After the events of 11 September 2001, Iraq has become one of the main objects of attacks by Washington, although direct proof of the governments of the involvement of the Iraqi regime to the terrorist attacks on the American site not available. Nevertheless, the U.S. believes that Iraq is on-par with Iran, poses a serious threat to security in the area of the old Persian-ski Bay, in the Middle East as a whole. Moreover, in the absence of control by the UN, Iraq was able during the year to resume production of ballistic missiles, chemical and biological weapons.
Hence the U.S. policy to overthrow the current leadership in Baghdad and bringing to power in Iraq of Pro-Western governments.
Currently in the U.S. are considering various options for the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein are allies for a new anti-Iraq coalition. Moreover, according to American politicians, only conducting large-scale military operation could lead to a rapid collapse of the Iraqi regime. In particular, the CIA experts believe that a conspiracy or a covert operation's success will not, because the Iraqi opposition is weak and even with the support of Western intelligence agencies will not be able to carry out a coup.
In this regard, let us consider some political and military aspects and possible consequences of U.S. actions against Iraq.
There are reasons to believe that the conduct of the actual military operation will not present major difficulties for the U.S. armed forces because of the absolute military and technological superiority of the Americans. In this regard, the reports about Iraq are quite strong, and especially well-equipped army is clearly exaggerated. Fighting in January and February 1991 and the subsequent missile and bomb strikes the U.S. and UK, the activities of the UN Special Commission to disarm Iraq struck his armed forces and military industrial complex very serious damage, led to a significant reduction in combat capability and level of technical equipment of the Iraqi army.
Today, the moral and morale of the Iraqi troops also cannot be considered sufficiently high to conduct a long and arduous fighting in conditions of continuous and massive impact aviation and other modern means of destruction. Moreover, the officer corps threatened by constant purges and repression, and the level of its preparation does not meet modern requirements.
Thus, the Iraqi armed forces, despite the considerable size and the large number of military equipment do not represent a powerful, trained in modern methods of warfare force capable of providing effective long-term resistance to the U.S. armed forces. This primarily applies to air force and air defense, which suffered the greatest losses in the war of 1991 and the subsequent strikes of the Western allies. In practice actions against aircraft and cruise missiles the US and UK, Iraqi air defense systems unable to fight effectively against modern means of air attack, especially in terms of enemy interference. At a low level is the combat effectiveness of ground forces and the technical condition of their weapons.
The strengths of the Iraqis should be their ability to camouflage and disperse military and other important objects, which can create difficulties in their detection and recognition, but also lead to the consumption of expensive precision munitions for the defeat of false targets. At the present time the country's leadership is actively pursuing activities in this field.
The most stubborn resistance to the troops of USA and its allies can provide the formation of the Republican guard (seven divisions), which are equipped with specially selected personnel and is equipped with the most modern and technically good weapons, and part of the so-called Republican guard special forces (RGON, 26 thousand people). The personnel of RGON selected very carefully on the principle of personal loyalty to the President.
The success of American operation against Iraq would largely depend on the degree of confidence in the U.S. and the goals of their operation from the population of the country. Americans themselves believe that today in Iraq there is no political force on which they could rely, although the struggle with Saddam, Washington is actively using the Kurdish factor, strongly encourage the activity of anti opposition, providing her with political support, financial and military-technical assistance.
At the same time should not exaggerate the degree of cohesion of the Iraqi people around the ruling regime and its leader, his willingness to protect this regime. The population is overwhelmingly tired of the hardships of life under international sanctions, intimidated by decades of terror, violence and repression of Baathists and concerned primarily with their own survival.
At the same time, we cannot exclude active resistance to foreign intervention of those who are closely linked with the current government, mired in numerous crimes, those who are blood tied to Saddam Hussein and his entourage. We cannot exclude the possibility that the casualties and major destruction caused by military action, can cause anger among the population against the invaders, to push him to one or another form of resistance against foreign troops, including the deployment of the guerrilla movement, which can lead to prolonging the war.
When carrying out operations directly in Iraq American commanders, unlike Afghanistan, is unlikely to have a real military allies. In this regard, consider the position of the Supreme Council of the Islamic revolution of Iraq (Siri), which is by far the leading and most authoritative power of the Shiite opposition in the South (according to managers Siri, their armed groups numbered up to 30 thousand people). In February 2002, the leadership of the Shiites said that in the case of a US attack on Iraq it would not cooperate neither with the Americans nor with Saddam's regime. At the same time it was stated that "if the U.S. intends to liberate the Iraqi people and to pay attention to its requirements, this development can be regarded positively".
The leadership of the Kurdish movement, having achieved de facto independence from the Central government-controlled areas in the North of the country, clearly understands that the regime of Saddam Hussein in terms of real opposition from the West will not go to war against the Kurds. In the case of coming to power in Baghdad of a new "democratic" regime that is supported by the same West, is quite likely to use Central government forces to bring the Kurds into submission. Based on these assumptions Kurdish leaders have little appetite to participate in the overthrow of the current Baghdad regime, while rendering every assistance to opposition forces, knowing full well that their activities pose no real threat to Saddam.
On the other hand, the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, as one of the possible consequences of military action the U.S. could sharply destabilize the situation in the region, to strengthen the Kurdish movement, including its military component in Iraq's neighbouring countries Syria and Iraq, and mainly in Turkey. Largely that is why Ankara has a negative attitude to a proposed us military operation against Baghdad.
However, the biggest challenge for US will present the issue of creating the country's new Pro-Western oriented government. Indeed, to date, the Iraqi opposition is still divided, poorly organized, has strong support within the country. In its environment there are no prominent, popular, authoritative, and especially enjoys popular support the leaders. Largely the opposition forces represented by the organizations and groups located abroad and do not have what is called a living connection with the homeland.
In these circumstances it is especially difficult not only to bring the opposition to power, but to ensure the reign of the new regime over a long period. Currently in the West there is an intensive search for potential leaders who might lead Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The main attention is paid to a former senior military figures in emigration. However, this way seems very inefficient. Because most of the generals fled abroad not because of any principled political differences with Saddam, but because of simple human desire to save his life, not to get a regular cleaning in the army, the ruling Baath party or other state bodies. Moreover, most of them took their time involved in certain criminal acts of the current regime. A characteristic example is living in Denmark, General Nizar al-Kharaji, who commanded the land forces in the 80-ies. In Washington, his candidacy was seen as a potential leader of the Iraqi opposition. But then it turned out that the General actively participated in the "resettlement" of the Kurds from their places of permanent residence in desert areas, and during combat operations against Kurdish guerrillas subordinate forces widely used chemical weapons, including against civilians.
After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in the context of weak Central authority urgently the question may arise about the preservation of the territorial integrity of Iraq. Not excluded the collapse of the country into three separate States: a Kurdish North, Shia South and Sunni in the Central and Northern areas. In these conditions it is not excluded the outbreak of the civil war, which, given the characteristics of Iraqi political life, are likely to result in a bloody feud with a hardly predictable outcome.
There is no doubt that the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein who committed many crimes against his own people and repeatedly razvjazyvanii aggressive actions against neighboring countries, is condemnable. Moreover, the current Baghdad regime with its foreign policy ambitions cannot be allowed to recreate exorbitantly high, clearly exceeding the defence needs of the country, a military vehicle. However, the possible large-scale military action of the USA, the political prospects for which are very uncertain and most likely negative, will lead primarily to new numerous victims among the civilian population, the total destabilization of the situation in the country and around the destruction of the national economy. The new Iraqi regime will be most likely authoritarian in nature, and in their desire to retain power and preserve the unity of the country he will not, and will not be able to act according to the laws of a democratic society.