licentious radio

Friday, March 28, 2003
[10:39:20 PM]

To put it harshly:

Jesse Lynch is the poster child for Rumsfeld's strategy.

Rush forward. Don't worry about supply lines. Only a few good marines will die in the convoys. Getting to Baghdad in only five days will be worth a few dead supply personnel.

I'm angry, obviously.

Our brave generals say "we weren't surprised", while they quick change the plan around. If they had expected the guerilla tactics, they would have guarded the convoys, right? And Jesse would be alive.

It's war. People die. Let's keep as many as possible alive.

[10:12:05 PM]
Technically, this is World War IV. World War III was the Cold war. Lots of people died, and the conflict was world-around.

Having lost their World War III phony enemy, the military cultists in the US invented a new invisible enemy to make war on: a whacked out wing of Islam. Since the military cultists are pretty much in league with both a whacked out wing of Judaism, and a whacked out wing of (self-deluded) Christianity, our new world war has some extra built-in tension.

Saddam Hussein is about as evil as humans get, but he's not the issue in the war. There are plenty of other evil dictators in the world.

I am not opposed to the demise of Saddam -- with the caveat that we might soon feel nostalgia for the days when Saddam was doing the dirty work of maintaining peace in Iraq. But I am 100% opposed to World War IV.

[9:58:10 PM]
"Sergeants have told marines in a number of units to cut back to only one daily combat ration, the infamous M.R.E., for Meal, Ready to Eat."

Way to go, Rumsfeld!

"U.S. commanders have ordered a pause of between four to six days in a northwards push towards Baghdad because of supply shortages and stiff Iraqi resistance".

Duh.

[9:56:52 PM]
Rumsfeld declares war on Syria and Iran. Ha, ha.

[7:41:59 PM]
The picture is that US forces could wait for reinforcements, or they could charge ahead. Sitting around waiting "loses momentum". Rumsfeld wants to push ahead through Kerbala. (Generals! It's time to tell Rumsfeld to blow it out his ear.)

Apparently there's still a fantasy that Iraq will collapse if we get one big push. Apparently Rumsfeld thinks clobbering the Republican Guard at Kerbala is just the ticket.

How long did it take to capture Umm Qasr from a hundred Iraqis? How long did it take to capture Nasiriya and Najaf? (Oh, that's right. Nasiriya and Najaf are still battle zones.)

Don't attack unless you trust the supply lines. Up until now, the attacks on supply lines have been extraordinarily ineffective -- able to slow traffic, but not doing a lot of damage. That pattern might not continue around Kerbala. Even now there are rumors of tanks without gas, and soldiers low on food. We don't want that kind of thing when we're fighting the Republican Guard house-to-house in Kerbala.

Perhaps attacking Kerbala is the same as waiting for reinforcements. If it takes three weeks to fight through to Baghdad, the 4th Infantry division will be ready.

[4:23:27 PM]
Bwaah-ha-haaaa! -- Osama Bin Laden

[11:56:52 AM]
The war-hype today is all "siege of Baghdad, siege of Baghdad".

You have to *reach* Baghdad before a siege.

In fact, an infantry division and an airborne division aren't enough firepower for Americans to reach Baghdad, because they have to go through Kerbala. Kerbala's no huge city, but they can't just go around, because they'll need supply convoys.

And the Marines advancing toward Baghdad north of the Euphrates are having to fight every step of the way. And their *supplies* have to fight every step of the way. This is the grand Rumsfeld plan: hope that no one will shoot at our supply convoys.

If we ever reach Baghdad, "siege" just isn't the right word. How many soldiers and tanks would it take to surround St. Louis? And how many if they had to defend themselves from attacks from inside and outside of their perimeter?

Bush is sending more than 100,000 more troops. It makes a lot more sense to wait until the reinforcements arrive before moving forward. Wait until the supply lines are halfway secure before getting into large-scale battles in the cities around Baghdad.

At the rate the Fedayeen are dying in suicidal attacks, waiting a few weeks is a *great* idea. We don't want to fight those guys in Baghdad.

On the other hand, time is a factor. Bush had to launch the war when he did because any further delay might have made the war impossible.

(The UN arms inspectors might have verified that the so-called weapons of mass destruction had really been destroyed. *That* would have been a PR problem, hence the emergency pre-emptive invasion -- pre-empting the UN arms inspecters.)

If the US mostly digs in and we have to watch weeks of bombing Baghdad, opposition to war is likely to pick up steam. The UN General Assembly might declare the US a 'rogue nation'. The Kurds might take Kirkuk or Mosul, and the Turks might invade. Iran might be drawn into the war to protect its client army in the north. *That* would be a mess. The stock market and real estate market might spiral down. There's no telling what evil would come of a prolonged war. By the time we get to Baghdad, every male in the city might be waiting for us with a rifle.

[8:39:19 AM]
"F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." -- Dim Bulb, March, 2002