None of this stuff worries me overmuch. What does cause me concern is the White House putting out cautionary feelers about how this could take a long time, could get rough, etc.
First thing I think is, well, they’re lowering expectations so they look so much better. Second thing I think is that it already has gotten rough and they haven’t told us yet.
America’s flying on a “war buzz” right now. But the hangover is likely to be a bitch!
As to the contract let out to Haliburton, * et. al.*, thats just the same old same old. GeeDubya trusts suits, they are the only people he knows. Good Republicans think businessmen are the “real” Americans.
As for shutting out the Russians and the French: was that ever in doubt?
Well, yes, I would consider capturing ports, bridges, oil fields, and territory “conquering”. I also consider receiving the surrender of ten of thousands of enemy soldiers to be a good thing.
Wouldn’t you? Or are you saying that you would prefer a bloodbath?
I suspect a good bit of what is not going “smoothly” about the war is that the peaceniks have to go to such lengths to find something - anything! - to kvetch about.
“It’s been three whole days, and the war isn’t over! And there has been some accidents, too!”
It sounds like my kids in the back seat. “Are we there yet?”
Don’t make me come back there…
I don’t think there will be an armored siege on Baghdad except as a last resort. That is the surest way to maximize casualties. As bad as bombing is, heavy combat is worse.
I thought our reward for all this headache was supposed to be a terror-free world, not oil. I guess those no-blood-for-oil people aren’t talking out of their asses after all.
The most sobering thing I’ve heard so far was from a reporter in Safwan, one of the first captured towns. He said that reports of cheering and celbrations were vastly exagerated – many residents were openly hostile to our troops. This is in a largely Shiite area where we were hoping for a warm welcome. It does not bode well for the future.
On the other hand the military setbacks seem pretty small so far. They probably give a small psychological lift to the Iraqis, but I doubt any pockets of resistance can hold out for long. Baghdad remains the big question mark.
So far we have seen the easiest of the fighting, i dont think Saddam expected much of a fight in most of the country. The real bloodshed and challenge will be when we invade Baghdad, then we will see some major casualties. My thought is also that if Saddam chooses to use WMD it will be when we reach Baghdad, and what a mess that would be…
I don’t argue that we’re not in a clearly advantageous tactical position, nor that we’re “teetering on the edge of catastrophe” (home maybe, but not abroad). My only claim is that Washington and the Pentagon can’t be thrilled about the high number of accidents and mistakes this early in the conflict.
It has been 20 years since I was a soldier and more than that since I had much to do with armor and infantry doctrine and combined arms operations. Based on my old knowledge, it is my hope that the first line Iraqi formations can be lured leave the Baghdad complex and engage in the open. I would not count on it, however.
As far as combat is concerned, I will tell you that there is no experience in life that is comparable–it is a horror that no one should have to experience.
The trouble is already starting. We traveled across open desert for the first few days, and we shouldn’t be surprised that the Iraqi chose not to engage the invasion force there.
Now that we have reached An Nasiriyah, the terrain changes, the resistance increases, and forward progress will be considerably slower.
We will now be passing through population centers, not just Bedouins. Some will welcome the troops as liberators. Some will attack our flanks as guerillas. Telling the difference between the two will be difficult.
War is hell. This will be no different. “Teetering on the edge of catastrophe”? Haven’t seen anyone suggest that.
Shodan, I have not suggested the thoughts you attribute to me. I think it is going smashingly well. I’m particularly pleased with the control of the southern oilfields. But I have found plenty of humor in the comments of those that thought the Iraqis were just going to up and surrender due to the “Shock and Awe” campaign.
Most of the territory we control is not strategic (and wasn’t defended). More than three quarters of Iraqi oil fields have yet to be controlled. While we may have control of Um Qasr, we have yet to secure it. We appear to have bypassed Basra altogether (see Sam’s comments on the reasons this is troubling). So I just took umbrage to your, “we’ve conquered half the country” comment.
That’s a crock. And I suspect you know it.
So while you accuse me of hyperbole, you need only look in the mirror.
SG: I’m not even saying that we will lure them out into the open. I fear we may just fix and bomb the positions, relying on our precision weapons. Ugh. Either way, if the Iraqi leadership persists much past this point there are going to be a lot more unnecessary casualties. One thing is sure, at some point troops will have to enter Baghdad.
On the OP: I don’t think any war has gone smoothly ever. Even the Gulf War, an unprecedented victory, had horrible tragedies. The one (un)lucky SCUD strike on a barracks comes to mind. This war involved biting off a lot more than the first Gulf War did.
Helicopter crashes in the military are way to common in peacetime to link those types of accidents to the war.
There are something like 300,000 combatants crowded into a very small area. They are flying airplanes and helicopters off of carriers, at night. There are huge convoys of trucks and tanks with people walking around them all. There are plenty of loaded weapons, missiles, etc.
In a city of 300,000, what are the odds of a fatal traffic accident on a weekend? How many people die in accidents on the job, in their homes, etc?
Or as a better example, have a look at a major industrial operation like mining, and scale it up to 300,000 people. See how many accidents you get.
Or, for example, the accidental fatality rate for the type of light aircraft I fly is 4.5 per 100,000 hours. And that’s for a slow, safe, civilian airplane. Now think about 300,000 soldiers in a confined area with loaded weapons. That there aren’t far more accidents is a testament to how good the forces are.
Here’s another explanation of the abundance in aircraft accidents: Some of them are in reality shot down by the Iraqis!
The smart thing to do is first deny any casualties at all. But if that position becomes impossible it is better to attribute them to accident than to enemy fire.
cainxinth: I don’t know how you know that this is “clearly” more than a normal amount of accidents and mistakes. I don’t know, that’s for sure. Things change all the time—war technology changes. With these changes comes different accident rates, I suppose.
Do you have a few reputable cites indicating that there are an abnormally high amount of accidents (all things considered) or are you just thinking that there are too many accidents?
I dunno, RandySpears. Seems like blaming the Iraqis for the accidents would be a sure-fire way of showing everyone that the Iraqis are a threat and a force to be reckoned with. Isn’t that why we’re in a war in the first place?