Ruminatrix
...more recent posts
Tuesday, Apr 01, 2003
Blaming the victims for their deaths -- women and children at that -- won't cut it in a battle for hearts and minds. And US policy requires winning them over before the war ends. More careful ways of handling civilians could help avoid such ugly accidents, and help win their trust, if indeed it is winnable. In other words, the UK military's long "peacekeeping" experience in Northern Ireland could actually pay off -- in Iraq.
But US military doctrine since WWII has been to call in the heavy firepower (and/or close air support) when the going gets tough. And regular US forces haven't had any large-scale urban warfare experience since Hue in 1968.
As for the endgame, the Pentagon reckons Baghdad to be more like Berlin, the Ba'athists prefer the Stalingrad analogy. Both are wrong, of course, (it's perhaps more like Grozny v Sarajevo?) but that's no reason not to read both the books by Anthony Beevor. They are masterpieces.
NBC/National Geographic Travel fire Peter Arnett for remarks made in an interview by Baghdad TV. And haven't had time to read Sy Hersh, American journalist. Can't give him enough links. Meanwhile there's a big shootup between US Marines and paramilitaries near Najaf. Light trucks charging tanks -- hmm, sounds like Poland in the fall of 1939.
Too busy to take up jim's inviation for now, but should also keep a list of words being purged or edged out of the lexicon: fedayeen (now terror squad is preferred, paramilitary or militia acceptable); cakewalk is so two weeks ago; operational pauses don't exist; etc, etc.
An unintended consequences of demonizing the adversary:
Saddam and the UN inspectors might deny the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but many members of the public and the military have started believing that this must be correct, and this has removed any inferiority complex vis-a-vis the US in their minds. They have been thinking and saying, "We don't have to fear the Americans now. If the worse comes to the worst, we can use these weapons against the Americans." This has apparently fortified their morale.More here, including the role weather is playing in this war. Reading it triggers some very unpleasant thoughts:
i) How windy is it in Central Iraq this time of year? Can US/UK forces only attack when the wind blows from behind them?
ii) Would the actual use of WMD by Iraq in a defense of Baghdad in fact be condemned by all non-combatant nations? In what forum?
iii) Is the US threat to retaliate with nuclear arms against such use actually plausible, if the Iraqi leaders are bunkered in Baghdad among a civilian population wishing to be liberated?
Good night.
Sunday, Mar 30, 2003
No, Rumsfeld won't resign; he's just passing the buck back to the generals. But "house of cards" predictions about this war have been erased from the hawks' press clips file. And let's face it -- "war of liberation" rhetoric is harder to pull off when you don't have pix of cheering crowds tossing garlands as our tanks roll by. Want images? Reuter's slide shows have been around awhile; its new service (free for now, expected to go subscription-only soonish) is Raw Video -- [mpg?] clips without any commentary (Raw Video button loads viewer)
As the estimable and orotund John Smith of LincolnPlawg points out, the underestimation of a military enemy can be founded on racist biases. Surely that is not the case when officials blame Russian contractors or meddlesome neighbor nations for the consequences of their own shortsightedness, e.g. failing to bring along enough troops to secure your lines of supply.
One must keep the US/UK reverses in perspective though: casualties have been low, Iraqi attacks sporadic and largely ineffective, and the war is only eleven days old. Expect talk of moral calculus to begin in earnest next week -- is it better to take more time or to hurry things along, even if more "unnecessary" deaths occur? And what are the political costs of these choices?
Yet the "operational pause" has made history, Rummy knows it and it bugs him. I reckon a six-or-seven day coalition walkover would have been much more dangerous to global security in the long run. There are plenty of chances for screw ups (before the war's end or afterward). And if bad weather were to ground US air support for a few days, I wouldn't be surprised if Satan's boyfriend launched a counteroffensive if only to keep his diehard forces' morale up.
So perhaps there is a silver lining to the past week's events: the next time brilliant "defense policy" advisors come up with an amazing scheme to rearrange the world order at little or no cost, politicians, generals might join citizens in plucking up the nerve to ask: "Is your war really necessary?"
"Do Iraqis hate Saddam Hussein's regime more deeply than they dislike the Americans who are invading their country?" asks a NYT piece by former Navy Secretary James Webb. He takes more of a Vietnam grunt's view of the perils of "hearts and minds" warfare than do the rose-tinted "we're still on track" Beltway bureaucrats.
The enforced "pause" in the invasion comes at a convenient time, allowing reporters to earn their keep paying attention to other important stories: collateral damage in Baghdad; a more sober assessment of morale, (which sure isn't helped by suicide bombing); and coverage of differences over reconstruction contracts and other costs. Did you know GWB's estimated $75bn pricetag for the war was based on hostilities lasting only 30 days?
Agonist has a new Iraq sitmap. It's the most detailed I've seen, but it's only useful if he keeps updating it, of course. And if there really is a coalition paratroop unit on the Iranian side of the border near Ahwaz, I'd like to know why...
Rumsfeld: Syria and Iran interference in Iraq constitute "hostile acts." I have no idea why Syria would send night-vision goggles to Iraq -- maybe they want to join the Axis? But the Iranian-based Badr corps it is made up of Shi'ite Iraqi exiles and defectors (and ex-POWs) who fought Saddam back when Rummy was smiling and shaking hands with him. Aren't Badr the sort of anti-Saddam allies the coalition was seeking for its "uprising" in the south a few days ago?
Language: You won't be hear "on schedule" and "Iraq" in the same sentence from anyone in the administration any more. There is no schedule, never was... You also wont hear fedayeen Saddam to describe Ba'athist gunmen --the preferred term is now "militia" or "paramilitaries". But you will hear "underestimate" as in Gen Brig.Vincent Brooks' statement yesterday: "Our enemy always has a vote in how the circumstances go. I don't think that we have necessarily underestimated (the enemy). No one can ever predict how battle will unfold."
Developments: Looks like Jim "Jordan" Bassett was right: UK press (via Agonist) is now reporting the recent transit of US armor on transporters through Jordan. I just wanted to hear it from disgruntled Bedouin themselves, that's all.
Be sceptical of reports the Iraqi Army is abandoning positions around Kirkuk ahead of Kurdish fighters and US airborne troops. It's a city of 600,000 people after all, and it sounds too good to be true. The Turkish Army has once again threatened to complicate matters if the Kurds enter Kirkuk itself.
Aftermath: Got into a spirited discussion last night about how a post-war Baghdad regime acquires legitimacy. Friend took the position that this administration won't seek or need any international legal mandate for the new guys it installs. I disagreed. Friend said these guys (Cheney et al) don't care about multilateralism, or what anybody else thinks, because they control the IMF and World Bank. I reckon that would wreck international trade. They aren't afraid of putative boycotts or trade wars, friend says, full speed ahead, let Tony Blair invoke the UN al he wants. To modify Clausewitz, isn't this a template for trade wars: "the continuation of war by other means"?
There's no hurry to settle the point. But if my friend is right, it would be very inconvenient for the go-it-alone crowd if there was an alternative government around for non-coalition parties (e.g. Russia, China, France -- rembember Cambodia in the '70, '80s and 90s?) to recognize. Doesn't preventing this outcome mean arresting and maybe trying thousands of Ba'athist militant and officials? Can trials on this scale --let alone elections later on -- be credibly handled without international courts?
Saw Richard Foreman's Panic: How to Be Happy at St Mark's Church last night (thru April 19th). On the wire-framed dollhouse set, signature Pavlovian bells and puppet-show violence punctuate cryptic declarations, as a quad of stereotyped males and female misfits (?) enact ritualized desires and frustration. Children's games play out endlessly in the adult id and Foreman's been working on his Gordian Knot for for 30+ years. No how-to-be-happy tips except: "If I knew then what I know now, I'd be aberrant."
Bush meets Blair for summit, they agree war likely to go on "no matter how long it takes", but disagree on whether there will be a postwar role for the United Nations. Trying to run Iraq for any length of time without intenational sanction (and there is no alternative to the UN) would be a sure sign of hubris.
From ex NY Times reporter (Central America, intifada, Sudan, Yemen, Algeria, Punjab, Roumania, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Bosnia, Kosovo) Chris Hedges' War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002):
War makes the world understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. It suspends thought, especially self-critical thought. All bow before the supreme effort. We are one. Most of us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuing suffering as necessary for a higher good, for human beings seek not only happiness but also meaning. And tragically war is sometimes the most powerful way in human society to achieve meaning.In other words, all wars -- even unavoidable ones -- create illusory meaning based on lies. Hedges is particularly good on the dangerously addictive "false solidarity" which comes into being during wartime. This creates a spurious identification of fellow-suffering with insiders while disparaging that of enemies. "If the humility which we gained from our defeat in Vietnam is not the engine that drives our response to future terrorist strikes, even those that are cataclysmic, then we are lost." He knows from hubris alright.
Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003
Not much time to post today so must be selective about developments.
Military: Theories about what may be going with US/UK military strategy during the radio silence from the front lines on are getting play elsewhere on DMT. Coalition forces are stopped in front of RG positions, which were likely reinforced over the past day or so. No sign whatever of Iraqi collapse. Even if the weather improves, US units won't be "charging" toward Baghdad anytime soon. It's more likely they will bomb RG positions very hard (remember Kuwait 1991?), especially if they counter-attack. In any case US forces need to wait for the forces heading up the Tigris, as well as the heavy armor (M1s) of the 4thID.
Right now US forces must secure their front lines, resupply, and reinforce. And the UK contingent has its hands full clearing out Basra. Both forces underestimated the numbers and intransigeance of plainclothes Ba'athist irregulars/militia/fedayeen. I'm guessing that coalition generals would like more troops and armor. The talk of a Shi'a uprising in Basra or elsewhere in the south was at best premature.
Propaganda: Over a dozen civilians were killed by an explosion in the Baghdad market, possibly by a cruise missile. Meanwhile US claims fedayeen/secret police executed American prisoners near Nasiriya. Reciprocal accusations of violations of the rules of war will escalate, but typically it's the victorious power that tries the loser's soldiers for war crimes, so you figure out which charges will stick. But US/UK forces need to be seen feeding the civilian population of Basra real soon. Like immediately
Diplomacy: Discussion of possible postwar administrations is way premature. Kos summarizes recent developments on the global diplomatic front. I can only add that India and Pakistan have also resumed missile tests. Are we having fun yet?
$$ Politics: Expect more embarassment over the White House's indecent haste in restricting bid eligilibilty for reconstruction contracts to Bechtel and Halliburton. And who created the fake Niger uranium cake documents and who specifically were they trying to embarass? Rake, rake, rake, that muck. Where there's muck there's brass, as an old Yorkshire saying goes.
Lagniappe: Jump ahead a month. Let's say the siege of Baghdad has been going for three weeks with defenders fighting gamely on amid piles of rubble like Stalingrad' 42 or Madrid '38. Or Paris 1870, or... How many volunteers will try to find their way into Iraq to join a different sort of International Brigade, I wonder? And which borders will they cross along the way? Did you know that the Iran/Iraq border alone is over 500 miles long?