On the third day of the hostile takeover, awoke to sound of Phillip Knightly (in a 2002 interview) on the radio. His The First Casualty is perhaps the best book on the history of war-reporting. Twitchy from shortage of sleep, I'll keep it brief.
In the south Nasariyah and its bridge over the Euphrates taken; Basra too or nearly so, but it's a major population center so it's probably been handled with care. Some airfields and other sites in the western desert seized. This is probably to prevent the launch of any missiles in the direction of Israel and is undoubtedly a good idea. Bombing of the Ansar enclave along the Iranian border on the grounds that they are terrorist allies of -- oh never mind. A suicide car bomb in Halabja is blamed on Ansar.
As for the overall picture: the focus is on Baghdad and what will happen when the US/UK (aka "coalition") forces arrive at its outskirts. Four other points:
A) It's clear that the intense overnight/morning bombing was focussed on massive property damage. The BBC feed (URL changes) this morning said "Iraqi health minister says three people killed in overnight raids on Baghdad" and 250 injured. Even if it is based on incomplete information, that number is remarkably low. We are witnessing a new kind of psychological warfare at its most intense, attempting "all your base" demoralization. Can we imagine one of our cities undergoing such an ordeal in the pursuit of a political goal? Officials in Damascus must be considering changing the name of their party -- just to on the safe side.
B) Various press reports (WPost was first?) indicate that there are ongoing e-mail discussions with senior Iraqi officers. Disinformation or not? I reckon they are probably accurate and that more non-Republican Guard units will likely surrender as the coalition forces move north. There's no doubt that Iraqi staff officers must wonder when it's time to cut your losses -- and timing is everything in such matters.
C) So what sort of post-war regime does the US have in mind in Baghdad? I've avoided televised briefings as much as possible but US Central Command this morning said there will be "representative self-government" after the distribution of humanitarian aid, and moreover that "Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people." Interesting line for General Franks to take. BTW he also used the word "shock" to describe the bombing of Baghhdad but didn't append "awe". Must be a reader.
D) Contradictory reports over the whether Turkish troops have entered Kurdish areas and if so, how many. Ankara says it just wants to secure the border and prevent an influx of refugees. Kurds suspect otherwise and this continuing and recurring disagreement between Washington and Ankara is described in the NYT as "frustrating" and "infuriating" by unidentified US officials. Remember when the Russians went into eastern Bosnia at the last minute?
Gotta go march -- the first Amendment could lapse if not frequently and vigorously exercized.You never know these days.
|
In the south Nasariyah and its bridge over the Euphrates taken; Basra too or nearly so, but it's a major population center so it's probably been handled with care. Some airfields and other sites in the western desert seized. This is probably to prevent the launch of any missiles in the direction of Israel and is undoubtedly a good idea. Bombing of the Ansar enclave along the Iranian border on the grounds that they are terrorist allies of -- oh never mind. A suicide car bomb in Halabja is blamed on Ansar.
As for the overall picture: the focus is on Baghdad and what will happen when the US/UK (aka "coalition") forces arrive at its outskirts. Four other points:
A) It's clear that the intense overnight/morning bombing was focussed on massive property damage. The BBC feed (URL changes) this morning said "Iraqi health minister says three people killed in overnight raids on Baghdad" and 250 injured. Even if it is based on incomplete information, that number is remarkably low. We are witnessing a new kind of psychological warfare at its most intense, attempting "all your base" demoralization. Can we imagine one of our cities undergoing such an ordeal in the pursuit of a political goal? Officials in Damascus must be considering changing the name of their party -- just to on the safe side.
B) Various press reports (WPost was first?) indicate that there are ongoing e-mail discussions with senior Iraqi officers. Disinformation or not? I reckon they are probably accurate and that more non-Republican Guard units will likely surrender as the coalition forces move north. There's no doubt that Iraqi staff officers must wonder when it's time to cut your losses -- and timing is everything in such matters.
C) So what sort of post-war regime does the US have in mind in Baghdad? I've avoided televised briefings as much as possible but US Central Command this morning said there will be "representative self-government" after the distribution of humanitarian aid, and moreover that "Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people." Interesting line for General Franks to take. BTW he also used the word "shock" to describe the bombing of Baghhdad but didn't append "awe". Must be a reader.
D) Contradictory reports over the whether Turkish troops have entered Kurdish areas and if so, how many. Ankara says it just wants to secure the border and prevent an influx of refugees. Kurds suspect otherwise and this continuing and recurring disagreement between Washington and Ankara is described in the NYT as "frustrating" and "infuriating" by unidentified US officials. Remember when the Russians went into eastern Bosnia at the last minute?
Gotta go march -- the first Amendment could lapse if not frequently and vigorously exercized.You never know these days.
- bruno 3-22-2003 7:11 pm