Well, man, the Talking Points are what they are, and those who have their marching orders follow them until the new directive comes down from the Central Committe, Repub-intern.
I’m not sure I get this; while not impossible, AFAIK this would be by far the largest deployment of UN peacekeepers ever and it is unclear from where all the troops and equipment necessary could be obtained. Much smaller deployments in recent years have been difficult to sustain economically. In any event, several communiques have supposedly been issued from Iraqi resistance groups that state UN troops would be fired on as well.
If in fact we require a total of 300-400K line troops to carry out what is effectively a policing role in a fairly small country, then I think we have already miscalculated fairly badly, and I am pessimistic that the capture and killing of Saddam Hussein alone will eliminate the problem. What is sure to stop the attacks, of course, would be to stop occupying Iraq; although any early withdrawal is impractical, IMO these attacks may actually have the effect of pushing the US to speed up the timetable for self-government there.
Re: the “Werewolf” angle to this thread: my father, now deceased, spent several months in Germany just postwar, also around Munich, IIRC. As he had some college-level German, he was a de facto translator for his outfit and participated in the arrests of a few resisters. He never gave the impression that there was any organized resistance postwar, at least in his area; just a few random and fairly minor attacks, and certainly nothing on the scale of the daily attacks on US personnel in Iraq.
Whoops, should have said “capture OR killing of Saddam”.
Yeah, note in the article linked that they describe a “Werewolf paratrooper unit”. I get the impression that most of their activity was pre-surrender, trying to make sure no German towns collaborated with the Allies as they swept forward. Doesn’t seem to be a really useful analogy.
I would like to bring your collective attention to this article:
US tactics fuel Iraqi anger
Monday, 28 July, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3102823.stm
Discussing some of the little reported on, in US media, ‘collateral damage’ in the events.
Further to that, also see
Iraq security troubling - UK envoy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3100377.stm
Also regretably, more deaths, the importance of which is the ease of attacks in an urban area:
Fresh attack on US forces in Baghdad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3102153.stm
Grenade dropped into HMVee as it passed under an overpass.
Well, now, Sam, I appreciate the tenacity with which you cling to your opinions, never let it be said that you give up easy.
But to borrow some song and lyrics:
“When, oh, when, will you stop misrepresenting and mischaracterizing my posts! Po, po, pitiful me!”
The evidence you fling on the table supports the Administration line by repeating the Administration’s line. The day the Bushista’s press releases become the gold standard for veritas we shall all be carrying umbrellas to protect from pig flop falling from the sky.
And please note: I don’t claim to know the facts of the matter, I very much doubt anyone really does. But the Admin has a dog in this fight, and thier testimony should be seen in that light. Clearly, for perfectly sensible political reasons, the Bushistas want your interpretation of the situation with the “insurgents” to be the correct one, and it may be, no real facts can be offered. I grant that. I only rise to point out that it “ain’t necessarily so.”
Lets put on our thinking caps, shall we? (Here, you can borrow mine).
The Iraqi people are freed, liberated from an evil and oppressive regime. No argument there. The vast majority of the Iraqi people loath and despise the remnants of the previous regime. Certainly stands to reason.
Well, then, doesn’t it necessarily follow that popular support for such “dead-enders” would be virtually nil? So why then aren’t Iraqis dropping the drachma on every damn one of them, since they go for about $2,500 on the open snitch market? Since they are roundly despised by the populace, and rightly so, they would be wiped out by such a bounty because they have no popular support!
Is this the case? Is there any reason to believe that, other than flat-footed assertions buttressed by other flat-footed assertions?
Keep in mind, I don’t claim to know. I merely claim that you don’t either.
Eluc.
As you know well, I am not a fan of Sam’s writing on Iraq, however, in the particular case of this thread I don’t believe - other than the over characterization of the nature of Iraqi resistance - that Sam’s analysis is simple repition of the Party Line.
E.g. his Viet Nam analysis I in part agree with, some parts not clearly.
Be reasonable.
The truly strained defences are found in other posters.
I may add that the contemptible twit, Amity Schlaes in the FT has picked up the Iraq ~ Germany line, rather better done than december actually, but then FT does pay. I believe the new party line will be that.
Regardless, the real issue is resources. As Simon helpfully summarized in my Iraq Reconstruction thread, the CPA-I, by the Pentagon’s advisors’ own analysis is painfully lacking in resources.
That will be a killer, and read carefully the BBC report.
Cheerfully granted. But that “over-characterization” is the only point I’m hassling him about. If the Bushiviks are right about the nature of the insurgency, it will be over toot damn sweet, as Iraqis rush to cash in by turning over people they correctly despise.
If this were the case, would not the propaganda machinery be in full bloviation mode? Wouldn’t you see headlines on Faux News every hour on the hour about the thousand upon thousands of Iraqi insurgents being brought to heel?
IIRC, with signifigant restructuring, I think that there’re only about 80,000 international troops available. NATO troops, IIRC.
This comes as quite a surprise to me. It seems that the National Guard will be providing ground troops for the occupation of Iraq as part of troop rotations.
Sending Army National Guard combat units overseas hasn’t happened since WWII if I’m not mistaken. The article further states that regular Army units will be deployed for 12 month tours, with Nation Guard units serving for 6. I’m curious to see if this actually does go through, the domestic political cost could be fairly substantial. Mobilizing the National Guard and sending them overseas was shirked away from in Vietnam and I believe Korea as well. With the army smaller today and no draft in place it isn’t as big of a deal, but it still hasn’t been done in 50 years and it will mean sending reservists overseas in combat roles.
I think that this must be the article from which several bloggers have cherry-picked their facts.
The upshot is that in the spring of 1945 Goebbels’ propaganda ministry issued what was essentially a levee en masse to all Germans in occupied territory, urging them to carry on a guerrilla-style distraction in the rear of the advancing Allies. Most resistence ended when the war did, but a small core persisted for some time thereafter. One reason why David Simmons may not have noticed much in the way of Werewolf activity is because it appears as if much of it was directed against their fellow Germans.
It looks like nobody realized there was a second page of the article, which appears to rely heavily upon a book entitled The Last Nazis, by Perry Biddiscombe. Here’s a chilling thought:
I had not known that the time-honored traditions of collective reprisal, made so well known by the likes of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan… and the Germans… were also exercised in post-war Germany.
The United States will never get away with such behavior in Iraq, but I detect a certain recent willingness on the part of America to accept restrictions on our own civil liberties in order to make us neither safe nor free. It wouldn’t take a great leap of the imagination to envision much greater restrictions on the Iraqis.
Again, however, one requires a certain ratio of force to space in order to restrict such dangerous things as assembly, so for the time being I think we can expect Iraq to enjoy such luxuries even if it is decided that such things cannot be allowed to persist.
“… in the big lie there is a certain force of credibility … [ordinary people] … more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie … since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters … It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously …”
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf, Chap X
Just to add to the sense of perspective: Russians lost 18 soldiers in Chechnya the other weekend (12 in one day). Chechnya is a speck of land compared to Iraq and Russians were pounding it for almost 3 years now. That shows that our military is much better (positive) and also that there will be more casualties ahead for quite a while (not positive).
I think any suggestion that Bush adm. sent troops into Iraq for their own nefarious reasons doesn’t make any sense from the point of practical politics. If another act of terror, equivalent to at least 1/10 of 9-11 will take place in US, Bush is finished. No excuses will be accepted. Whatever their secret plans and ambitions are, they have to make sure to fight terror first. So the WOT has to be absolutely genuine. They must have been convinced that getting rid of Saddam was absolutely necessary. They said that successful completion of Iraqi operation should take about two years. I think we need to postpone drawing conclusions for two years.
Concerning the performance of our intelligence agencies, there is practically nothing good to be said. Hopefully all this will serve to teach hard lessons and lead to positive changes within FBI and CIA. Hopefully.
I’ve been wondering about what estimates were used to sell the war. Do you have a link to where you got this info?
thanks
>> They must have been convinced that getting rid of Saddam was absolutely necessary.
Necessary for what? I have not heard any valid reasons yet.
>> They said that successful completion of Iraqi operation should take about two years.
They have said so many things which have turned tout to be lies I do not believe anything any more.
>>I think we need to postpone drawing conclusions for two years.
Sorry. No can do. The last thing I am going to do is stop thinking and let theliars think for me.
Chechnya and Iraq are such vastly different conflicts that comparing one to the other isn’t terribly useful. That said, The fighting has been going on for closer to 9 years.
**PNAC has been calling for the removal of Saddam by force of arms since prior to 9/11, and the credible links that the administration has been able to substantiate between Saddam and international terrorists directed at the US are nonexistent.
**I’m with sailor on this one. Surrendering my brain for two years in the hope that all turns out for the better isn’t something I plan on doing.
Just a comment to those who are claiming that a certain casualty rate should be “acceptable”, if I may. War is, or should be, considered a national or even transnational enterprise, not a mere policy initiative by a transient political administration. The “acceptability” of death is properly judged only by the nation(s)’ people, and only in context with the ultimate goals. Yes, when a goal is by consensus necessary, and everything short of war has failed, we can accept the cost. I think that has always been true and is still true.
But when the goals are not defined and agreed and clearly achievable, any cost is wasted and is therefore too high, and especially so human life. Sending troops to their deaths anyway is hard to distinguish from murder. It’s too easy to forget that every death is a life destroyed, a family ruined. It isn’t the size of the body count that is the topic of debate here; it’s the lack of goals that are defined and agreed and clearly achievable.
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
- to a Congressional committee about the same basic problem in Vietnam, by a former highly-decorated Navy officer, turned spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. You can surely guess his name.
Sorry, I don’t, right now. I seem to remember that this estimate was repeated few times by adm. people. If I find it, I’ll post.
I was under the impression that current long term goal is to re-build Iraq with Iraqi leaders that were elected in a democratic process. Short term goals are to safeguard the resources the Iraqis need to sustain their nation, find Saddam and his loyalists. Both these long term and short term goals seem achievable to me.
I have a contention with the Original Post. I underlined it to bring the focus back to it rather than the current debates. Bush has nothing to do with the day to day operations which get these poor soldiers killed. Thats the job of the commanders at the site. As the commander and chief of all US armed forces, he calls the shots that the armed forces then get to do. The minimization or elimination of casualties is up to the people who plan strategies and tactics in the area where it happens.
But to put this in real perspective, Iraq is roughly the size of California. Do you know how many people die of crimes and accidents there in a day? Does anyone clamor for the california govorneor to so something about one or two particular deaths that happen in a day? Does he put on his blue suit and cape to stop it? No. He tells his people to find out and fix the problem which I am pretty sure Bush has already done so about the situation in Iraq especially with countless people pointing out the death trickle thing pretty much everyday since the war “ended”.
If you really want to find out why there is a death everyday in Iraq, look closer on how these soldiers died. Some were away from their posts. Some were careless. Some were doing ther jobs. They are being murdered, one at a time. In a place where they rob their own art treasures, its pretty much a given that a certain few might want to vent their hostilities on something other than their fellow Iraqis. No it is not accceptable that these soldiers die even in small numbers, but leaving now would even be more unacceptable.