I’ve been watching the situation in Baghdad, as have many of us. Wasn’t this supposed to be another Stalingrad? Indeed, some self-styled “experts” in the USA were leaning towards this.
So, what are we to conclude? Are we to conclude that ONCE AGAIN the doomsayers have turned out to be abysmally wrong and simply wallowing in wishful thinking or are we to conclude that Stalingrad was a cakewalk?
Excellent! I was wrong!
Unfortunately, I have only been wrong about 50% of the time. Given that I have been incorrigibly pessimistic about the whole thing, I’m not very happy about that. I would rather have been utterly wrong about everything.
Still, here’s hoping that I’m wrong about the rebuilding process, eh? We’ve seen street celebrations turn sour before, let’s hope to hell that these ones stay sweet. And that Basra and Tikrit follow suit. And that we actually win the war.
NB: I predicted we’d win the war. That’s something I’m hyper neato keen not to be wrong about, although I’m not happy about filling Iraqi hospitals beyond their busting point, but there you go.
I’m quite happy to be wrong as well.
However, I wasn’t wrong about Basra, and I sincerely hope that I will be wrong about Tikrit and Mosul, indeed the whole northwest section of Iraq, from which Hussein’s support is derived.
And I would point out that there seems to be thousands of Iraqi soldiers who have apparently gone missing within Baghdad itself. I sincerely hope they’ve gone into retirement instead of mere dormancy.
Here’s to my continued errancy, and a quick end to the fighting.
In hindsight, it could never really have been like Stalingrad. The Soviets and Germans both had huge industrial capacity–all funneling materiel into the Stalingrad area. Moreover, the Germans and Soviets were fairly evenly matched. Neither side ever had air supremacy over the other. Early in Barbarossa the Germans had air superiority. It didn’t last.
Not to mention drones, precision weapons, helicopters, night vision…
However, I’ll also note, we haven’t seen any street parties in Tikrit yet. My guess is that the 4th ID will have to crack that nut.
And what entire provinces of humming factories does Iraq have to keep throwing battalion after battalion of tanks at the USA when we get to Tikrit? What Siberian hinterland do they have to sent uncounted fresh troops from? What air force do they have to prevent resupply? What armored columns do they have to cut ground supply?
And my final question:
Why do liberals perpetually insist upon destroying their own credibility by hyperinflated doomsaying? Have they really yet to figure out that this sort of scaremongering that doesn’t pan out only ends up eliminating their ability to sway public opinion in the long run?
Why do they always try to make “go for the throat” arguments that invariably fall on their faces? Why not stress the moral cost? Why not take the time to explain the risks that are far less dramatic but far more fundamental? Why do they keep making up ultra-risk predictions that fall flat and thereby guarantee nobody will listen to their more worthwhile arguments (and some of their arguments are very worthwhile)? Do liberals all secretly just want to be ignored? Do they long for days when they won’t be able to tell somebody the time without having seventeen independent verification because they’ve self-immolated their credibility beyond recovery? Why go, time after time, for extravagent claims that fall flat and destroy their believability in the long run?
“WOLF!”
“WOLF!”
“WOLF!”
Feel better now, Dogface?
Just because you make a prediction doesn’t mean you necessarily want it to come true.
Here’s a prediction for you.
Gloating over the war will make you a vulture.
“why do the left not do XYZ?”
Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the monolithic hive mind, but I DID, STILL DO, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
Of course, I can’t say I think you’ll listen. You haven’t so far.
I’m not predicting that Tikrit will be like Stalingrad, if your post was directed at me. Nice strawman.
I’m just saying that the resistance in Tikrit might be as bad, or worse, than the resistance was in Baghdad. Or, maybe there won’t be any. If Saddam is alive, and in Tikrit, I’d expect heavy resistance. If Saddam is dead, buried under the rubble in Baghdad, I’d expect his supporters in Tikrit to be going on one way trips to Syria.
Which I suppose are completely unlike the dire insinuations that Saddam’s WMD’s would be given to terrorists if he were allowed to remain in control, despite his now seemingly apparent inability or unwillingness to use them to even defend himself.
[chicken little mode revisited]
He has WMD’s! He’s used them against his own people! Gathering storm! Aluminum tubes! African uranium!
[/shoo, chicken, shoo]
How quickly we forget.
Seems to me neither liberals nor conservatives have ANY monopoly on “doomsaying”.
First, I don’t recall hearing anyone bringing up Stalingrad. I DO remember a lot of people bringing up Mogadishu and “Black Hawk Down,” and asking aloud if the American people were prepared for a long, protracted, bloody fight.
As it NOW stands (and things can change drastically in a hurry), it appears that the US/UK coalition is succeeding, and may well achieve its goals with minimal loss of life. But it was FAR from obvious that this would be the case just ten days ago, let alone months ago.
Military action, even when justified, is always dangerous, and people have to consider worst-case scenarios. That’s as true in Iraq as it was in the Balkans (where it was, generally, conservatives who worried about getting mixed up in an ethnic war far from our borders). When a war is looming, it’s not unpatriotic to ask whether our leaders have thought about all the possible scenarios and their possible ramifications.
Bagdhad may YET provide headaches for our troops- don’t delude yourself that the fighting is all over. But even if the much-feared Mogadishu scenario never becomes a reality, only a fool would have dismissed the possibility, or asked himself if that risk was worth taking.
Besides, the better-informed of us “naysayers” never suggested that Iraq would turn into Vietnam. The conditions are totally different, geographically, politically, and socially. Search my posts for the last few weeks, for example, and you’ll see I never thought the military action would last more than a few weeks. As astorian says, it ain’t over 'til it’s over, but there was never really any doubt about the ultimate outcome, just the timing and specifics.
But at the same time, my opposition was, and is still, predicated on the understanding that the military victory would be the easiest step in a very long set of requirements before Bush’s Iraq policy can be labeled a success. There’s a lengthy and complicated road still ahead.
I’ve mentioned this before, but let’s consider some history. In 1898, the United States pursued a course of war against Spain, specifically with regard to certain properties in the Caribbean, especially Cuba. This was sold as a war of “liberation,” with the newspapers full of tales of Spanish atrocities. After four months of combat, we had won our “splendid little war,” driving the Spanish from the region and utterly destroying their fleet. But then over the next sixty years, we were unable to contain our imperialist desires, and we created the conditions that allowed Castro to take power. You can’t draw a straight line from the early success to the eventual failure; it’s only with hindsight that the decades of selfish, short-sighted mismanagement becomes comprehensible.
The question, therefore, is not whether or not Saddam’s regime would crumble. That was a given. No, the question is whether or not Bush and his corporate cronies can be trusted to do the right thing. It’s going to be insanely difficult to try to create a coherent nation out of an artifically-assembled pseudo-state, and it’ll take years before we know whether the course being set at this early stage is bearing fruit. Given how quickly we turned our backs on Afghanistan, and given how the Wolfowitz clan is already waving sabers at Syria and Iran, I have very serious doubts about the long-term viability of this policy.
It’s always been about the long term. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that pulling down a few statues means that Iraq has been magically repaired.
As the risk of being labeled a doomsayer, am I the only one who thinks that Wednesday, March 9, 2003 is a little early to be celebrating the fall of Baghdad? Perhaps those Iraqis and others defending the city realized that sending jeeps and minivans up against Abrams tanks wasn’t a very wise strategy. And perhaps those same Iraqis and others are waiting for the US to let down its guard a little and start geting out of our armored vehicles and patrolling the streets on foot. Again, this warning doesn’t mean I want this to occur, but this seems way too much like celebrating a victory in a football game because our team is ahead by 20 points midway through the 3rd quarter. (As a Bears fan, I know how foolish THAT can be!)
A wee bit early. About a month, to be exact. 
So, how do you think the Bears will do in 2002?
My grandfather was in the 369th Regiment in Stalingrad. I grew up listening to stories about the fighting in and near Stalingrad. Baghdad, sir, you are no Stalingrad.
Oops. I meant April 9th. Sorry about that!:o
Stalingrad is what many people assumed Saddam wanted in Baghdad. I don’t know too many “liberals” who predicted Saddam would get his wish. I do know many people – including retired generals (are they “liberals”?) – worried that the street fighting in Baghdad would be worse than it turned out to be. This is not the same thing as saying it would be a “Stalingrad.”
Major hijack
Fascinating. I assume he was one of the wounded evacuated before the final fall? I’ve always been curious what was the motivation for some Croatians to join the regular German army, rather than indigenous Croatian formations during the war. Politics ( was he a Nazi party member or Ustase? - no offense intended by this question by the way )? Ethnic nationalism ( was he of mixed German descent? )? Better pay? Mere happenstance?
Feel free to disregard the above if you’d rather not discuss it.
From my entirely based-on-anecdotal-evidence-knowledge, it was a matter of prestige. There was more prestige in serving in a ostensibly German formation then in a Croatian formation, although most of the ‘German’ formations the Croats served in were composed mostly of Croats, with a smattering of German officers thrown in.
My other (maternal) grandfather was in the 23rd Waffen. Volunteer, of course. My paternal-side great-uncles were all in, as well. Of distinction, one worked on Me-262 engines (mechanic). To further defy the odds, my family lost noone on the battlefield. (Several family members were never heard from again, following the end of hostilities, but that was ol’ faishoned cleaning-house type stuff by Tito.)
My Grandfather in the 369th was airlifted out, wounded in both legs, in late september. He claims to have seen the fabled Red October factory, but who knows?