0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:34 pm
revel wrote:
... If we had not put so many troops gaurding oil wells maybe we would have had some to spare to watch weapons disapearing.


There you go! Redistribute the troops to guard amo dumps. If that leaves Iraqi citizens unguarded, so what. If that leaves Iraqi oil wells unguarded, so what. If that leaves other Iraqi infrastructure unguarded, so what. We can live without Iraqi citizens, Iraqi oil and Iraqi infrastructure. But we cannot live if we don't guard those amo dumps. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:45 pm
Ican wrote
Quote:

There you go! Redistribute the troops to guard amo dumps. If that leaves Iraqi citizens unguarded, so what. If that leaves Iraqi oil wells unguarded, so what. If that leaves other Iraqi infrastructure unguarded, so what. We can live without Iraqi citizens, Iraqi oil and Iraqi infrastructure. But we cannot live if we don't guard those amo dumps.



You miss or as usual are trying to throw up a smoke screen. The fact is that there was no planning by Rumsfeld for the aftermath of battle. And of more import, there were and are insufficient boots on the ground. And neither you nor Julius Caesar in the pentagon and his military genius boss at the white house. "THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF " can dispute that. They were warned
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:49 pm
THR U.S. , THE U.N. ...
last night's PBS program contained the statements(as taped) made by general shinsecki before the committee trying to find out how many troops would be neede in iraq. shinseki knew that the sec defence did not think as many troops as suggested by the army would be required. so shinseki tried to hedge his answer to the committee by saying "several hundred thousand" - that did not sit well with the secretary. you can read part of what went on here - i think it's an eyeopener for those WHO ARE INTERESTED in the subject. >>> GENERAL SHINSEKI
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:01 pm
I would ask this question If we had -had sufficient boots on the ground would we be faced with the present insurgency? Or would Iraq have been well on the way to structural, economic and political recovery by now?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:29 pm
I don't believe in Monday morning quarterbacking, and leave questions like that to the military leaders. I am an advocate of overwhelming force myself to achieve a critical objective, and sometimes that involves minimal risk of our troops.

Duelfer reported 8300.....that's eight thousand three hundred.....ammo dumps that they know about in Iraq at the time of the invasion. How many men do you think it would have required to secure all of them along with sort of looking for the WMD, going after Saddam and his top dogs, and oh yeah, they had to finish fighting the war too.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:51 pm
Foxfyre
Excuses, excuses. How long do you think a CEO of a large corporation would last if he performed as poorly as this administration?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:03 pm
Foxfyre, we do not know how many troops would have been required to secure munitions stores. But the administration must have had enough intel to know there were thousands of such munitions dumps that needed securing if the citizens were not going to help themselves to the weapons.

We do not need to "second guess" the decision of what amount of troops were sent to Iraq. We can see the consequences of not enough, and we have seen them since the fall of Baghdad. An enormous show of force would have deterred looting, private weapons stashing, and the continued growth of insurgency. That same show of force would have allowed ordinary citizens to feel safe and would have discouraged terrorist activity. The lacuna that was created by our destroying the power structure and disbanding the army, (and putting nothing large, substantial and powerful enough in its place) caused a vacuum into which fell every angry and poor insurgent from the surrounding countries, of which there is an inexhaustible supply.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:33 pm
au1929 wrote:
Foxfyre
Excuses, excuses. How long do you think a CEO of a large corporation would last if he performed as poorly as this administration?


How long do you think any corporation would last if it were run by John Kerry?

I agree that the present administration committed many blunders including a complete failure to anticipate there would be a significant effort developed by former beneficiaries of Saddam's tyrannical regime to resist the building of a viable democracy after the war was over. However, I do not see why you think Kerry would do better than Bush despite Bush's probable continuing blunders. An articulate prolific slanderer like Kerry can't anticipate anything other than the consequences of his own slandering. Kerry has provided no evidence that I'm aware of that he is able to accomplish anything but more slander and his election as a consequence. We'll soon see if his anticipation is right again this time.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:49 pm
The Bush administration has openly admitted it goofed when it sent the Republican Guard home instead of locking up the uncooperatives and enlisting the rest in the rebuilding effort. If they had to do it over they would do that differently.
It is those Iraqis who are now wanting their power and prestige back who are fighting the coalition aided and abetted by imported terrorists from other places.

Duelfer reports they did know of several hundred munition dumps, including the one at al QaQaa, and the most onerous were targeted for a quick visitation. But they did not know of the 8300 dumps that Saddam built up courtesy of Russia and Germany et al while he was stonewalling the UN inspectors. The UN simply did not do its job of enforcing its own resolution or monitoring the arms build up in Iraq mostly because so many top members were personally benefitting from the millions Saddam was shoveling out to them.

This is the same UN Kerry thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread and who he will relinquish all authority re Iraq to once he is president.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:51 pm
Kara wrote:
...We do not need to "second guess" the decision of what amount of troops were sent to Iraq. We can see the consequences of not enough, and we have seen them since the fall of Baghdad. An enormous show of force would have deterred looting, private weapons stashing, and the continued growth of insurgency.


Kara, the US does not have an enormous military ground force. For example, to put a million boots on the ground in Iraq, would require very close to our entire ground military force, because of the cut backs by the previous administration.

If we had properly anticipated the resistance that would develop after our invasion was completed, we might have been compelled to try some sort of commando effort to destroy the al Qaeda harbored in Iraq and the amo dumps in Iraq, while leaving the Saddam government more or less intact. On the otherhand, perhaps the better approach would have been to incarcerate along with Saddam all the former members of Saddam's government (feeding them might be a problem). Alternatively, the painfully slow process we are currently engaged in might be the wiser course.

Lacking the availability of an enormous force, what do you think we should have done instead?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 07:38 pm
Sistani's silence is deafning.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 07:52 pm
it is reliably reported that secretary of state colin powell told the u.s. president : "you break it, you bought it". apparently, the message was not understood. hbg
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:07 am
Sorry for the long post, but this is a huge story ...

Quote:
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.

The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.

Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.

"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."

The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.

The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.

"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.

The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.

According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.

It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.

A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.

The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.

A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.

However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.

The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.

Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.

The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.

Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.

The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.

Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.

"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.

Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.

The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.

Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.

The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.

Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.


Link
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:15 am
I had some fun with the Al-QaQaa brouhaha turnin' to caca and hittin' the fan a little while ago over HERE

Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:25 am
I hope you're right about the winning goal, Timber. The charges and accusations being flung around on this issue would be absolutely absurd if there weren't so many diehards out there who actually believe them. I'm not holding my breath waiting on the irresponsible press or the Kerry campaign to acknowledge their rhetoric was all lies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:45 am
Quote:
Iraqi officials reported that thieves looted 377 tons of powerful explosives from an unguarded site after the US-led invasion last year, the top UN nuclear official said yesterday. And a former weapons inspector said he had counted about 100 other unguarded weapons sites that may have been stripped of munitions for use in the wave of attacks against US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

The explosives that were looted from the Al Qaqaa nuclear facility, apparently in April and May of 2003, had been sealed and monitored by international nuclear inspectors before the invasion. The explosives were monitored because they can be used to detonate a nuclear bomb, although Iraq was allowed to keep them because they also have civilian and conventional military uses.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, disclosed the security lapse to the UN Security Council yesterday after receiving a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology earlier this month that informed him of the loss and blamed it on ''theft and looting of governmental installations due to lack of security."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion?mode=PF
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:49 am
Quote:
Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?oref=login
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:55 am
Quote:
Eyewitness to a failure in Iraq
By Peter W. Galbraith | October 27, 2004

IN 2003 I went to tell Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz what I had seen in Baghdad in the days following Saddam Hussein's overthrow. For nearly an hour, I described the catastrophic aftermath of the invasion -- the unchecked looting of every public institution in Baghdad, the devastation of Iraq's cultural heritage, the anger of ordinary Iraqis who couldn't understand why the world's only superpower was letting this happen.

I also described two particularly disturbing incidents -- one I had witnessed and the other I had heard about. On April 16, 2003, a mob attacked and looted the Iraqi equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control, taking live HIV and black fever virus among other potentially lethal materials. US troops were stationed across the street but did not intervene because they didn't know the building was important.

When he found out, the young American lieutenant was devastated. He shook his head and said, "I hope I am not responsible for Armageddon." About the same time, looters entered the warehouses at Iraq's sprawling nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha on Baghdad's outskirts. They took barrels of yellowcake (raw uranium), apparently dumping the uranium and using the barrels to hold water. US troops were at Tuwaitha but did not interfere.

There was nothing secret about the Disease Center or the Tuwaitha warehouses. Inspectors had repeatedly visited the center looking for evidence of a biological weapons program. The Tuwaitha warehouses included materials from Iraq's nuclear program, which had been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. The United Nations had sealed the materials, and they remained untouched until the US troops arrived.

The looting that I observed was spontaneous. Quite likely the looters had no idea they were stealing deadly biological agents or radioactive materials or that they were putting themselves in danger. As I pointed out to Wolfowitz, as long as these sites remained unprotected, their deadly materials could end up not with ill-educated slum dwellers but with those who knew exactly what they were doing.

This is apparently what happened. According to an International Atomic Energy Agency report issued earlier this month, there was "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program." This includes nearly 380 tons of high explosives suitable for detonating nuclear weapons or killing American troops. Some of the looting continued for many months -- possibly into 2004. Using heavy machinery, organized gangs took apart, according to the IAEA, "entire buildings that housed high-precision equipment."

This equipment could be anywhere. But one good bet is Iran, which has had allies and agents in Iraq since shortly after the US-led forces arrived.

This was a preventable disaster. Iraq's nuclear weapons-related materials were stored in only a few locations, and these were known before the war began. As even L. Paul Bremer III, the US administrator in Iraq, now admits, the United States had far too few troops to secure the country following the fall of Saddam Hussein. But even with the troops we had, the United States could have protected the known nuclear sites. It appears that troops did not receive relevant intelligence about Iraq's WMD facilities, nor was there any plan to secure them. Even after my briefing, the Pentagon leaders did nothing to safeguard Iraq's nuclear sites.

I supported President Bush's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. At Wolfowitz's request, I helped advance the case for war, drawing on my work in previous years in documenting Saddam's atrocities, including the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. In spite of the chaos that followed the war, I am sure that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein.

It is my own country that is worse off -- 1,100 dead soldiers, billions added to the deficit, and the enmity of much of the world. Someone out there has nuclear bomb-making equipment, and they may not be well disposed toward the United States. Much of this could have been avoided with a competent postwar strategy. But without having planned or provided enough troops, we would be a lot safer if we hadn't gone to war.

Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, is a fellow at the Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. In the 1980s, he documented Iraqi atrocities against the Kurds for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/27/eyewitness_to_a_failure_in_iraq/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 07:03 am
Like I said, there are those perfectly willing to believe unnamed sources and use unrelated issues to keep beating the drum of contempt. On the other hand, there are still people who want to know the whole truth, not what fits with a particular venomous view of our President, our military, our country.

Bear in mind that the hateful rhetoric re Al-qaqaa is not viewed as criticism of the President by our military but is viewed as a criticism of THEM. And they resent it highly. Of course that's good for the good side. Smile

Quote:
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 07:28 am
MISSING EXPLOSIVES

4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03

By JAMES GLANZ and JIM DWYER

Published: October 28, 2004

AGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.



The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

"The looting started after the collapse of the regime," said Wathiq al-Dulaimi, a regional security chief, who was based nearby in Latifiya. But once it had begun, he said, the booty streamed toward Baghdad.


link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 05:39:07