It is now the second full day of the War in Iraq. I had to turn off the radio to get things done -- and forget about watching TV with its endless crawls and repeated video snippets. But it keeps pulling me back. I don't know how agonist files recaps three times a day, filtering dozens of sources. Must be out of his mind.
To triangulate from reliable sources, the least fanciful reports suggest that Allied troops have a) encircled the Faw peninsula and taken the port of Um Qasr, just across the border from Kuwait and b) started to move up past to the west of Basra. There's been very little resistance so far. Rumors about what's happening in the north of Iraq are of the "Special Forces Seize Oilfields" variety and not very credible. So will the Turkish Army move into the Mosul area, as the Ankara Parliament authorized them to do yesterday? Are any reporters filing from Southern Turkey?
There are hints of how disorganized and confused Iraqi resistance has been so far. A BBC radio correspondent -- I didn't catch his name -- described seeing astonished civilians driving near Basra who didn't know the war had begun. The night-time images of burning government buildings in Baghdad show all the streetlights turned on, as if they hadn't had time even to organize a blackout.
As far as we know (?), loss of life has probably been low so far. The siege of Baghdad is likely to be a different matter, as civilians and army units (of both sides) will be right on top of one another. Throughout history, sieges of cities have always been much worse for non-combatants than fighting "in the field." The aerial bombardment of cities, pioneered in the Spanish Civil War, has only made it worse. So-called precision weapons don't work at all in rubble. Will we see a humanitarian crisis with thousands of homeless refugees and injured? What's the plan for preventing the sort of vigilante revenge-killing we saw at the fall of Ceaucescu in Roumania in 1989?
But the whole world is watching and it doesn't necessarily interpret what it sees the same way as we do. Even if Americans lose interest once victory is declared, that won't be the case elsewhere.
Sounds like the B-52s are on the way and it's about to get ugly. One quibble with your excellent report: the term "Allied" resonates back to the era of the "good fight"--this is more like partners to a mugging. ("We''ll take your oil now.") "US/British troops"?
Yes, less than two minutes after my post, a very intense night-time aerial bombardment of Baghdad began, supposedly targeting Ba'ath Party office-buildings.
Agreed that "Allied" rings false here...I hesitated while typing it. BTW, during WW2 the Allies refererred to themselves sometimes as the "United Nations," and it is from this that the organization takes its name.
And while we're on semantics, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines Awe as "reverential fear or wonder" i.e. an attitude appropriate to worship. I'll agree the bombing is Shocking, but isn't using Awe in the context of destruction blasphemous, at least for the god-fearing?
Good point--I'm sure they used it for its Biblical reverberations, but most people won't make the connection that they're comparing themselves to God.
The BBC is saying "US-led forces." That's even better.
The Iraqi "51st Division" commander so loudly touted by a NY Times website headline as having surrendered to U.S. Marines turns out to be commander of the 51st division of the Iraqi army, apparantly one of everyday, "scrub" army units: Not well-paid, well-equipped or provisioned.
Of course these details were left to the end of the article, which was one of those summary-of-the-past-3-hours pieces they've been penning lately.
I guess someone thought that "51st Division" in Iraq might have some similarities with the U.S. 51st Division, Marines?
Ah, okay, I understand more fully the significance, upon reading the fuller story. In Southern Iraq, the US army had repeatedly offered surrender, through leaflets and broadcast to the 51st, directly in the path of the US advance.
And this is the first time an Iraqi commander (along with his "top deputy") has surrendered to Americans. I get it, but it's still somehow hollow. I just wish the whole place could surrender, but even if you were not a Saddam loyalist, wouldn't you be angry about this post-colonialist putsch? The commander of the 51st Divsion saw himself in the path of the proverbial juggernaut.
Re the U.S. AID plan for post-Iraq: Not signed and sealed yet, but it does contain a "buy American" clause and a "no abortion" clause as it exists in final draft, according to the BBC.
As long as we're discussing nomenclature, isn't it twisting the language to refer to a town you've just taken over as "liberated"? The NY Times doesn't think so: they've already got a headline Happiness and Dread in a Liberated Iraqi Town. It might as well be the NY Post.
sorry to have strayed from the topic. the propaganda, or rather, the p.r. and marketingspeak embedded in the war coverage overwhelms me.
It's hard not to feel overwhelmed and your comments are most welcome.
|
To triangulate from reliable sources, the least fanciful reports suggest that Allied troops have a) encircled the Faw peninsula and taken the port of Um Qasr, just across the border from Kuwait and b) started to move up past to the west of Basra. There's been very little resistance so far. Rumors about what's happening in the north of Iraq are of the "Special Forces Seize Oilfields" variety and not very credible. So will the Turkish Army move into the Mosul area, as the Ankara Parliament authorized them to do yesterday? Are any reporters filing from Southern Turkey?
There are hints of how disorganized and confused Iraqi resistance has been so far. A BBC radio correspondent -- I didn't catch his name -- described seeing astonished civilians driving near Basra who didn't know the war had begun. The night-time images of burning government buildings in Baghdad show all the streetlights turned on, as if they hadn't had time even to organize a blackout.
As far as we know (?), loss of life has probably been low so far. The siege of Baghdad is likely to be a different matter, as civilians and army units (of both sides) will be right on top of one another. Throughout history, sieges of cities have always been much worse for non-combatants than fighting "in the field." The aerial bombardment of cities, pioneered in the Spanish Civil War, has only made it worse. So-called precision weapons don't work at all in rubble. Will we see a humanitarian crisis with thousands of homeless refugees and injured? What's the plan for preventing the sort of vigilante revenge-killing we saw at the fall of Ceaucescu in Roumania in 1989?
But the whole world is watching and it doesn't necessarily interpret what it sees the same way as we do. Even if Americans lose interest once victory is declared, that won't be the case elsewhere.
- bruno 3-21-2003 8:41 pm
Sounds like the B-52s are on the way and it's about to get ugly. One quibble with your excellent report: the term "Allied" resonates back to the era of the "good fight"--this is more like partners to a mugging. ("We''ll take your oil now.") "US/British troops"?
- tom moody 3-21-2003 9:05 pm
Yes, less than two minutes after my post, a very intense night-time aerial bombardment of Baghdad began, supposedly targeting Ba'ath Party office-buildings.
Agreed that "Allied" rings false here...I hesitated while typing it. BTW, during WW2 the Allies refererred to themselves sometimes as the "United Nations," and it is from this that the organization takes its name.
And while we're on semantics, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines Awe as "reverential fear or wonder" i.e. an attitude appropriate to worship. I'll agree the bombing is Shocking, but isn't using Awe in the context of destruction blasphemous, at least for the god-fearing?
- bruno 3-21-2003 9:26 pm
Good point--I'm sure they used it for its Biblical reverberations, but most people won't make the connection that they're comparing themselves to God.
- tom moody 3-21-2003 9:30 pm
The BBC is saying "US-led forces." That's even better.
- tom moody 3-21-2003 9:59 pm
The Iraqi "51st Division" commander so loudly touted by a NY Times website headline as having surrendered to U.S. Marines turns out to be commander of the 51st division of the Iraqi army, apparantly one of everyday, "scrub" army units: Not well-paid, well-equipped or provisioned.
Of course these details were left to the end of the article, which was one of those summary-of-the-past-3-hours pieces they've been penning lately.
I guess someone thought that "51st Division" in Iraq might have some similarities with the U.S. 51st Division, Marines?
- bunny 3-22-2003 12:28 am
Ah, okay, I understand more fully the significance, upon reading the fuller story. In Southern Iraq, the US army had repeatedly offered surrender, through leaflets and broadcast to the 51st, directly in the path of the US advance.
And this is the first time an Iraqi commander (along with his "top deputy") has surrendered to Americans. I get it, but it's still somehow hollow. I just wish the whole place could surrender, but even if you were not a Saddam loyalist, wouldn't you be angry about this post-colonialist putsch? The commander of the 51st Divsion saw himself in the path of the proverbial juggernaut.
Re the U.S. AID plan for post-Iraq: Not signed and sealed yet, but it does contain a "buy American" clause and a "no abortion" clause as it exists in final draft, according to the BBC.
- bunny 3-22-2003 1:01 am
As long as we're discussing nomenclature, isn't it twisting the language to refer to a town you've just taken over as "liberated"? The NY Times doesn't think so: they've already got a headline Happiness and Dread in a Liberated Iraqi Town. It might as well be the NY Post.
- tom moody 3-22-2003 2:18 am
sorry to have strayed from the topic. the propaganda, or rather, the p.r. and marketingspeak embedded in the war coverage overwhelms me.
- bunny (guest) 3-22-2003 6:27 pm
It's hard not to feel overwhelmed and your comments are most welcome.
- bruno 3-22-2003 7:14 pm