Iraqis welcome coalition forces
 

I was watching the news this morning as I waited for Giles to pick me up and they were talking to one of their embedded reporters. (For those who don't know, embedded reporters are 'embedded' in a unit, meaning they travel into battle with them.) He said that as their convoy rolled through a village/town/whatever, all the houses had their white flags out and - I like this part - people came out of their houses and were giving the convoy the thumbs-up sign.

I hope it's like this throughout the rest of the country; it would go a long way into helping me believe that we're doing the right thing.

Yeah that's exactly how I was feeling yesterday. I rationalized this war by telling myself that were freeing a country from a tyrant and it nice to hear about the Iraqi people supporting us.

Uhh, anyone know what "thumbs up" means in Iraq? It's not necessarily the same.

Besides, what sensible civilians are going to express great displeasure at the enemy military coming through town?

Here comes the twister.

Items:

Iraqis, Marines cheering each other

Iranian students happy

Blix: Scuds into Kuwait are material breach (duh)

(Also in that article: Blix admits that months of inspection could not have located such things. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said.)

And I say: why didn't you admit that last week, you pathetic little fuck.

Shepps, what are you going to do now that CNN has been reportedly booted from Baghdad?

I think it's pretty obvious from his links that CNN isn't his only news source.

The joke is getting old. Let's cut it out already.

Hans Blix was on CBC this morning. A few notes from that:

--Though Iraq was cooperative on the surface, they were uncooperative on "substance."

--Blix noted that the buildup of COW forces (that's coalition of the willing) helped the inspectors.

Former UN S-C Boutros Boutros-Ghali was on CBC yesterday, and answered some questions from the press during a news conference. When asked about the legality of the war, he responded that we should wait and see how the forces are welcomed by the Iraqis, and that this war could be a positive thing if the troops are indeed welcomed.

And from the BBC: "Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov says he plans to approach the United Nations legal department and ask them to declare the war illegal."

Is that right? No problem...let's have them also investigate Chechnya.

You don't say?

Right now in the fog of war, there isn't any difference between any of the news channels. All have images of a tiny, miniscule part of what's going on in a tiny section of Baghdad. All have embedded reporters trying vainly to give you a feel for what's going on -- and failing. All feature live coverage of the Pentagon and White House and a crawl of headlines that don't tell you anything, with a stock market indicator (Dow up 150, Nas up 10).

Because, as you know, my head works in strange ways ...

A bit of doggeral popped into my head with respect to the "Coalition of the Willing" ...

"we the unwilling, lead by the unknowing, will do the impossible for the ungrateful ..."

I just liked using the acronym COW...not meant to be demeaning towards the troops...just me being silly.

UT, I agree with you except for the part about the embedded reporters. I personally thought the two I was watching last night (David Bloom and Kerry Sanders of MSNBC) gave some great insight. Even though they weren't showing any real combat, it gave me a concept of what it's really like out in the middle of East Jesus (the deserts of Southern Iraq). Not to mention, David Bloom's description of what they had to go through to get into Southern Iraq from Kuwait was surprising, for I personally didn't realize it would be that tough, other than an electrical fence.

The coolest thing I saw was what appeared to be a Bedouin waving to the troops as they drove by (though it could have been an open-hand curse).

I think it's the Vietmanese who think showing the palm of the hand is offensive ...

I'll be back at work next week. I'll be able to question our shrinks with respect to cross-cultural lewd hand gestures.

I think this is an important line of inquiry, and will assist us in better understanding our new friends. (hmmm ... we don't have an Iraqi docs. Maybe the Egyptian guy knows ...)

From MSNBC:

<i>One little boy, who had chocolate melted all over his face after a soldier gave him some treats from his ration kit, kept pointing at the sky, saying “Ameriki, Ameriki.”</i>

I know that in Greek culture, waving with an open hand is considered a curse. And IIRC, showing the bottom of your shoe/foot is a curse in Arabic culture.


Watch what you say Wolf...next thing you know, there will be immersion classes in Arabic. ;)

Dave's post and Boutros-Ghali's remarks got me thinking...

I personally think that most Iraqi people are grateful that we are invading the country. But I'm wondering...will some (particularly outside of Iraq) say that things such as what Dave posted are staged? I personally don't think they are (too terribly much at least), but IIRC, someone in the Iraqi government earlier today apparently said that pictures of Iraqi troops surrendering were staged...so I'm wondering if this war is going to go more psychological than it already has.

I think that folks in the Iraqi govt. are WISHING that the surrenders were staged ... but wishing does not make it so ...

Well, I have been wanting to read the Qu'ran, and I've heard that it's meaning and poetry are really better expressed in the original language. ;)

A remarkable thing about the video we have seen so far: they left Baghdad's electricity on! Every video I've seen so far as had city lights still on. Right now they are running the video of the destruction of the main presidential palace in Baghdad, and houses in the forefront are lit just fine.

South Iraq is Shiite territory - enemy of Saddam. We don't get to see public opinion until forces arrive in Sunni areas - An Najaf, Al-Hillah, Ad-Diwaniyah, and As-Samawah.

But already resistance is found in An Nasiriyah. Only military? We don't know that yet. In the meantime, don't become myopic. There is a whole world out there that will be affected by todays events. Other events that are not being reported domestically.

And why is Shi'ite public opinion less important than Sunni public opinion?

On the topic of leaving the electricity on: that was calculated. They have avoided hitting power plants. They're showing the Iraqis that this war is not about them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar21.html

I assume this question is why would Shi'ites not support Saddam whereas Sunnis would? Saddam terrorizes and bastardizes Shi'ites and Kurds. Saddam's support comes from Sunnis. One would only expect Sunni's to fight for Saddam.

However even conscript units that were ordered to surrender have instead ignored their orders and continued to fight Americans and Brits. They may not like Saddam. But many hate the invading Christian Crusader armies even more.

The greatest difficulty any ragtag uncommanded conscripts will pose to the US military will be the force of water pressure needed to clean the goo off of our soldiers' boots which used to be their bodies.

Never underestimate the enemy.

Tonight's ABC News report is, I believe, a town about 60 miles north of Nasiriyah. The more this news reporter talked to local residents, the more resentful they became. He found no friendly welcome among those residents in direct contrast to images being promoted by our domestic leaders.

That would be an unstable situation. Careful and immediate response by civilian affairs officers can make a significant difference - the all so critical first impression. But the people are not welcoming invading armies with open arms. And those invading armies have yet to confront a real army.

We are not the good guys. We are only the new player. And we know we cannot count on our government to report who is and is not opposed to us. Listen carefully to the reporters. Those little details can be telling.

tw & s were absolutely correct - turns out that the folks who were taken POW (and some killed) were part of a supply caravan that was attacked by irregulars.

Still, so far allied forces have been killed/hurt more by themselves than by Iraqis.

In the Gulf war, half of coalition casulties were in the transport and support troops. This in a supply line that was relatively safe and short. Here lies a big difference. Even the first major city to be attacked, Umm Qasr, still is not captured. At least combat is still ongoing. 1st Marines apparently gave up trying to take Basara and moved on quickly to catch up with Third Army.

Third Army took one (of three) major bridges in Nasiriyah, then moved on north. One bridge was important for Marines who would cross the Euphrates River and follow 3rd Army northward.

But Iraqi strategy is starting to unfold. Hide out in towns where air power and ground troops don't find them. After major combat forces pass by, then move out to attack supply units. No major cities up the trail have been secured as 1000 Marines discovered when they tried to move in and through those bridges at Nasiriyah in what was to be an undefended town.

Third Army, in the meantime, is spread out from As-Samawah to An-Najaf and probably has armored scouts or special forces in Al-Kufah, north of Najaf (where a camoflagued chemical weapon plant may have been discovered). Next major town will be Karbala which is also downstream of a major lake. This lake may be significant if created by a dam that could be blown to massively flood the Euphrates River Valley - the supply line.

Based upon highways, Third Army will cross east of the Euphrates after Karbala and move into south Baghdad. Marines will cross east of Euphrates at Samawah and head for Baghdad via Ad Diwanyah and Al-Hillah (formally known as Babylon).

But this is not open desert. Futile land with many geological features making armor tank battles more a surprise advantage for defenders. A smart Saddam would have left problems hidden in every town in lower Iraq and prepared his best divisions for combat south of Baghdad.

Army and Marines have serous problems fighting up here. Too far from secure airbases and from supplies in Kuwait and from air support on carriers. Much air support would need to airborne refuel just to get into battle. Already planes in close ground attack are coming back with battle damage - and this has only been skirmishes.

The most critical problem is fuel and delivery of airborne weapons. Unlike the Gulf war where the Saudis provided all fuel for free and quickly, instead this army will have serious fuel problems. Kuwait is supplying some fuel that must be converted - not compatible with military vehicles. Having not secured major cities on rivers, fuel supply could be an even greater problem.

During the Gulf War, the armored flanking attack - the left hook - was stopped time and time again because they did not have fuel. In fact the general in charge of III(?) Corp in that war complained that fuel supply line was 'broken'. This supply line to forces attacking Baghdad is about 4 or five times longer - and not secure. In addition, the civilians and military units are not surrendering as the George Jr administration (apparently) expected in their plans.

I expect severe warfare in the regions south of Baghdad as the Tigris and Euphrates merge onto Baghdad around Karbala, Al-Hindiyah, and Al Musayyib. Saddam's armies first want their attackers on long, expose supply lines, subject to repeated guerilla (irregulars) attack, while attacking in land where air power and long range armor is less effective.

Reporters in Kuwait are saying the population is getting nervous. They were told this Iraq invasion would be a cake walk. They were told Iraqis would surrender in mass numbers. Its not happening.

US Army top generals are finally coming to appreciate special forces. As a result, two major airfields in Western Iraq called H2 and H3 were taken. This may become important. Supply will become a serious problem which is why air access through Israel and Jordan to these airfields may be so essential.

Why are all these important? Attacking armies are suppose to outnumber their opposition three to one. This Anglo/American army has no such advantage. If the battle in S Baghdad bogs down, more combat units will need be rushed in without time to be delivered via Suez Canal, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and Persian Gulf. If it gets bad, the Fourth Infantry may even need be rushed from the shores of Turkey through Israel and Jordan. Not that I expect it to get this bad. But with supply lines now so exposed, and with too many Republican Guard in terrain more suited to their equipment, then this worst case scenario cannot be discounted.

MSNBC was just mentioning how troops were moving so fast into Iraq, that they have to let their fuel supply catch up. Also, they're using more fuel than they originally anticipated.

Jubal Harshaw in "Stranger in a Strange Land" :-)

Just cannot get enough news. Too much happening. Too little hard news. Since that last post, the sand storm created a third battlefield enemy meaning that the so necessary blunt and fast attack on Iraqi Medina division did not happen. Momentum that is so necessary to the US strategy was lost.

Storm did not stop some critical operations. Somewhere in the Karabala region, a bridge over the Euphrates was taken. The bridge in Al Musayyib is essential for a move onto Baghdad. But that would be deep into enemy territory. Maybe a bridge in Al-Hindiyah which would be east of the 3rd Infantry? Its not on a major highway. Anything in a storm.

In the meantime, a third Marine expeditionary force is said to be traveling up the Trigris River. Major cities would be Al Amarah, then Al Kut - both towns about equal in size to An Nasiriyah. Then the highway leaves swampy land in a direct run to Baghdad, also closing in on 3rd Army's right flank.

Marines that would be moving up between the Tigris and Euphrates are still bottled up with problems in An Nasiriyah.

Meantime in the sand around 3rd Army, a major conflict erupted between 7th Calvary and an unknown Iraqi force. Conflict so violent that 7th Calvary lost armored vehicles including tanks.

Planning for this war was constantly rejected by the political leaders in George Jr's administration who complained the army wanted too much for the job. Generals never dispute their political bosses. But active generals let their opinions be known via retired generals. Widespread quotes from Generals of the 1991 Gulf War. This force does not have sufficient assets to complete the task.

Had the Iraqis been surrendering in mass numbers and had the civilians been welcoming the invaders, then the Baghdad attack may have sufficient forces. Generals say at least two heavy armor units and one armored Calvary to protect supply lines would have been minimally acceptable - but not acceptable to George Jr's administration. Slowly leaking comments from the White House now say this war will take at least two months - so that you will forget how they said how easy this war would be. Expect the war to be longer. Some are putting worst case numbers at 6 months - September. Depends on what happens in the next two weeks.

4th Army has now left and is still leaving Turkey to get to Kuwait. They will not be arriving until 1st week April and probably will not be operational until mid April. Unless there is a sudden, mass defection from Saddam, this war will be much more expensive than the George Jr administration would have us believe. But then many forget why the Gulf War was so easy and cost almost nothing. We had full and very enthusiastic support and cooperation from virtually every nation in the world. This will be an expensive war easily larger than 1/4 of the entire defense department budget.

In the meantime, will sufficient forces arrive just to support a 3rd Army attack on at least 3 divisions of Republican Guards? That just to get to city limits of Baghdad. A block by block fight would be ... well notice the situation in a much smaller city called Nasiriyah - that was suppose to be occupied by enemies of Saddam - Shia.

Excellent analysis, tw...this war is not going to be the quick and relatively painless thing we were all expected to believe. The Iraqis are not surrendering in huge numbers, and they are beginning to turn loose their big dogs.

I too feel that we are undermanned and underequipped. Arrogance causes this, and GW is nothing if not arrogant where this is concerned.

TW - your aggregation of information from various sources is greatly appreciated.

Regarding the progress of the US forces, some mention should be made that this war is not being waged in the traditional manner. Extraordinary measures are being taken to minimize civilian casualties. The result is a tempo of operation and selection of engagments that makes the task much more difficult.

It seems that the execution of the militarial aspects of this campaign are being subjugated to future social and political agenda in a way not really seen before. The attempt seems to be a military campaign that leaves the populace in a particular disposition well suited toward the task of rebuilding a political structure.

Witholding, for the moment, any speculation as to the possible success of these plans, it seems better than the previous method of obliteration, forced capitulation, and punative reparations prior to any thought of social and political reconstruction.

-sm

While I doubt we will actually succeed at remaking the mid east in the Wests image, our people are doing their best within the outlines they've been given. We can hope the people of the region will appreciate that but I wouldn't lay the value of a "dicer's oath".

Previously I had asked how, after war has ended, how should this war be settled. What should be the political settlement? What are the occupation plans for the next two to five years? This post reminds everyone that no one has posted a reply. Why? I suspect because no one has even given serious (more than passing) consideration to this question - even at the highest levels of government. What happens to Iraq after the war has ended should have been well established and defined already.

Of course such plans assume the population would widely welcome their liberators. We don't even know if that is true - and yet must to be planning for Iraq's future.

If you want America to be the world policeman, then you better be that fully versed in these kinds of questions - everyday. It is why Americans 30 years ago did not want to be world policemen. But with the new doctrine of preemption, Americans must decide the future of other nations and therefore be fully knowledgeable to vote those decisions.

Hey, if we can make Iraq the new Puerto Rico, that'd be great!

The US seems to be determined to rebuild the country itself. There were many contracts offered to US companies for the reconstruction effort, but none offered to any other countries. Blair is a bit concerned about this and has expressed his displeasure.

France is bitching about having a piece of the Iraqi pie. That takes fucking unmitigated gall [gaul, hah!], and huge piles of hot-steaming chutzpah. No deals Mr. Chirac.
Whish I knew where I got this, but it rings true:
The arab world wants us out, and view us as Christian Crusaders, fine. They need to step up and help out in Iraq. You listening, King Saud? The charge was leveled at us that we abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left, but I dind't see anyone else stepping in.

The key here is to make the common man in the street happy. Make sure you've rebuilt his power, water, and housing situation. Aid organizations,properly funded ones, need to step in and support education and medical needs.

As I said before, I hope that in the summer of 2004, anyone that visits Baghdad will see very few traces of this war.

King Saud died in 1969. I believe you are thinking of King Fahd, who has been king since 1982.

But if you were just making fun of the Saudis, carry on...

How convenient. The US Navy needs a new beach for live fire exercises.

Not exactly what I had in mind for a post war Iraq, but a start.

Actually, I was thinking of a tourist destination. But your idea is sharp.

Aww crap!!! No more weed for me! God, I knew that. There was a very good Frontline special called "Red Sands", that talked about our one-way relationship with Saudi Arabia. As in we know nothing, and the CIA is instructed to know nothing about them. That's a dangerous freaking blindspot. Might have been Frontline. The evening was beer-enhanced.

A lot of the criticism against the US, not all of it undeserved, comes from Saudi Arabia. A lot of the people bringing the criticism against the US are from or are associated with some very wealthy families - think bin Laden. I like the idea of an arab country helping another. They don't like the idea of the US helping an arab country.

Deep down, some Arab rulers are like Americans--greedy. That's why the UAR didn't work. That's why there will never be a pan-Arab state. They'll fight and bitch about the evil Americans, and yet they treat their neighbors like refuse.