.
Ai pus o boxe si in cocina, sa te delectezi cind dai apa la porci?
Aschiutza
In article <20030318231211...@mb-cf.aol.com>,
motherof...@aol.com wrote:
Am pus, cum sa nu, ca doar la toti porcii le place muzica! Face bine la
slanina! Eu m-am profilat pe doua rase de porci, est si vest! La aia de est le
pun Wagner, pentru cei de vest am marsuri patriotice rusesti! Dar muzica
populara romaneasca o tin numai pentru mine, ca n-o merita nici unii!
MOAB
>Am pus, cum sa nu, ca doar la toti porcii le place muzica! Face bine la
>slanina!
Aha, ai porci melomani.
>Eu m-am profilat pe doua rase de porci, est si vest!
Rusi si francezi?