The US, UN & Iraq II

seems to be lots of misinfo in this business. It must be incredibly frustrating for the journalists.

The massacre story is gettin play on the hysteria websites and on some of the blogs, but other than the initial BBC report, not much else. I did find this ... unrelated, but significant if it proves out. Of course, the one thing you'll find more of in war than bullets is rumors.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html

See now, that will get played both ways. The warhawks will say see! see! saddam has had ties with al qaeda. The peace-nicks will say, see! see! We told you attacking iraq would provoke more al qaeda activity.

I had no idea that Al Qaeda were so easily pegged as such.

But interesting, I can already see the possibility of the link being created for future display.

Important to question, verify each piece of "news" when possible. That's the only response possible to the constant drip of misinformation.

yep, but verify with whom? The journalists in baghdad are actually getting into the city and talking with iraqis, seeing the bombed areas, etc. But the people on the front lines can only listen to far off thuds and to what the military is telling them.

Quite a few people subscribe to the following view -- I'm certainly one of them..

Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

And if that isn't enough, here are the connected dots of the Patriot Act:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0313/lee.php

An article by a man who served as a human sheild for saddam's army in 1990:

BBC

The commentary at the end is as interesting as the article itself.

littlek, "verify with whom" is a difficult proposition to address. A filtering method I've found somewhat effective is to watch to see if a rumor or report gets picked up by other outlets. If an item gets wide notice over a short time period, there may well be something there. The next step is to examine the different treatments, and to look for corroborating independent mention. A story carried by several services, some of which have their own correspondants' bylines and perspectives, offering more or less the same facts, gains credence. The "Burden of Proof", however, often rests with the seeker. Sample your sources, make up your own mind. They report ... you decide.

Even good sources give bad news sometimes because there is such a scramble and the news gets thin at times. Be ready and accept. It has especially gotten much worse in the Internet News days and when there are frenzies - like currently.

This insinuation is something that has been going around quite frequently. Both sides are saying that they are the true patriots.

I'd like to present a puzzle:

A holds opinion #1

B holds opinion #2

Obviously A thinks 1 is right and B thinks 2 is right. If this were not the case they would not hold those opinions, after all, who holds a false opinion on purpose.

Now, A thinks #2 is dangerous. B thinks #1 is dangerous.

If A and B are allowed to arbitrarily determine that the other's opinions are dangerous we get = both sides determining that their view on how the country should be run is patriotic while the opposing view is not.

While the insinuations might be gratifying they are sometimes pointless fodder.

If A thought #2 was right A would not hold opinion #1. If B thought #1 was right she would not hold opinion #2.

If patrotism is defined by doing what's best for one's country then it's entirely possible for both to be patriots and I consider it likely that both will consider each other a detriment to their nation. A because A thinks #2 makes his country worse and B because B thinks #1 makes the country worse.

Now I introduce C. C is not concerned about #1 or #2. C wants #3. C defines #3 as what is best for all, not just one nation.

Both A and B might consider #3 to be "Anti-American". This could be because it IS Anti-American or because #3 simply uses different criteria. #3 might well be Anti-war, Anti-hegemony or whatever.


I also would like to introduce D, D thinks #4. D defines #4 as hatred for A and B's country with no logical support. D said, and I quote, "I just hate them".


Now I believe D is rare and C more common. I also think A and B frequently reduce C's opinion to that of D's. Because it's always easier to write off a C as a D.

I've also been noticing that some reporters are either more lucky than others or more discriminant in what they report.

And another link, sorry, I'll stop soonish. At the BBC is a page devoted to the "experts' views" on this war. There's the most recent essays on the front page and archives further in.

BBC

I'm a C! I think it's unfair to assume that bush bashers are anti-american. Certainly if they're americans you're talking about.

I'm a Z. Can't be pidgeoned holed anywhere

Kara, regarding your post of Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:12 pm:

It is certainly desirable to get different opinions from different experts regarding strategies but one must keep in mind that most of the time these are "retired" or "former" officers or even strategist (which doesn't necessarily mean he/she was a soldier).

Their opinions give us insight into present operations and give us non-professionals a little appreciation of what goes into military planning. However, we must remember that they are outsiders and not privy to all intelligence information. If these experts knew the entire plan and intel they would be in General Frank's position and not sitting in a studio. It is also important not think that General Franks sat down one lonely Saturday night and planned this operation by himself.

As I'm sure you know, this plan, at the very least, is the result of many planners from the different armed services working for probably a year or more. This process of peer review tends to bring to the surface not only a better overall plan but in the process many options and variations that may be used when difficulties arise in actual execution of the final operation.

As far as the 4 ID is concerned; had it been able to open a second front in the north Saddam would probably not have been able to send those members from his Republican Guard down to harass our troops in the south in the form of fedayeen units we now see engaging those in Najaf, An Nasiriya, and especially the Brits around Basra. Any luck that Gen Franks enjoys he probably made himself.

As far as Shock and Awe (S & A) is concerned most cameras and any bombing we see on TV are in Baghdad. The most we saw, as civilians were a couple of nights in Baghdad. Baghdad is not the military's only target. Sec. Rumsfeld's idea of S & A probably includes those 3 divisions of Reb. Guard 10-20 miles south of the city where there are no cameras, we just don't know.

This same strategist also seems to have an axe to grind with Rumsfeld when he states:

"This man pointed out as an aside that R. is the most hated secy of defense in decades, and that he shows a disdain for the soldier in the field that those troops are aware of. He is known as arrogant and not able to accept advice. "

This is a personal attack and out of the strategist's field of expertise and calls his advice into question.

Some one else in this thread insinuated poor planning by our military because they just announced another 200 K troops would be showing up within a month. This is, rather, regular planning and it would be irresponsible not to have these troops coming in for rotations and reinforcements. It is common tactical operation to have a combat unit to advance as far as possible stop rest ,refuel, and resupply. While this is happening the reinforcements advance as far as they can and so forth.

Respectfully,

JM

Bush just makes it so easy to bash him. He's a moron. Try to get him to talk without a prepared speech. He can't string more than 3 or 4 words together.

Since we are all letters, it doesn't matter how anyone feels or thinks. We are all part of alphabet soup. c.i.

lol, I just stopped at D, it goes on infinitely of course. :-)


timber,
I just saw this, I'm writing procedure manuals at work these days and appreciated this post:

"The Plan" no doubt fills a briefcase or two, and is the product of many minds, many meetings, many studies, and an upwardly spiraling chain of committees and work-groups. It is no secret that eventual deployments would reach or exceed 300,000. 4th Infantry was intended to have an operational role in The North, but "The Plan" allowed lighter forces to take on much of that role when that became necessary. Some of those alternate deployments involve units intended for reserve, a function some elements of the 4th will assume. Excited news reporters and assorted other talking heads, uniformed or otherwise, to the contrary, the forces now engaged have seen relatively light action so far. I am compelled to think of Chancelorsville, Antietam, Fredericksburg ... Jena, Austerlitz, and Varus' doomed legions in the forests of Gaul, of Tarawa, Normandy, and Anzio, of The Chosin Reservoir and of Khe Sanh and of the A Shau Valley ... a few dozen casualties and a handful of damaged equipment really is not the byproduct of "Heavy Fighting". In fact, if one considers only casualties directly caused by enemy action, excluding accidents and fratricide, so far this has been an unparallelled "walkover". Hell, it took over a month to "Liberate" Hue in '68 (though when we were done, the city was about 18" high and smoldering), and we were already THERE ... it was unnecessary to move several divisions several hundred miles to get there.

OK ... Baghdad hasn't fallen in a week. I don't believe any realistic assessment claimed that it would. To my perception, the folks running this war never said it woul;d take a week ... or a month. As I recall, it was to be "Swift and decisive". The way I look at it, the "Swift" part is holding true, and the "decisive" part is in no doubt, though yet unaccomplished. I see neither the schedule nor the outcome to be in any peril. This attack did not have the benefit of a multi-week air campaign to attrit the enemy. A pause to rest and replenish following a week-long march is not a surprising development. Nor should it be surprising when, having established a suitable perimiter from which to launch the "Final Attack", that tactics and units other than thosae heretofor seen might be employed. I believe this will take at most a few weeks yet, likely just two or three, but I see no reason to suspect essential military resolution will require "months". I also see no reason not to expect a long period of "Mopping Up" to follow. Some of the badguys will manage to "head for the hills" (probably literally), from whence they will harry, harrass, and otherwise irritate and inconvenience the occupying forces. The War goes far less unwell than many pundits postulate. Winning The Peace is bound to be a much trickier, and far lengthier, matter than Winning The War.

Of late I've been otherwise engaged, so haven't said much. Timber once again has expressed my sentiments exactly. The military have so far conducted an almost faultless campaign. It would have been nice if Saddam had retained without change the military doctrine used before the cease fire. He learned from that encounter, and has tried to adopt a new doctrine, irregular war. I think most of us were surprised at how far that change has gone.

Gen. Franks, the commander always gets the credit and the blame, has conducted this campaign to minimize many of the advantages that irregular warfare utilizes.

* Irregular war does not not attempt military victory (that is not possible), but a political victory by manipulating media and public opinion. News is managed to turn our values against us by poisoning public opinion. Propaganda can be as lethal as a MOAB.

* Irregular war abandons the rules and conventions of war. This means that soldiers may no longer wear proper uniforms, or observe the sanctity of churches, hospitals, or flags of truce. Any weapon that will accomplish the goal, is deemed acceptable. Remember the purpose isn't necessarily victory on the battlefield, but in the organization's ability to manipulate public opinion. For Iraqi soldiers dressed in Allied uniforms accept the surrender of regular Iraqi forces, or civilians, and then slaughter them is regarded as an acceptable means of conducting war. Setting off a bomb in a public square killing one's own citizens so that one can accuse the enemy of targeting civilians is a valid tactic within this doctrine. These sort of monkeyshines provoke resentment, suspicion and distrust.

General Franks is fighting two sorts of war here. First, he is fighting a conventional war against a large, determined and "entrenched" force of some six Divisions armed with the best Russian and French equipment money could buy. The Iraqi Army has numerous fault lines, and even though they might put up a good fight, they will be defeated handily in short order, and Baghdad will fall. As a part of their last ditch defense, they can be expected to utilize chemical and biological weapons. The effects are not likely to be effective against our forces, but many civilians will die and Saddam will seek to blame the Allies.

The second war is somewhat tougher, because it must be fought against Iraqi military forces utilizing irregular warfare doctrine and tactics. They already are active in trying to disrupt the supply line reaching from Kuwait to Baghdad. They have not been even moderately successful, and over time their numbers will be decimated. Already reports from many sources tell us that Iraqi soldiers are fighting in allied uniforms, or in civilian clothing. They are using civilian shields, and forcing civilians to take up arms. Their propaganda stance will be that Allied forces are murdering soldiers who surrender, innocent women and children, and commit who knows what other atrocities. Saddam and his sympathizers will claim that the indigenous people are united against the Allied liberation forces. They will say all those folks in civilian cloths are patriotic civilians who voluntarily fight the foe with rocks if need be to repel the invader who murders their children. That's what Saddam wants the world to believe, because that is the only way he can emerge victorious.

I think it will come down finally to the question, who do you believe? Do you believe Saddam, or do you believe the President of the United States? Saddam, or the reporters embedded in Allied fighting units? Saddam, or the Allied Military command? Saddam, or the kid next door who is serving in the 1st Infantry? Whose value system is more trustworthy, the values system of the American and British, or value system of Saddam Hussein?

Much, much later perhaps the world will know for a certainty who is lying, and who is telling the truth. Once Saddam is gone, and the strength of the Ba'ath Party is broken, the truth will emerge. There is a long struggle ahead, made longer and more costly by the delays made by this administration in an attempt to either force Saddam to comply, or for the rest of the world to show that their words had consequences.

God bless America and her fighting forces. May the Right prevail.