The US, UN & Iraq II

I know, why I enjoyed the time in London with other A2K members!

And although I've met quite a couple of people with a completely different opinion about the war -including a government minister- no-one told me, my opinion was dumb.

Take my break now, as others did before.

If you bothered to read the discussion you'd see that gautam wrote "Somebody call me dumb pls... " My response to that effect was a JOKE; I was complying with his request to be called dumb. (sheesh!)

Ahhhh !! So apparently 250,000 allied soldiers with billions of dollors of high tech weaponary, were not enough to take out the poor Iraqis with their antiquated weaponary, no air defense, no radar, no WMD, no fighter jets, ages old russian tanks...

Gosh, they must really love their country to fight so hard !!! And if this is "Iraqi people are just itching to get lberated" I would hate to think what would have happened if they would have put up a real fight !

Dasmn ... take a little time to do some work around the farm, and this thread roars ahead ...

What I expect after the vents of Monday-Tuesday is a relative quiet period for ground units; a 300 mile march in 5 days, with or without resistance, wears on equipment and consumes tremendous materiel. Repair and replenishment, as well as allowing troops to rest, should characterize the next 48 to 72 hours. Air activity will continue, heavily targeting emplaced equipment as well as impeding the march of the Iraqi counter attack forming Southeast of Baghdad. Reports indicate additional civil unrest cropping up, though even in Basra there is little direct benefit, and some complication, afforded Coalition troops. The Western Airfields all are busy, with Airmobile assets building rapidly. The Southern push comprises a two-prong advance from the Sout, the Western push is forming. Northern activity, dependent on Kurdish troops, will concentrate on the Mosul-Kirkuk_Tikrit area, but will be essentially guerilla-like action, though afforded massive air support. Weather later in the week should be acceptable for renewed Coalition offensive action, and the defenses of Baghdad will be assaulted simultaneously by three separate major efforts. The Republican Guard, so far relatively unengaged, is going to get much more attention. The discovery of Atropine injectors, gas masks, and protective gear is troubling, as is the fact they were discovered in a hospital which had been fortified. Najaf is the scene of a major engagement at the moment, and there have been Coalition losses, though the situation is far from dire.
What has gone before has given the public a false sense of what war is like. Positional battle between major units is very different from marching. The real fighting has begun, and will intensify. Iraqi resistance will be fierce, but cannot withstand the weight of force being brought against it. War is never easy; this one is no different in that regard. This one is going well for The Coalition ... surprisingly well. The issue is not in doubt.

6 o'clock news ... this is so depressing ... images from bagdad, bombs have hit, dead bodies, and minute after minute footage of people chanting against america, swearing "this will be a graveyard for america", singing slogans of loyalty to saddam ...

is it spontaneous anger? patriotic machismo? the fear-induced instinct to at all times demonstrate loyalty to the regime?

in any case, it is clear they will resist to somewhere near the end. even if it is the latter of the three things, because that would merely mean that the iraqis wont feel safe enough to stop fighting for saddam until they're sure he's dead and gone - after the war, thus. i personally tend to think it's probably a mix of the three things ...

There are busloads of volunteers coming in form Jordan(est. 500 a day) and Syria. They say: "we don't love Saddam but he is the only one fighting against the USA! So he is our man.!"

This shows again how the USA is hated in the Arab world.

A remark to people like tress, who doesn't seem to get the point.

Do you think the Russians were all pro Stalin when they defended their country against the German attacker?

You better start thinking "Why do they hate us so much"

TW-
What do you think of the suggestion to use strictly non-USA based sources for news for awhile ( I think it's a no-brainer if you want to see other than pro-USA biased reports)?

Timber

you wrote



Oh but it was supposed to be wasn't it? What about shock and awe? What about decapitation? What about integrated synergies? Full spectrum dominance? Where are the hordes of happy I-rakkys?

Wesley Clarke says there aren't enough troops in theatre
The guy who devised "shock and awe" said it has not been properly applied.

This war may not be lost, but its gone wrong right from the outset. It could turn into Vietnam + sand.

That eventually Iraqi resistance will not be able to withstand the US/British forces seems almost certain, yes.

But to say that this war is "going surprisingly well" for the Americans/Brits is a chutzpah.

Not just because, in contradiction to everything Rumsfeld and co. had predicted, there is still fierce fighting in every single town of significant size on the way between Kuwait and Bagdad.

But also because the war is turning out to go conceptually different from what the US had us believe beforehand. Instead of Iraqis greeting the US soldiers with flowers, grateful for how they liberated them, there is furious anger and guerrilla tactics. That says even more about how "surprisingly difficult" the war will still be than abbout how it went these past few days.

Why do they hate us?

They( meaning a very small number of very extreme fundamentalist Muslims who subscribe to the very radical Islamic doctrine that all who are not Muslims must either covert and worship Allah or be put to the sword( WTC). Those are the people who really hate us and must be either exterminated or bought to the world court for justice as was done in the case of Milosevich

On defending the national soil.

In 1991, Iraqi soldiers kissed the boots of the marines that captured them.
In 2003, many of them resist to the last bullet.

Is it because they now love Saddam?
Is it because in 1991, they loved America?
Of course not.

In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait.
In 2003, Iraq is the invaded one.

There lies the big difference.

Welcome Italgato, hope you will enjoy the A2K world as much as we do!
I don't think it is the small number of extreme fundamentalists that the question was about, though. Their reasons for hatred are perfectly understandable. The puzzler is the 'common folk'. They were supposed to be thrilled or at least moderately happy about the invasion that is trying to topple the Saddam regime. Not up in arms against it.

Diane Rehm on NPR this morning did a very good job of covering the "Why do they hate us" in the beginning. It should be available tomorrow.

One thing I would like to add is that everyone should not rate the fighting as yet. Our military is Number 1 even though the political leadership suck. The fighting man is superior and will prevail - I just wish it would happen sooner than later.

No matter what - all deaths belong to Bush, it is the Bush War and he is accountable!

Blathma

reminder... the following sentence is directed personally...let's, even if having fun in teasing, limit such sentences...right, old chum?
Quote:
The negativity is a reflection of your knowledge that you are wrong I presume.

Blatham
You have got to be kidding me ----right----would you like me to post all the sleazy comment made to me with no comment from you.

IMHO, there are two groups.

You are right about those very extreme fundamentalists, they hate the US so much they want to fight the US on their own soil. But they are very small in numbers.

The second group, almost the entirerly Arab World has other reasons to hate the US. The reasons i already explained. Their hate has nothing to do with belief but more with the way they were treated by the US.
A Simple Example:
someone beats you up for years and years. Suddenly he says "Come here, i want to hug you" Would you belief him?

Perhaps in a separate thread :wink:

Nimb

Yes ---- it would take several pages so I won't bother.

I keep hearing both the military and the media note that, after all, Iraq is the size of CALIFORNIA and it's natural the invasion will take SO long. Hmmm.

Isn't anyone else as curious I am about the Blair-Bush relationship and whether it will stand the test of the US having awarded all the major reconstruction contracts to our guys -- not just OUR guys but Bush/Cheney guys?

BTW, I can imagine the destruction and subsequent "reconstruction" of California by (say) Bechtel with chosen pro-Bush people taking over movie production and key film roles -- Jenna Bush standing in for Brittany... No, maybe not. And all that spiked Code Orange juice served with terroristic pretzels...

BillW wrote

<No matter what - all deaths belong to Bush, it is the Bush War and he is accountable!>

If France had not been so greedy in protecting their oil interests and arms sales to Saddam this need not have happened.

Steve,

The link you provided in your post of Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:43 AM
is quite interesting and I have book marked it as another source of information. It is, however, naturally suspect. Witness this quote explaining GRU's (similar to the U.S.'s DIA or Defense Intelligence Agency) command and reporting responsibility:

" The GRU is subordinated only to the Defense Minister and to the Chief of General Staff and is not directly reporting to the political leadership of Russia. The current intelligence reporting structure denies Russian civilian leadership direct access to the intelligence produced by the GRU. For example, even Russia's top civilian government members can get access to GRU reports only through the Defense Minister or the Chief of General Staff. "

If this agency's information is so tightly held that even the top civilian leaders are not privy to it one must question why this information is shared with us on the Web. But, I believe it has value. Irrespective of the fact that the dissemination of its information may provide a venue for some propaganda it may allow us to read between the lines of what our own military is saying publicly.

It is probably no secret that some in the military thought that we would have met with less resistance or that Saddam would have chose to set up his own "special forces" that our forces have encountered in Basra or An Nasiriya. This is not to say that the planners did not take these possibilities into consideration.

I would suspect this might indirectly be a result of our inability to obtain Turkish permission to pour at least another Armour Division into Northern Iraq (This is probably why we hear rumors of complaints from some coalition commanders regarding a shortage of troops/equipment). Had we been able to open up a second front against The Republican Guard in the North Saddam would have felt less comfortable letting these troops leave the Baghdad area to cause problems in Southern Iraq.

However, I think that these facts were recognized but did not deter the planners from the original strategy of "Blitzkrieg" or "Lightening War". Part of this strategy is a sort of "Bump and Run" technique. This involves coming into contact with small forces such as at Basra, along the way to the ultimate objective, and leaving behind a small force to guard your supply lines. What has made this much more difficult is not so much the "special forces" left behind to control the local Sunni population and harass coalition forces but the newly discovered dire need of humanitarian supplies of the civilians. Saddam shut off electricity and water to these areas after we were careful not to.

I think it will probably be another week or two before our ground forces will engage Republican Guard Divisions around Baghdad. This will allow three things to happen. The "softening up" of Iraqi Divisions around Baghdad, strengthening of our supply lines and resultant replenishment of our forces, and the transport of those forces meant for Northern Iraq to the Baghdad area (They had to reload onto ships in Turkey and proceed to either Kuwait or recently taken Umm Quasr.)

Of course if we are lucky the Iraqi divisions may try and surprise us and proceed south to engage the 3rd ID. This is preferable to them pulling back to Baghdad and digging in. The first action allows us to use our air power and superior technology to defeat them. The second gets into the same position the British have at Basra. The worst case is if we have to invest Baghdad, America's worst nightmare, and this does not even include the use of chemical agents into the calculus.

JM