Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
xxrayeyes, you don't understand the mentality of the left-wingers of this board. "Quick War" means two days...maybe two weeks. The 1991 Gulf War was a quagmire to them.
They are?
October 7, 2000
Bush: “I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures.”
What is your point? The reporter cited by CoalTrain tried to use a statement by a close "colleague" (Adelman) to portray it as an opinion supported by Rumsfeld. The point she was trying to make is that Rumsfeld thought that this war would be a "cakewalk".
Then you go on to quote Novak: "I asked Rumsfeld whether he agreed with Adelman. 'Well, I really don't,' he said, but then indicated he understood how his friend came to that conclusion."
Obviously Rumsfeld didn't agree with Adelman, but the reporter didn't really give a shit. The loose strokes of her broad brush painted the exact picture she had intended to.
Kenneth Adelman works for the U.S. Defense Department???
CoalTrain, you have a career in journalism!
"A close colleague of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted the march to Baghdad would be "a cakewalk"."
Who was this unnamed "close colleague"????
Do you have Alzheimer's CoalTrain? You said this in reply Sarai, apparently in agreement:
"Rumsfeld will lay low for a week..."
CoalTrain, why don't you put your politics on ice for two seconds and try to understand the issue.
Note that all the whining is coming from ARMY generals. Why? Because the Army divisions in question are fashioned to fight a Soviet era war and they're being cut-out. Rumsfeld is dealing with bruised egos who've decided to use the media air their self serving grievences.
Will somebody please tell me how more heavy armor, more army "boots" will help the U.S. to complete this war more quickly, with fewer casualties??? Can somebody tell me how bringing in two more heavy divisions will improve logistics??? Better deal with Saddam's militia??? Let's be for real!
These heavy army divisions aren't equipped or trained to fight in urban areas, plain and simple. Guess who's gonna be sent into Baghdad? Rangers, Delta Force, Seals, U.S. Marines, British Marines, British Special forces and maybe the 101st Airborne. Do we need two more heavy armored divisions to hold their coats?
Note that nobody in the media is posing hard questions to these Army whiners. The anti-bush media would rather skewer Rumsfeld and Bush instead of getting to the truth.
Read the words of ex-ARMY David Hackworth if you don't believe me: http://www.hackworth.com/26nov01.html
Rumsfeld news conference, 2:00pm EST
He's been on tv damn near every day!
Why do Dems oppose war?
Bob Beckel
I have been a card-carrying liberal Democrat all my life, and proud of it. I've always believed that one of the great foundation blocks of liberalism is that we are committed to helping those who cannot help themselves. From Selma, Ala., to Capetown, South Africa, liberals have been at the forefront of the war against racism. From the picking fields of Florida, to support for Mothers of the Missing, liberals have waged war against the oppression of children.
For these reasons, I find it so baffling that so many of my fellow liberals oppose the war against, arguably, the most vicious dictator since Hitler. In case you missed it friends, the Sunday before the war began was the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's nervegasing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja. Have we forgotten the horrific pictures of distorted bodies in piles? Have we forgotten in that human tyre were the bodies of hundreds of little babies? If so, read the reports out of Basra of Saddam Hussein's secret security force putting guns to the heads of little children to force their fathers to fight, or reports of suspected coalition collaborators having their tongues cut out and left to bleed to death in public parks as a warning to others? Or reports after the last Gulf War of Hussein's thugs rounding up accused spies and forcing them to drink gas in front of their families and then lighting them on fire?
Since our just opposition to the war in Southeast Asia, we liberals have supported wars to liberate oppressed people from the Balkans to Haiti. Despite the conservative revisionism that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War all by himself, we should remember that the spark of that fire came from Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Union supported financially by the U.S. labor movement with money and people.
I agree with my liberal friends that the so-called adults running this war have looked more like graduate students doing war gaming for their thesis. As for diplomacy, let's just say it could not have been handled in a more hamhanded way. The only positive was that maybe now the elites in this country will realize that the French are not our friends and have not been since we liberated their sorry butts in World War II.
But, there is no turning back now. I, for one, am not worried that this war will rip apart U.S.-European alliances. They will come back and if the French don't, all the better. I don"t believe the Arab world will rise up en masse against the United States and unleash a firestorm of new terrorist attacks. True, the Iraqi people have not yet embraced their liberation, but why should they? For 30 years, they have been brainwashed with hatred for the United States. That does not go away overnight. And let's remember that as they face foreign news cameras saying Saddam is loved, they have Saddam's thugs behind them with AK 47s.
Having had several painful discussions with some of my closest friends, many of whom I've worked with for 30 years, I come away with the crux of the problem with their argument against this war. They all agree that Saddam Hussein is evil, but believe that thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed by our troops and bombs. I don't know how many civilians have already died or surely will in the weeks ahead, not to mention our own troops.
There is only one certainty in this whole miserable situation. If Hussein is left in power, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed.
If Saddam Hussein's thugs will torture little children and then kill their parents right in front of them, with 200,000 U.S. and British troops occupying vast parts of his country, can you imagine what this evil man will do if we withdraw?
Backing down would be to sign the death warrants of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not a signature this liberal wants anything to do with, and with respect to my fellow liberals, you shouldn't either.
• Bob Beckel was a deputy secretary of State in the Carter administration, national campaign manager for Walter Mondale and a political analyst and columnist. He is currently writing a book on politics.
TRAGEDY OF THE ARABS
By RALPH PETERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 30, 2003 -- TV networks in the Arab world gloat as they broadcast pictures of American prisoners executed by Saddam's thugs. They report every Iraqi lie as if it contains unassailable truth, while mocking each report of allied success. They promise their viewers Iraq is winning the war.
They betray their own people by doing so, setting up Arabs for yet another psychological catastrophe.
Our natural response to the Arab world's phenomenal lies is anger: We resent their indecency in glorifying murder and war crimes. We cannot understand how anyone can believe these gruesome fairy tales for adults.
My advice is to ignore the Arabs. Hand-wringing about Arab TV disinformation or about the rage of the Arab street is a waste of our time. We cannot convince them and we cannot force them to change.
The best we can do - even for the Arabs - is to get on with America's agenda of liberation.
The most important thing for Americans to grasp about the impotent fury of the Arab world is that it isn't really about us. It's about their own internal demons.
The absurdities broadcast and printed throughout the Arab world are symptoms of a once-great culture's moral desolation, of the comprehensiveness of Arab failure. The Arabian Nights have long since turned into the Arabian nightmare.
The inability of the Arab world to compete with the West in any field of endeavor (even their efforts at terrorism ultimately fail) has been so devastating to the Arab psychology that they are desperate for someone to blame for what they and their grotesque leaders have done to their own culture.
Without the United States - and, of course, Israel - as excuses for Arab political squalor, Arabs might have to engage in self-examination, to ask themselves, "How have we failed so badly?"
They prefer to blame others, to sleepwalk through history, and to cheer when tyrants and terrorists "avenge" them.
On one level, Arabs know that Saddam Hussein is a monster. They know he has killed more Arabs than Israel ever could do. Saddam has been the worst thing to happen to Mesopotamia since the Mongols razed Baghdad. But Arabs are so jealous and discouraged that they need to inflate even Saddam into a hero. They have no one else.
Try to understand how broken the Arab world must be, how pitiful, if the celebrated Arab "triumph" of this war is the execution of prisoners in cold blood and the display of a few POWs on TV.
We would be foolish to descend to their level and gloat. The world would be better off were Arab civilization a success. We all should pray that the Arab world might, one day, be better governed and more equitable, that Arab peoples might join us in the march of human progress, instead of fleeing into reveries of bygone glories.
But the obstacles Arabs have erected for themselves are enormous. For all of the oil revenue that has flowed into the wealthier Arab countries, consider the overall state of the Arab world:
* It does not produce a single manufactured product of sufficient quality to sell on world markets.
* Arab productivity is the lowest in the world.
* It contains not a single world-class university.
* The once-great tradition of Arab science has degenerated into a few research programs in the fields of chemical and biological warfare.
* No Arab state is a true democracy.
* No Arab state genuinely respects human rights.
* No Arab state hosts a responsible media.
* No Arab society fully respects the rights of women or minorities.
* No Arab government has ever accepted public responsibility for its own shortcomings.
This is a self-help world. We can't force Arab states to better themselves. If Arabs prefer to dream of imaginary triumphs while engaging in fits of very real savagery, they're their own ultimate victims.
Is there any hope? Yes: Iraq.
While building the Iraq of tomorrow must be done by the Iraqis themselves, we would be foolish not to give them every reasonable assistance.
With their oil reserves, a comparatively educated population and their traditionally sophisticated (compared to other Arabs) outlook, the Iraqis are the best hope the region has of building a healthy modern state.
It isn't going to be easy, and it is going to take years, not months. But the Iraqis have the chance to begin the long-overdue transformation of Arab civilization.
For all the shouting and hand-waving in the Arab world, the truth is that Arabs have a deep inferiority complex. They're afraid they really might not be able to build a successful modern state - to say nothing of a post-modern, information-based society.
If Iraq could do even a fair job of developing a prosperous Arab democracy that respected human rights, it could be an inspiration to the rest of the states in the region - and beyond.
The Arab world desperately needs a success story. Let us hope, for the sake of hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings in the Middle East, that Iraq provides that example.
In the short term, though, the Arab world is in for a shock. By lying about Saddam's atrocities and promising an Arab victory, those Arab media outlets are doing all Arabs a cruel disservice.
Imagine the impact on the Arab world when Saddam lies dead and the oppression-stunned people of Iraq begin to tell their stories of suffering under his regime. What will Arabs do when their own fellow Arabs tell them Saddam's glory was all a big lie?
My prediction: They will turn on the Iraqis and accuse them of being tools of the United States.
But be patient. The cliché is absolutely true: Nothing succeeds like success.
Baghdad was once the center of Arab culture, of science and the arts, and a beacon of human progress. It should be our sincere hope that Baghdad one day might play that role again.
Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Fighting For The Future: Will America Triumph?"
>Because it was the biggest,the most powerful and the wealthiest.
Those Jews are so damn clever......hey, wait a minute, I thought that was Saudi Arabia?
I love conspiracy theories. Can you explain why we chose Iraq over Syria? The plot thickens...
"there is no one who heard a plane, heard a missile or saw a missile"
Oh brainlessone, you are so wrong. Mr. "No Facts" Fisk said it was an American Jet that fired two (2)missiles. See it? Heard it? Since when have facts meant anything? You see, it's more important to make up facts to support your world view than to actually have facts. As CoalTrain, he'll tell you all about the objective Mr. Fisk.
Jar, you're such an up-tight neo-con. I'm becoming a polygamist. Me, Myself and I will be wed this weekend. We fully intend to have an extra-marital relationship with she, herself, and her. I hope the up-tight authorities won't harass us much.
ergo sum, why are you so certain Saddam wouldn't give WMD to Al Qaida? Ever hear the phrase 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? I am glad our government isn't as naive as you, willing to wait around for thousands of American citizens to be murdered before doing anything about it - if anything at all ('cause we won't have a smoking gun).
Your assertion that "our troops did not need to be sent" is laughable. Use your head for God's sake! Do you really believe Saddam would have allowed UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq if the U.S. didn't begin massing troops on his borders? Do you really believe he would have allowed UN inpections indefinately unless he didn't feel threatened. Saddam was smart - smarter than you. He did just enough to appease the appeasers. His only mis-calculation was that the Bush administration wouldn't cave to the appeasers on the UN Security Council.
Your last statement floors me. Do you think this war is about convincing Al Qaeda that they're wrong?
The #1 most under-reported story in 2002-2003 is that we're winning the war on terrorism. That doesn't mean we won't be attacked again by Al Qaeda, but they're getting they're butts kicked big time. Because the news of this war has been dribbling out piece-meal, the big picture hasn't been painted by anyone in the news media. We've whacked or captured 6 of their top leaders, busted up dozens of cells, disrupted their financial networks, and destroyed their extensive training infrastructure.
goodluck - don't hold your breath waiting for a rose-colored post-Saddam scenario from me. I never thought this was an issue of nation building or spreading western democracy throughout the middle east.
We were faced with a dilemma (an old professor of mine said "a dilemma is when you have two or more choices and they all suck"). Bush had to choose the option that sucked least.
Okay, let's look at your scenarios:
>1. Civil war breaks out in Iraq, with the country basically dismembered into three pieces, and Turkey and Iran, who have clear stakes in various parts of Iraq, somehow get involved, either overtly or covertly;
First, there are several reason why I don't believe this scenario will pan out, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it does. Aggressor factions would obviously be punished by the coalition. In the near term, that could mean airstrikes as well as military and intelligence aid flowing to the defensive factions. In the long term, the economic consequences would be enormous (financial and humanitarian aid could be cut off, rebuilding of infrastructure would cease, etc.). There would also be serious political consequences to any faction not willing to 'get along'.
Put yourself in the shoes of these factional leaders. What would benefit you most politically? What would be the best way to solidify your power base? Going to war with another faction or reaping the rewards of foriegn aid, investment, and international political legitmacy?
>2. A Shia government (Shias are the largest group in Iraq) is elected, turns out to be closely allied with Iran's Shias, and is anti-American and anti-Israel. It continues Saddam's payments to Palestinean suicide bombers, and supporting Arab terrorism in various covert ways.
The carrot/stick proposition mentioned above also applies here. Play nicely and prosper. Shit in the sandbox and get slapped down. I personally believe Iran is increasingly becoming less radicalized. There is enormous internal pressure against the ruling theocracy.
"My question to you is, if either of these things occur, would you still say that this was a good idea, it just "went bad"? "
Again, this war isn't "good idea" vs. "bad idea". This is about what option sucked least.
The other scenario you forgot to mention:
Saddam stays in power, contining to play hide and seek with Hans Blix. The UN might find a chem weapon here, and illegal lab there... but "progress is being made", so the game would continue.Obviously the U.S. wouldn't be able to keep units in the theater indefinately, so demobilization would begin. Months would pass, then years. One day, a large numbers of people begin showing up in Chicago area hospitals. Hundreds turn into thousands...eventually the common thread is identified as a large office building. The building is quaranteened, the HVAC system is inspected, a low and behold - a biological or chemical agent is detected. Al Qaida takes full credit for the attack. To end this fun little story, there's no smoking gun linking Saddam to the crime. Amazing isn't it? Kill thousands of your enemy with total immunity.
BTW, who sent those anthrax letters? Nobody knows.
I thought of this article after reading the deluge of stories, the armchair quarterbacking this war. Note that 95% of the whining has been coming from the ARMY, holding as tightly as ever to their conventional Army doctrine. More boots! More heavy armor!
Guess who they'll end up sending into Baghdad?
----------------------------------
The Marines Have Landed -- Again
By David H. Hackworth
The first non-Special Ops unit deployed to Afghanistan is the U.S. Marines Corps -- no big surprise to this old Army doggie.
In World War II's South Pacific, Marines were "the firstus with the mostus" into the Solomons, and they led the way into Vietnam. In Korea, they landed second, but unlike the Army units initially deployed there, Gen. Edward Craig's Marine brigade hit the beach ready to fight. And without their skill, sacrifice and courage, the beleaguered Eighth Army would've been pushed into the sea during the early months of the conflict. A similar scenario occurred during the early stages of Desert Storm, in which Marine units came in ready to fight while the first Army troops -- the 82nd Airborne Division, with its insufficient anti-tank capability -- were a potential speed bump waiting to be flattened.
The Corps, which has never lost sight that its primary mission is to fight, remains superbly trained and disciplined -- true to its time-honored slogan "We don't promise a rose garden." When, under Clinton, the Army lowered its standards to Boy Scout summer-camp level in order to increase enlistment, the Corps responded by making boot training longer and tougher. Now under USMC Commandant James Jones, that training has gotten even meaner for the young Marine wannabes waiting in line to join up, as well as for Leathernecks already serving in regular and reserve units.
Unlike U.S. Army conventional units -- their new slogan, "An Army of One," says it all -- the U.S. Marine Corps remains a highly mobile, fierce fighting team that has never forgotten: "The more sweat on the training field, the less blood on the battlefield."
The Marines are flexible, agile, ready and deadly, while the Army remains configured to fight the Soviets -- who disappeared off the Order of Battle charts a decade ago. For example, right after Sept. 11, the two Army heavy divisions in Germany -- with their 68-ton tanks that can crush almost every bridge they cross -- deployed to Poland for war games.
Hello, is there a brain at the top somewhere beneath that snazzy Black Beret being modeled at most U.S. airports by too many overweight Army National Guard troops?
The Army has eight other regular divisions, all designed to fight 20th-century wars. Three are heavy -- Tank and Mech Infantry -- and two are light, the storied 82nd Airborne and the elite 101st Airborne (now helicopter), and then there's the light/heavy 10,000-man 2nd Division that's in Korea backing up a million-man, superbly fit South Korean Army.
Less the light divisions, our Army's not versatile, deployable, swift or sustainable. The heavy units require fleets of ships and planes to move them, and it takes months to get them there -- it took Stormin' Norman six months to ready a force for Desert Storm. The 101st -- while deadly, as Desert Storm proved -- is also a slow mover requiring a huge amount of strategic lift -- ships and giant planes -- to get to the battlefield, not to mention the massive tax-dollar load to outfit and maintain it. Sadly, today's Army is like a street fighter with brass knuckles too heavy to lift.
After the Rangers' disaster in Somalia -- where there were no tanks to break through to relieve them -- and the embarrassment of not being able to fight in the war in Serbia, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki started forming light brigades strikingly similar to USMC units. When I asked, "Why the copycating?" an Army officer said: "It was either copy or go out of business. We'd become redundant because of long-term lack of boldness and imagination at the top."
The Army costs about $80 billion a year to run. It's time for Congress to do its duty and stop enjoying the benefits of all the pork this obsolescence and redundancy provides. If the Army can't change with the times -- as the powerful horse cavalry generals couldn't just prior to World War II -- then it should fold up its tents and turn the ground-fighting mission over to the Marines.
The law of nature is simple: survival of the fittest. And in the 21st century, heartbreaking as it is for me to admit, the forward-based and highly deployable U.S. Marine Corps is the fittest.
You're just being "stupid, arrogant, selfish, inflexible and destructive".
hightecheast - nice try with the spin
The 4th ID was supposed to be deployed weeks ago as part of the northern front via Turkey. Their equipment has been enroute to Kuwait for a couple weeks now. This deployment isn't news.
CoalTrain, learn how to read!
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested on Thursday that U.S. forces bearing down on Baghdad MIGHT lay siege to the capital and hope anti-Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) citizens rise up against the government before American troops have to invade the city of 5 million.
Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim
March 28 2003, 9:41 AM
[Sydney Morning Herald]
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.
At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.
It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
The connection would give credibility to the argument that Tony Blair used to justify war against Saddam - a "nightmare scenario" in which he might eventually pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said the coalition had solid evidence that senior al-Qaeda operatives have visited Baghdad in the past.
Rumsfeld said Saddam had an "evolving" relationship with the terror network.
The presence of fanatical al-Qaeda terrorists would go some way to explaining the continued resistance to US and British forces in southern Iraq, an area dominated by Shi'ite Muslims traditionally hostile to Saddam's regime.
"refused to answer the question: 'Who do you want to win the war?'"
That's the last straw for me. I'll never buy French again. They are an enemy, not an ally.
-------------------------------
Skynews:
FRANCE SNUBS COALITION
France has once again refused to support the Coalition over the war with Iraq.
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave a talk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies in his first visit to Britain since the outbreak of war.
During a question and answer session at the end of his speech he refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?"
France has been fiercely opposed to the US and British-led military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.
De Villepin said France's main priority in the reconstruction of Iraq would be for the United Nations to pass a humanitarian resolution on the oil-for-food programme.
He said the UN must be at the heart of the reconstruction of Iraq following a crisis which has "shattered" the established world order.
But he said he was also confident that France and the United States would re-establish the close ties they enjoyed before the Iraqi crisis unfolded.
Mr de Villepin and French president Jacques Chirac have clashed repeatedly with Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over how to resolve the Iraq crisis.
At the lowest point of the diplomatic feud, Downing Street described the French threat to veto a second UN resolution in any circumstances as "poisonous".
With Jack Straw accompanying Mr Blair on his trip to the US there are thought to be no plans for another British Foreign Office minister to meet Mr de Villepin while he is in Britain.
Last Updated: 16:09 UK, Thursday March 27, 2003
BattleBots?
I know the Marines have been buying these over the past two years. The U.S. used them in Afganistan to scout caves. They'll most likely will show up in Baghdad. I love the simplicity of this technology and the "low cost" in comparison to most military items. Has a pentium III running Linux, light enough to be carried by one solder. Hopefully they will save more than a few lives in the coming weeks.
http://www.irobot.com/rd/p08_PackBot.asp
"...wars, that do not threaten the USA would be "bad wars" and not one of our servicemen should be put in harms way to save these people. That is the job of the UN."
Guess who has contributed the lion's share to the UN, both in money and blood?
jbennett - The more you pay in taxes the more say you should have in government policy?? Wow, that's a novel concept. So if the Republicans pay more in taxes per capita, they have a greater say over policy - no matter what party is in power?
"You've already said if you did not agree with our countrys leadership you would betray your fellow citizens to an armed invader. Who's a traitor?"
I said that?
I've disagreed with our country's leadership on many policies, it doesn't mean I would betray my fellow citizens it there were an invasion. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with a country's leadership and fighting back against a repressive, murderous regime. I suppose you don't understand the difference.
At first I thought this guy was just a dope, but by the end of the article, I've concluded that he's a traitor. I'd give him a one way ticket to a POW camp to stay with the other 4,000 Iraqi prisoners.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34758-2003Mar26.html
Example of headline spin from the Wash Post:
Note the headline of this article and compare it to the supporting "facts" in the article. The headline screams that warnings were "muted", followed by a sub-head that seems to contradict the headline.
Headline:
Warnings on guerrillas were muted
Headline support:
"...analysts at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency are complaining that their reports would be softened as they moved to the White House. 'The caveats would be dropped and the edges filed off,' the intelligence official said."
Read the the above carefully - "complaining that their reports would be softened". There isn't a single fact in this story that the reports WERE SOFTENED, to the contrary! The story cites 3 sources, a CIA spokesperson, an administration official, and an analyst who in one form or another support the subhead of the story.
My question is this: why did the Post go with a headline that was based on comments made by people who weren't in-the-know of what was actually communicated to the White House????
The media spin is totally out-of-control.
===========================================================
Warnings on guerrillas were muted
Policymakers were told dangers of tactics in Iraq, analysts say
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
THE WASHINGTON POST
March 27 -- Intelligence analysts at the CIA and Pentagon warned the Bush administration that U.S. troops would face significant resistance from Iraqi irregular forces employing guerrilla tactics, but those views have not been adequately reflected in the administration's public predictions about how difficult a war might go, according to current and former intelligence officials.
CIA ANALYSTS "thought there was a good chance we would be forced to fight our way through everything," said one intelligence official who sat in on many briefings. "They were much more cautious about it being an easy situation."
With U.S. and British troops being forced to defend a more than 200-mile supply line from the Kuwaiti border to U.S. troops 50 miles from Baghdad and to fend off small-scale attacks by the Iraqi irregular forces, analysts at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency are complaining that their reports would be softened as they moved to the White House. "The caveats would be dropped and the edges filed off," the intelligence official said.
"The intelligence we gathered before the war accurately reflected what the troops are seeing out there now," one military intelligence official said. "The question is whether the war planners and policymakers took adequate notice of it in preparing the plan." At least one pre-war intelligence analysis described potential threats of Iraqi irregular forces mining harbors, planting bombs and firing at troops while disguised in civilian clothes, according to one senior intelligence official.
A CIA spokesman said the intelligence agencies presented President Bush and senior national security officials with "the full debate," including a National Intelligence Estimate that analyzed the scenarios that U.S. forces would likely encounter during a war. "Senior intelligence officials have all had their say," the spokesman said.
One senior administration official said the consensus among intelligence agencies is that Saddam's Fedayeen, a Baath Party militia commanded by President Saddam Hussein's son Uday numbers about 25,000 members. The force has led a series of guerrilla-style attacks on U.S. and British forces in southern Iraq cities.
A ‘MAJOR ANNOYANCE'
The official said the paramilitary force is viewed as a potential "major annoyance" to the U.S. war plan at the moment, but one that could expand into a significant problem. Because U.S. and other foreign media have heavily reported the attacks, the official said, "they could become a major factor in the public relations battle during these early days of the war."
"We look at them as one of Saddam Hussein's tools, particularly in his trying to lure us into urban warfare," one senior intelligence official said yesterday. But he added that they could become more important than they are "if the media turns them into the equivalent of the black pajama Vietcong," referring to the guerrilla force that caused many U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War.
That view was echoed at the Pentagon yesterday by Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who, when asked about the firefights involving the fedayeen, described them as "fairly limited incidents [that] take on a greater perceived value than they are."
The fedayeen, also known as "martyrs of Saddam" or "men of sacrifice," were organized in 1995 by Uday Hussein. In addition to the paramilitary force, there are an additional 3,000 in a reserve made up of Baath Party members and some Iraqi journalists, according to an intelligence official.
"[Policymakers] were told the fedayeen would fight more fanatically than regular army forces, using conventional or unconventional means," one analyst said yesterday. "We did not predict the notoriety they have already achieved."
Pentagon spokesmen struggled yesterday to deal with the media focus on the irregular forces. Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, described them as "thugs" who "have done extraordinary things which go outside all laws and norms." If captured, she said, they would be treated as war criminals.
Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, which is running the war, described the activities of the fedayeen who operate either in or out of uniform as "more akin to the behaviors of global terrorists."
LONG-LASTING RESISTANCE?
CIA and Pentagon analysts disagree about how long the fedayeen and other units, such as the 15,000 members of the Special Republican Guard and the Special Security Organization, a force of 10,000 that enforces Baath Party orders, would continue to fight.
CIA analysts believe these groups will fight to the end, whether Hussein is alive or not. "This is about surviving for them," said one former senior Iraqi analyst who still consults with the Pentagon. "A large percent of them acted like secret police and fear what the Americans would do with them."
One Pentagon official said the consensus in military intelligence is that the fedayeen will remain a threat only so long as Hussein remains in power. So the key to getting rid of them is getting rid of Hussein, the official said.
"The consensus is, when the regime is gone, these guys will be gone," he said. "They won't have any role in a postwar Iraq."
The key, he added, is remaining focused on "breaking the back" of the inner circle around the Iraqi president. While U.S. forces will be advancing with even greater caution in the face of the fedayeen threat, he said, they will continue to move toward Baghdad, which he described as "the center of gravity" in Iraq.
"Once we break the back of the regime, these thugs will become less of a threat," he said. "We need to eliminate the perception that there is a central governing body that is loyal to Saddam Hussein and his regime."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Another example of Mr. No Facts Fisk -
"Two missiles from an American jet killed them all - by my estimate, more than 20 Iraqi civilians, torn to pieces before they could be 'liberated' by the nation that destroyed their lives. Who dares, I ask myself, to call this 'collateral damage'? Abu Taleb Street was packed with pedestrians and motorists when the American pilot approached through the dense sandstorm that covered northern Baghdad in a cloak of red and yellow dust and rain yesterday morning."
1. Did Mr. Fisk see the two missiles? How does he know there were two missiles?
2. "American jet"? I suppose he actually saw the jet that fired the missiles.
3. "20 Iraqi civilians"? Really? That's even more casualties than the Iraqi government claimed.
The main problem with Mr. Fisk's story is that it may be COMPLETELY WRONG! The pentagon has reported that they did not target the market and mentioned that the damage could have been caused by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. For the record, the pentagon didn't claim it was impossible that it wasn't one of their missiles gone astray
But who cares about getting all the facts first Mr. Fisk? Just go ahead and make stuff up. Are you sure it wasn't two American jets and one missile a piece? Or a British jet and three missiles? Was it 20 civilians or 200? Ah, who cares. Just go ahead and make up facts - it makes you sound like a legitimate REPORTER.
Seabass, you just exhibited the same spin tactic used by the Washington Post, CNN, etc. In the quote below, Fisk was referring specifically to administration officials, NOT REPUBLICAN TALK SHOW HOST!. The spin tactic is this: Extrapolate views from one party (in this case, talk show hosts) and claim they are the views on another party (the administration). CoalTrain and Mr. Fisk are experts at using this tactic.
Pointing out Fedayeen locations to coalition troops and keeping my family safe.
Redwards, CoalTrain is sees a conspiracy behind everything the government says or does. Did the Pentagon ever say they bombed government buildings full of Republican Guards? No. But CoalTrain would like to believe that they made such a claim so he can weave it into his conspiracy theory.
Fisk is a COMMENTATOR pretending to be a REPORTER.
He can give his opinion and spin the truth any way he pleases -that doesn't bother me. But when a journalist has a strong political bias and an axe to grind as Mr. Fisk does, they shouldn't pretend to be a reporter. What reporter would say "they persuaded themselves of this Hollywood scenario of GIs driving through the streets of Iraqi cities being showered with roses..."? That's an opinion, not a fact.
"the Pentagon claims it's not him or it's his double or it was recorded 2 weeks ago"
That's the quote from Mr. No Facts Fisk. Learn to read Mr. No Facts CoalTrain.
The "acid head" responds to Mr. "no facts" CoalTrain.
>The first several days of the war the troops were showing up at populated areas and expecting an outpouring of deserters from Saddams Army and to be welcomed as liberators by the civilians and meet wimpy resistance if any resistance.
- Who said this??? Powell? Rumsfeld? Franks? Find the quote CoalTrain, back up your assertion. Many talking heads in the media might have said THEY were expecting ticker-tape parades, but I haven't heard a single high level official state this. Sure, they would have liked to see an outpouring of support, but nobody was counting on it.
"What idiots make a military plan based largely on the assumption that the opposing army will give up??"
-WHO made a plan based largely on the assumption that the opposing army will give up???? Can you prove it? I think you're spending too much time reading pundits and commentators and believing in their guesses.
"In case you can't remember this war was sold to us as a war that would be over in a few days."
Who said this CoalTrain??? C'mon bud, give me a quote from an administration official, the Pentagon, CENTCOM, etc. that states that the war would be over in days. Do you have proof???
""Have you been drinking for the last few months? They have been feeding the American people for months the idea that there would be massive defections and many of the Iraqi people would be relieved to be liberated from the brutal Dictator."
WHO HAS BEEN DOING THE FEEDING? Give me some quotes CoalTrain, where are the facts to support your assertion????
"He clearly states it may not be accurate but that it has more deatails. What is so hard to understand about this?"
- More details? So what??? Do more details = truth?
"When the first tape came out at first the pentagon was saying it might not be Saddam it was on Yahoo news the AP wire and many other places. A few days later they finally said it was him."
- The Pentagon NEVER came out and said "the man on the tape isn't Saddam". The media speculated that it may not be Saddam -the media specutlates on everything.
"ARE YOU DENYING THAT WE HAVE LOST THESE HELICOPTERS AND THE PILOTS ARE MISSING??"
- No. Read my response again. What I'm saying is that it would be extremely easy for Saddam to prove he is still alive, still in charge - thus winning a PR coup and motivating his followers. Why hasn't he done so?
"I expected a lightning move toward Baghdad with virtually no resistance."
You are a fool. You didn't expect snipers, ambushes, terrorist car bombings (still waiting for this), suicide attacks, mines, boobytraps, etc.?
The logistics situation is being blown totally out of proportion by the hysterical U.S. media. Weather has been the biggest drag on logistical operations, not armed resistance. Iraq has zero ability to BREAK our supply lines (lack of an airforce, lack of heavy armored units, and lack of heavy artillery in the south). The Iraqis CAN harass us with small arms fire, but this will have very little effect on the speed and scale of ground supply movements. As we've seen thus far, to fire on a convoy has been a death wish for many Iraqis.
N.Korean threat directly tied to getting our $attention$
http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html
They want our $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Why is that so hard to figure out?
"I think..."
"They started off at Um Qasr and got stuck, carried on up the road through the desert, took another right turn and tried to get into Basra, got stuck, took another right at Nasiriyah, got stuck…"
This is spin through and through. "Got stuck"??? Hey Mr. Fisk, this isn't pac-man. There isn't a dotted line between points A & B. War isn't a punch card.
When you realize that 19 men have tried to commit suicide at Guantanamo
- What does this prove?? 19 Al Qaida committed suicide on 9/11. Prisoners in general have an extremely high suicide rate.
" that we now know that 2 prisoners at the US base Bagram were beaten to death during interrogation"
We don't "know" this. This case is currently under investigation. BTW, did Saddam investigate the mistreatment of American POWs in 1991???
"this equates to the way America treats prisoners from Afghanistan- Mr. Bush is not the person to be teaching anyone about the Geneva Convention. "
-The is a slanderous, broad brush statement based on one incident (which is under investigation). Does Mr. Fisk truly believe this is U.S. policy?
" I think many people within the US administration were surprised to find the kinds of resistance they have in places like Nasiriyahj."
You know, one thing I think the Bush administration has shown as a characteristic, is that it dreams up moral ideas and then believes that they're all true
"I think"??? Where's the proof??? These are "journalists"??? Sheesh!
"And yet, most of the soldiers fighting in southern Iraq are actually Shiite."
-Where's the proof Mr. Fisk???
"they persuaded themselves of this Hollywood scenario of GIs driving through the streets of Iraqi cities being showered with roses …"
-Where's the proof Mr. Fisk????
"…. and certainly we're being given more information about what's been going on at the front- accurate or not- than most of the Western correspondents have been getting in Qatar."
- Huh??? What a stupid statement! NEWSFLASH - THE MARTIANS HAVE JUST LANDED ON THE NORTH POLE. (it's more news, accurate or not J)
Amy Goodman: Do you think Saddam Hussein is in control?
"Robert Fisk: Oh yes, absolutely. "
Can Fisk prove it??? Has he spoken to Saddam in person?
"…the Pentagon claims it's not him or it's his double or it was recorded 2 weeks ago"."
- This is a lie Mr. Fisk. Show me a transcript where the Pentagon said this!
"I watched this recording on television, all his television broadcasts are recordings because he's not so stupid as to do a live broadcast and get bombed by the Americans while he's doing it. "
- Saddam could drop a propaganda H-bomb by simply recording as statement naming the two captured Apache pilots. Why hasn't he Mr. Fisk?
Need I go on? Mr. Fisk is a left-wing commentator pretending to be a reporter.
>I am quite surprised by the resistance we are encountering
heehee & jbennett...you are surprised? What did you expect? No resistance? No enemy fire? No ambushes, false surrenders, attacks from civilian buildings - such as hospitals? No U.S. POWs? No incidents of "friendly fire"?
I'm a actually shocked at the lack of Iraqi resistance, the small number of allied casualties (fewer than 50 thus far), the speed of our advance towards baghdad, Iraq's inability to launch missile attacks on Israel. It hasn't even been a full week yet and we're already knocking on Baghdad's door!
Did anyone say this would be a cake walk? No. Has the media been hysterical in their reporting? Yes. Will casualities on both sides climb during the next few weeks? Absolutely.
What I find truly amazing is the lack of admissions from the left of Saddam's truly evil regime and their tactics. Where are the protests? Where is the outrage? And you wanted Mr. Blix to "contain" this SOB??? If only he had two more months, right?
Ritter is an idiot. This war isn't even close to a quagmire.
Excellent post Jar
Nobody on this board wanted war. However, I don't believe everyone has seriously weighed the downside of not taking this action to oust Saddam.
Some would like us to believe that our military and the Bush Administration are a bunch of murderous thugs, targeting civilians - or at least, wrecklessly taking the lives of innocents. The delay of "shock and awe" should have clearly demonstrated our desire for minimal civilian casualties. Hopefully the morons who are currently running the Iraqi regime will come to their senses and capitulate.