Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

September 20, 2004
Battle Ready

You don´t have to agree to send troops into a battle zone, but if troops are send to a battle zone they should be in a state that serves the purpose. Thomas E. Ricks reports in WaPo about a battalion of the South Carolina National Guard that yesterday left for Iraq. Their task in Iraq will be to escort support convoys, i.e. riding shotgun for KBR trucks, in northern Iraq.

This is an artillery battalion (“They don´t know friend from foe, just valuable targets.”) filled up with a hodgepodge of personal from other units. The last two month they were retrained to military police and infantry tasks.

During this time they:
– were on duty and training 7 days a week usually more than 12 hours a day
– had only one leave of 36 hours total on Labour Day
– were not allowed to wear civilian cloth, even when off duty
– had fights between soldiers
– were barred to leave their rooms when off duty since Labour Day
– had a high rate of AWOL and other incidents.

The share of National Guards and Reserve troops in Iraq will increase during the current rotation with more call ups for Guard troops coming. Moral of troops in Iraq is already low and with these new troops coming in, it will sink to the bottom. How can you expect these troops to fight in a classic guerrilla war? You can not and sending them is a crime in and of itself regardless of the any underlying reason for the war.

Posted by b on September 20, 2004 at 14:31 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Have you seen ROBERT NOVAK’s trial balloon?:
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
No, he doesn’t speak about Kerry, he speaks about a second Bush term.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out.

The rats abandon the shipwreck.

Posted by: Greco | Sep 20 2004 15:29 utc | 1

Well under these circumstances I would go AWOL too, more likely I would never have joined the army. It’s so frustrating, I knew it was going to be bad even before the war started, but I never imagined that it would get this bad.
Abduction, murder, mayhem in the week the peace was lost – As the spread and severity of violence increases, Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad finds the Iraqi government’s position more hopeless than ever

Posted by: Fran | Sep 20 2004 15:41 utc | 2

@Fran
It just started and it will get much much worse than today before it ends.
From your link:
The struggle for power in Iraq is only beginning – and it will be fought with guns, not at the ballot box.

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2004 17:15 utc | 3

Have 1,000 U.S. Souls Died for Oil?

But is the conventional wisdom correct that the United States needs to exchange blood for oil? Many economists don’t think so. Before the first Gulf War, two Nobel laureates in economics-Milton Friedman on the right and James Tobin on the left-stated that no war for oil was needed.
In fact, the Persian Gulf countries need to sell oil more than the United States needs to buy it. Oil accounts for between 65 and 95 percent of the exports of Persian Gulf nations. In contrast, oil makes up only about 7 percent of U.S. imports. Thus, most states, whether their governments are friendly to the United States or not, have a huge incentive to export oil into the world market.
Even when oil prices are periodically high, adverse economic effects are vastly overstated. The economic stagflation of the late 1970s was falsely attributed to rising petroleum prices originating from the 1973 “oil crisis”. Instead bad economic policies of the U.S. government-for example, price controls and excessively lax monetary policy-were more to blame than high oil prices. In fact, economist Douglas Bohi has estimated that the petroleum shocks of the 1970s reduced the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by only .35 percent. More recently, according to Donald Losman of the National Defense University, although Germany faced a crude oil price increase of 211 percent between the fourth quarter of 1998 and third quarter of 2000, it experienced economic growth with falling unemployment and inflation.
The United States imports roughly 20 percent of its oil from the Persian Gulf. From the Far East, America imports about 80 percent of semiconductors-another product that is crucial for the U.S. economy and national security. Yet Washington never worries about shortages of or high prices for East Asian circuits and does not intervene militarily to make supplies of them secure.
So even oil, the most defensible of the potential unstated reasons for invading Iraq, doesn’t turn out to be very defensible at all. Could 1,000 Americans have died in vain?

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2004 17:41 utc | 4

Bulgaria rejects Polish proposal to relocate troops in Iraq to more dangerous zone
Coalition of the not-so-willing?

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2004 17:51 utc | 5

That Eland piece (“Have 1,000 U.S. Souls Died for Oil? “) ignores what Wallerstein, Chomsky and countless others have been saying since day one — the US picked on a weakened country it assumed it could squash to give the Bush Doctrine legitimacy and scare the bejeesus out of the rest of the world. If you’re going to talk like madmen, you should also act like madmen. Besides, even the documents that came out of the Cheney energy plans showed that the US was not planning on significantly increasing the oil imports from that region. One can control resources for other purposes, such as blocking exports to states deemed threats to the superpower status. Eland is quite disingenuous to leave these points out of his commentary. But then, when he wraps up w/ a classic logical fallacy re semiconductors, it’s almost as if he doesn’t even want to be taken seriously…

Posted by: b real | Sep 20 2004 18:34 utc | 6

my choice of phrasing at the end of my comment above might be confusing…I am not aware of any classic logically fallacies regarding semiconductors, though I wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone trot one out 😉 My observation was centered on how Eland uses attempts to seal his argument.

Posted by: b real | Sep 20 2004 18:47 utc | 7

Can we retrack all Iraq comments? It´s over folks.
Quick exit from Iraq is likely Robert Novak – neither Bush nor Kerry would stay in Iraq – both would redraw quickly.
Problem – I don´t believe Novak or do I?

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2004 19:44 utc | 8

An argument I saw the other day (a comment on L Rozen blog?) was the Bush administration was tacitly admitting to failure in Iraq, and so also their implicit intention of an early withdrawl, by their stubborn refusal to spend any of that 18 billion reconstruction money – that the’re not going to throw all that money into a circumstance they are/will lose control of.
The obvious counter, that security must come first belies the 50% unemployment situation, and the insurgency is an equal opportunity employer.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 20 2004 20:18 utc | 9

Karzai and Allawi will be at the UN this week, as will Bush. There will be high flying talks of successful democratisation all over the media. Important times to point to the real news.
THE POLITICAL WAR George Packer in The New Yorker

War, unlike budget forecasts and campaign coverage, is quite merciless with falsehood.
In refusing to look at Iraq honestly, President Bush has made defeat there more likely.

Web Site: American Hostage Killed in Iraq
Iraq, Afghan Leaders Hailed in U.S., Threatened at Home
U.S. soldier killed in Iraq
3 Dead, 7 Hurt in Iraq Suicide Car Blast
Senior Sunni clerics assassinated in Iraq
Ukrainian Company Under Investigation Over Iraq Deals
No NATO Agreement On Iraqi Training Mission
Turkish company says 10 employees held hostage in Iraq
Senior Afghan Official Survives Roadside Blast plus two US soldiers killed.
In this canadian ctv media player video between 2:42 to 2:57 a M1 tank or M2 Bradley gets blown up. I have seen no other reports of this.

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2004 20:37 utc | 10

A contrarian opinion on Iraq – Spengler of Asia Times Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran

Washington’s strategic position in the Middle East is stronger than it has ever been, contrary to superficial interpretation. With much of central Iraq out of US control and a record level of close to 100 attacks a day against US forces, President George W Bush appears on the defensive. The moment recalls French Marshal Ferdinand Foch’s 1914 dispatch from the Marne: “My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.” To be specific, the United States will in some form or other attack Iran while it arranges the division of Iraq.

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2004 21:18 utc | 11

@B, 5:18 PM:
Yeah. And they’ll pull the troops they need out of Douglas Haig’s ***hole.

Posted by: Franchet d’Esprey | Sep 20 2004 21:52 utc | 12

To return to Bernhard’s original post above, this seems to support the view that a draft or conscription of some sort will be necessary next year. Even if the election winner in November decides to pull out of Iraq as rapidly as possible, it will take several months to a year to accomplish that. And without reinforcements, the resistance will continue to hit U.S. forces while they are in retreat.
I am skeptical that Bush would decide on a pull-out because I think one of his primary war aims has been to establish substantial permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Posted by: maxcrat | Sep 21 2004 0:18 utc | 13

Found the following, and thought I’d pass it along:
Getting Out?
… My guess is, Novak’s column is a foil, designed as a feint to get the White House past the election. Once safely re-elected, Bush’s new team (sans Colin Powell, of course) can ratchet up the pre-emptive war strategy once again, and relaunch its Iraq offensive. Just in the past few days, the U.S. military in Iraq is leaking news that it is preparing a city-by-city offensive for November and December 2004 to search and destroy Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and other Iraqi strongholds of the resistance.
Yes, four Republican senators — McCain, Lugar, Hagel and Lindsey Graham — yesterday blasted the Bush administration for bungling in Iraq. But they are calling for more engagement, not less. “No, I don’t think we’re winning. We’re in trouble, deep trouble in Iraq,” said Hagel. But they don’t seem to be wanting a pullout. “We’re going to need more people [in Iraq] over time,” said Graham. McCain, bloodthirsty as always, said that the United States has to take out Fallujah and the other “sanctuaries” of the insurgency, and he called for 90,000 more U.S. troops. And Lugar said that Iraqi government forces aren’t ready to do the job, implying that it will take more U.S troops.
So I’d guess Novak is blowing smoke. …
————–
Judging from the “sacred cow” treatment Novak has received in the Plame Affair grand jury investigation — consisting thus far of grilling and harrassment of virtually every *other* potentially knowledgable journalist around, while Novak himself has yet to receive even a subpoena (as far as anyone knows) — I’d guess he’s right!
Bob Novak is so far in bed with this regime, he probably snores in perfect synchronization! He was the willing conduit for an utterly illegal leak that exposed a CIA agent merely for vengeance sake. So it’s doubtful he’d balk at assisting in the “leaking” of this excessively optimistic, utterly fantastic, and ultimately unindictable fairy tale oft the “good news about the Bush plan”.
If “a little bird told him”, its species was very likely Dickus cheneyi. I wouldn’t believe a word of it myself, insofar as Bush and his NeoConNazi minders are concerned. (*Kerry* might have the good sense to pull out of Iraq, if need be; Dubya has yet to *demonstrate* any sense at all! Besides, to him it’s strictly OPM — Other People’s Mortality — he’s playing with.)
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, …. You’re not gonna fool me again!
— G.W. Bush

Posted by: JMFeeney (USA) | Sep 21 2004 1:32 utc | 14

Found the following, and thought I’d pass it along:
Getting Out?
… My guess is, Novak’s column is a foil, designed as a feint to get the White House past the election. Once safely re-elected, Bush’s new team (sans Colin Powell, of course) can ratchet up the pre-emptive war strategy once again, and relaunch its Iraq offensive. Just in the past few days, the U.S. military in Iraq is leaking news that it is preparing a city-by-city offensive for November and December 2004 to search and destroy Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and other Iraqi strongholds of the resistance.
Yes, four Republican senators — McCain, Lugar, Hagel and Lindsey Graham — yesterday blasted the Bush administration for bungling in Iraq. But they are calling for more engagement, not less. “No, I don’t think we’re winning. We’re in trouble, deep trouble in Iraq,” said Hagel. But they don’t seem to be wanting a pullout. “We’re going to need more people [in Iraq] over time,” said Graham. McCain, bloodthirsty as always, said that the United States has to take out Fallujah and the other “sanctuaries” of the insurgency, and he called for 90,000 more U.S. troops. And Lugar said that Iraqi government forces aren’t ready to do the job, implying that it will take more U.S troops.
So I’d guess Novak is blowing smoke. …
————–
Judging from the “sacred cow” treatment Novak has received in the Plame Affair grand jury investigation — consisting thus far of grilling and harrassment of virtually every *other* potentially knowledgable journalist around, while Novak himself has yet to receive even a subpoena (as far as anyone knows) — I’d guess he’s right!
Bob Novak is so far in bed with this regime, he probably snores in perfect synchronization! He was the willing conduit for an utterly illegal leak that exposed a CIA agent merely for vengeance sake. So it’s doubtful he’d balk at assisting in the “leaking” of this excessively optimistic, utterly fantastic, and ultimately unindictable fairy tale oft the “good news about the Bush plan”.
If “a little bird told him”, its species was very likely Dickus cheneyi. I wouldn’t believe a word of it myself, insofar as Bush and his NeoConNazi minders are concerned. (*Kerry* might have the good sense to pull out of Iraq, if need be; Dubya has yet to *demonstrate* any sense at all! Besides, to him it’s strictly OPM — Other People’s Mortality — he’s playing with.)
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, …. You’re not gonna fool me again!
— G.W. Bush

Posted by: JMFeeney (USA) | Sep 21 2004 1:33 utc | 15

Apologies once again for the duplication. That one is really strange, because I *swear* I only posted once, and never got *any* error message.
Am watching most attentively on this one. (If it comes out twice this time, it isn’t me doing it.)

Posted by: JMFeeney (USA) | Sep 21 2004 1:39 utc | 16

Other blogs have speculated that the Novak assertion that Bush may pullout of Iraq is a message to the voters who maybe on the fence and are leaning toward Kerry because of his (Kerry’s) stated goal to pull the troops out. It’s a “look don’t worry about the draft, not gonna happen, bush is planning on bringing the troops home too” ploy. It’s not coming from the bush campaign it’s coming from master-leak receiver Novak. The voters who might be getting wary of Bush could take this as a sign of reassurance. Anyway that’s what others are speculating.
My own personal thoughts on this are:
Bush will institute the draft if he is reannointed. Anything he may say now is just to get votes. I don’t think he or any of the neocons have any intention of moving away from Iraq, Iran, ect. They’ve got their plan and are sticking to it. They haven’t taken the advice of or listened to any of the intelligence that has come across their desks that doesn’t fit into their scenario. I seriously doubt that they are capable of changing their course now.

Posted by: sukabi | Sep 21 2004 1:39 utc | 17

I think the Asia Times article interesting. That the US is loosing now is obvious and must be to the top brass. After the election there probably will be a president looking for a way out of the present situation. And what hasn´t been discussed much is what way out he will chose. Draft is a possibility to try to get those 500 000 soldiers the Pentagon wanted to pacify Iraq from the beginning. Another one might be to carve up Iraq.
Letting the Kurds go before they also get pissed at the US has good odds of having a nice little client-state filled with army bases.
At the same time the US could pull back all troops from the now independent Sunnitriangel with all those truoblesome Sunni communities.
The problem is what to make of the southern part, I will call it Shialand (capital Basra). I don´t (contrary to the article) think there is any willing puppets who have any power whit the Shia population.
But assuming that such a ruler could be found, step two (according to the article) would be to attack Iran. Such an attack would then be launched from Kurdistan, Shialand and Afghanistan.
Though the US has bases in most countries neighbouring Iran I don´t think the other ones could be used for a ground attack. At least the big ones – Turkey and Pakistan – would get way to much trouble from their own population.
And if the US would be to attack Iran from the sea I would direct your attention to exile´s warnerd´s article about the wargame “Millenium Challenge ’02”.
With nothing more than a few “small boats and aircraft,” van Ripen managed to sink most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf. […]
He was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet. […]
But what about Iran? The Iranians aren’t cowardly slaves like the Iraqis. They’re smart, they’re dedicated, and they hate us like poison. Imagine how many “small aircraft and boats” there are along the Iranian coastline. Imagine every one of those craft stuffed full of explosives and turned into kamikazes. Now add all the anti-ship missiles the Iranians have been able to buy on the open market. If you really want to get scared, add a nuke or two.
Suppose the Iranians use van Riper’s method: send everything at once, from every ship, plane and boat they’ve got, directly at the carrier. Give the Navy the benefit of the doubt and say they get 90% of the incoming missiles. You still end up with a dead carrier.
Thus the scenario is an attack by land (with massive airsupport). I don´t think it is plausible though as two of the US home bases (Shialand and Afghanistan) would become extremely hostile and even more uncontrolable the day US attacked Iran. And I don´t even think chopping Iraq in pieces would free that many soldiers as long as the US likes to stay in the south.
Then again Bush is a risktaker. And his administration has done some remarcably stupid things. So it wouldn´t surprise me if they at least carved up Iraq.
So to conclude the choices the elected president will have is draft, get out quick or carve up Iraq and let the Sunni part go. Any other suggestions what he might do?

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Sep 21 2004 1:54 utc | 18

Sukabi,
I think you are right. And they might then in a year or two attack Iran. Bush without a future election to fear will probably be at least twice as reckless as what we seen this far.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Sep 21 2004 2:32 utc | 19

@A swedish kind of death
I don’t think that, after the Iraq fiasco, the Americans can defeat Iran in a conventional war. They don’t have have the forces to invade, they don’t have secure bases, and what are they going to do with 70 million Iranians?
Aerial bombing will not work either. Iran can strike hard in this case, it can close the Straights of Hormouz.
Only the nuclear option is available.

Posted by: Greco | Sep 21 2004 8:54 utc | 20

Bush as Foch? Foch was a good military, W is a crappy leader, on par with Mussolini as far as war operations are concerned. And the article forgot to mention that the Marne saved the entire country from another humiliating occupation by German Army (that spanking was postponed until May 1940). French were fighting for something close to survival, not for fancy oil and unknown reasons, which is what American troopers are fighting for in Iraq or would be in Iran. Therefore, you simply can’t count on a similar high morale, and US Army won’t put up a desperate and resolute fight. Iran won’t be America’s last stand, the way the Marne offensive was.
And of course I’m with Greco. Iran isn’t a weakened Iraq. It’s 3 times bigger, 3 times as populated, and is surrounded by hot dry mountains. Its army is bigger, better equipped, and the country has sold plenty of oil and bought new stuff these last 10 years, as opposed to Iraq starved to near death by a decade of sanctions.
In fact, a part of me would like to see Bush attacks, just to see a 1812-redux there.
Iraq was many things and was attacked for many reasons, which all contributed to the final decision. As b real said, kicking major ass after 9/11 was one of them, to show who’s the only superpower left. Which is also one of the reasons why it was a very very bad decision. If you want to show your might, pick a worthy opponent whose demise will frighten any would-be new major power; beating a weakling won’t impress much. In fact, if you lose or tie against a solid opponent, it’s not that humiliating; if you lose against a weakling, you’ll show everyone your true weaknesses, and you should expect everyone else to take advantage of them. USSR stopped by Afghan goatherders was a major humiliation for them and may have convinced Eastern Europeans that revolt was doable. Indochina was the death of the French colonial empire.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 21 2004 9:11 utc | 21

Yesterday Colonel Hackworth of Soldiers for the Trueth came up with an article on Rape of female American soldiers

By April 2004, rapes and assaults of American female soldiers were epidemic in the Middle East. But even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hotline in Kuwait was still being answered by a machine advising callers to leave a phone number where they could be reached.

Also yesterday Rumsfeld Warns Military, Contractors on Trafficking – sexual relations between the forces and outsiders, but so far has no word for the trouble inside of the military.
Is there a scandal waiting for publishing?

Posted by: b | Sep 21 2004 12:08 utc | 22

Back to Main