Iraqi Gov't Politic: i.e. Coy Young Maiden approach is Completely Pathetic!

[Phlosphr]

Anyone else notice that the Iraqi Information Minister is behaving like a coy young maiden? Down playing the war to his constituents/peoples?

Todays edition of the Gov't run Baghdad News paper is telling Iraqi Nationals that they are winning the war, beating the Americans, and suffering little damage from the invaders.

Now that the American's have secured Saddam's airport, local Baghdad citizens are realizing it is all a shame...Their Governement is blatently lying to them to try and rally support for those last few fighters who may rise up and get shot... To me this is completely pathetic.

Per another thread the Iraqi Gov't kicked out Al-Jazeera...Does this strike anyone else as irretrievably stupid? As one of the newspapers what you'd think they would want around, they remove. Either something very bad is about to happen and the Iraqi Gov't doesn't want the rest of the Arab world to see it - even though they would anyway - or the Gov't has been hit so hard that the chain of command has crumbled to people who have completely no idea of what to do?

Anyone else think they Iraqi Gov't is flailing around with little to no control over their war units...?

[bayonet1976]

I saw part of the interview yesterday in CNN, frankly it was just bizarre. He made claims that the prisoners of war taken by the coalition were "brought in by the americans, not real iragis". That the coalition troops were not just outside Baghdad, that the Iraqi troops were winning every battle. And so on.

The CNN analyst made a good point, that he obviously was not talking to anyone outside Iraq, this was on Al-Jazeera, CNN was carrying the feed, but rather to the inner circle or to govt. supporters, to keep them from bailing. Now that the coalition forces are IN Baghdad those inner circle loyalists who stayed behind may no longer have the option to flee, which might have been the intent of the speech.

[China Guy]

well, if you lived in this timezone you could watch it live on CNN...now that's a treat we get each and every day.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Well, what's he supposed to say? "We're toast, folks. Start packing your bags"?

I mean, what is there to say, at this point?

[Phlosphr]

Duck - well if they wanted to go down fighting, maybe they should start by not lying to the people of their own country. I just find it completely ridiculous what they are telling the populace...Iraqis can't be that naive to believe that crap.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Well, what's he supposed to say? "We're toast, folks. Start packing your bags"?
Really -- it's not much different than Donald Rumsfeld's insistence that the war has been going according to plan all this time. "We meant to do this! We wanted to stretch our supply lines thin and have the Iraqis snipe at us from the rear! We were expecting car bombs and fake surrenders and other dirty tactics! Really!"

Both sides are spinning this war to make themselves look good. To chide Iraq for it is to be amazingly naive.

[Phlosphr]

Sorry rjung - but there is a major difference between Rummy saying we expected this, that, and the other thing, and the Iraqi Information Minister publishing complete lies about the campaign. Telling people that they are actually winning. And that no Iraqis have been killed. Do you really not saee any difference?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by rjung
Really -- it's not much different than Donald Rumsfeld's insistence that the war has been going according to plan all this time. "We meant to do this! We wanted to stretch our supply lines thin and have the Iraqis snipe at us from the rear! We were expecting car bombs and fake surrenders and other dirty tactics! Really!"

Both sides are spinning this war to make themselves look good. To chide Iraq for it is to be amazingly naive. This is hilarious! To state there is no material difference between Rumsfeld's press conferences and the utter, verifiably false horseshit coming from Iraq's Minister of Defense--frankly, it's incredible.

I expect any day now to hear the Minister, with a flaming missile in his ass, deny the fact that there's a flaming missile in his ass. With that same incredulous look on his face, as if the very question were ridiculous. There will be a gaping hole in the wall behind him through which we can see a U.S. Marine directing traffic as the Minister further denies the presence of Coalition forces in Baghdad. And there will still be people who say it's no different, really, than the information Rumsfeld provides.

[Duke]

I get this sense that in a few days, there's going to be a broadcast from the Information Minister in which he continues to claim that Iraq is winning the war...during which coalition soldiers storm into the picture.

Just a question--are Iraqi TV broadcasts being seen anywhere outside of Baghdad? It's hard to believe that the Information Minister expects his words to be taken seriously in, say, Umm Qasr or Basra.

[Duke]

GD simulpost!

[cmkeller]

How interesting, rjung. Are you privy to the Pentagon's actual war plan, including discussions of various contingencies and possibilities, that you know for certain that Rumsfeld is lying?

Or do you just assume Rumsfeld is lying because you hate Bush?

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Duke
I get this sense that in a few days, there's going to be a broadcast from the Information Minister in which he continues to claim that Iraq is winning the war...during which coalition soldiers storm into the picture. And as they're dragging him off in shackles, he's yelling "Ha HAH! They fell into our trap!"

Seriously though, I suspect that every government on earth will come out with as much propaganda lies/spin as it can get away with. The Iraqi government, never having had to deal with any transparency or investigative journalism, will just say what it wants. In that way, there is some kind of comparison.

[Stratocaster]

Every side has its own spin, that's true. But the Iraqi nonsense is something beyond that. IMO, it's the natural mindset cultivated by the ruling power in a dictatorship. They expect their word to be believed because, well, they said so. Period. It starts to become immaterial whether something is factual or not. It's the truth because they said it's the truth, and if you disagree, they have ways of dealing with you. Want to know who won the first Gulf War? Just ask them, they'll tell you...it just becomes laughable when they're in a position where their power is disintegrating around them and they can't stop their bullshit. They just can't.

[Phlosphr]

I agree Bob - it just baffles the mind. Even that facist punk Franko had more sense than the Iraqi whatever-you-call-it!

To me it is making them look rather foolish, but I doubt it will be going on much longer...

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by Phlosphr
I agree Bob - it just baffles the mind. Even that facist punk Franko had more sense than the Iraqi whatever-you-call-it!


Say what you will about Franco, he died of old age and still in power, which, if you're a dictator, is pretty much everything you could ask for.

[Rhum Runner]

Rjung there are definitely some amazingly naïve posters in this thread, but they aren’t the ones chiding Iraq.

[rjung]

Originally posted by cmkeller
Are you privy to the Pentagon's actual war plan, including discussions of various contingencies and possibilities, that you know for certain that Rumsfeld is lying?

Or do you just assume Rumsfeld is lying because you hate Bush?
Nah, I'm just going off what the Pentagon has been tossing around before the shooting started:

"I think the effects that we are trying to create is to make it so apparent and so overwhelming at the very outset of potential military operations that the adversary quickly realizes that there is no real alternative here other than to fight and die or to give up."
Col. Gary L. Crowder, chief, Strategy, Concepts and Doctrine, ACC (3/19/2003) (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03202003_t0319effects.html)
This co-called “Rapid Dominance” battle plan is based a concept formulated in a report drawn up by the Pentagon-run National Defense University in 1996—that is, under the Clinton administration and well before events of September 11, 2001. The concept is dubbed “Shock and Awe” because it seeks the psychological overwhelming of the enemy, and, by extension, the intimidation of the world’s population.

Speaking to CBS news, one of the report’s authors, Harlan Ullman, drew a direct parallel to Hiroshima. Within two to five days, the Iraqi people would be “physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted,” he stated. He spoke of having “this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes.”
US plans "shock and awe" blitzkrieg in Iraq (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml)
Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US mobilisation, says US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
<snip>
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.
Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm)

Senior Bush administration officials have concluded that the United States will quickly win a war against Iraq, based on superior American technology and a sharp deterioration of Saddam Hussein's armed forces since the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict.

Officials also believe a significant number of Saddam's army commanders and units will either refuse to fight or will assist allied troops in toppling the Baghdad regime.

Senior Pentagon policy-makers have come to that conclusion in recent weeks, and some officials are beginning to state it publicly.

"I don't think it would be that tough a fight," Vice President Richard B. Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That is, I don't think there's any question that we would prevail and we would achieve our objective."
War in Iraq seen as quick win (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020918-16942061.htm)

Unconventional tactics? Fake surrenders? Supply-line sniping? Car bombs? Nah, don't sweat it, we'll just "shock and awe" them on the first day, and the Iraqi army will fold like a house of cards. Uh-huh. Yeah, quick-n-easy. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Rhum Runner]

LOL, ok dude. Believe what you want.

[Azael]

from Duke
Just a question--are Iraqi TV broadcasts being seen anywhere outside of Baghdad? It's hard to believe that the Information Minister expects his words to be taken seriously in, say, Umm Qasr or Basra.


IraqiTV can be seen anywhere with an internet connection (http://www.webcamsue.demon.nl/).

(Actually I have no idea if Iraqi's outside of Baghdad can get that channel, though I assume they can if they have a satellite at least)

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by rjung
Unconventional tactics? Fake surrenders? Supply-line sniping? Car bombs? Nah, don't sweat it, we'll just "shock and awe" them on the first day, and the Iraqi army will fold like a house of cards. Uh-huh. Yeah, quick-n-easy. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Providing examples of what was expressed prior to the start of the war is not a terribly good way to show how "the Pentagon" is lying about the ongoing military campaign in the manner that the Iraqi minister is. Just admit it. You overstated your point. You can be against the war and still recognize that the Minister of Information is virtually incapable of opening his mouth without letting fly another bald-faced lie, even when verifiable facts contradict him.

[Lemur866]

Of course, rjung, the authors of the "shock and awe" plan weren't the ones who planned the invasion. In fact, it seems to me that all the talk of shockNawe was disinformation. We certainly haven't engaged in the massive demoralizing bombardments the report advocated. ShockNawe was never our real battle plan.

As for Rummy claiming that the war would be quick, look at your quote. He said it would be quick. It could be six days. It could be six weeks. It won't be six months. Has the war even lasted six weeks? If the war is still going on six months from now, then yes Rummy was wrong. But the war isn't even 3 weeks old, and you think he was lying because we haven't won yet. We are on the outskirts of Baghdad today, Baghdad Airport was captured. We haven't won the war yet, but to claim that we are losing is ludicrous.

Your claim that the entire military plan was to drop a few bombs on the first day and Iraq would surrender is blatantly false. Yes, it was claimed the war would be easy. So far it has been pretty easy. So far, the people who claimed the war would be easy have not been proven incorrect. You might have a definition of easy that only means winning the war in one day. The administration has claimed that the war would last "weeks, not months". If the war is still going on months later, then they lied. But we still haven't reached even one month, much less "months".

[threemae]

I'll agree that the war has generally been going pretty well, but probably not the route we wanted.

However, you will have to help me out, my dear Lemur, and point out where rjung claims that the war will go on for months and months, and you should probably avoid using quotes unless that person actually says what they quote.

[Lemur866]

No..he posted administration claims that the war would be easy and not last for months as examples of lies that the administration has told. Obviously, these statements cannot yet be classified as lies.

[elucidator]

Cetainly not. Stand them next to the balderdash ladled out to justify this military adventure, and they appear as shining paragons of utter veracity.

[rjung]

From where I'm sitting, it looks like this:

1. Before the war, George W. Bush and everyone on down keeps playing up how quick-n-easy the war will be, to soothe skepticism from the citizenry. "Shock and awe!" they cry. "Adavanced American technology! The natives will uprise against Saddam once they see us! We'll intimidate the Iraqi army into surrendering!"

2. War starts. Shock and awe doesn't work. Fierce resistance every step of the way, and a surprise sandstorm keeps the troops stalled for a few days. Supply lines stretch thin. Troops down to one meal a day. Supply lines continue to get ambushed. No uprisings from the locals. Another 100,000+ troops are requested, because the initial 250,000+ ain't enough after all.

3. People ask about the discrepencies between #1 and #2. Rumsfeld et al spin it by saying "we meant to do that." Me skeptical.

Note that I'm not saying that the American effort is doomed -- it's obvious that the U.S. will eventually "win," just by sheer numbers and technological superiority, if nothing else. But it hasn't been as easy-peasy as the folks have been claiming back before the war started, and Rumsfeld's bald-faced insistence that this has all gone according to plan smells like a lie to me. And as I said back in my first post in this thread, both sides lie, and I wouldn't expect it any other way. Heck, if Rumsfeld would be honest enough to admit "yeah, it wasn't as trivial as we thought it'd be, but we still have the situation under control", I'd give him a pass for fessin' up.

As for the duration of this war... while I'd like it to end as soon as possible, given how things have played out so far, I think anything less than three months is overly optimistic. We shall see...

[elucidator]

I really hope you are wrong about that. As much as I might chortle over anything that shows up the shallowness of Fearless Misleader's ham-fisted approach to International relations, let us pray it is not so.

If we have to fight our way into downtown Baghdad with the streets littered with Iraqi civilians, the Al-Queda recruiting stations will have to hire extra staff from Al Kelly Girls, and stay open 24/7.

[HPL]

I didn't bregrudge the iraqis for saying some of the things they said. To say "We are losing badly" would be horrible for morale. I realize that propaganda is par for the course. However, at this point, when the enemy is at the gates of the capital, There should be some admission that "The Yankees will not be defeated...so easily".

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by rjung
And as I said back in my first post in this thread, both sides lie, and I wouldn't expect it any other way. But you also said, using the Minister of Information as the point of comparison:Really -- it's not much different than Donald Rumsfeld's insistence that the war has been going according to plan all this time.Jesus, talk about spinning. Now you say your position is that if Rumsfeld would admit that resistance has been tougher than planned, but the situation is under control, this "admission" would amount to clearing the air, so to speak. Is the absence of this admission still roughly equivalent to the Minister of Information stating that the Iraqis are routing the Coalition forces on every front, that the Coalition is mainly aiming for civilian targets in Baghdad, that Coalition forces were not remotely close to Baghdad, that those really weren't Iraqis surrendering, etc., etc.? I'm just checking.

[newcrasher]

Originally posted by rjung
Really -- it's not much different than Donald Rumsfeld's insistence that the war has been going according to plan all this time. "We meant to do this! We wanted to stretch our supply lines thin and have the Iraqis snipe at us from the rear! We were expecting car bombs and fake surrenders and other dirty tactics! Really!"

Both sides are spinning this war to make themselves look good. To chide Iraq for it is to be amazingly naive.

I hate to break it to you, but the military knew its supply line would be stretched thin. That is the bane of every advancing army in the history of warfare.

There were fake surrenders in the last Gulf War. Nothing new there.

We have been told from the beginning that terorists would likely strike our troops. The car bomb is one ofthe staple weapons of the terrorist.

I cannot find one thing in your post that would cause even the most junior soldier to smack his head and say "I never thought they would do THAT!"... Instead you post seems to illustrate your lack of knwledge of warfare, of our military and the nature of the 2 sides involved in this war.

I find it dubious that you compare the Information Minister of this tyranical regime with the Sec. of Defense. If it were an honest comparison, I would not have a problem with it, but this just seems shrill and bitter.

[newcrasher]

Originally posted by rjung
Nah, I'm just going off what the Pentagon has been tossing around before the shooting started:







Unconventional tactics? Fake surrenders? Supply-line sniping? Car bombs? Nah, don't sweat it, we'll just "shock and awe" them on the first day, and the Iraqi army will fold like a house of cards. Uh-huh. Yeah, quick-n-easy. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You seem to want the military to script out the war, hand out the plan, and have everyone follow it. Evern if they had hoped the Iraqis would surrender quickly, dont you think they had a plan for, just in case, they did not?

This is WAR. Things do NOT go as planned. But our military plans for every conceivable contingency. They were not caught flat footed by anything that has happened.

It is intersting how many people want to find fault with the conduct of this war, when it is one of the most successful military operations in history.

Your disdain is clear. I am not sure who it is directed at, but I would assume Bush and the military. Shame. Everyone in the military seems to be performing admirably, yet you are sniping them from the rear.

[newcrasher]

Originally posted by rjung
From where I'm sitting, it looks like this:

1. Before the war, George W. Bush and everyone on down keeps playing up how quick-n-easy the war will be, to soothe skepticism from the citizenry. "Shock and awe!" they cry. "Adavanced American technology! The natives will uprise against Saddam once they see us! We'll intimidate the Iraqi army into surrendering!"

2. War starts. Shock and awe doesn't work. Fierce resistance every step of the way, and a surprise sandstorm keeps the troops stalled for a few days. Supply lines stretch thin. Troops down to one meal a day. Supply lines continue to get ambushed. No uprisings from the locals. Another 100,000+ troops are requested, because the initial 250,000+ ain't enough after all.

3. People ask about the discrepencies between #1 and #2. Rumsfeld et al spin it by saying "we meant to do that." Me skeptical.

Note that I'm not saying that the American effort is doomed -- it's obvious that the U.S. will eventually "win," just by sheer numbers and technological superiority, if nothing else. But it hasn't been as easy-peasy as the folks have been claiming back before the war started, and Rumsfeld's bald-faced insistence that this has all gone according to plan smells like a lie to me. And as I said back in my first post in this thread, both sides lie, and I wouldn't expect it any other way. Heck, if Rumsfeld would be honest enough to admit "yeah, it wasn't as trivial as we thought it'd be, but we still have the situation under control", I'd give him a pass for fessin' up.

As for the duration of this war... while I'd like it to end as soon as possible, given how things have played out so far, I think anything less than three months is overly optimistic. We shall see...

In this era of internet news, 24 hour coverage and daily press broefing, you are STUNNINGLY uninformed. Grossly naive. I suspect you summona smile each time you hear the US military has had a bit of trouble.

[Milum]

elucidator : " Cetainly not. Stand them next to the balderdash ladled out to justify this military adventure, and they appear as shining paragons of utter veracity."

With a typical stroke of Saddamic brilliance the Iraqi Generals have chosen Baghdad as the best position of final defense.

Equally brilliant, elucidator has chosen this thread to attempt elucidation of a position that has no frontal, much less final, defense.

In both cases Robert E. Lee would roll over in his grave.

:)

[elucidator]

The choice of Baghdad was, most likely, not a strategic choice at all, but merely the best of a collection of disastrous possibilities. There is not now, nor was there ever, any real chance that Iraq could stand up, militarily. They had two chances, slim and none, and opted for slim.

I think you will find, Milum, that here in the GD the bald assertion that your position is superior will not suffice.

[Milum]

I think you will find, Milum, that here in the GD the bald assertion that your position is superior will not suffice.

Yes, of course, this is sadly true, but it also seems rude, trite, and childish to restate in detail a reality that self-evident and obvious.

What else are the rules "here in the GD"?

[elucidator]

...Equally brilliant, elucidator has chosen this thread to attempt elucidation of a position that has no frontal, much less final, defense....

Once you have made your argument personal, for instance, deriding another poster's opinion by name, you cannot make claims to offended virtue by reason of virginity. Once you lower yourself, your just as much a slut as any of the rest of us.

[furt]

Originally posted by rjung
1. Before the war, George W. Bush and everyone on down keeps playing up how quick-n-easy the war will be, to soothe skepticism from the citizenry. "Shock and awe!" they cry.
I challenge you to find a single cite anywhere of the words "Shock and Awe" coming from the lips of a named senior official.

Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US mobilisation, says US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
<snip>
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.
And this backs you up how, exactly? We have not fully mobilized, and at this point it appears the major shooting may stop after 3 weeks.


"The adversary quickly realizes that there is no real alternative here other than to fight and die or to give up."
Col. Gary L. Crowder, chief, Strategy, Concepts and Doctrine, ACC (3/19/2003)"
And given suicide tactics and kill ratios of 200+ to one, I'd say they've chosen to die

"I don't think it would be that tough a fight," Vice President Richard B. Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That is, I don't think there's any question that we would prevail and we would achieve our objective."
Umm, yeah, Under a hundred casualties, entering Baghdad after 2 weeks, no organized military resistance ... that's pretty much it.

[Phlosphr]

little nudge in lieu of current events.