Awhile back Steve Gilliard chided me for referring to reconstructed Iraqi army as “the New ARVN.” I beginning to see his point: ARVN would have mopped the floor with this lot.
Back to Main
June 10, 2005
Saddam’s Song
Comments
as i aided the viet cong & north vietnamese army aganst an illegal invasion & against its puppet armies & leader – i support the resistance against the same empire acting illegally even tho that resistance is constituted from elements in the normal course of events i would not consider as allies
but it is clear whatever the iraquis need to defeat the imperial enemy is necessary & by any means
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 20:37 utc | 1
aborriginal people have a notion – a way of being – that is sometimes used against ts oppressor – it is called as i remember – “a shame job’ – it is a subtle & dignified form of silent resistance
they allow themselves to be the mirror to which the oprressor must see himself & the aborigines believe at one point or another – the oppressor will feel enough shame at what he does & what he is – that he will – at some point need to return to some common point of decency
clearly the white man has not arrived at that point & their actions dishonour us all
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 20:43 utc | 2
I’ll comment on the new Iraqi ARVN shortly, in the meantime the US Military has its own problems … modern day press-ganging in order to meet recruiting targets…
When Marine recruiters go way beyond the call
By SUSAN PAYNTER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
For mom Marcia Cobb and her teenage son Axel, the white letters USMC on their caller ID soon spelled, “Don’t answer the phone!”
Marine recruiters began a relentless barrage of calls to Axel as soon as the mellow, compliant Sedro-Woolley High School grad had cut his 17th birthday cake. And soon it was nearly impossible to get the seekers of a few good men off the line.
Update
Zealous Marines get readers’ attention
By SUSAN PAYNTER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
More than a few proud former Marines saw the actions of a couple of zealous Marine recruiters as falling just short of trying to shanghai a Sedro-Woolley teen into the corps.
A year of relentless phone calls followed by drop-in visits, culminating in a trip to Seattle for the boy who tried to say no was the topic of Wednesday’s column. The recruiters’ actions tarnish this otherwise sterling branch of service, scores of them said.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 20:43 utc | 3
One can the mop the floor with this army:
The U.S. Army, facing recruiting woes and a reorganized force, will relax requirements for new officers, welcoming older candidates and allowing more tolerance of past minor crimes, officials said on Thursday.
Trying to stem the loss of current personnel, the Army also has made it more difficult to kick soldiers out of the military for alcohol or drug abuse, being overweight or “unsatisfactory performance,” according to a recent memo.
“We are an Army at war and increasing levels of attrition of first-term enlisted soldiers in both the training base and units is a matter of great concern,” the memo stated.
This war in Iraq is like Vietnam in reverse. 10 million people marched in 2003 before the invasion began.
5 marines killed today in IED incident.
Posted by: Friendly Fire | Jun 10 2005 20:54 utc | 5
The Anbar province is the backbone of the Insurgency … read on for a good background/overview of just how hopeless is the US forces position deployed in Anbar … please note the 30 iraqi’s in support, in Anbar … and the hundreds of towns regarded as ‘No-Go’ zones …
4,000 Marines, 30,000 hostile square miles
By James Janega
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 4, 2005
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq — To reach his battalion stationed at the town of Al Qaim, Marine Col. Stephen Davis must fly more than an hour by helicopter to the edge of 30,000 square miles of dusty badland that is Iraq’s most dangerous territory.
Another battalion under Davis’ command is split between bases in Haditha and Hit. The towns are 20 miles from Davis’ home base at Al Asad but take two nerve-racking hours to reach by Humvee.
His third and final battalion is 150 miles away from Al Asad in the town of Rutbah. The unit’s outposts on the Jordanian and Syrian borders are so distant that radios sometimes fail to reach them.
Between those forces are dozens of towns where Marines suspect the heart of Iraq’s insurgency has taken refuge. To patrol the region, the Marines must traverse miles of pockmarked desert roads on which it is assumed every pothole hides a land mine.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 21:03 utc | 6
last night. fter a very demanding night in a foyer (shelter) with political refugees, the tortured, the poor, the fucked up – i went & bought a kebab from a commercant frm his small kitchen
he was an iraqui. he was playing naseer shamma – (in fact he had been one of the participants at the foyer – he had been an exile in 1995) & was no blinding adorator of saddam hussein but nor was he a fundamentalist of any kind) – i was so moved by this music – & we began speaking & he was trying to translate what was already apparent in the music the deep culture of the iraqui people
& he began crying. crying. he wanted to tell me – he stopped serving other people – he wanted to tell me that americans are destroying his culture because they do not posess a culture. he was saying – one day – one day – they will pay for what they do – he was saying loudly what i am saying often here – & there was not an ounce of fanatic in this man as there is in me. he was clearly a decent man eking out his living in france with a small kitchen & i don’t imagine it offers too much but he was prepared to stop business for an hour to explain to me in the softest & in the harshest terms what is being done to his country – his culture
& what americans do not seem to understand – that tho the arab leadership is like napolitean politics – corrupt, venal & will seve any master – the people are another matter entirely. they are a different apple altogether
& in that moment – i saw outside my own politics – what will become of iraq – what will become of the arab nation – & i know that my generation will never know peace again
they will keep telling us year after year – that they will soon leave & the iraquis will take over – but it will never happen – for the same reasons as it did not happen for the americans in vietnam. the puppets have no deep connection with the people. not at all. & their ‘armies’ are made from people who do not want to be there & often aren’t
what i felt in this man tho – is what has been lost already
& it is a great deal. for them. but i imagine this iraqui understood that the american people themselves were demeaned by what was happening & that they too had gone past some awful point
& what was curious & perhaps not – in this hour & a bit of very intense conversation – not once did 9/11 come up – & not i think by his forgetting it – it simply had nothing to do with what was happening to his country
i listened with attention & concentration tho they do nto come easily to me in these last months – & what i hear was neither a fanatic, or a zealot, not even a nationalist particularly – but an hnest man confronted by the most obscene event. much i think like many of us here
trying to fix a point. oil was one thing but the scale & profundity of the desecration or iraq was clearly as unimaginable to him as it was to me
i cried
for all the help it would bring
& knowing it would bring no help at all
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 21:09 utc | 7
No joke, no, really no joke: Military Court Orders Al-Zarqawi to Surrender
outraged
your links are so valuable. your input so necessary. unfortunately that last link needs registering & tho i dearly want to read it – i do not want to register yet again for another paper
i would be eager to read what you think on the dispositifs of the forces, the armed forces as they exist today there & what you see for example in the coming 12 months
amité
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 21:15 utc | 9
Recent vote to approve $82,000M *additional cost override* tax dollars to $300,000M War in Iraq:
Senate 100 – 0 Yeah. Unanimous, no abstentions.
Capiche!?
Bush requires two more years and $240,000M US tax dollars diverted from education and human service towards a sustained US presence in Iraq, before he declares victory (again), and brings our boys home in a 24×7 tickertape victory parade for his brother’s pre-election “Jeb in 2008” campaign.
Military recruitment is only 75% of requirements, an entire division shortfall since start of 2005.
The DoD has the phone number and home address of every high school student in the United States.
They also have a copy of their student ID photo, and the biometric DB to put it up on our borders.
I’ll let you work the ciphers.
“Oh, no, we were just going fishing up in Canada, officer. Yes, it’s a long stay, probably need the boy’s computer and those winter clothes in the trunk. Never know, fishing might be pretty good!”
Posted by: tante aime | Jun 10 2005 21:18 utc | 10
So much for Anbar, now for an overview of the situation in four southern provinces, Basra, Muthana, Dhi Qar and Maysan, the responsibility of British troops, under the umbrella of the Multi-National Division Southeast.
The balance of the division is composed of soldiers from Italy, Australia, Denmark, Norway and other coalition countries.
British troops pulling out ? For where ? Afghanistan, because the 18,000 troops there are beginning to feel the heat from the ‘beaten’ insurgency whilst the mayor of Kabul, Karzai, fidgets …
British consider partial pullout
By David Axe
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
AL AMARAH, Iraq — British forces could begin pulling out of one southern Iraqi province as early as this year, said Lt. Col. Andrew Williams, the senior commander here.
Col. Williams called the security situation in Maysan “serious,” but added that local forces are on track to take over security this year.
Maysan province, with nearly 1 million people and few major industries, is one of the poorest of Iraq’s 18 provinces.
Iraqi soldiers and police in the area are still incapable of independent operations, said British officers at Abu Naji. The police, especially, are widely considered corrupt and inept.
On a patrol on Thursday, Coldstream Guards Sgt. Gary Howe, 32, met with Iraqi police officers at several stations in Al Amarah and asked them to identify troublemakers and suspected insurgents in town.
Iraqi police Capt. Mohammed Radke said that he knew of an insurgent driving a white Toyota, but declined to give details. Sgt. Howe looked frustrated by the answer.
Asked whether he trusts the local police, Col. Williams answered bluntly: “No.”
Col. Williams said that reducing the number of foreign troops will reduce the level of violence in the province to historic levels by removing a major target of insurgent attacks.
“Violence is a way of life in Maysan. There has always been violence; there is always going to be violence. If you were to take away multinational forces from Maysan, would there be less violence? Yes.”
Asked whether a British withdrawal would allow Maysan to become a haven for terrorists, Col. Williams said, “That’s crystal ball gazing.”
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 21:25 utc | 11
“Trying to play the different factions off against each other — the traditional divide-and-conquer strategy of old-fashioned colonialism — is merely accelerating the drift to fragmentation and communal conflict, without giving any single faction the strength to hold the country together.”
Well, am I missing something? Isn’t this exactly what the US wants by dividing and conquering?
The US may “win” yet by such “fragmentation.” I mean, who cares about “holding” the country together?
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 10 2005 21:33 utc | 12
@remembereringgiap 05:15 PM
R’Giap, my apologies re the link, just enter the article title and authors name as a single search string in Google and you should be able to pull up a cached copy or alternate copies circulated by other newspapers and services.
Will try to write up something shortly, however, Juan Coles piece ‘Sometimes you’re just screwed’, sums the situation up succintly without diverging into uneccessary military necessity/doctrine issues …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 21:36 utc | 14
A busted-up Iraq benefits US strategic goals in the ME. If this is true, then an ARVN-like failure is not so bad. The loss to US would be western and central Iraq. But south and north defended by client governments.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 10 2005 21:42 utc | 16
The US may “win” yet by such “fragmentation.” I mean, who cares about “holding” the country together?
I completely fail to see how a “busted up” Iraq would benefit US strategic goals in the Middle East.
An Iraqi “Somalia” would create (or rather perpetuate) a huge sanctuary for Al Qaeda, expose the House of Saud to overthrow and humiliate the hegemon far worse than Vietnam did. US prestige and credibility would be in the absolute toilet with the various ruling puppet regime in the region (they’re already in the toilet with the PEOPLE of the region.) It was also put paid to any faint, lingering hopes of exploiting Iraq’s huge untapped oil reserves.
If that’s really what Bush and the gang wanted, they could have it tomorrow by pulling out the troops out.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 10 2005 22:00 utc | 17
@Slothrop
The US forces are stretched thin and cannot sustain even existing numbers long term without a draft. Believe it or not, the Danes, Brits, South Koreans, etc do count. They reduce to a degree the ‘numbers of boots’ pressure by providing largely garrison/occupation troops that the US simply does’nt have to spare … whilst allowing a larger relative percentage of US forces to attempt Counter-Insurgency(CI) Ops, i.e. the hard edge. Fewer Danes for example, fewer US forces for active CI missions, a downward spiral … not to mention a further weakening of the facade of International legitamicy for the ongoing occupation …
Divide and rule is a policy in Iraq but only to the extent that it creates a security vacuum that can then be supposedly filled by the Coalition to justify/legitamize the permanent occupation.
It is counter-productive if it is recognised as such and then results in encouraging the Shia and Sunni mid-level leaders to unite ‘against’ the occupation in order to remove it as the greater ‘security threat’ … a delicate balance … if the Kurds(Peshmerga), Shia and Sunni communities are drawn into open conflict against one another then the occupation loses any semblance of control.
The old saying “my enemies enemy is my friend”. It’s actually derived from an old Arab saying, IIRC : “Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my brother and my cousin against the outsiders”
An independant Iraqi Kurdistan is anathema to Iran and Turkey and won’t be allowed. If Iraq is in danger of ‘breaking up’ any semblance of support from the Arab nations within the ME will likely evaporate overnight.
The US support of the ‘elected’ Iraqi government is lukewarm at best as they are largely aligned (viewpoint) with Iran. Exactly what the US did NOT want to happen in its Iraq colony (i.e. Governing Council, followed by Interim Government with Allawi) …
Even though Iraq is suposedly ‘Sovereign’ the Iraqi Intelligence service is still run directly by the CIA with ex-Ba’athist Sunni agents/officers throughout and the Iraqi(Shia) government is not happy, to say the least …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 22:06 utc | 18
let me state again what i have stated before – i want the americanempire to suffer a defeat from which neither it or its elites can gather anything that is worth keeping
i want that defeat as i wanted the puppet regime in saigon to fall & for the vietnamese to decide their destinies & they have – going so far – as i would not have thought possible – to forgive
in iraq – it has in such a short time already gone beyond this point
what has been destroyed cannot be rebuilt. & today it is extremely difficult to conceive of a middle east that will not be at war
today there is sabre rattling against syria. the elections in egypt underline how deeply unstable that regime is. & whatever way it goes in iran does not promise peace
so much blood lost out of stupidity, venality & worldviews from another time
the only conceivable option which is not conceivable is that all the perpetrators of this illegal war were brought to justice by the american people themselves -as was done to nixon & as was implicitly done to the worldviews of mitchell, of agnew & that evil dwarf of a man, richard helms.
but that will not happen
the criminality will continue until the stench will be unbearable. the american people are being made fools of – & are becoming fools in face of events that stretch credulity every day
their crimes, will never, ever be forgotten
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 22:22 utc | 19
Daily life in Iraq with a police trainer
By BARTHOLOMEW SULLIVAN
Scripps Howard News Service
June 01, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A red Passat with a suspected suicide bomber handcuffed to its steering wheel is waiting outside the hotel headquarters of America’s police training mission in Iraq. As soon as it’s spotted, it disappears. It’s 6:55 a.m.
The heavily armed security detail taking Contingent Commander Michael J. Heidingsfield to appointments with American police trainers and Iraqi police in Ba’qubah, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, decides to delay its 7 a.m. start. Twenty minutes pass, then a half hour.
Police trainer in Iraq copes with ‘gut-wrenching fear’
By BARTHOLOMEW SULLIVAN
Scripps Howard News Service
June 01, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Getting blown up on the job is constantly on Michael Heidingsfield’s mind. As the man in charge of Iraqi police training, he has already had a near miss.
In March, insurgents in a stolen garbage truck killed two guards at the gate of the Iraqi Agriculture Ministry before rolling up and detonating an estimated 3,000 pounds of explosives at the perimeter wall of the Al Sadeer Hotel. On the videotape the insurgents circulated to news organizations, the exchange of gunfire with the hotel’s guards is heard before the screen goes white with the flash of the explosion. Then someone in the car filming the carnage shouts, “Allahu Akbar.” God is great.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 22:27 utc | 20
“Heidingsfield acknowledged that the overall situation is “discouraging.” Why? “The insurgents are extremely alive and well and it upsets me when I hear otherwise … No one can say that we’ve prevailed.”
Days later, he went still further: “My concern is that it could go on like this forever.”
mr heidingsfield
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 22:49 utc | 21
Hell, Billmon:
The way this Clown Show has played out, I’m about ready to buy into Slothrop’s theory.
The incompetence on the part of the Pentagon is so severe(given that all the sycophantic careerists on the service staffs and in the field know how to create a good entry-level soldier in 16 weeks), that it might appear to some that Rumsfeld and Bush want a low-level insurgency to continue indefitely.
This level of incompetence is unimaginable to me, and inexplicable.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 10 2005 22:49 utc | 22
Pepe Escobar: Exit strategy: Civil war
As Shi’ites and Kurds fought for three months to come up with an Iraqi cabinet, it is emerging from Baghdad that soon a broad front will emerge on the political scene composed of politicians, religious leaders, clan and tribal sheikhs – basically Sunni but with Shi’ite participation – with a single-minded agenda: the end of the US-led occupation.
This front will include, among others, what we have termed the Sinn Fein component of the resistance, the powerful Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and the Sadrists. It will refuse any kind of dialogue with new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and his government unless there’s a definite timetable for the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces.
…
Several Iranian websites have widely reported a plan to break up Iraq into three Shi’ite southern mini-states, two Kurdish mini-states and one Sunni mini-state – with Baghdad as the seat of a federal government. Each mini-state would be in charge of law and order and the economy within its own borders, with Baghdad in charge of foreign policy and military coordination. The plan was allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC). The AFPC is financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has also funded both the ultra-hawkish Project for a New American Century and American Enterprise Institute.
…
Against all odds, a national liberation front is emerging in Iraq. Washington hawks may see it coming, but they certainly don’t want it. Many groups in this front have already met in Algiers. The front is opposed to the American occupation and permanent Pentagon military bases; opposed to the privatization and corporate looting of the Iraqi economy; and opposed to the federation of Iraq, ie balkanization. Members of the front clearly see through the plan of fueling sectarianism to provoke an atmosphere of civil war, thus legitimizing the American presence. The George W Bush administration’s obsession in selling the notion that Iraqis – or “anti-Iraqi forces”, or “foreign militants” – are trying to start a civil war in the eastern flank of the Arab nation is as ludicrous as the myth it sells of the resistance as just a lunatic bunch of former Ba’athists and Wahhabis.
The Bush administration though is pulling no punches with Iraqification. It’s a Pandora’s box: inside one will find the Battle of Algiers, Vietnam, El Salvador, Colombia. All point to the same destination: civil war. This deadly litany could easily go on until 2020 when, in a brave new world of China emerging as the top economy, Sunni Arabs would finally convince themselves to perhaps strike a deal with Shi’ites and Kurds so they can all profit together by selling billions of barrels of oil to the Chinese oil majors. If, of course, there is any semblance of Iraq left at that point.
“In reality, the electoral process was designed to legitimize the occupation, rather than ridding the country of the occupation … Anyone who sees himself capable of bringing about political reform should go ahead and try, but my belief is that the occupiers won’t allow him.”
– Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
Cited in the Escobar article
Car Bombs Aimed Primarily At Military Targets
2005-06-08 Michael Schwartz, Asia Times
Don’t be fooled by the press coverage – the car bombs are not detonated at random, nor are they primarily directed at Shi’ite mosques.
In fact, only a handful have been targeted primarily at civilians – the vast majority are aimed at recruits or active duty members of the Iraqi police and army; the civilian injuries are – to use the ghoulish American military jargon – “collateral damage”.
The targeting of police is a direct response to the American policy of “Iraqification” of the war – an attempt by the US military to train an Iraqi force that can relieve the overstressed American armed forces. The intention is to deprive the Iraqification campaign of the manpower it needs, and thereby weaken the occupation.
Farhan Ali, 52, a shepherd from the village, said insurgents told him to clear out of an area on a busy dirt road from Abu Ghraib to Smailat because they had planted a bomb in a cardboard carton that was set to blow up next to the foot patrol. “All the people in the area knew about it,” he said.
“The insurgents asked us to stay out of the road … All of us were just watching,” Ali said. “There were a bunch of kids standing away from the road expecting and watching to see an explosion.”
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 22:53 utc | 25
@Flashharry
“There’s nothing that you can do in Iraq today that will work,” said Lind, one of the original Fourth Generation Warfare authors. “That situation is irretrievably lost.”
Prescient insurgency experts want tactical changes
Tue, Jun. 07, 2005
BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON – (KRT) – Nearly 16 years ago, a group of four military officers and a civilian predicted the rise of terrorism and anti-American insurgencies with chilling accuracy.
The group said U.S. military technology was so advanced that foreign forces would be unlikely to challenge it directly, and it forecast that future foes would be non-state insurgents and terrorists whose weapons would be suicide car bombs, not precision-guided weapons.
“Today, the United States is spending $500 million apiece for stealth bombers,” the group wrote in a 1989 article that appeared in a professional military journal. “A terrorist stealth bomber is a car with a bomb in the trunk – a car that looks like every other car.”
“… the generals and civilian leaders in the Defense Department have continued to support conventional, high-intensity conflict and the expensive weapons that go with it. That is happening, critics say, despite ongoing, lethal insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“They don’t understand this kind of warfare,” said Greg Wilcox, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, Vietnam veteran and an open critic of Pentagon policies. “They want to return to war as they envision it. That’s not going to happen.”
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 23:08 utc | 26
Five U.S. Marines Are Killed by Bomb in Western Iraq
The Marines had been conducting what the military described as combat operations in Western Iraq.
That is the teaser text on the NYT homepage.
conducting what the military described as combat operations
What has the NYT webpage editor in mind when he writes the above. Does he have a good reason to suggest that this wasn´t a combat operations? (I am sure he does.) Would this wording have been allowed on the NYT homepage a year ago? Has the tide turned?
day after day. night after night. the people of iraq are being bombarded by the most evil machinery your pentagon can conceive
day after day. night after night. the men, the women & the children of iraq are being herded into death, torture, incarceration & ghettos
day after day. night after night. the crade of our civilisation is being wilfully dismantled by morons
day after day. night after night. a people are being turned in on themselves in scenes we have witnessed before for centuries
day after day. night after night. criminals hiding behind polity & economics are destroying a county a people a culture & are impelling a region into a continuing bloodbath
day after day. night after night. what we do not witness in the west is too horrible to imagine. unbelievable horrors are being committed by the ‘good germans’ of the american armed forces & their assistants in butchery – the so called ‘security’ assistants who are carrying out some neanderthal form of counterinsurgency that must even make ancient anti communists blanche at its vulgarity & ineptness
day after day. night after night. they tell the people in the west that it will soon be over. that democracy is on the march. that the resistance which they will call by any name other than that – is in its death throes. they lie about how ill prepare & unwilling are their puppet armies who hate their masters more gravely than their supposed ‘enemies’. those liars who from behind desks decide the destinies of other while not caring a whimper for their blood
day after day. night after night. the empire is breeding enemies all over the world that it cannot imagine & there will be no tears, no editorials saying we are all americans, there will be no sympathy for a criminal tyranny that destroys a sovereign nation & spits in the face of the world & shits & shits & shits in its own nest
day after day. night after night. tyrants & talkers will reduce themselves to what they really are. monsters
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 23:15 utc | 28
there was something curious this week in atlantic perhaps where there was an article on the jordanian lawyer of saddam hussein & he cited saddam hussein saying – ‘yes, everything is going as planned’ –
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 10 2005 23:24 utc | 29
@b
Americans like short wars. Glorious wars that are at least plausibly-deniable as righteous and just, i.e. fighting for ‘Democracy and Freedom’, even if they patently are’nt. Wars with low cost in lives and treasure (on the American side of the ledger …).
Iraq is clearly becoming to be seen even by the NASCAR devout patriots as a lost cause. My perception is that many editors/journalists are tiring of reporting Pentagon press releases that contain one or two sentences of ‘nothing’, i.e. no detail, not even the most basic facts in context. That vacuum has to be filled with something, and Pentagon PR reports of painted schools and soccer ball distributions just don’t fly any more … and the news isn’t at all good when they go looking …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 10 2005 23:24 utc | 30
@Outraged:
I agree with Lind. Don’t want to sound like Joe McCarthy here, but why was it lost without a real effort.
To stay forever, fiddle-fucking with a low-level insurgency in order to control the oil?
But that doesn’t work for me either, for the reasons you cite in the post just above.
Anyone who can explain this Great Mystery, Lay ON!
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 10 2005 23:44 utc | 31
@Flashharry
This is a conflict of attrition, just like Vietnam, whoever stays in the fight longest without blinking wins.
The decision makers in this administration are all chickenhawks further crippled in thier policy decisions re Iraq by the gross-interference of the Neo-cons.
This conflict was never fought from day one by a military that trained or free to conduct it in a way that might have avoided the outcome of a lost Insurgency.
May I remind you of General Franks being denied 300,000 troops ?
General Graner being dumped as initial head of the CPA because he wanted to deal with the realities of an occupation.
General Petreaus being appointed to manage the creation of an ‘effective’ Iraqi Army (cannon-fodder) when it was realised in late 2004 that the occupation was winning and there were NO more troops available to send. Note there is no comparison between the Iraqi cannon-fodder we use for ‘Force Protection’, i.e. to reduce US casualties, and the ARVN as we will never allow them to have Armor, Aircaft, Artillery or any heavy weapons of any kind because we don’t TRUST ’em. The Iraqi’s KNOW this and therefore are’nt too keen(sarcasm) on catching a bullet or bomb-shrapnel to reduce the GI body count …
In the coming months Iraq veterans will be begin third tours of Iraq, those that don’t desert or fail to re-enlist, whilst at the same time voluntary recruitment is likely to be, at best, 50% of target come September … this whole situation is indicative of a collapse in the morale of the troops in the field(the ones risking thier lives for failed policies and inept command) regardless of any other factors …
Contrary to the rhetoric and media spun propaganda the US military is a high conventional war-fighting machine that was optimized for fighting the former Warsaw Pact of the long defunct USSR in large scale set-pice battles of Maneuver and overwhelming combat power … the equipment, strategies, doctrines and tactics are entrenched at the multi-generational level within the Officer and NCO cadres.
When we lost the Vietnam conflict we rewrote history, truly revisionist, and refused to learn any lessons of that conflict nor the lessons of the Soviets in thier Vietnam, Afghanistan 1979-1989. The US Military is now paying the price of that ‘forgetting’.
However, it gets worse, because since we’ve fu–ed-up Iraq from the very beginning if we withdraw we create exactly the same vacuum in Iraq that was created in Afghanistan when the Soviets withdrew. That led to Al-Qaeda and kind declaring war on the US for its betrayal and abandonment of them … the consequences now under the cloud of the ‘War on Terra’ of Iraq could see the dissolution of the US backed puppet governemnts throughout the ME, let alone new genrations of emboldened, trained and combat experienced veterans intent on revenge for the invasion and subsequent occupation.
We have yet to fully comprehend what we may well regret reaping in terms of what we (and other eueropean colonialists) have sown re the ME and Central Asia since the end of the First World War, Second World War, creation of Israel, the Suez Conflict, et al …
Our continued ability to dominate, bully and exploit the world under such a situation is highly suspect if we don’t have the might of our military to ‘back it up’ …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 0:28 utc | 32
Cole, like others here is very sceptical about the viability of partition. I’m not saying it’ll work, I’m saying it appears US disires partition. Toward this end, fomenting ethnic confrontation, by all means in the longrun, may vindicate the logic of partition among Iraqis. I notice in some of the literature, partition is a threefold concept: destabilization and dissolution (USSR), peripheral secession (eritrea, pakistan), and partition motivated by central stakeholders (Yugoslavia, Czechlaslovakia). It seems to me Saddam exacerbated ethnic tensions in order to consolidate power. By magnifying these tensions over the course of long occupation, the US might induce a consensus among core political leaders partition is a sensible alternative to civil war.
I think it’s plain fucking crazy, but hey, it’s happened before. Remember: partition is the norm–there were 74 nation states in 1946, 193 today. There’s a reason why this is so–and not a reason reducible to the preferences of US hegemony alone, but partition elsewhere has served US geostrategic interests well.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 11 2005 0:28 utc | 33
slothrop
there is never a hint of the melancholy in your marxism. you somehow seem to imply here & elsewhere that things will ‘return to normal’ & capital will march happily down this or that path
i don’t
this adventure. this disaster is not the french in algeria. nor the british in suez. this is as they say. the real thing. & all the kings horses & all the kings men……
of that i am convinced
i do not see the left or even humanism wreching anything out of our catastrophic near future
we will live – you & i & the others here – in state(s) of war for the next generation or two
i feel no optimism. none at all
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 11 2005 0:42 utc | 35
Henry Kissinger’s observation on the Iran/Iraq war: it’s a shame they both can’t lose. The quote is apocryphal, but seems to be at the heart of US ME policy for 60 years.
rgiap
oh, it’s sad. I do what I can. And I always look to do more.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 11 2005 0:46 utc | 36
Partition is not a viable strategy. If the Kurds in the North of Iraq obtain significant autonomy or independence then the Iranians and more importantly Turks WILL react. Turkey in fact maintains significant military forces on the Northern Iraqi border and has made no bones about its stated intenton to send troops into northern Iraq to occupy it to suppress any possibility of Kurdish independendance … Iran takes a similar view because they both have a long standing policy of suppressing the Kurds desires for a state within thier own borders let alone within Iraq. They will not allow a precedent to be set.
The majority of the puppet governemnts in the ME are Sunni and will not be able to stand by and accept reduction and isolation of Iraqs Sunni’s to little more than a rump in the centre and west of Iraq for perpetuity.
For similar reasons they don’t wish to see the Shia establish a new political/territorial entity free of the encumbrance of the Kurds and Sunnis of present day Iraq. That would only reinforce Irans power in the region and thretaen further problems with thier own Shia populations re an ascendant Iran.
Iran does not wish to see any of the above either as gross instability in the region is not in thier long term interests. A sufficiently volatile insurgency to drive the colation out, yes. An insurgency that could blow out of anyones control/influence, no.
If the US can’t control an intact Iraq that is stable it cannot effectively threaten Syria or Iran, nor ultimatley Saudi Arabia.
Concurrent with any of this is the resurgence of the insurgency in Afghansistan, the unresolved Israeli occupation/conflict and the growing instability of the ‘stans in Central Asia. Especially with growing influence in Central Asia of Russia and China. Not to mention the almost inevitable overthrow of Musharef in Pakistan (yep, Nukes and the missiles to deliver ’em).
The tragedy for the entire world, not just the US, dare I say it, is not that we Illegally comitted a War of Aggression and subsequent Illegal Occupation of Iraq, it’s that it was done and conducted, respectively, by the present total incompetents in the White House in such a way as to gaurantee it could not succeed in any desirable way, unless continuous conflict, magnified regional instability and a blossoming of global Terrorism in revenge could somehow, in some insane mind, be seen as desirable …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 1:04 utc | 37
Thanks Sloth, and Outraged.
this is a good discussion.
Although i knew and understood most what you wrote, the thing still doesn’t make any sense to me, unless the civilians in the Pentagon totally say the hell with advice, when in deep shit, and operate sola fides, Outraged.
I don’t think Army and Marine Corps officers are as divorced from the “reality on the ground” as Lind believes.
I was against this horse shit from the beginning. You don’t subdue a country of 26 million, with a force of 300,000 men, unless they really want to play along.
But the enormity of the clusterfuck amazes me.
And Sloth, figure out where the fuck Czechoslovakia figures into all of this, please.
I’m totally confused.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 11 2005 1:08 utc | 38
The Resistance has the measure of the United States military in Iraq. They know in advance where the Americans are going, they know the weaknesses, and they know they are winning. We can expect to see them deploy anti-aircraft munitions in the not too distant future. When they do, the end is in sight. Like rememberinggiap, I believe that only an utterly humiliating defeat — one that prevents the dolchstoss defence against blame for failure — can put the United States back on track, and save the world from an even worse disaster. I have thought that from the beginning. Utter total defeat is the only thing that can legitimatize the horrible waste of American and Iraqi life that the criminal band that runs our government has perpetrated. May they swing for it.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell | Jun 11 2005 1:10 utc | 39
Last post should have read:
You don’t subdue a country of 26 million, with a force of 300,000, or even 500,000 men,if you can field them, unless the other side really wants to play along.
And kurt, I am coming to believe that you are right.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 11 2005 1:20 utc | 40
Sorry, there,Knut.
I read fast and don’t remember or spell well.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 11 2005 1:22 utc | 41
I believe that only an utterly humiliating defeat — one that prevents the dolchstoss defence against blame for failure — can put the United States back on track, and save the world from an even worse disaster.
You mean the same way Kaiser Wilhelm’s utterly humiliating defeat in 1918 put Germany back on track, and prevented the nationalists from blaming the left for failure?
Don’t kid yourself — nothing good is going to come out of this war. For anybody anywhere.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 11 2005 1:36 utc | 42
@Knut Wicksell
You raise a very cogent point.
The AVRN was unable to win on the battlefields of Vietnam after the American withdrawal ’72-73 because they lost the utility of overwhelming airpower in the ground-attack/support role.
In Afghanistan the Soviets switched to airmobile operations and ruthless use of airpower when they discovered that dispersed armor/infantry forces in insurgent held territoty (the entire country outside the towns) was crippling re casualties. The Soviets held thier own in Afghanistan until the introduction from 1985 of increasing numbers of American man-portable Stinger Missiles and anti-aircaft gun-platforms to the Mujahedeen via the CIA and Pakistans ISI.
That destroyed the Soviet ability to maneuver by and engage by air. Subsequently the Soviet ground forces were isolated and attrited in thier garrisons and whilst in convoy in purely ground combat.
In Iraq US troops withdrew to thier bases in May 2004 and have largely ceded Iraq to the insurgents. Any movement in convoy whether for logistical purposes or to deploy for Operations is subject to ambush and IEDs. The eqauliser is overwhelming air power on virtual instant call by very weak and relatively isolated pockets of ground troops. The only safe way for commanders, troops, politicians and supplies to move around Iraq is by air.
There are currently over 50,000 man portable ground to air missiles unaccounted for in formal military arsenals. Stingers, Redeyes, Sa-7, SA-16, SA-18’s, etc. These weapons have been found and confiscated in insurgent caches but thier use has been exceptionally limited so far. I’m only aware of three such incidents since Mar 2003.
If that situation was to change … it could develop into a similar strategic and tactical situation to the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late ’80’s … gunships and ground attack pilots refusing to fly into known hotzones and subsequent loss of ‘force protection’, casualty reducing, overwhelming air-support.
The one thing that indicates to me that the insurgents are still yet to establish an overall effective combined-command structure is thier failure to use the media at a strategic level. If they were to do so and declare and enforce ‘non-combatant’ status on international journalists/cameramen of, from thier perspective, non-hostile nations (i.e non-coalition countries), thier ability to project the reality/brutality/immorality of the occupation and undermine the US would be significantly magnified …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 1:40 utc | 43
@Outraged
just a question ..
what do you reckon is the likelihood of even some ‘unofficial’ supply of the latest (??) Russian ground to air missiles finding their way to Iraq? (sort of just returning the favor for Afghanistan).
Posted by: DM | Jun 11 2005 1:58 utc | 44
Here’s an ‘interesting’ analysis from back in April …
Iraq: We Are Winning, Not
In Bushzarro world, an undiminished “insurgency” over the period of a year is considered winning the “war” (occupation), according to Chairman of the Bushzarro Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitem…. “I’m going to say this: I think we are winning, okay. I think we’re definitely winning. I think we’ve been winning for some time.”
Sure, General, we’re winning, and I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 2:01 utc | 45
I doubt that the insurgency needs ground-to-air missles.
When the occupying force, cannot absolutely control and own THE FIVE-MILE STRETCH OF ROAD BETWEEN THE CAPITAL OF THE COUNTRY AND THE COUNTRY’S MAJOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT:
Stick a fork in it, the pot pie imperial is done.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 11 2005 2:18 utc | 46
Proposal to divide Iraq gains ground
As Iraq begins writing its new constitution, leaders in the country’s southern regions are pushing aggressively to unite their three provinces into an oil-rich, semi-autonomous state, a plan that some worry could solidify Iraq’s sectarian tensions, create fights over oil revenues and eventually split the nation.
Posted by: annie | Jun 11 2005 2:24 utc | 47
“Don’t kid yourself — nothing good is going to come out of this war. For anybody anywhere.”
Billmon we all agree with that synposis. I’m posting on Sunday on TII to maybe seek ideas for a solution…. optimistic bunny that I am.
Posted by: Friendly Fire | Jun 11 2005 2:34 utc | 48
a year ago i read the US in only interested in controlling the oil rich sections of iraq(surprise) so i think it is very likely they will try to find a way.
PLAN TO DIVIDE IRAQ
A think tank that acts as a consultant to the White House has proposed a plan to end the war in Iraq by dividing the country into six fully autonomous territories, several Iranian websites have claimed. The reports including, one by the Baztab site, did not, reveal any specific details about the alleged plan by the American Foreign Policy Council, (AFPC) or how the information was obtained.
Posted by: annie | Jun 11 2005 2:46 utc | 49
1. guerrilla, (from “little-war”: irregular, insurgent — (a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment)
“The pivot of war is nothing but name and righteousness. Secure a good name for yourself and give the enemy a bad name; proclaim your righteousness and reveal the unrighteousness of the enemy. Then your army can set forth with great momentum” – Tou Bi Fu Tan, A Scholar’s Dilettante Remarks on War
“The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.”
Sun Tzu and many other strategists have appreciated a facet of warfare that escapes many. This is that a conflict is won or lost in the hearts and minds of the opposing Generals. If we substitute “President” or “Population” for “General”, this observation is even more pertinent. It is worth understanding that physical military force is only one of the means by which a nation’s heart and mind can be influenced. War can also be conducted on moral, political and diplomatic levels. On the battlefield a Soldier’s sanity, integrity and will to fight can prove to be more effective targets to attack than his physical body. Demoralization has probably won far more campaigns than attrition.
If the iron is blunt, and one does not whet the edge, he must put forth more strength; but wisdom helps one to succeed. – Ecclesiastes 10:10
To win in CI ops you must meet the following minimum conditions:
1. Outnumber the insurgents with boots on the ground, i.e. Light Combat Infantryman (not AFVs, not airpower, not artillery) by a minimum ratio of 10:1.
A. We have ~142,000 (US & UK) boots. Therefore we could handle up to ~14,600 insurgents. Total insurgents estimated to number up to ~40,000 (full-time, part-time, casual and opportunistic) and steadily rising with at least ~80,000 in support. Hence we’re ~258,000 boots short. South Vietnam’s VC had ~50,000 active at any one time with a cadre of 250,000 in support. ~500,000+ US troops and allies could’nt beat the VC strategically even when using total unrestricted warfare …
2. Have the overral committed, not neutral, support of the overwhelming majority of the populace. If more than 10% of the populace are supportive of the resistance, CI Military Ops are pointless strategically.
A. Excluding the Kurds, polls indicate between 90-93% of Iraqi’s are opposed to the occupation. Not bad, we have the level of support that we should attribute to the insurgents :(. For two years we’ve reinforced this antagonism, resentment of occupation, by reapeatedly showing contempt for the lives of anyone other than US citizens, but we’ve been especially contemptuos of Iraqi civilians lives. Every Iraqi civilian casualty has created 2-3 more potewbtial active or suportive insurgents … no counter-insurgency campaign has ever succeeded where there is contempt and disrespect for the civilian population …
3. Agressively sieze and maintain the strategic and operational initiative in the political, economic and military spheres.
A. By withdrawing to enclaves and bases/cantonments since April last year and adopting a defensive/protective stance we’ve entirely surrendered the initiative to the insurgents for over a year. Troops don’t enjoy being reactive, defensive, cantonment/base bound … sitting ducks in base and ambushed ducks every time they move out of ’em (surveilled) … veteran Counter-Insurgency (CI) officers know it.
4. As a result of 3 (above) conduct aggressive, sustained detailed boots on the ground patrols that literally interwine into every aspect of daily life of the populace to deny the insurgents the opportunity to form-up, meet, train, equip, resupply and rest. Ambush the ambush/bombing attempters.
A. Yeah, well, enough said. Any movement out of the current enclaves results in multiple hasty ambushes and attacks of opportunity by the insurgents. The Marines were ambushed and stalled before they could even move to thier jump-off point for Op Matadaor in western Iraq. We’ve hunkered down, they’ve become emboldened, more professional and more deliberate. The insurgents sense our weakness, our fear, our strategic impotence and our growing forces demoralization.
5. Obtain/maintain an evolving complete picture of the insurgency through effective HumInt to destroy every single element of the isolated (from popular national support) insurgency structure, man by man, cell by cell, cache by cache.
A. We don’t have a clue. On the ground we are deaf, blind and dumb. We are reliant on Iraqi Translators and informants who are in many cases working for the insurgency and playing a double game of dis and mis-information. They are collecting detailed Intel on us and our Ops and inciting resistance by manipulating us into ill-advised Ops.
We don’t have sufficient expertise re language/culture/religion. Our year long unit combat tours mean any rapport/bonding established on a face-to-face, person-to-person basis is sundered as each new batch of in country ignorant troops deploy. Read some of the articles above re the level of Intel and assistance provided by the Iraqi Army and Police re detail on the insurgents. When formal Operations such as Matador are launched the insurgents are aware well in advance and the towns/villages are found to be empty of able-bodied men. US forces ‘stumble’ on insurgents, bunkers, caches …
6. Prevent, block, undermine all external political, economic and military support by whatever means necessary.
We have insufficient political and economic influence to have an effect. What little we did have evaporated in the region with Abu Ghraib. Individual citizens of our supposed ally Saudi Arabia, for example, send donations of money, i.e. ~27,000 at atime to the insurgents … Syria and Iran have no interest in sealing the borders or taking effective action. After all, we’ve already effectively declared future war on them ?
7. Create effective, committed, high morale/esprit de corp, natively led and officered, national indigenous military and paramilitary forces to remove the political millstone of the conduct of operations by the foriegn forces (non-indigenous)
A. We try to train subserviant Iraqi forces to act as cannon-fodder, actually they are probably more effectively described as human sandbags, as part of our concept of force ptrotection, and the Iraqi’s know it. The Iraqi’s will not fight other Iraqi’s on behalf without first meeting para 2 above. There is no shortage of examples … the Iraqi Army (really just a small arms only militia), Police and new improved Mukhabarat are heavily infiltrated by insurgents and will continue to be carefully and agressively targetted so by the insurgents. targetted for recruitment, subornment, coercion and death by attack and selctive assasination.
It is documented that ~25% of the Sth Vietnamese ARVN combat infantryman were embedded, dedictated communists, many of the senior ARVN General staff officers were embedded communists. The 2nd in command of the ARVN Military Intelligence was a long term communist agent …
The Arabs are NOT ‘ragheads’ or ‘sand niggers’.The insurgency as a whole lacks no shortage of experienced, trained and veteran special forces, regular military, paramilitaries, Intelligence and mujahedeen to provide guidance, leadership and training from Iraq, the region and locales such as Afghanistan, the Lebanon, Chechnya, the Balkans, etc. In fact there is a form of battlefield darwinism in effect here … the dumb, and foolhardy insurgents are long dead … we rotate troops in and out on combat tours whereas the veteran insurgents who’ve survived stay and increase in skill and professionalism because they are already ‘home’ and fighting for it … they’ve got no where else to go …
All they require is sufficient critical impetus, to create an effective covert umbrella body to loosely unite/organise the significant supply of willing insurgents and materiel, if they have’nt done so already. In the meantime the unco-ordinated diverse insurgent groups are virtually impossible to defeat by simple combat power.
If the insurgents can form into a collective overall leadership, we’ll move into phase 2 and at that point we reach Vietnam ’65 equivalence re scale and ferocity …
Raw Source Materials:.(Google is your friend)
SUN TZU on THE ART OF WAR
His text is still relevant to the modern Soldier and, unlike many military texts, has the virtue of being concise and not verbose.
Very relevant – well worth a read.
Operations in LIC Field manual.
Guerilla/counter guerilla FM90-8
USMC terrorism manuals
https://www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/mcrp/htm/mcrp302d.htm
https://www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/mcrp/htm/mcrp302e.htm
You may have to go to
https://www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/htm/doc5.htm
and Right click “Save Target as”
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 3:58 utc | 50
@DM 09:58 PM
Ground to air missiles have already been found in various caches so the supply of them is not an issue, however sourced or possibly covertly supplied (i.e oither national players) … the oddity is thier lack of use to date …
@FlashHarry 10:18 PM
Yep, we can’t even control the road from the Green Zone to Baghdad airport, all significant movement requires using ‘Rhino’ $250,000 custom-made armored buses after the entire highway has been sealed off by ground troops and checkpoints and only at night.
However, if the use of aircraft became a significant combat risk the entire occupation would accelerate to ‘hell in a handbasket’ pronto due to loss of the only remaining relatively ‘risk-free’ means of administrative, communication, logistical and combat support.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 4:11 utc | 51
This has been an excellent and “Outrageous” thread.
That the kind of information, expertise, and analysis offered here is so readily available to “anyone who wants it” while
opposition to the war remains mediatically and politically
invisible is more than a mystery, it is an ache
and emptiness in the soul of the American body politic. What American can ever
speak of “freedom” and “democracy” without feeling that the words themselves have been sullied by the very fact of issuing
so lightly from the mouths of the Bush retinue?
If the consensus of this thread is correct, namely a
gathering certainty about the terminal deterioration of the
American military position in Iraq, then what should those
Americans who hate this war be doing to prepare for the consequences? Although we style ourselves a “reality based”
community, I find Cohn-Bendit’s celebrated “Be realistic,
ask for the impossible!” to be the best advice.
In that vein, here’s a list of “non-negotiable demands”
1. To permit the truth about the origins of terrorism,
the 9/11 attacks, and the war on Iraq to be known abolish
the CIA and NSA and publish their archives. (To satisfy the libertarian anarchists this might be done via sale and privatization).
2. To avoid repetition of this disaster, restore Isolationism and Neutrality, as the central tenets of
American foreign policy, and limit the War Department to “territorial defense” of the U.S.
3. Seek “national redemption” via reparations to Iraq and
the convocation of an International War Crimes Tribunal to
gather evidence and sit in judgment of those who fomented or carried out this war of agression.
Sheer fantasy, of course, but more reality based than present policies.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jun 11 2005 6:28 utc | 52
As an ardent devotee of Heller’s CATCH-22 am I the only one who thinks the Iraqi army guys mentioned and/or interviewed in the WaPo piece managed to pull a fast one?
Far from being cowarly slackers, I’m inclined to think the process goes as follows:
(a) an Iraqi resistant joins the Army, (b) he collects as much intel as possible about tropps movements, whjo’s a collaborator, etc
(c) he slows down the machine as much as he can (slacking, false reports, etc)
(d) he steals guns & ammo for his pals in the resistance
(e) he collects his pay
(f) when he’s had enough, he deserts and rejoins the Resistance
(g) repeat as many times as needed
I think the situation id far grimmer than the WaPo guy understood, and he, like other Americans, was (mostly) played for a fool by the Resistance.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 11 2005 6:35 utc | 53
What I see in this thread that is verboten for us citizens to say is that we know (but refuse to say it) that the insurgents are actually defending what might be called red-blooded american values, but what our soldiers are doing is to create and multiply hell for the Iraqis. And we have not pulled the rug out from under the men and women who have ordered our very young men and women to swear fealty to hell.
I really wish this thread seemed like a source of light and action to me, but so long as DC politicians keep us in Iraq, the only question is how thoroughly we will plow radioactive salt in to Carthage, and how long it will take Iraq and a chunk of the world to stuff all that radioactivity back up our asses.
The only hope I see is to get the national gov’t in the US to stop acting like a Japanese war cabinet circa 1941, and try to get some politics that doesn’t gravitate to suicidal wars. There are already at least 100,000-200,000 dead and mangled lives in this war. These numbers will seem small before long if we don’t find a way to stop people following the madmen.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 11 2005 6:38 utc | 54
I’m 100% with Billmon in being at the deep end of pessimism here (something I never felt about Viet Nam).
I think there is no Worst Case scenario that cannot be conjured up and entirely ruled out, including tactical nuclear strikes by and/or against the US.
When you add the looming Economic Storm to the picture the Best Case scenario, which is more likely to me (call me an optimist), looks like a Brezhnev to Andropov to Gorbachev-like evolution.
I am totally convinced that the next 5 to 10 years will see a radical transformation of the US of A.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 11 2005 6:43 utc | 55
Outraged, I agree with all parts of your ‘partition is not an option’ post above but this:
The majority of the puppet governments in the ME are Sunni and will not be able to stand by and accept reduction and isolation of Iraqs Sunni’s to little more than a rump in the centre and west of Iraq for perpetuity.
Because I’m wondering just what they’d be able to do about it. I can think of a lot of ways they could undermine the U.S. and/or support Sunni resistance, but not much they could do to force a Shia/Kurd-with-US bases Iraq to deal the Sunnis a bigger hand.
No matter how unpleasant a choice it is, in terms of how it leaves the Iraqi people and the region, I think the U.S. mil had better start the withdrawal ASAP before the helicopters start coming down on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Nell | Jun 11 2005 6:48 utc | 56
@Nell
The primary protector of Sunni interests in Iraq since the invasion is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States such as Kumait, Qatar, UAE, etc.
They ‘ensured’ Sunni representation on the former IGC and the subsequent Interim Government.
They would make very clear to the US administration thier displeasure with US acquiesence to a ‘break-up’ of Iraq, especially since little of the resources (oil) and industry of Iraq are actually physically located in Sunni areas. Hence the Sunni would become the Arab trash of a partitined Iraq. An unnaceptable outcome for Suadi Arabias Sunni Wahhabbists …
Saudi Arabia and OPEC would not necessarily overtly reduce the availability of crude oil, however, two can play the ‘game’ and it would be very convenient for them in such a situation if a terrorist group was allowed (released) to damage a critical portion of the oil infrastructure …
Such possible eventualities are clearly on the mind of the administration as the US now has crude oil stockpiles (strategic reserve) at the highest level in 17 years …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 7:41 utc | 57
Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis ?
In a village southwest of Baghdad …
AFP
June 06, 2005
AJIL SHARKIA, Iraq: Beneath a starlit sky, 60 members of the Iraqi and US special forces aboard four helicopters speed towards a village southwest of Baghdad suspected of harboring insurgent fighters.
Explosive charges blow in doors and set off cries that are quickly covered by the sounds of dogs barking and donkeys braying.
In one house, Iraqi soldiers gather a dozen women in one room and begin searching, throwing mattresses and blankets on the ground.
Sitting on a carpet with their heads covered by veils, mothers hold the youngest children, their dark, scared eyes following every move the troops make.
“Where are the men?” a young officer asks sharply.
“My two sons and my husband left three hours ago,” the oldest woman replies.
She swears she does not know where they went, while another woman recites verses from Islam’s holy book, the Koran, and rocks her son on her lap.
In another room, its walls covered with wrinkled images of Islamic holy sites, an Iraqi soldier tries to get information from a haggard boy lying on a bed …
Iraqi ex-translators/interpreters of the US military seduced and anbandoned – face Death or Exile …
June 5, 2005 By KATHERINE ZOEPF, The New York Times Company
DAMASCUS, Syria, June 4 – Nashwan Hassan Ahmed’s belief in the American mission in Iraq never wavered.
Hired fresh out of Baghdad University, he served for 18 months as an interpreter for American forces in Mosul. Former colleagues recall him working bravely and tirelessly, side by side with troops on dangerous nighttime hunts for insurgents, and in the offices and conference rooms where the details of reconstruction projects were hammered out.
The days were long, but Mr. Ahmed, now 24, said he did not care, “because I felt that I was trying to help Iraq stand up again, and because I felt I was like a brother to them.”
By “them,” Mr. Ahmed meant the American soldiers he lived with, and who came to call him Nash. He spent mornings with them at the shooting range and evenings playing video games. He learned to like lasagna and root for the Atlanta Braves.
Then the threats started. Because of his work with American troops, some Iraqis saw Mr. Ahmed as a collaborator. Mr. Ahmed said his family was harassed and abused, and they moved three times in an effort to hide from insurgents.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 8:39 utc | 58
I guess I’ll have to quit my job to keep up with this blog, not that thats such a bad idea, anyway, great thread. r’giap’s story of the food vendor speaks volumes about so much more than the sheer incompetence of the military effort in Iraq, in that the people of Iraq, unlike the people of America, have a cultural density within themselves that is undiluted by the trappings(metaphore, yes) of the consumerized reality of the west. While such a firm and stratified(religious, clan, etc) may seem un-free by western standards it should be appreciated that, these traditions trace back to the inception of western civilization, and have borne many hardships up until the present, that have not been rendered passive through the commodification of experience. That the personal is intrinsicly bound to the collective (like it or not) as a wellspring of passion for a national identity, historically informed by occupation — is a central fact of dillusion and suprise by those used to buying off resistance with pie in the sky. And while this lie continues to have latent currency here in the USA by neverending (& unopposed) supplimental funding, it has long passed into the annals of historic archtypical oppression in the Iraqi mind. And so the call must be as it is so, a historic calling, a generational and pan-arab obligation in service of national and ethnic identity. Which all results in even more tenacious resistance.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 11 2005 9:25 utc | 59
A desperate attempt at partition by the US would most likely result in regoin-ilizing the conflict, a major escalation the US, not able to control the present situation, would be woefully inadequate in maintaining. This would open the floodgates of both support and influence and resistance from the regional countries seeking to dissolve what integrity is left politically in Iraq. I’ve heard of no politicians, puppet or otherwise that would advocate such a “solution”. The Kurds, considered the most likely beneficiary of partition, would likely suffer the greatest consequence of autonomy through Turkish and Iranian pressure, and if the US left, probable invasion.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 11 2005 9:56 utc | 60
Senior US military chief admits insurgents are “good, honest” Iraqis
’Good and honest’ Iraqis fighting US forces
By Phil Sands, Staff Reporter Tikrit:
A senior US military chief has admitted “good, honest” Iraqis are fighting American forces.
Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because “they’re offended by our presence”.
In an interview with Gulf News, he said: “If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could [want to fight us].”
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 10:29 utc | 61
US Troops Cannot Stop Saddam-Friendly Clans In Triangle Of Death
US Troops Cannot Stop Saddam-Friendly Clans In Triangle Of Death Edited By Rob Gibran June 05, 2005
Attempts by 40,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops to close off Baghdad from armed groups is destined to fail, according to Iraqi sources, because of a series of roads loosely referred to as the “Mujahedeen Road.” These access routes are often controlled by tribal clans that once formed part of Saddam’s protective shield…
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 10:44 utc | 62
Iraq is not the issue.
Iraq is a symptom.
The root cause of this Iraqi resource war is our national consensus that we intend to keep living like Americans, come what may.
That’s why Democrats and Republicans alike voted overwhelmingly for this oil war, and routinely vote to fund it anew, at obscene prices, with pure overdrafts from our Treasury. Because we all intend to keep living like we do.
In practice then, we the point three billion people, we Americans, aren’t really at odds with Dick Cheney’s dictum, “The American way of life is not negotiable.”
It is only when that does become negotiable that we will stop burning down other nations to get our provisions.
Iraq is a symptom.
Iraq is only one nation. Oil is only one provision. There are other nations, and other provisions. To survive, America needs those provisions from those nations, and we can’t take no for an answer.
Fact: there aren’t enough provisions in the whole world for every nation, every human, to live like Americans. It would take nine planet earths to do that. That means eight out of nine people alive today will never live like Americans do.
It means every American has eight other humans to share with. Now, if you don’t share with those other eight humans, you’ll have to kill a couple of them to get enough provisions to live like an American. And you’ll probably have to kill a couple others to keep the rest off your provisions. On an overcrowded ship, it’s the pirate way — share the booty or fight to the death over it.
And that’s our choice, we Americans.
Iraq is a symptom of that choice.
Actually, most of the resource wars to come in this century will be over potable water. And, we’ll need to kill for uranium at some point, too, to keep our electrical grid up. And kill for a few other precious ores as well, or someone else will dig them up and then we won’t live as well as we do. And that was never our intent. That’s not negotiable.
The point being, getting out of Iraq doesn’t address the root cause of our being there. We’ll just go to war somewhere else for provisions.
The country we need to get out of is the mad America that won’t even attempt anymore to live within its means or by civilized rules. Pirate America.
We need to climb down from where we find ourselves these days, folks. This is just nuts, what we, the people, are doing.
Posted by: Antifa | Jun 11 2005 11:15 utc | 63
@Antifa
This is a conservative progressive blog, so you will likely hear little dissension other than mine. Which is – that I find it almost inexplicable that with an alphabetic soup of AIPAC, PNAC type lobby groups – and the number of American-Israeli actors involved with steering American foreign policy – few here appear willing to have an open, honest debate on – “to what extent is America’s actions and policies in the ME influenced by the interests of Israel?”
Posted by: DM | Jun 11 2005 12:31 utc | 64
An independant Iraqi Kurdistan is anathema to Iran and Turkey and won’t be allowed.
In late May 2004, in the wake of Talabani’s encounter with the senior US official, a delegation of very senior Iranian intelligence officials arrived in Iraqi Kurdistan for a series of meetings with Talabani and the leadership of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Barzani and the leadership of the KDP, as well as other Kurdish and Islamist parties active in northern Iraq. Stressing they were speaking on behalf of the highest authorities in Tehran, the Iranian officials openly raised the issue of “the partitioning of Iraq into three [independent] regions” in the aftermath of the June 30, 2004, hand-over of sovereignty.
The Iranian emissaries stressed that Tehran “is in favor of the partition of Iraq into three regions, namely Kurdish, Shi’ite and Sunni [states]” and that Tehran is convinced “that is the best remedy for Iraq’s problem”. Tehran is convinced, the emissaries emphasized, that once independent, “among those three regions, the Kurdish and the Shi’ite [states] would become two regional friends of Iran”.–Yossef Bodansky, Breaking Up Iraq, Defense & Foreign Affairs’ Strategic Policy, June, 2004
The only two realistic alternatives in Iraq are disintegration or repression. Force alone can hold the victims and perpetrators of mass killings together in the same state, sharing opposite valences of the same gruesome fate. The unpleasant truth is that U.S. support for Iraqi integrity amounts to a de facto endorsement of continued repression and more than episodic state-sponsored domestic violence.
…
Not only is the disintegration of Iraq not dangerous, it is actually desirable for both strategic and humanitarian reasons. It would bring to an end a despotic Iraqi state, improve the U.S. political position in the region, curb a major threat to the oil-rich Gulf states and to Israel, provide the Kurds with their own state, and weaken a hostile regime in Iran.–Daniel Byman, Let Iraq Collapse, The National Interest, 1996 FALL
Outraged, just pointing out even the ersatz neocons aimed before the war even, to bust-up Iraq. And it is arguable Iran would disagree w/ the effort.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 11 2005 15:46 utc | 65
Note to Bill, Dan, Bob et al,
I’m on your side–read the blogs everyday. But I think the likelihood of our congress effectively going after the administration over Iraq is pretty close to zero–Conyers’ noble work notwithstanding.
Look, the obvious difference between now and the Watergate era is that we now have a Republican-controlled congress, with a premium on party loyalty.
But at the more general level (or grandiose if you prefer), what we’re witnessing with Iraq and elsewhere is the painful, protracted death of Enlightenment liberalism and late modern nationalism. Globalism is essentially the realignment of political regions along the lines of economic blocs rather than volkish, nationalist (linguistic, racial, ethnic, etc) lines. Patriotism in this country has already been readjusted to mean loyalty to capitalism, not to some vague notion of American volk.
The death of Enlightenment liberalism and all that goes with it (rational discourse, personal liberty, individual rights, representative and transparent government) has of course been in the mix for some time, but now the forces of conservatism are finally coming to the fore.
For those on the left who keep insisting on a reasoned appraisal of the facts, the sad fact is the forces of conservatism do not care in the least about reasoned discourse–to wit the success of the Orwellian Fox: Fair and Balanced does not mean reasonable. The new dogma is one of emotion and nostalgia. Let’s call it the Age of Neo Romanticism.
While the US busies itself with regional wars in the interest of robber barons, China–utterly unrestrained by the discourse of Enlightenment liberalism–hungrily expands its economic dominion. The race is on, and I suspect that in the not-too-distant future Bush, Rummy, and Wolfie will look like timid children playing ‘go fish’ compared to the unscrupulous players working their way up to the table.
Posted by: Sloo | Jun 11 2005 16:12 utc | 66
Globalism is essentially the realignment of political regions along the lines of economic blocs rather than volkish, nationalist (linguistic, racial, ethnic, etc) lines.
Certainly not true. The justification of capital is now as ever yoked to ideology of nationalism/exceptionalism. Breaking this spell–“raising practical consciousness”–the old enlightenment project more crucial now than ever. In no way can it be said “das volk” have pierced the veil of this ideology to now understand, as elites cynically do, the abject scam of capitalism.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 11 2005 17:12 utc | 68
Sloo, thanks. Great, dense comment.
The death of Enlightenment liberalism and all that goes with it (rational discourse, personal liberty, individual rights, representative and transparent government) has of course been in the mix for some time, but now the forces of conservatism are finally coming to the fore.
Can the economy survive the application of religions and ideologies that were created for an agrarian society to an industrial or post-industrial age? Political movements that are at odds with the economic needs of the people have a bad survival rate.
I don’t believe that we’re seeing the death of the enlightenment. If we are, then we are also seeing the death of anything resembling a (post-)industrial economy or modern technology. I don’t believe that a faith-based US can survive economically in the modern world.
As for China, I’m not sure it’s fair to paint it in the terms you do. I’ve read several places (I should have links here) that the current government is essentially obliged to improve the standard of living of the people or face a complete loss of legitimacy. China is not the stable giant that people like to imagine.
As usual, Pepe Escobar’s writings in Asia Times is the most inciteful, drawing together a number of the points here, ending w/agreement w/Sloo:
The Bush administration though is pulling no punches with Iraqification. It’s a Pandora’s box: inside one will find the Battle of Algiers, Vietnam, El Salvador, Colombia. All point to the same destination: civil war. This deadly litany could easily go on until 2020 when, in a brave new world of China emerging as the top economy, Sunni Arabs would finally convince themselves to perhaps strike a deal with Shi’ites and Kurds so they can all profit together by selling billions of barrels of oil to the Chinese oil majors. If, of course, there is any semblance of Iraq left at that point.
He outlines contending forces – US trying to rip Iraq apart, but many there working to form United Front all demanding US exit. As Rumbo has formed/funded 6 militias, and chaos is always the easiest option, he’s not optimistic. Exit strategy: Civil war
Posted by: jj | Jun 11 2005 20:02 utc | 70
@Slothrop
… a delegation of very senior Iranian intelligence officials …
Unfortunately Intel officeres are not exactly known for thier, how shall I say, sincerity/integrity 😉 … especially when one considers the timing of the event you noted, when the Kurds were being ‘courted’ …
The Iranian governments statements and actions over decades are quite clear re thier views on the Kurds, however, Juan Cole states it succintly enough:
“Turkey has threatened to go to war to prevent the emergence of an oil-rich independent Kurdistan, which its leaders fear might entice the Turkish Kurds of eastern Anatolia into a separatism that would fragment Turkey. The Iranians less truculently maintain a similar view, because of sensitivities about their own Kurdish minority.”
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 11 2005 20:33 utc | 71
Antifa,
Malthus was a fraud. It is time for people to get to the reality of infinite resources, as expounded in the works of Cory Doctorow. There is no scarcity of resources that cannot be dealt with effectively via the collective application of human intelligence. The nuclear age was begun by a small fraction of the world’s gifted thinking really hard in secret at Los Alamos. 50+ later the world contains only more people of equal and greater ability, with access to better knowledge techniques, and calcualtion aids, and this trend is not likely to abate. The trick is to help people to work effectively together instead of helping them to oppose each other.
Aside from being stuck in a huge property value crisis of their own manufacture, America and the rest of the west do not have any serious obstacles. Second probably is the unwillingness of the current crop of wealthy to permit those with ability to increase the collective pie through creation and invention, having realized their own fortunes may be temporarily disrupted in the process.
It’s time for new agendas and new goals. The Bush gambit to keep the clock back has failed, and the old plans which relied on his last desperate thrust need some serious rethink.
Larger lesson here to readers of the comments who favor pet causes at the expense of the larger picture.
Posted by: patience | Jun 12 2005 6:07 utc | 72
Military action won’t end insurgency, growing number of U.S. officers believe
BY TOM LASSETER
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Sun, Jun. 12, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq – (KRT) – A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during the past two years.
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics – an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.
“I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that … this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,” Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 13 2005 1:17 utc | 73
Killing More American Troops With Bigger Bombs.
Jun. 09, 2005 BY MARK WASHBURN, Knight Ridder Newspapers
CAMP ANACONDA, Iraq – (KRT) – Improvised explosive devices, the roadside bombs that insurgents build from castoff artillery shells and other munitions, have become the No. 1 killer of American troops in Iraq this year, despite a massive U.S. campaign to blunt their effectiveness.
In spite of those efforts, deaths due to IEDs rose by more than 41 percent in the first five months of this year, compared with the same period last year, and account for nearly 51 percent of the 255 U.S. combat deaths so far this year, according to statistics assembled by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an Internet site that assembles statistics based on official U.S. casualty reports.
Pentagon officials acknowledge that insurgents are killing more American troops with bigger bombs.
The rising number of deaths due to IEDs suggests that insurgents have been able to counter American measures with bigger and better bombs.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 13 2005 3:58 utc | 74