The Information Channel Felist.Com
_____
POLITRUK THE WAR BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH: FROM NOSTRADAMUS TO GEORGE W. BUSH Issue No. 10, 26 Mar 2003
>From the outset of the American military operation in Iraq, the Russian
media has focused on seeking answers to two main questions: how long Saddam
Hussein will hold out, and what will happen later, after the war.
As usual, opinions vary.
"Bush's Blitzkrieg," reads a headline in Izvestia. "American troops are already approaching Baghdad." Izvestia and many other newspapers are providing detailed, minute-by-minute coverage of the war in every issue.
Izvestia reports that during Operation Desert Storm, only 7% of bombs and Tomahawks were equipped with high-precision targetting systems. Now around 80% are, according to some sources. Admiral Stephen Baker, a former Navy chief of staff, says this figure is even higher - up to 90%. The admiral goes on to explain that the qualitative leap in this field took place several years ago, when the United States sent 24 satellites into orbit: "This enables practically any target to be hit within ten minutes of being located, with an error margin of no more than nine meters."
Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Russian office of the Defense Information Center, told Izvestia that he considers these claims believable. When asked how long the war would last, Safranchuk replied fairly confidently: "I think ten days to two weeks would be enough to complete it. Even faster, perhaps."
The military experts quoted in the Kommersant newspaper are more cautious in their assessments.
Admiral Eduard Baltin considers that the active phase of the operation will last no less than three weeks: "But this will not mark the end of the war, apparently; counting on a blitzkrieg never works out."
Andrei Nikolaev, chairman of the Duma defense committee, says the special operation to remove Saddam Hussein from power and "what amounts to the occupation of Iraq" will take not less than a month. "But the main battle awaiting the Americans will take the form of partisan warfare."
Yevgeny Podkolzin, who commanded Russia's Airborne Troops from 1991 to 1996, says the war in Iraq will take no longer than ten days: "The United States has thrown such overwhelming military might at Iraq that they can't hold out any longer. But a protracted civil war may begin after that."
Army General Mikhail Moiseev, former chief of the General Staff of the Soviet Armed Forces who managed the withdrawal of the 40th Army from Afghanistan, is now a chief inspector with the General Staff. He doubts whether a blitzkrieg is possible; in his view, besides the unfavorable weather situation - the sandstorm season is starting - another obstacle could be the response in the Arab world, and across the whole Islamic world.
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Defense Ministry's main directorate for international military cooperation and now vice-president of the Geopolitical Studies Academy, believes there is even a possibility that the United States might use nuclear weapons in the event that the operation does not go as the Pentagon planned it would.
The Vremya Novostei newspaper reports that shortly before the war began, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicated the ideal timeframe for the proposed blitzkrieg in Iraq: six days. However, it's already clear that this will not be possible: even in the cities which are considered captured - Basra, for example - heavy fighting continues.
Moreover, as expected, the question of the number of casualties may prove particularly sensitive.
Vremya Novostei says that before military action began, a certain senior American military officer in Moscow named some figures for estimated and acceptable casualty numbers: "Dozens of American troops, hundreds of Iraqi civilians, thousands of Iraqi soldiers." However, says Vremya Novostei, the very first days of the war refuted this prediction: "It's enough to look at television footage of massive bombing of city areas and the red glow over Baghdad."
"Iraq will fight like we fought Napoleon and Hitler," says Professor Anatoly Egorin, deputy director of the Eastern Studies Institute, in the Vremya MN newspaper. "Remember what World War II was like for us: burn or blow up everything rather than let the enemy take it. But there will be huge civilian casualties in Iraq."
Even without that, there will be no problems in finding someone to blame if the military operation proves to be drawn-out.
The Izvestia newspaper reports: "The US State Department has accused Russia of supplying military hardware to the armed forces of Iraq." Of course, Russia has categorically denied doing so. However, according to Izvestia, Russian-made equipment capable of disrupting the guidance systems of American "smart bombs" has turned up in Iraq.
The Tula Design Bureau confidently told Izvestia that no military deliveries have been made to Iraq: "Even if any of our products have ended up in Iraqi hands, this has occurred without our involvement."
Presidential aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky explained that the targetting systems under discussion are freely available for purchase in many countries.
At the Aviakonversia company, which produces jamming equipment for GPS/GLONASS satellite navigation systems, Izvestia was likewise assured of the absence of any contracts with Iraq: "The Americans have bought these jamming systems from us, with the aim of developing some way of countering them. Apparently, they have not succeeded - so now they are looking for scapegoats."
Sergei Oznobishchev, director of the Strategic Research Institute, told Vremya Novostei that Washington simply has a grudge against Moscow for not supporting the military operation. Despite all efforts by Russian politicians to convince their US colleagues that Russia has no intention of quarreling with America over Iraq, relations are feeling the strain. Russia continues to insist that the issue of Iraq should be returned to the United Nations - and the Americans don't like that, of course.
In any case, "the United States cannot permit itself a lengthy and bloody war, even with the certainty of a victorious outcome," says the Vedomosti newspaper. "The main question is simple: how long will Saddam Hussein hold out?"
Obviously, the basic facts about the situation do not look good for Saddam Hussein: "Coalition troops are facing a technologically weak army, whose will to fight is doubtful. The only strategy available to Saddam Hussein - passive defense - is considered hopeless from the start."
Nevertheless, says Vedomosti, many politicians and commentators are now predicting another world war. They recall that neither at the start of the 20th Century nor in the 1930s was there any forewarning of a global catastrophe: "The only signs of the imminent worldwide carnage were declining ethics and states starting to break international laws. We are seeing a similar picture now."
However, Vedomosti emphasizes that further exacerbation is only possible if the Iraqi regime can hold out for at least a few weeks.
Why have the Americans decided on a land war, anyway? Andrei Kolesnikov, writing in Kommersant, asks: "What are they expecting? They ought to have understood right from the start that people tend to wander around deserts for forty years. I fear this cannot be done any faster. It's been tried."
Actually, it's clear enough that the fate of the Iraqi regime and its leader is sealed; the only question is what the end will be like for Saddam Hussein, says Vedomosti. "For example, will he find the courage to die in battle, thus becoming a new Arab hero; or will he be shamefully handed over by his own people, many of whom might want to pay back the dictator for years or even decades of constant fear and humiliation."