|
|
Monday, March 24, 2003
|
|
| |
Image Conscious. The more CNN's coverage starts to look like Jazeera's, and the messier the war starts to look, the more it will embolden both opponents of the war and those who actually oppose America. Whether it will also reveal how thin domestic support for the war is remains to be seen: Americans may become more determined to fight as more dead soldiers pile up (though significantly, they will no longer claim to be fighting for democracy). [Reason Online]
Some of them are already dropping that pretext, as this particularly psychotic Crusader demonstrates.
8:00:39 PM 
|
|
'Brutal' Zimbabwe crackdown. Up to 500 people have been arrested since last week's strike with doctors saying many have been tortured. [BBC News | Front Page | UK Edition]
Since they live in Africa, rather than the Middle East, they should not expect any help from the oh-so-humanitarian Crusaders.
2:51:16 PM
|
|
Salam Pax has his Internet access back and has posted some updates to his weblog from Baghdad.
12:11:51 PM
|
|
Chechens OK Russian-Backed Constitution [AP World News]
With ballots counted from 292 of 418 electoral districts, there were 318,437 "yes" votes for the constitution, or 96.1 percent, Russia's Central Election Commission reported on its Web site. Only 8,599 -- or 2.6 percent -- voted against it, the commission said.
The Russians are almost as obvious as Saddam Hussein when it comes to rigging elections. Even the notoriously heavy-handed Robert Mugabe only gave himself 57% of the vote!
12:02:04 PM
|
|
I haven't seen it on the web yet, but the printed edition of the Los Angeles Times had a story about the soldier who made that grenade attack on the 101st's HQ. Apparently the soldier is a Muslim and made statements that he was acting because of the invasion of Iraq. I guess for him the "awkward stage" had passed. At least he didn't pull a McVeigh!
10:21:49 AM
|
|
The BBC web site has slowed so much that it's currently unusable.
10:16:12 AM
|
|
Analysis - A few thoughts of my own.
The non-story so far is that Israel has not been attacked by SCUDs fired from Iraq, thus keeping Israel out of the war. This means the special forces are being very successful in western Iraq.
The worst story so far is Turkey not letting the 4th Infantry Division in to open the Northern Front. US troops need to be inserted as a buffer between the Turks and the Kurds and the northern oil fields near Kirkuk need to be taken.
The biggest question so far is where are the 101st Airborne and the 82nd Airborne divisions? My guess is that some of these units are being sent to the north of Iraq to open the Northern Front. Quite possibly some of them may be inserted behind the Republican Guard troops outside Baghdad to surround them completely. We should learn the position of these units soon.
[nosi News]
Some thoughts on his thoughts:
Firing Scuds at Israel didn't bring them into the war last time, and there's no reason to think it would have this time. Maybe Saddam just doesn't want to waste whatever Scuds he's kept hidden on something that didn't work before.
The Turks were no doubt aware that the US division would be inserted between them and the Kurds, which is very much against their interests. It's hardly surprising they didn't want that to happen.
Dropping a parachute division behind the lines is a risky thing, not to be done unless it's necessary--dropping them in northern Iraq would just put them in danger for no clear benefit. There's no need to surround the Republican Guard in Baghdad, because that's where they want to be.
10:13:36 AM
|
|
Is Saddam Cautious?. The fact that Saddam Hussein so far has refrained from using chemical or biological weapons undermines one of the arguments against this war: that an invasion was the most likely scenario in which Iraq would unleash them. At the same time, speculation about why Saddam is holding back credits him with more caution and rationality than did the hawks who argued that we couldn't count on deterrence. One such hawk, Clinton administration Iraq expert Kenneth M. Pollack, now tells The Washington Times: "Saddam seems to understand that the worst thing he could possibly do is take any action that would hand the high ground to the United States." The Times elaborates:
With an eye clearly on global opinion, the Iraqi military has already passed up an opportunity to use its weapons of mass destruction against massed and vulnerable U.S. and British forces in Kuwait or against coalition forces rapidly advancing on Baghdad and strategic targets throughout the country....
Virtually all experts predict Saddam plans a last-ditch stand in Baghdad and its environs, hoping the urban street fighting will inflict enough casualties and produce enough bloody images on global television screens that the United States will sue for peace. A chemical- or germ-warfare strike does not help that scenario.
If the Iraqi regime is capable of such cool calculation even amid the chaos of an invasion, why were the advocates of war so quick to dismiss the idea that Saddam's survival instinct would prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction? And if the explanation for Saddam's apparent restraint is that Iraq no longer has a substantial WMD capability, that would hurt the case for war even more.
Of course, it would be hard to understand Iraq's foot dragging with the U.N. weapons inspectors if Saddam didn't have something to hide. Then, too, the failure to fully cooperate certainly looks reckless, given the consequences, but perhaps Saddam believed that war was a foregone conclusion.
[Hit & Run]
Some good points. I never bought the "Saddam is insane" theory. Being a bad person doesn't make you insane.
9:43:34 AM
|
|
Here is my worry with this campaign: we can't take Baghdad through a coup de main. Typically, in war, an armored breakthrough of the size and speed we sent into Iraq should be able to take any large city in its path. The reason is that enemy troops are usually deployed forward and the cities to the rear are often relatively undefended and not prepared for a sudden strike. For example, the germans failed to achieve victory with Stalingrad and Leningrad (as well as the formations at Dunkirk) when they paused and regrouped their penetrating armored columns along their route of advance. This pause provided the defenders the time they needed to enter the city (or slip away as was the case at Dunkirk). In this war, there was never a forward deployment of troops. Most are in and around Baghdad. They are in urban defensive positions. They are also using the Chechen tactics (tiger teams of a sniper, RPG, SMG, and mortar) I pointed out a couple of months ago. As a result, we can't take the city via a coup de main. We will have to fight house by house. I suspect that the US will pause outside of Baghdad to pull up more forces to support the 3rd Mech. Perhaps as long as 2 months. I am at a loss to explain why the US military planners didn't anticipate this. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]
It's turned out there actually was some forward deployment of troops, although the main point still stands. I think the US planners are hoping that the defenders of Baghdad decide not to fight for Saddam. Meanwhile, Saddam's strategy is apparently based on the hope that they will fight for Iraq, whatever they think of him. We'll see who was right.
9:38:34 AM
|
|
Karlin Lillington tells the story of a UK reporter in Iraq who is not embedded, and therefore "can say what she wants and is not restricted by the military." [Scripting News]
The story requires a password. I'm inclined to disbelieve the reporter's claims. The rules for "embedded" journalists were published on the web, and they were very nonrestrictive. What restrictions did exist were purely for temporary security reasons--no broadcasts on a battle until it was over, no identifying units and locations, that kind of thing. Maybe the British troops have different rules.
9:16:07 AM
|
|
US claims 'rapid' war progress. US commanders say progress is "dramatic" despite stiff resistance, as Saddam Hussein appears on TV to promise victory. [BBC News | Front Page | UK Edition]
US forces intensifying their assault on the key crossroads town of Nasiriya where there has been fierce fighting for control of two bridges on the invasion route from Kuwait to Baghdad
Scare quotes aside, a look at the location of Nasiriya on a map of Iraq shows that the assessment is reasonable.
9:03:15 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2006
Ken Hagler.
Last update:
2/15/2006; 1:52:14 PM.
|
|
|
