war on Iraq: whats the very worst than can happen?

I don't think that the worst case scenario's the most likely scenario, tho.

a 2nd term would be terrible.

Julio I think "nuclear war" meaning "a war in which nuclear weapons are used" isn't completely unlikely. It's more unlikely than likely, yes (I was trying to work out a way in which a worst-case scenario could get North Korea involved but it's a separate issue I think).

One of the few good (in realpolitik terms) things about the 2nd resolution not being voted on - Musharraf can sit on the fence for a bit longer. He must have been really cursing it being Pakistan's turn on the security council.

Also there is the China invades Taiwan scenario (very nlikely but interesting) and the Ariel excecuting a Palestinian "Final Solution".

yeah, he could drop in kuwait: I have a few relatives who work there. I'm starting to get worried.

tom- I don't...I mean, its pushing the button and condemming millions of ppl who had nothing to do with this to their deaths.

I don't think that will happen, but none of it is out of the question, I think.

Bush Warns Iraq Army To Disarm Else Face Consequences

The Pakistan/India thing is much more frightening :(

Beyond that, I can't see nukes being used. And surely Saddam had way more chemical weapons last time around?

if Saddam really cared about his supposed dream of rebuilding/recreating the Babylonian empire then he would be being a lot more pro-active generally (this means doing more than building a military arsenal in secret away from the prying eyes of the West) - and he wouldnt have fucked the country up like he has - he seems like a tired stubborn old man clinging to an impossible dream now just ready to sit it out and make things as difficult as possible for everyone around him - and not much of a threat to anyone outside his own country...but i guess appearances can be deceiving and thats what this is all about.

Martin's description does indeed so like 'ultimate worst case' tho, but i guess i was aiming for a more realistic scenario (hopefully not tempting fate there)...

However, three things are bugging me right now. They aren't connected, but they're bugging me...

1. Halliburton (remember them, and the Cheney connection?) "lost" a radioactive device in Nigeria. Probably during the rioting over the Miss World flap last year.

2. Assuming that the blitzkrieg is successful, the resulting back-slapping and good feelings will get Bush II re-elected in 2004.

3. (and this one really bugs me) Much of what helped reducing the budget deficit in the late-90s was foreign investment, especially in treasury bills. Japan itself has well over $200 billion in US debt holdings and Treasury Bill holdings. With the US economy tanking in early 2000, Bush II proving himself to be an International Sociopath, and the 9/11 events, new foreign investment has declined over 90%.
Now fast-forward to when the bills become due for Gulf War II and the dollar takes another hit and economic conditions go for bad to worse, what happens when other countries decide to sell off their holdings of t bills and debt? I fear this could be even more of a knockout blow than a WMD going off in midtown Manhattan.

And I haven't even gotten to the part where Iraq torches the oil fields and surrounds them with chem/bio weapons.

Also, it's pretty clear that the only policy Bush II has is war on Iraq. There is no domestic policy. There is no other foreign policy.

Explain please. What consequences are you referring to?

The U.S. does not take out Hussein before spring/summer temperatures bog down military operations.

Nation-building in a post-Hussein Iraq doesn't progress (for example, the Iraqi Kurds want independence, and they have weapons to back themselves). U.S. or other troops stationed there to keep order instead must cope with internal warfare and terrorism, potentially leading to a Vietnam War-type scenario.

As for Iraq - I think it will be a successfull blitzkrieg, but a little messier than desired, leading to a massive anti-US backlash & increased terrorism. Also, no country in the area will ever trust us again. Why ally yourself with the US? Saddam did.

I have read things by Israeli writers taking it as a given that if Israel had been attaked by nerve gas in the first Gulf War they would have retaliated with nuclear weapons.

I don't think Saddam Hussein has the capability to drop nerve gas on Israel at the moment, so we should be alright this time round. probably.

Bush will almost certainly let Sharon continue to do what the fuck he likes holding up the 'roadmap' indefinately.

NK figures that they are On The List (if you're not on the list, you're not getting bombed), and might as well hit the Great Satan while they're already at war.

2) four more years of this:
http://media.salon.com/mp3s/anidifranco031303.mp3

During the initial and most violent phase of the war, the invasion of Iraq, I consider it fairly certain that Saddam will torch the Iraqi oil fields, leading to the usual environmental catastrophe. Most of Iraq's infrastructure will certainly be destroyed again by U.S. bombs. Military resistance is not likely to be protracted, but the longer it lasts, the more death and destruction will occur on all sides. That will be plenty bad enough when you think about it, but not unexpected.

IOW, I think the blueprint the U.S. military has drawn up for the invasion will be, on the whole, successful. If Bush is so appallingly stupid as to use tactical nukes for any reason at all, then pray. Pray hard. Pray for impeachment.

For me all the most relevant "worst case" opportunities happen in the political fallout, after the invasion "succeeds".

Postwar Iraq presents excellent opportunities for political bungling. The country will be smashed up. Millions of refugees could be created. The military occupation government will have to administer a country broken, bleeding, and seething with turmoils. The first big chance to bungle will be in the delivery of mass quantities of food, water and medicines. Delays in funding or delivery of aid will be widely seen in the Middle East and beyond as criminal negligence rather than bureaucratic business as usual.

Golden opportunity for bungling, number two, would be to continue to let Israel's Sharon shape U.S. policy on the Palestinians. Sharon is bound to see this as his chance to rid himself of Arafat and dictate a peace settlement. I see no will in the Bush administration to stop Sharon.

Given history, it is almost a sure bet that public opinion the Islamic world will turn increasingly anti-American and ever more violently frustrated with U.S. hegemony. In a worst case, this violence will turn against the governments of Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Also against the military occupation government of Iraq. Some of these could fall, as did Marcos in the Phillipines.

This turn to violence against the U.S. and its 'friendlies' would certainly be spun by the Bush administration as a reason to re-elect Bush and to increase our military strength. Bush foreign policy would seek to polarize the world into "with us or against us" camps. Iraq would no longer be touted as a model of democracy, but as a military base and strategic asset. Then, to secure this base, a new war would be required against Iran.

And so it goes...

if this claim has any content, then the content will be above all massively apparent to neighbour peoples writhing under oppression — better get on with their own overthrowing early, or pretty soon stray us bombs will be landing on ordinary saudi homes instead saudi tyrant palaces

stuart when did you suddenly lose faith in the aims of this war?

(I don't know who the author is, or what kind of publication "from the wilderness" is, but enjoy!)

the danger in the middle east has never been that it will take the west down en masse — al qaeda is tiny relatively and surely shot its major bolt with 9-11, a horribly lucky one-shot — it's that engineering social transformation by applied external violence at the wrong crux point will cause the endless sedimented tensions (and religious disappointments) in these regions to erupt crosswise against each other, an internecine bloodbath stretching from algeria to timor, uzbekistan to to bosnia to south africa

Very worst for whom?

The Iraqi people: Death
Imperialist Yanks: Death