|
|
last updated 12/14/2003 |
|
Days of the Iraq War
This is not a formal essay. Just the various things I posted as the war in Iraq began and went on. In reverse order (the last thing posted is first). WAR NEWS... April 7, 2003 2:49 PM Eastern Time Marines battle for bridge, enter Baghdad on foot By ELLEN KNICKMEYER, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: BAGHDAD, Iraq Marines moved quickly to secure hundreds of walled homes and graceful date palm groves around the bridge. They were on alert for more of what have been repeated suicide attacks against U.S. forces. The few pedestrians and vehicles received at least two warning shots and those that kept coming were hit with a volley of American automatic weapons fire until they stopped. "After you give the final warning shot, shoot them dead, " an officer instructed. An old man, disoriented and alone, kept faltering forward with his cane after three warning shots. Finally, U.S. weapons burst and he fell dead. A Marine machine gunner at the front lines lay sprawled behind his tripod, left foot jiggling as he watched the road. Two vehicles approached slowly, a red van and an orange-and-white taxi. They didn't stop. The Marines fired, their bullets sending sprays of powdered glass and smoke through the windshields, until the vehicles rolled to a slow halt. A man rolled out of the driver's door of the taxi. He crawled. Marines kept shooting until he stopped. April 2 - It seems like the Iraqi defense is starting to fall apart. Now it all depends on Baghdad. If the troops there stay loyal, this will be grinding; if they start surrendering, it could be over in relatively short period of time. (Making everyone, including me, who talked about a "bogged down war" look wrong-headed.) Either way, Baghdad's end is guaranteed. Then the hard part comes: winning the peace. I remain unoptimistic about that. And of course the truth about that side of things won't become apparant until years from now. March 29 Another report, this one from The New Yorker via a Reuters article, saying that Rumsfeld pushed for attacking with fewer troops than the military boys wanted. And now we're paying the price in a bogged down war. I opposed this war, but if you're going to fight, you ought to do it right. Listen to your military experts Rummy! March 29 I know we're all up in arms about the evil Iraqis and their dirty tactics, like putting their troops in civilian clothes or American uniforms in order to get close to our troops, but what about OUR dirty tactics? According to a Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44793-2003Mar28.html we've got assassination squads operating in Iraqi cities trying to take out Iraqi military and political commanders. Can you say 'double standard'? 1) Assassination, particularly of political leaders, is NOT cricket according to the traditional rules of war, and 2) I'm sure our special ops on these missions aren't wearing military uniforms (unless they're Iraqi military uniforms). So let's cut the hypocrisy. There are some things that are clear war crimes (deliberately targeting civilians), but using deception in war is as old as war itself. March 29 Mark Twain's War Prayer (1904). I understand the arguments in favor of this war--that Saddam is a evil man who threatens his own people and his neighbors--but I can't understand the smug assurance that our cause is holy. I am not religious, so some might think it inappropriate for me to comment on this, but it seems wrong to ask for blessings in the name of death. War, even justified war, should be spoken of in somber tones, not with arrogant assurance of heaven's approval. Mark Twain felt the same way, and here is his war prayer. O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle--be Thou near them! With them--in spirit--we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Buddha shoot? Who would Gandhi maim? March 29 - Gallup Poll results from March 22-25 on who favors the war. Note that the only groups here actually opposed to the war are blacks and liberals, although Democrats, the poor, and the well-educated are all substantially less supportive than the general population.
March 28 - Bush and others have expressed frustration with the media's questions about when this war is going to end. At a Thursday press conference Bush was asked whether the war would last weeks or months, and, visibly annoyed, he responded "However long it takes," Bush said, repeating that line as the reporter pressed him on the matter. "That's the answer to your question, and that's what you got to know. This isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory." Ok, we'll admit that the media can be a bit silly about their day by day questions along the "how's the war going, have we won yet?" line, BUT there is a legitimate point here. Before the war started, White House voices, including Dick Cheney, argued that any war would be quick and easy because the Iraqis would flock to our banner. The invasion was billed as a war of "liberation." Only a lot of Iraqis seem to have not heard the news and don't want to be liberated. So the war is lasting longer than the optimists had hoped, and we should be allowed to wonder just how long it will go on. Bush's response--"however long it takes" and "it's a matter of victory"--is problamatic. A war that lasts months rather than weeks is likely to create so much Middle Eastern turmoil that victory in a larger sense ceases to be possible. Each day the war drags on is another day when anti-American fanatics can join the fray and when sympathetic Muslims can be transformed into anti-American fanatics. We were sold a short quick war to defeat a dangeorus tyrant; a grinding war, even a medium length one, is likely to be much rougher on us, diplomatically, financially, and militarily. And the press has every right to ask Bush about this. This Washington Post article quotes a number of ex-military men saying that we should have waited until we got one more heavy division, the 4th, in place before attacking. This backs up the fears I've expressed below. I'm worried that Rumsfeld has pushed a quick attack plan on the military and our troops may pay the price. In a New York Times Op Ed piece, a Dartmouth professor and strategic analyst offers an estimate of deaths likely in an assault on Baghdad. His estimate is somewhere in the 200 to 1000 range for American troops. Obviously this is blue sky theorizing but it seems logically reasoned. March 26 Rummy claims we are only facing piddling opposition along our supply lines, and he reacted angrily with reporters questions about militia operations behind American lines (calling them "ones and twos") yet the New York Times reports today that our troops are being forced to regroup to shore up our lines. Double talk from bullshit masters. If these are just "ones and twos" why are all our forces having to regroup to deal with them? Here's the details... I saw the news conference yesterday (Tuesday), and here's the relevant part picked up from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28904-2003Mar25.html Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld insisted that the supply lines have been adequately secured by "a total dominance of the air."and then here is the New York Times piece from Wednesday's paper http://nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26STRA.html Allied forces have shifted the focus of their land campaign in Iraq to concentrate on defeating the fedayeen and other militia serving Saddam Hussein in the south before beginning the battle for Baghdad, senior officers said tonight.
New thoughts and worries as of Monday night, March 24: I got this link from a buddy... http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news077.htm I obviously have no way to guess how accurate it is, but I was a military history minor at grad school and have always been a major military buff (odd for a pacifist, I know), and this information reads like it's the real thing. The military analysis is certainly much more coherent than US papers are providing. Basically, what this Russian reports suggests is that the US over-reached by beginning the attack with too few troops and without sufficiently softening up the Iraqi forces. Think about it, essentially we have only 3 major ground units involved: the 3rd Infantry, the 1st Marines, and the 101st Airborne, plus what sounds like a brigade size'd British unit. That can't be much more than around 60,000 actual ground troops (most of our troops in the region are air, navy, and support units). To my military history mind, that doesn't seem like enough to defeat an unbroken enemy army, especially when rear areas and supply lines are not completely secured (as shown by the capture of those poor soldiers of the 507 Maintenance Company) . Today's news, with an Apache helicopter attack beaten off, one bird down and all of them hit, suggests a desperate US military attempt to break an Iraqi force which was a lot tougher than expected. You don't send helicopters, which are very vulnerable units, into battle expecting tough resistance; their whole advantage involves striking quickly against relatively weak opponents. I have to say, this report scares me. I don't see our boys getting wiped out--our overwhelming air advantage will allow our troops to defend any reasonable position--but we could get bogged down in grinding war which allows the region to destabilize and spiral out of control. It makes one wonder whether the Bushies made a major mistake in not waiting for additional forces, including the 4th Infantry Division, which according to the media seems to be on it's way to Kuwait via Egypt, and at least some elements of the 1st Armor Division, which may also be in transit to Kuwait. The 1st Armor Division, in particular, is a heavy unit which could be invaluable in breaking tough resistance. Beginning a war without this unit, or with the backup of a second infantry division, leaves us without any serious reserves for this war. I mean, the 3rd, 101st, and the Marines are all engaged in combat, so where are our reserves to respond to emergencies? This might all be fear for naught--I can't know how reliable the Russian source is--but if it is anywhere close to accurate, our troops might be facing serious difficulties. And please, let nobody think this is some anti-Bush voice hoping for our troops' defeat. I opposed and oppose this war, but if it has to happen I want it to be quick and successful. The worst thing that can happen would be for us to get bogged down in some weeks or months of fighting, giving our enemies in the region more opportunities to strike us and gather support and confidence. And getting more Iraqis and Americans killed. I honestly hope that this post is just pure fear-mongering and my readers can laugh at and make fun of my jitters later on. Tonight (3/23) ABC had a piece on the importance of still photography in reporting the reality of war, and they interviewed by satellite phone a photo-journalist named Ron Haviv. Ron, in addition to being a great photographer who spends too much time in dangerous places, is also an occasional poker buddy of mine and a good guy. He's currently "embedded" with the Marines somewhere on the road to Baghdad. Take care Ron. Just heard on MSNBC, spoken by talking-head Dan Abrams: "I know Al Jazeera [the independent Arab language TV station] does some reporting, but much of what they broadcast is just pure propaganda...The people of the Middle East are starving for information; it's unfortunate all they have is Al Jazeera." Uh huh. And it's unfortunate all we have is the big Media clones. I'm not saying Al Jazeera doesn't have an element of anti-Americanism, but when I think of the gung-ho coverage provided by American media I have to shake my head at Abrams' words. The unquestioning acceptance of the Bush administration's line; the contempt shown towards anti-war protesters; we might as well be watching a state-controlled station in the old Soviet Union. And yet Abrams can utter those words without any awareness of the irony. Of all the stations I've watched, I find MSNBC and FOX to be the worst and ABC to be, relatively speaking, the best. Peter Jennings can be annoying but at least he seems to try to provide some semblance of balance. Analyses and predictions (3/21)... What is going to happen now? I predict a fair easy campaign until at least US and British forces reach Basra and Baghdad. In open terrain our weapons systems completely outclass the Iraqis so that even though our forces are smaller we can hit them long before they can hit us; it's like a turkey shoot. Things will get uglier in Basra and Baghdad IF the Iraqis resist. It all will revolve around whether or not elite Iraqi units fight. If they do, we'll be faced with ugly and difficult urban street battles. If they don't fight, well then we walk in and capture Hussein. Then things get messy. Our troops are well equipped for search and destroy combat in the open; however, a long occupation of a country the size of France is another story. Our troops are too few to effectively accomblish this kind of a mission. We will presumably try and turn over immediate governance to friendly Iraqis as quickly as possible. And the question will then be how much loyalty a new Iraqi government can have given the divided nature of Iraqi society (Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Kurds etc.). If the new government has to depend heavily on American forces we may find ourselves in a Vietnam-like situation; losing American troops in guerilla campaigns in support of an unpopular government. This, of course, is merely one possibility. There's also the unknown negative effect on surrounding Arab countries and Iran. We can't know now what will happen in these countries, although we can assume that the longer US troops are around, the more anger they will create. (Remember, Osama bin Laden uses the US presence in Saudi Arabia to justify his war on America.) I fear we are breeding new generation of terrorists while at the same time alienating our allies around the world, whose help we need to fight terrorism. And please don't pretend allies aren't useful: Remember, we may be pissed at the Germans now, but it was their intelligence services that gave us a lot our leads against Al Qaeda. Allies are almost always useful; angering them unnecessarily is almost always stupid. We are entering a brand new world and we are entering it largely alone. This terrifies me, as I think it should all Americans who aren't blinded by cowboy macho nonsense. I don't fear major terrorist attacks in the near future--I don't think the Al Qaeda boys are that well equipped--but I am very fearful of what the world will look like ten to fifteen years down the road, as anti-American feeling increases and international institutions whither away in the face of our unilateral behavior. And to you gung-ho red-blooded Americans who email me and tell me to go back to Iraq to my buddy Saddam, I have this to say: Quit being childish. Opposing this war is not the same as supporting Hussein. I've said often enough I think the man is a brutal dictator who deserves to be kicked out of power. I oppose this invasion not because I think he is a good guy but because I think the negative fall-out of our invasion outweighs the positive result of his elimination (and that is a positive result, no question about it). I oppose this war because I love my country and I'm afraid the war will be bad for America. I support my troops and I want them hope, safe, where they belong. And now, another American who is worried about our future, Senator Robert Byrd... March 19, 2003 "The Arrogance of Power" A Robert Byrd speech to the Senate I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength. But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe. The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice. There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board. The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses. But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight. The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered.Ê How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq. What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy? Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire? War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us. |
Home
What is WastedIrony? Contact WastedIrony WastedIrony Mailbag Irony Certified Links ESSAYS Irony is dead Israel for Beginners Pt 1 Israel for Beginners Pt 2 Israel for Beginners Pt 3 Israel for Beginners Pt 4 Commercial Drama Thoughts on Terrorism Marijuana America: Rogue State No War in Iraq Invasion words and reaction Mar 22 Protest Pics War Daze  Post-war thoughts, 5/22/03
MISCELLANEA CoulterWatch |