This is one giant post of my March 2003 posts from the old geocities site. I only noticed in mid-2024 that I'd failed to replace a link to the corrupted old site with the text I saved and recovered in my emails. So here it is:
"A Million Mogadishus" (Posted March 31, 2003)
That's what one Columbia U. professor hopes we face in Iraq. Let's see, 23,000,000 Iraqis, off the top of my head. Five hundred dead Somali fighters in that battle, conservatively, to kill 18 of our troops. So, at best, the bloody prof. can only get 46,000 Mogadishus before we run out of Iraqis. Maybe only 23,000 if the higher estimate of Somali dead is accurate.
He apparently really hates Iraqis.
Sorry prof., but we will take care to spare Iraqis as much as we can. You'll need to get your body count elsewhere.
"Hurry Up!" (Posted March 31, 2003)
That's what the press, standing in front of the microwave where they are awaiting their Vietnam roast, is yelling.
We haven't won yet and it is coming up on two weeks of war. Shocking.
I concede, some aspects of the war have not turned out as I suspected. One, we have not deployed a second heavy division in secret. The western front was meant to secure western and southwestern Iraq to preclude Scud attacks on Israel and not to approach Baghdad through Ramadi. Two, the thrust out of Kuwait by 3rd ID really does need the supply line out of Kuwait. I thought the supply line would run out of Jordan. Now, two brigades of the 101st are battling at Najaf, while at Samawah, the 82nd AB division brigade is battling. Both elements are backed by armor, presumably stripped from 3rd ID. Third, we did advance up the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates as part of the initial thrust. Four, I thought we would need 10th Mountain to take on the Ansar al-Islam thugs in the north. Fifth, the Iraqis have not gassed our troops from day one. Sixth, the Shias have not risen up to help us. Seventh, I did not anticipate the numbers and effectiveness of Saddam's death squads in resisting us and in cowing the Shias of Iraq. I assumed loyal commando units and RG units would be the main enforcers rather than the civilian-attired Ba'ath Party militias. They were off my radar screen.
But grant me what I got right. One, a significant western front that did take over the region. Two, a main thrust west of the Euphrates after a feint to Nasiriyah, did reach the outskirts of Baghdad in a week. Those Iraqi death squads didn't stop that even if they can raid a convoy now and again. Three, a Marine/British thrust toward Basra, followed by a careful advance up the valley. Four, a light northern front with 173rd AB brigade with 10th Mountain reportedly on the way. Fifth, the regular Iraqi army seems to be melting away in large numbers in the south. Those in the north seem to have a Republican Guard minder keeping them on the line. Sixth, the Iraqis would defend in the cities. Seventh, we didn't need a heavy northern front to get close to Baghdad.
Overall, my confidence has been well placed. We are doing great. I have missed some details and gotten some right.
Some assessments are yet to come. How will the Republican Guards fight and how the Special RG will fight. I don't remember if I blogged this but when asked about the fighting qualities of the Iraqis, I have said 90% of the regulars will not fight us. Maybe half of the RGs will not fight. The SRGs are a mystery. They could be die-hards or pampered palace troops who will break when they become aware they are all by their lonesome. We have yet to see how the Shias will react when they know they are finally safe from Saddam's revenge. I have seen hints that it will be pro-US. We still don't know how the Battle for Baghdad will go. The CIA and special forces are in there. Our aircraft are flying low over Baghdad in utter contempt for Iraqi air defenses.
The battle against the Republican Guards should begin soon. New moon tonight, I think. Marines seem to have pulled level with 3rd ID. Third ID is battling at the Karbala gap. Is this to gain jump-off points for an attack north or to gain a defensive hard shoulder to protect a thrust through the Ramadi gap? Fourth ID is a month away from combat but in the nearly two weeks since the war started, we could have brought in maybe 36,000 more troops. They could link up with the pre-positioned armor brigade sets much faster and be in action sooner.
I'd like to hope that the talk of delay is to mask our impending assault on the Republican Guards. My track record on timing isn't so great, however. (I have consistently belived war was imminent since the end of December)
The war has gone remarkably well, so far. We still need some speed to end this before bad things happen in other parts of the world.
"Insurrection" (Posted March 30, 2003)
The Iraqi Shias have not revolted to pave the road to Baghdad. This failure has led to the need for more heavy ground power to defeat the Republican Guards. This requires precious time to accumulate.
From the beginning I've urged speed as the antidote to many potential problems. We achieved that goal in the first week but now we have abandoned that in order to gain power.
I'm not ready to predict disaster or even less than decisive victory since we have prevented many bad things that were possible before the invasion began. No oil field fires. No oil dumping into the Gulf. No chemical weapons launched at Kuwait bases, Israel, or our troops. No Turkish-Kurd clashes. No heavy civilian or American-allied casualties. There is no sign that the regulars are engaged in this war. We face the regime bully boys and the Republican Guard thus far. And we have the Iraqis compressed into a much smaller area.
But the main reason we are at this point is that the Shias have not revolted. Why?
Two main reasons are put forward. One, they are eager to defend their homeland against an American invasion. This theory holds that the Shias are reacting to a foreign invasion and rallying around the flag.
This does not seem likely. The Kurds have not reacted in a similar fashion. Sure, you can argue that the Kurds have been repressed and abused more, and so are less likely to turn on anybody coming to kill Saddam. But this is a matter of degree, really. By any measure, the Shias are pretty darned abused. Plus, the Kurds and Shias did revolt in 1991 despite the fact that American forces were advancing into Iraq. Foreign invasion did not prompt a nationalist revival then. Has the past 12-year period of Saddam rule been more enlightened for the Shias? No. Saddam drains the swamps in the south to kill Shia Marsh Arabs more effectively. And if the Shias are more reliable, where is the regular army, mostly composed of Shia conscripts? Why would Saddam entrust the defense of the south to the regime bully boys rather than organized army units? And what of reports coming out that say that Shias are worried that we will leave without destroying Saddam? Like we did in 1991? And what of the periodic American assaults since1991 that have struck Saddam without destroying him? What kind of effect has this record had? The people of Iraq see only a small corner of their war and have no idea of whether we will stay to win or cut and run.
What of the scattered reports of whispered hopes that we will win? What of the reports of Saddam terror units compelling resistance?
All these indicators say to me that the Shias want us to win. They may not want us to colonize them, but we will not and that is a problem for post-war strategies. Saddam's reign of terror and our record of not going all the way have bred caution in the Shias that is completely understandable. We know we are going in for the kill. They have no reason to believe us.
The Kurds, who have the means to protect themselves in their own enclave, are rejoicing at our invasion. The Sunnis will probably be motivated to some extent by the nationalist impulse to resist us since they have benefitted from the rule of Saddam. The Christian community, too, might resist for the same reason (funny "Crusade" when the Christians of Iraq oppose us and the Catholic Church in the west opposes the invasion).
But the Shias? When they see Saddam's head on a pike, they will support us.
Meanwhile. Speed, speed, speed. The world's problems will not wait for us to solve the Iraq problem at our leisure. If we really don't have the ground combat power close at hand, I want to know what the Hell we have been doing the last 12 years preparing to fight Saddam again. We supposedly prepared to send troops quickly and yet after a period of more than a year, we have less ground power than we did with six months of no-notice deployment in 1990-1991.
No plan survives contact with the enemy and we must keep in mind that now we are adapting to failure to achieve stunning, rapid, victory-NOT adapting to defeat.
We have an excellent start to this war. We must stand firm to reach victory.
"Pause" (Posted March 29, 2003)
I figured it would take a week to get outside of Baghdad. Once there, I didn't know whether it would go easy or hard. We made it within striking distance in less than a week and we have paused since then, Partly from the need to resupply, regroup, maintain vehicles, and rest. The dust storm that raged did provide cover for that. At first I thought that once it passed, we would strike the Republican Guards outside Baghdad.
We are still paused. This is getting me to think we really don't have at least a couple more heavy brigades under a divisional flag ready to roll through Ramadi or Karbala.. It may be that we are unwilling to risk a serious setback with only 3rd ID holding the line. If they are repulsed, they would also have to hold if the Iraqis manage a counter-attack. I guess we could just be bombing the crud out of the Republican Guards as long as they are willing to sit outside of Baghdad and take it. I just don't want them to pack up and pull into the city. On the bright side, under sustained attack, they will naturally start to disperse and dig in more. Although this will help them hide and avoid air strikes to some degree, it also pins them and makes them far less mobile. As long as we are destroying their armor and artillery and killing their soldiers, this is not a problem in the short run. I am not sure whether to conclude we are waiting for another heavy division, or just waiting for air power to pound the Iraqis a little more.
If we are waiting for the heavy division, I think we made an error. I have from the beginning of this blog, argued for two heavy divisions in the invasion force. And it isn't like we don't have the armor already in the Gulf. Nor is it like we don't have the troops. I thought we'd need 1+ Marine division and we have 2+. We could have deployed fewer Marines and added another heavy division without increasing the overall troop level. This would have resulted in a less aggressive drive past Nasiriyah but I didn't think that was the best route to Baghdad anyway. But we would have had the power to drive to the outskirts of Baghdad on a route west of the Euphrates as we did, pass through another heavy division to continue the attack with the 101st AB, and refitted the initial heavy division for a reserve force.
Let me say again, ground forces and heavy armor are not obsolete. We may want a light, small Objective Force that has the path paved by GPS bombs and missiles, but we are far from that day-if we ever do reach it.
I'm not doing an I told you so, really. We are early in the war and we have lots of stuff going on that we can't see. And what we can see really is good-just not amazingly good. We are winning, and the Iraqis could start to crumble tomorrow, or next week, or after we get an Army corps of 2 heavy divisions, 101st AB, and a cavalry regiment in place (3rd ACR has elements in the Gulf but apparently not enough to fight, as I thought might be possible).
As we wait to deliver the killing blow against Iraq's only capable field force before they are forced back into the cities, we must take care not to over-react to the Brownshirt tactics of the Iraqis who threaten the conscripts and people, violate the laws of war, and commit atrocities generally. We can't take it out on the civilians by being too trigger happy. This Iraqi tactic may be the price we are paying for delaying the invasion for so long. They can't beat us but they can make the post-war more difficult if they provoke us into unnecessary and excessive killing of civilians as we pursue our military objectives.
In the meantime, we bomb with our air power and hit the Iraqis with the CIA and special forces. We gather ground power in the north and west. We pursue Ansar al-Islam in the northeast. We seek to capture Basra without a major battle (that US air strike killing maybe 200 was quite a feat). And our Marines drive north slowly.
A major question is why the Iraqis haven't used chemicals yet. They seem to be preparing to use them. I guess I looked at this decision as a military one and assumed they'd use them fast and often. I think they are seeing this as a political decision. If they refrain from using them and delay our victory, they may yet get the French and Russians to save them by pressuring us with a ceasefire.
That would be a disaster.
If we had that second heavy division now, we wouldn't need to wait more than a few days to destroy the Republican Guards. We are giving our enemies time. Valuable time.
As I said, I am still confident. Very little time has actually gone by thus far and we have advanced very far with very few casualties. As I have written, once outside Baghdad it will be either hard or easy. Enemies will fight back. They just don't sit and take it according to our timetables, surrendering on cue. So, it won't be so easy as to be bloodless with a collapse of Saddam's government. It is way too soon to say it will be hard though.
Maybe it will be easy but just take a little longer.
"Air Power" (Posted March 28, 2003)
Our air power has been as good as it is advertised in its precision and power. Way to go. It has not put ground forces out of business yet, as air power purists have argued for seventy years, but they are awesome and are playing a key role in this war.
The most amazing aspect is that we have lost no planes.
I wonder how long it will be before third world states stop wasting their money on air forces and air defenses. I hope they don't, of course, since they just become expensive piles of junk in the course of a fortnight when faced with our air power. The French and Chinese and Russians spend a decade building up an integrated air defense network for Iraq and the Iraqis can see their army and Baath party infrastructure blowing up and no American planes have gone down to do this amount of damage.
Take your lesson out there (Hey! Kim Jong-Il! Pay attention here.), if you build an air force or air defense network, take care to make sure you are on our side.
And if you think missiles are the answer, think about another zero: the number of missiles that have breached American defenses in Kuwait. I don't expect them to be perfect, but boy is it nice so far.
"Take a Deep Breath" (Posted March 28, 2003)
V. D. Hanson has a great piece on the hysterical cries of doom by many observers of the war. He is more at ease with our having only one heavy division than I am, but basically I agree with his optimistic assessment of the war's progress. Indeed, I still think we have more than one heavy division, although I am growing less confident in that assessment daily. We either have it hidden pretty well or it ain't there. On the other hand, I am gaining comfort from knowing 3rd ID has four maneuver brigades and that the Medina Division of the Republican Guards has reportedly lost half of its tanks. The Republican Guards were only about 25% attrited before we started the ground war in 1991, so all the bombing being done away from the live feeds from Baghdad are having quite an effect.
I do hope we do not have to wait for 4th ID to arrive in the theater to strike the Republican Guard defenders around Baghdad. But if we do, I expect the administration has the steel to hold fast and finish the war with total victory.
And though we have the firepower to carpet bomb our way through any resistance (as some who criticize our lopsided war admit), we have not. Steyn's piece today is great. The Russians, who criticize us, leveled Grozny. The Chinese, who oppose us, killed more civilians clearing a single public square in Peking than we will in clearing Iraq of Saddam, are hardly fit to criticize us. Civilians are slaughtered in wars around the globe by armed thugs who use not much more than Kalashnikovs and machetes.
Yet we are evil in the view of many around the world.
If they think we are evil even in the face of our unprecedented care for civilians, I just don't care what they think.
If they think we are eager to kill Moslems after all the battles we have waged in defense of Moslems over the past decades, I finally do not care if they think this war is a Crusade.
Nothing we do can convince them that we are not out to get them. We need to win and let them get used to that. They can then decide whether they wish to fight us and lose 500 thugs (in organizations with really cool names that impress the babes before the war) for the privilege of scuffing our Abrams a bit. If their religion gives them 72 virgins for that accomplishment, they have pretty darned low standards for admission to paradise.
When we crush our foes and win completely, as in 1945, 1983, and 1989, we turn the conquered into our friends (I'll hold off on Afghanistan since it is early yet, but still the gains are striking). When we have ceasefires, as in 1953 and 1991, we leave enemies determined to gain revenge in power. Sadly, both of these latter failures are staring at us right now and forcing us to deal with them at last.
We are winning decisively on the battlefield thus far, and most criticisms are mere nitpicking at this point.
It could get ugly, as the story I read that stated the Iraqis may be getting ready to use chemical weapons they do not have, indicate. If the Iraqis fire them at us, I hope that Kofi Anan will at least have a harsh word for the Iraqis. Thus far, he treats them like Canadians.
"Casualties" (Posted March 27, 2003)
I receive Defense Department news updates. Some go to my inbox. Some go to my bulk mail box if the system thinks it is spam. I have started receiving notices of the names and home towns of our dead. It has been most sobering. It has also been disturbing to me that some go to the spam box.
It seemed the least I could do for them was to instruct my email to direct all those emails to my inbox. They have my deepest thanks for what they have given up for me. I wish none of them had to die to get rid of that madman Saddam. I hope their families have the strength to cope with this.
The news of their deaths is not spam.
"Third ID" (Posted March 27, 2003)
Strategypage.com says that 3rd ID has four brigades. I knew it was over strength but knowing there is another maneuver brigade gives me a little more security if there really is not another heavy division in the theater already. I still don't know if the brigade is rolling north through Karbala or trying the Ramadi gap. The Iraqis put their 3rd armored division (regular army) there recently. Of course, 3rd ID could force the Karbala gap while unnamed American forces, including a Marine brigade, and the 101st AB, strike through Ramadi.
Marines may be closer to Baghdad than I thought. I will say, if true, that the ease of the Marine advance north between the Tigris and Euphrates is really surprising to me. Really good, mind you, but unexpected.
Last night, a reporter actually complained that he could not evaluate American claims that the invasion is on track since the Pentagon had not released the plan.
He was indignant.
I am amazed.
Oh, if I haven't commented on Iraqi atrocities it is not because I am not aware. Just what did we expect them to do? Fight with the care that we employ?
On to Baghdad.
"Destroy the Nest" (Posted March 27, 2003)
Although the fervor and numbers of the Iraqi die-hards is unexpected, their stands in the urban areas where they can attack under cover of civilians who shield them from our firepower is not. This is the main Iraqi effort to stall us in the drive to Baghdad and the destruction of the Republican Guard divisions keeping us away.
Saddam wants time. Time for the French to thwart us. With the report that France and her lapdog Germany were behind Turkey's surprise refusal to let our 4th ID into Turkey (by threatening EU membership for a generation), we see that these "allies" have not stopped at merely halting a UN resolution we did not need. they actively aided our enemy.
This is unforgivable. When this is over, France must pay for this. Germany has little time to break their leash before their actions consign their nation—unified by our efforts over the objections of Russia by the way—to non-ally status. The French will try to deter us from demanding nothing less than Saddam's head on a pike. They will try to make us lose this war.
But back in Iraq, cries for reevaluating our strategy are ridiculous thus far. We should not—repeat not—weaken our spearheads to go after the Brown Shirts left behind in the cities. If we are delayed in destroying the Republican Guard field forces because we try to kill those thugs in the cities, we will inflict civilian casualties and let the regime live longer. This will also increase civilian casualties and give the thugs hope they will win. The thugs have to come out of the cities to attack our supply lines if we refuse to go in. And when they come out, we slaughter them. This may disturb Brian Williams (I had to turn him off last night. He got maybe 1.5 seconds into speaking before he verbally waved a white flag), but our military can handle this.
When bees are stinging you, go and crush the hive and kill the queen. Flailing about at individual bees is folly.
Note that the 173rd Airborne is deploying north. Nice to get the Iraqis looking north now. Once a brigade-size force with some armor is on the ground, the northern front will be able to extend the siege of Baghdad by linking up with US Army forces enveloping Baghdad from the west and US Marine forces enveloping Baghdad from the east. I read some heavy stuff will be airlifted in—perhaps a battalion of 1st ID in Turkey. Plus a Stryker task force?
More public attacks on Rumsfeld for refusing to have more armor on the ground right now. I hope these reports are untrue. I'm still counting on seeing another heavy division come out of the Ramadi gap to hit the Iraqis. Much of my confidence is based on thinking that we did not in fact go in with too little armor. I'd be confident but nervous if I think we are cutting it as close as critics say.
I wondered yesterday if 7th Cavalry was fighting a lonely screening mission from Karbala to Najaf. Seventh Cavalry's troops ares actually split up among the 3rd ID's brigades—I forgot. They are still fighting with an amazing level of skill and tenacity, but armor, mech, and arty battalions are backing them up. This does disturb me a bit. I don't like having an entire brigade of our spearhead down by Najaf. Now, of course, if one brigade is fighting there to draw the Iraqi's attention south while the rest of 3rd ID and that phantom heavy division I keep hoping for strike at nightfall further north, we will be good to go.
We have clear skies for several days. Time to roll. That sandstorm may have been a sign from the Gods as some Iraqis think, but it may have shielded our movements and given 3rd ID some time to prepare for the destruction of the Republican Guards.
The war is going extremely well, people. On to Baghdad.
"Week of War" (Posted March 26, 2003)
Not too much to add today.
Missile defenses are working.
Iraqi defenses are thus far based on the Baath party paramilitary thugs of the regime. Note that these thugs have faked surrenders to kill our troops—hoping to dissuade us from accepting surrenders; and Iraqis dressed in American uniforms are testing Iraqi troops to see if they surrender, killing those that do—hoping to dissuade their folks from giving up. All three are signs that the regulars really are not trusted to fight for Saddam.
The Iraqis haven't managed to fight with anything larger than a battalion at a time. And then we rip them up.
Seventh Cavalry is reported fighting at Najaf and Karbala. This is quite a frontage for a recon squadron (battalion). If they are aggressively holding all that line while their division maneuvers to the north for the killing blow against the Republican Guards, I'll be damned impressed. It is still pretty impressive as it is.
The Iraqis apparently are breaking down their heavy RG divisions to avoid our bombing. This eliminates the major reason for having heavy divisions—their mobility. Ralph Peters notes properly that they are taking themselves out of the fight to be destroyed at our leisure. If we really do only have 3rd ID for the main effort, this helps us immensely. I still suspect—without any direct evidence—that another heavy division is paired with 3rd ID for the blow through the Ramadi gap. I hope all those comments about our lack of heavy armor is simply mistaken. We shall see.
RG units—a thousand vehicles—heading south toward our Marines. We will kill many as they move. If they attack us, we will have the advantage of being on the tactical defensive and will kill them as they move in the open. If they dig in to block the Marines, they put themselves away from Baghdad where we can destroy them at our leisure. Remember, they moved in 1991 quite well even after 5 weeks of bombardment. Once engaged with our troops, they died fighting.
Basra uprising seems to be brewing. British are preparing to support a revolt.
Overall, the war appears to be going just fine. Why people are worried is beyond me. Things may yet go wrong; but until they do, this is a cakewalk so far. And we are better at overcoming setbacks than they are.
On to Baghdad.
"War's Progress: What Don't We See?" (Posted March 25, 2003)
Note that we face most resistance from the regime bully boys fighting in civilian clothes and black uniforms. These are not the regulars. They may not be in POW camps but they sure aren't fighting us when we go into contact with them.
Note also that we have only faced regulars at Nasiriyah and Basra and they have crumbled. Most regulars still in uniform are on the Iran border or in the north watching the Kurds. Our troops are too far away to make it safe to break apart from the top down.
The Republican Guards are the key. Break them and we are besieging Baghdad and Tikrit. That battle should begin by Friday at the latest.
Why are the bridges over the Euphrates and Tigris still standing? Did special forces secure them or disable explosive charges planted on them? Do the Iraqis want them up? If so, why? I can't believe the Iraqis would think it best to ease our journey even if they want to suck us into a chemical kill zone. Better we should be delayed so the French and Russians can somehow save them. Then, Saddam can say, "See, if we had weapons of mass destruction—which we don't—we would have used them by now!" Instead, he faces the need to use them before pressure can be brought to bear. I suspect our special operations folks have been very busy and successful at bridges and dams. What else, I wonder?
What about the phantom western front I keep harping on? At least a brigade-sized force of Marines is going through Jordan, as I suspected. Second MEF is commanding. Now where are the Army units that will pop out for the final battle outside Baghdad? I just don't believe we only have 3rd ID for the climactic battle. What if there are setbacks? What if the division gets tired? (And it is right now, just from the march and skirmishes. It really needs to rest now before going into battle.)
Where is 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment? Elements are somewhere in the Gulf regions per globalsecurity.org. But I haven't heard word one about it. Could it have swung even wider than 3rd ID to cover that division's flank and then head for the Ramadi gap to sweep up Iraqis there and pave the way for another major combat force coming from that direction? Is the 3rd ID advance toward Karbala a feint as the one to Nasiriyah was? It would be pretty gutsy if those lead elements crossing the Euphrates are all there is! Fix the Iraqis attention toward Karbala and then sweep in further north to destroy the Republican Guard division there and cut off the RG division to the south before it can retreat to Baghdad. (and bomb it as it retreats, of course)
This article, among many stories popping up in the last day, is now calling attention to our lack of numbers on the ground.
"In my judgment, there should have been a minimum of two heavy divisions and an armored cavalry regiment on the ground -- that's how our doctrine reads," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during the 1991 Gulf War .
Well, we have the armored sets in the Gulf for at least another division as far as I can tell. And at least elements of an ACR are in the Gulf. Are these stories coming out now to set the Iraqis up for more of a surprise? Remember, too, that all the talk of 4th ID taking weeks to arrive in Kuwait ignore the fact that it was not heading to the Gulf in the first place. Since doctrine call for another heavy division, I say we have it. And it may very well come charging out of that fortuitous sand storm into the Ramadi gap. Remember, embedding reporters with our units may be one of the most brilliant features of this war, turning our potential weakness into a strength. With every news outlet sending out pictures of our forces advancing, an impression is created that only what you see is real. And since much of Saddam's situational awareness comes from the press rather than indigenous reconnaissance capabilities, he may fall for it hook, line, and sinker. A whole bunch of reporters with unseen units may get the story of their lives when they can finally report "live from the Ramadi gap" as the heavy armor engages the stunned Iraqis. Two heavy divisions isn't an Army preference. It isn't a guideline. It isn't a rule. It's doctrine. You don't f*ck with doctrine. Damn sure hope so, anyway.
Speaking of the Iraqis looking south, the Brits are taking over all of southern Iraq (including a Marine MEU under British command). The rest of the MEF appears to be breaking out north out of the Nasiriyah bridgehead. Going to Kut? Why get that close to regulars on the Iran border? Of course, the direct route may be more difficult.
Ideally, the Marines won't have to advance up that road until the battle of annihilation against the Republican Guards outside Baghdad is well under way. Then Iraqis won't be thinking about ambushing the Marines on the way north—they'll be thinking about escaping the trap.
All just speculation of course. Maybe Rumsfeld really is gambling the outcome and price of this war to prove that airpower can win our wars with minimal ground forces. But I doubt it. I think there is lots we cannot see away from the all-seeing cameras on our news.
On to Baghdad.
"Closing the Ring" (Posted March 24, 2003)
Third ID is getting close to getting into jump-off points to hit the Republican Guards. Through Karbala or through Ramadi gap? I really hope that more heavy armor that the public does not know is there is getting ready to roll through the Ramadi gap after rolling in from Ar'ar and Jordan. If not, if 3rd ID really is all by its lonesome but for the 101st and air power, I really worry that the Iraqis will decide it is worth it to lob chemicals at us. If we had two heavy divisions plus the air assault division, the Iraqis might think chemicals will do them no good so what is the point. But if we really have but one (albeit reinforced) heavy division? That will be hairy.
That plane that accidentally hit a bus was sad--but it must mean we have A-10s based at H-2 roaming to close the northwest route out of Baghdad. Perhaps the Screaming Eagles are getting set to deploy that way to block the routes of retreat toward Syria.
The Marines at Nasiriyah are clearly trying to bust loose so that their mechanized units can drive north. I really worry that this route is too dangerous but at the very least, it keeps the Iraqis looking over their shoulder while the Army prepares to carry out a battle of annihilation with the Air Force. Hopefully, the Marines won't need to advance up the road to Baghdad until the Republican Guards are broken further north so that they can help in the battle for Baghdad.
The northern front seems to be slowwly emerging.
There are risks ahead, but we are winning. I think our rules of engagement are too restrictive at this point. We really need to gut the defenders. Especially if we really only have one heavy division as the main striking force, we need extreme violence to keep the enemy reeling and not thinking about what they can do to us.
I do believe our air power has been working over the Republican Guards away from the limelight of the cameras. Do your job, Air Force! We need you to show us your stuff.
"Cake Walk" (Posted March 24, 2003)
The article is called "U.S. Losses Expose Risks, Raise Doubts About Strategy." Bypassed Iraqi soldiers and fighters continue to offer small-scale resistance; support troops have been ambushed; and we've taken some casualties, including one in which Iraqis pretended to surrender before opening fire. An Army officer in the story worried the invasion force is a third of the size of the 1991 force and was too small.
I noted earlier, before the capture of some soldiers from a maintenance unit, that the pedal-to-the-metal charge north was risky in this matter. On the other hand, a slow plodding advance that established garrisons all the way to Baghdad would be even worse—and take two months and even heavier casualties. In World War II, large amounts of Germans remained bypassed in channel fortifications until the war ended. Japanese soldiers bypassed in the Pacific kept popping up into the 1970s. I am glad we have not taken Basra just to have a trophy city. Take what we need and we'll lose only who we must.
The losses we have suffered are—dare I say it—trivial. Not for the troops who have died or been captured, of course, but in warfare this is chump change. I'm glad we have a military that has capabilities that lead observers to wonder about such low losses. When this is over, our casualties will all be tragedies and not mere statistics. But let's take a reality check. Recall the German's 1939 Polish campaign. That was the first example of armored blitzkrieg and it took down the large Polish army in about a month. It remains one of two textbook examples (the other being Germany's France campaign, of course) of German lightning warfare. So how many soldiers did Germany lose in the highly successful "textbook" campaign? One hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? Take your prize if you said 10,000. Add in 30,000 wounded and over 3,000 missing. Assuming those soldiers died, we make it to 13,000 German soldiers dead in a classic example of blitzkrieg. I imagine our losses will approach 500 KIA only if we face serious urban combat or if we face extensive chemical warfare. I hope we don't have to endure that many deaths, but consider we lost half that in the Marine Corps barracks suicide attack in Lebanon back in the early 1980s. Losing even 500 is a bargain to end a state sponsor of terrorism who dreams of owning—and using—nukes.
As for Iraqis violating rules of war by pretending to surrender, shouldn't that tell us something? We are going out of our way to avoid hurting anybody but the hard core supporters of Saddam while they hide behind civilians, pretend to surrender, and abuse and execute our prisoners. I won't wait up late for international outrage on our behalf to begin.
I do retain a worry about the size of our invasion force, although as I noted earlier, it is not apparent to me that it is wise to go just by divisional flags to conclude our force is a third the size of 1991. We have battalions of line troops enough for seven divisions. And I still expect to see more divisions than just 3rd Infantry and 101st Airborne show up for the decisive battle west of Baghdad. Up the Karbala gap? I still guess we skirt to the west to go through the Ramadi gap even as we feint toward Karbala. Karbala is a major Shia religious site and it would be nice to avoid accidentally destroying something of religious significance there—especially if Sunni soldiers deliberately defend Shia holy sites. Plus, going further north means we will have that nice highway to Jordan for supplies and hopefully reinforcements.
The real battle against the regime is against the Republican Guards. We've been pummeling them away from the cameras trained on Baghdad if bomb totals are to be believed—and I do believe them. This force is the only one that can keep us out of Baghdad by fighting in the field. Crack that and we have to face only Saddam fanatics holed up in cities or roaming the countryside taking shots at our rear area troops and reminding civilians it is not yet safe to spit on those Saddam portraits passed out in lieu of food and medicine this last decade. The only question is when the Iraqis lose.
We have pretty much everything west of the Euphrates and the Kurdish areas pried from Saddam's grip, people. We are winning this war handily thus far. I'll not cheer. This is war and people are dying. But I'm not huddled in the corner, crying doom as I listen to the latest dispatches.
Repeat after me: "We are kicking ass and taking names." This is what a cake walk looks like.
And we are only on day 5 of the ground war.
On to Baghdad.
"Steady, Lads" (Posted March 23, 2003)
Kasserine Pass was a bad day. Losing two regiment at the start of the Battle of the Bulge when they surrendered was a bad day. Today was the first real fighting. Period. As I noted, we advanced into a vacuum and now we are facing soldiers who are willing to fight.
This is not the start of the Iraqi counter-offensive.
It is sad that some lost soldiers were ambushed, killed, possibly executed, or taken prisoner. It is shameful that Iraqis feigned a surrender and killed ten Marines. Remember, though we are seeing the bombing of Baghdad, we are not seeing the bombing of Iraqi Republican Guard units away from the cameras. Remember we do not need to occupy Basra. Taking it is something to be done at our leisure and not something that must be done at the risk of heavy casualties.
The advance is going well. I'll be happier when I see evidence of another heavy division with 3rd ID, but overall--we are clearly winning. I did not expect the regime to collapse. Some will fight. Some will go home. Some will sit in their barracks. And some will defect to us. In the end we will win and Saddam's regime will die.
Oh, the first Stryker brigade will not be ready until May 2003. But maybe a battalion task force is ready.
No time to let up. Pound them until they break. Win.
"Prisoners" (Posted march 23, 2003)
The Iraqis have taken some prisoners. A handfull of support personnel. In the fluid situation of a fast advance, this is not surprising. It is unfortunate but those soldiers probably had no idea that friendlies were not protecting them to their front. Plus, Marine units may not be fully in charge as the Army pulls out to strike northwest on the west side of the Euphrates. It is bad that they are in the tender mercies of the Iraqis who may not follow the rules of war.
On our side, reports seem to be confused between "surrendering" and "capitulating." Surrendering means you give up to allied forces and become POWs. We then have responsibility for their safety. This burdens our advance. Capitulating means they stop fighing for good and go home. We don't have to feed them. Almost like that old 18th century concept of releasing prisoners on their oath not to fight again (although they could fight a different country). When we say Iraqis are capitulating, don't get confused that there aren't POW cages full of Iraqis.
A battalion of 1st Armored Division is fighting with 3rd ID. Rumor is that units are transitting through Jordan. Hooah. My western front seems to be coming together.
Given the effort the Iraqis take to grab a prisoner, couldn't we drop some GI Joe action figures and then bring in the AC-130s when the Iraqis beat the bushes for our pilot? Would deter Iraqis from looking for real pilots downed.
Also, looks like forces are being airlifted into Kurdish areas to go after the Ansar al Islam thugs and maybe a northern front to advance on Mosul and Kirkuk. The Turks seem to be behaving as well. A short advance into Iraq to block refugees is acceptable. Capturing Mosul is not.
Sadly, we shot down a British plane. Look out now, the Iraqis might launch an air strike now, thinking we are gun shy with our air defenses!
"Attacker" (Posted March 23, 2003)
An American soldier who is Moslem is apparently behind the grenade attack on a command post in the 101st Airborne Division. This is very sad and will draw more attention to Moslems in the military, placing them under added scrutiny. Hopefully, the comrades of these Moslem soldiers will know their friends well enough to get beyond this crime. Keep in mind this is not unique in our history. During the Mexican War, Catholic-American immigrants in the American Army had some difficulty fighting against Catholic Mexico. A number defected and fought the American Army as a unit (I can't remember how many). As a nation of immigrants, war tests the loyalties of unassimilated people. All the more reason to pursue the melting pot ideal rather than bolster Balkanism with our own policies. Certainly, the Wahhabi influence and money in our own country must be suppressed. This incident should not--but will--cast suspicion on Moslem-American soldiers. An attacker who thinks he fights for Islam just harmed fellow Moslems in America in their (and our) effort to end the oppression of Moslem Iraqis under Saddam's brutal rule.
What a great Moslem believer, eh?
"Third ID" (Posted March 23, 2003)
Third Infantry Division's recon elements reached a point 45 miles from Najaf. As U.S. and British forces push in, we appear to be leaving rear area security to the follow-up forces. That is, there is none. Even soft units must rely on the shock of the advance to keep the Iraqis still in the area off balance. That will end and in time forces will need to secure a supply line. Now, there are enough Marines and British to secure the route from Kuwait to Basra. I still don't see a major thrust by the Marines north even though it would be good to threaten an advance. I honestly don't think the Marines have the logistics to advance that far if they have to fight. Normally, Marines plug into Army logistics for any extensive campaign inland. Marine help at Baghdad will be needed, but I'm not sure how they get there. Going up the Tigris makes no sense. Too many Iraqis there. Marines may yet head to Nasiriyah to be prepared to march north from there in a more cautious advance through that difficult area. Again, they should have troops enough in 1 MEF and the British to secure the route to Nasiriyah from Basra. But north of there, in the populated area with broken terrain to hide in, it will be difficult to ignore rear area security in a drive north. Perplexing. Still, Marine mechanized units could drive north abandoning their supply line like the Army appears to be doing with 3rd ID and link up with the Army, sealing the southern and eastern approaches to Baghdad.
So what of the Army thrust? We can't secure the long route from Kuwait to Baghdad. So what do we do? Our units need lots of supplies to fight and move. Well, hopefully the main supply line is really going to come from Jordan through the sparsely populated desert of western Iraq. Third ID's drive north with this supply line in mind doesn't need to secure the rear. It just needs to haul ass north with 101st AB in tow. With American forces apparently heading east from Jordan, already securing H-3 and H-2, we'll be good to go for the final drive on Baghdad and then north to Tikrit. Again, I hope we have armor coming from Jordan and Ar'ar to reinforce 3rd ID. Why else do we have all those brigade sets of armor in the area? What would be the point? I can't believe we abandoned mass for a risky shot at Baghdad hoping for a general collapse. If we must fight it is better to do it with more troops to win faster and with fewer friendly casualties. With the ground assault only a little more than two days on, I don't assume we've seen everything. If armor is speeding toward Baghdad from Jordan and Ar'ar at a similar pace as 3rd ID, we should see evidence of them by tomorrow as they get closer to Baghdad. Or maybe there really is nothing else beside 3rd ID. I'll be shocked. I'll certainly keep my day job.
Plus, 173rd AB will go north as reported recently. I still expect 10th Mountain to go north too and I think a Stryker unit-a battalion task force up to a full brigade, will be airlifted to the north. Perhaps with 10th Mountain or perhaps to reinforce a 101st AB thrust north of Baghdad but south of Tikrit to cut off retreat routes from Baghdad.
I am nervous. We've advanced into a vacuum so far so it is no shock that it is fast and low casualty. We will soon reach the Republican Guards outside Baghdad. I expect most to fight. We will kill them whether we have just 3rd ID and 101st AB or more advancing without publicity, but having more would certainly lower our casualties. And end the war faster.
And why no chemical strikes? What is waiting for us? I don't think this is some Iraqi grand trap to suck us in and destroy us, but our invasion will hit more than speed bumps before we win.
Don't declare victory this soon. That's all I'm saying. The war has just begun.
"The Easy Part is Over" (Posted March 21, 2003)
We can bypass Basra. If we can take it easily, fine, but otherwise it just has to be neutralized as a position to threaten our flank as we drive north. If 3rd ID really is going to exploit the Nasiriyah bridgehead and drive north up the Tigris and Euphrates valley, it will be driving on the expected route and it could be delayed by resisting Iraqis or chemical strikes or simple minefields and physical obstacles. I still think it is a distraction and it will continue to drive north west of the Euphrates. I expect the pace of advance to slow down. That first bound to Nasiriyah was undefended by the Iraqis. I really hope the Third ID isn't the only heavy force we have. Sure, each brigade can take down a Republican Guard Division--especially with air support--but I'd rather have more troops. I really hope reinforcements are rolling north from Ar'ar and east from Jordan. Will 101st AB leap north of Baghdad or support the attack on Baghdad directly?
The Turks screwed up our plan to send 173rd to the north for now, I guess. We are apparently closing on the Ansar al-Islam thugs with special forces and Kurds. We also have a task force looking for Speicher!
As for the protesters--the ones in San Francisco especially are beneath contempt. They may make it easier for terrorists to strike as law enforcement keeps them from causing damage. Some of the "peace" protesters had molotov cocktails. Time to admit that Stalinists organized these things or accept that "ordinary" Americans are violent thugs. Why don't we airlift those valiant defenders of Saddam into Baghdad where they can really fight for Saddam? And let's give the Baathists sanctuary in San Francisco--let them take over city council and show the idiots how life under Saddam can be. If only.
I'll be shocked if the pace really keeps going this fast. Outside Baghdad in a couple days? Doubt it.
"War Continues" (Posted March 21, 2003)
The Iraqi mechanized division at Basra has surrendered to the Marines and British. Rumor has it that the infantry division as Nasiriyah has surrendered to the Army. Although some are worrying that more haven't surrendered, I always expected surrenders to take place when our troops get near and not before. Apparently, the first two divisions we reached have surrendered/gone home. Good sign. Granted, this is the distrusted regular army rabble; but it is still good.
A brigade at H-3 and H-2? TV speculating the 82nd AB combat brigade but why that unit? I still think units out of Jordan took these, possibly after special forces grabbed them. I am just speculating but it makes sense to me. Also, nothing about the Ar'ar force. It would be pretty cool if the 3rd ID (dang, that unit is moving--at least the lead recon element anyway) is all the Iraqis expect west of Baghdad and then they find two heavy divisions sweeping forward with 101st AB in support and precision air power pummeling the Iraqis as the Army plows through them.
Plus air strikes on the Ansar al Islam group.
I expect 3< SUP> ID to keep going west of Euphrates; although maybe some elements will feint north in a river crossing at Nasiriyah trying to look like the Remagen bridgehead before joining their brethren further north. The mechanized elements of the Marines will apparently be free to push north quickly since the Iraqi defenders at Basra broke. Some Brits will join them, too; but many will need to stay at Basra to garrison the area and police it. And watch the Iranians too. The northern front is yet to open, too.
Oh, and reports from months ago that the Iraqis bought GPS jammers were either wrong or the Air Force engineered counter-measures. This is a major relief. Shock and awe, indeed.
We haven't won yet--but so far so good.
"Iraqi Resistance" (Posted March 21, 2003)
Please note, southern Iraq has few troops so the lack of resistance doesn't mean the war is over. The first places we may run into resistance from divisional formations are at Nasiriyah and Basra. If the 3rd ID keep going west of the Euphrates as I expect, real resistance to the Army won't happen until we reach the outer Baghdad defense ring. Marine and British fighting for Basra region is near, however. Whether the two Iraqi divisions there (including one north of Basra) fight or surrender will be important. If they fight, they must be annihilated as a lesson.
"Voices in Their Heads" (Posted March 21, 2003)
From andrewsullivan.com, these guys are hilarious. Some of the human shields in Iraq under the so-called Voices in the Wilderness organization are viewed by the Iraqis as a couple cyclotrons short of a weapon of mass destruction, shall we say. The best lines from the story about Idiots in the Wilderness? This part:
The Bush administration has said little about the human shields. In February, a State Department spokeswoman responded to a reporter's question about why they were in Iraq by saying, "You might as well ask me why moths fly into porch lights."
Silver Medal goes to one of the actual human shields:
"But nobody can tell me that we haven't been an outstanding success," said Eubanks, who has been living at the Dura Electrical Power Plant
The inability of these people who went to Iraq to stop the war to ascertain that all those explosions going on in Saddam's palaces and Republican Guard barracks means they were no sort of success is perhaps typical. It's all about them. About how they feel. Effectiveness or actual weighing of real evidence is not in the picture.
Bzzzttttt!!!
"EU Civil War" (Posted March 21, 2003)
The French, Germans, and Belgians (no, seriously, Belgium) are uniting to form a common defense identity. Having lost the battle to lead Europe into ant-Americanism, these states will fracture the unity they craved. Clearly, getting their way trumps consensus any day of the week. Given their refusal to fight for anything, what is the point of having a common defense policy? Will they agree on surrender protocols? Really, the Belgians should worry that the French and Germans will decide Belgium is the only state they can take on.
We should be grateful. Now the British and the other states that chafe under the Franco-German proto-yoke will see they have no role in the EU of Chirac.
The French and Germans are free to lead those who will not fight to defend their freedoms and way of life.
We will join with those who see the threat to the West and who will fight.
"Liberation Time" (Posted March 21, 2003)
Apparently, the people of San Francisco are more upset over the liberation of Iraq than the Iraqis are—way more.
"Impressions of the War" (Posted March 21, 2003)
Looks like the shock and awe phase is starting. We tried to nail Saddam right off the bat, and when we took our shot, we accelerated the ground assault to get the troops moving. We held off on the big air attack to see if the Iraqis collapsed and to get the troops across the border barriers in the DMZ. Now, the main air assault is beginning.
Third ID is deep in Iraq—at least the recon spearhead—and is probably swinging west into the desert although some reports said they were heading north to the Euphrates. Keep the Iraqis guessing as long as possible and, if the Iraqis do collapse, they could go directly north up the valley. Brits and Marines marching on Basra. Special forces in the north so far. Are we waiting for clear Turkish air space to send in 173rd AB and 10th Mountain? And the really good part, we took H-3 and H-2 airfields in western Iraq. Yesterday the Iraqis said they repulsed an attack from Jordan so I knew something was up already. One report speculates that Marines were involved (I knew they had equipment in Jordan so this would not be surprising). So something is advancing out of the west. Just need to hear about anything advancing out of Ar'ar. Also, with 3rd ID moving so fast, 101st AB isn't leap-frogging forward—the armor would have passed them by. I can only assume they are getting ready for major river crossing ops and city fighting at the end of the road.
Go 3rd ID—they set the land-speed record in the Middle East in 1991 (when they were known as 24th ID)—and look like they will beat their record.
Casualties mercifully light.
And I say again, it is bizarre to see the attacks on Baghdad on live TV. It will get weirder once the troops with embedded reporters go into more sustained combat.
"In Their Name" (Posted March 21, 2003)
The invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam's butcher regime may be going on without the approval of Hollywood and the anti-war nuts on the left and far right, but we are apparently going in the name of the Iraqis.
Sadly, the Iraqis cannot afford sequins to adorn their clothing to make this point.
It is clear, nonetheless, that we will see very happy Iraqis when Saddam is gone and very unhappy anti-war types when they see cheering Iraqis. Granted, in a couple years that gratitude could be anger if we screw up the post-war phase, but it will be hard for the protesters in the West to argue that they were right to prefer Saddam to liberation. I have to hand it to the anti-war left—they stand by their dictators to the bitter end.
The near future holds two things: Saddamites dead or arrested; and anti-war types shown to be immoral idiots. Couldn't happen to two better groups.
"Damn, He Is So Sophisticated" (Posted March 21, 2003)
Chirac, after threatening a veto to halt our war against Saddam, now promises to veto American and British administration of Iraq after the war. When in a hole, first stop digging. God almighty, Chirac instead brings in the heavy earthmoving equipment to dig more effectively.
"Protesters" (Posted March 20, 2003)
Damned protesters in downtown Ann Arbor made me late for my son's school event. The protesters are increasing their protests. They are determined to defend Saddam and get that warm and fuzzy "Vietnam War Experience" that they lust for. And if they have to defend a bloodthirsty sadistic dictator, that is a small price to pay for the chance to sing Puff the Magic Dragon or whatever the Hell they are doing.
The protesters are proud that the anti-war movement has gathered steam very quickly and is quite large even as the war is just beginning. Well that is quite an accomplishment. Also note that we are starting this war with record public support. I wonder if there is a connection?
Ah yes, never have so many accomplished so little with so much noise,
On to Baghdad. I worry about whether this invasion is counting too much on the Iraqis just giving up. But it is way too early to worry seriously. Still, don't give the Iraqis too long to decide to surrender before unleashing shock and awe.
"POWs" (Posted March 20, 2003)
I can only assume that all those people who railed against our supposed horrible treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo Bay will be marchin' and hollerin' tonight in America's defense when they read this:
Information Minister Mohammed Said Sahhaf declared Thursday that Iraq will treat U.S. and British prisoners of war as mercenaries over whom no international law applies.
This should force a proper reevaluation of the anti-war side's views of who is evil and who is not, eh?
"Cuba" (Posted March 20, 2003)
Cuba is cracking down on dissidents. Is Castro worrying about people in Havana measuring Fidel for a nearby lamp post? The sight of Iraqis going after their far more bloody-minded thugs may be inspirational in Cuba. The signs look good for cheering Iraqi crowds. The Cuban people will see that even long-lived dictators can be brought down.
At least Castro may fear that.
I can at least hope so.
"Iran" (Posted March 20, 2003)
The Iranians say they are staying neutral. When the Great Satan fights a regular old Satan (from Iran's viewpoint), I guess prudence demands you sit it out. Would you be glad if either won, after all? And worse, if we win quickly despite Iranian help to Iraq, would you want American forces to turn right and keep going?
"North Korea" (Posted March 20, 2003)
The South Koreans put their forces on alert, just in case. I imagine that the North, knowing we would need to respond with nukes to an invasion since so much of our conventional military power is engaged in Iraq, will stay on their side of the DMZ. If regime survival really is what is motivating Pyongyang and if they are capable of rational analysis, they will stay quiet.
You never know, though.
"Afghanistan" (Posted March 20, 2003)
We are launching an attack in Afghanistan, too. The military says it is not timed to coincide with the Iraq offensive. Why our military people deny this I do not know. If it is not timed to coincide, it should be. What on earth is wrong about distracting the people who say they will strike us when we go after Saddam?
"Lunchtime in Lansing" (Posted March 20, 2003)
Wow. Protesters out at the Capitol Building. New war. Same old "one-two-three-four" chants. I guess when you are that earnest you don't notice the silliness of the chants.
I counted to 3,000 about a year and a half ago..
I don't want to count that high again.
On to Baghdad.
"Nightfall in Iraq" (Posted March 20, 2003)
Last night was just a drive by on Saddam. Nice shot and it puts Saddam on notice that his game of legal niceties and French interference are over. He knows he is a dead man. And more important, his subordinates and people know he is a dead man.
Now firing is starting again and ground troops of 3rd ID, 1st MEF, and British are in action in some opening skirmishes as they roll into Iraq. I guess that Army troops are rolling already further west. We shall see. CBS saying that the ground assault has been accelerated and the air offensive scaled back. Do we have indications that Iraq is collapsing already? That information better be darned solid. We need to stun them and smash them to end this war with decisive victory as soon as possible. A gentle invasion in the teeth of Iraqi soldiers ready to fight will increase our casualties and lengthen this war.
Patriots apparently scored a success today too. This highlights the advantage of our military as a whole. Patriots could be overwhelmed in a volley attack that might overwhelm the programming, but our surveillance capability allows us to spot them coming out and our aircraft can strike them quickly. As a result, when they unveil them they need to use them—fast—or lose them. The result is that we take them on in ones and twos.
It is unreal to see Baghdad on live TV.
"Oh…" (Posted March 20, 2003)
I feel foolish I didn't think of this. The Iraqis expelled at our request from among the 60 countries we identified were given a choice of going home on the eve of their regime's destruction or telling us everything they know. Apparently they have talked.
"It Has Begun" (Posted March 19, 2003)
The balloon just went up.
Go get them, guys. Just win. And come home safe. By God, you are going in my name.
Thank you. Just thank you.
"Speicher" (Posted March 19, 2003)
I hope a major special forces mission brings our pilot Speicher out of whatever Baghdad prison he may be in tonight. If he has truly been imprisoned by that bastard Saddam all these years, we owe it to all our troops to make every effort to free him from 12 years of imprisonment. He is to be forgiven if he thinks we forgot him. God help him.
"Invasion" (Posted March 19, 2003)
Well, this is it. I think my 'red team' analysis from July of Iraq's options to defeat us and our counter-measures to beat them still holds true. My opinion of where we will strike has shifted, but other than that, I stand by it.
Iraq's main failure has been their neglect to impede our build-up or to attack Kuwait before we can go. They will pay for those errors.
The invasion—meaning the overt crossing into Iraq from Kuwait of the first Abrams tank—probably won't happen until after the deadline. With special forces already in Iraq, other troops setting up refueling points deep in Iraq so the 101st AB can make their first combat landing over 200 miles inside Iraq could be in Iraq now. Some heavy stuff could be entering western Iraq now, too. Or, Saddam could start shooting sooner and give us the excuse to go in sooner than the deadline tonight.
But our forces are going in. Up and at them, lads. You go with the prayers and support of the people back home.
It is very sobering to be on the verge of war. Only believing our safety depends on victory makes it even a little tolerable to send our soldiers to fight, kill, and die.
On to Baghdad.
"Jerks" (Posted March 18, 2003)
Ok, it was annoying enough when various anti-war types dismissed pro-American nations as those one could buy on e-Bay. Such an attitude of superiority was amazingly elitist especially when one considers their worship of the approval of similar small states who happened to be on the Security Council this month. Why Cameroon's approval was worthy of respect while Albania's was banished to e-Bay status is beyond me.
And then, tonight, on CNBC, the host and the editor from The Chicago Tribune dismissed the thirty named allies (and 15 more will be named later) who back our war on Iraq. (Nicaragua's presence on the list must be particularly hard to take for the San Fransisco types who worshipped the Sandinistas in the 1980s!) Honest to God, they will bray about American so-called "unilateralism" regardless of the facts.
I don't think that word means what they think it means...
"War Near" (Posted March 18, 2003)
Well, with war kicking off in probably 24 hours, it is time for me to concede error. I have long thought it would be inconceivable that we would wait until mid-March to attack.
Well, Andre the Giant is tweaking me: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
In my own defense, I never believed March was any different than December or January or February, but I did worry what would happen if we waited until March. Waiting has not undermined our will to fight. And the Brits are still with us. Delay has not affected this at least. Still, only war will tell us if delay allowed Saddam time to field nasty surprises for us. I hope not.
We surely have surprises of our own. And to be fair, Saddam's surprises are unlikely to defeat us even if they can cause additional casualties.
I hope our troops don't pay the price for delaying the war.
"Civilian Targets" (Posted March 18, 2003)
The guys and gals that said all along that nothing justifies violence and that we just needed to keep debating rather than resort to war are planning their own non-peaceful response to war against Saddam. The sight of the pseudo moralists resorting to violent action and attacks against civilian targets is just too good not to note. Anti-war protesters will strike civilian targets in America:
"People will step up their actions, there will be active civil disobedience," said Simona Sharoni of United for Peace in Thurston County, Wash.
Direct Action, a San Francisco Bay-area group of anti-war veterans, has been drawing up their own battle plan should there be a war.
They say they will shut down 70 targets in San Francisco alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and the Transamerica Building.
And their hit list goes beyond economic targets.
Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs. Organizers say this will give others a chance to contemplate how war affects the children of Iraq.
"The civilians in Iraq are losing their lives and one day of work is worth a thousand lives," said Leone Reinbold, an anti-war activist in San Francisco.
They want to shut down water and electricity? They will target child care centers? Naughty, naughty. I thought they were horrified at the thought that civilian targets might be destroyed in Iraq.
Oh, just civilian targets in enemy territory. But I guess for many of the protesters, being in America is being in enemy territory. The Iraqis will have trouble sending saboteurs here to strike us, but I guess they don't need to.
That said, and my disgust for them made plain, they are not enemy agents or soldiers. No, they really shouldn't be shot to defend those targets. Instead, they should be convinced to go home. Whether by fences, or tear gas, or whatever. Just nothing lethal. They are citizens, after all. Misguided, yes. But also citizens. Arrest them if they seriously violate the law, of course.
But remember, when you see news of these lovelies trying to disrupt our society, that it would not be in our interest to drum up sympathy for the protesters. Uninjured wacko protesters thwarted in their antics will result in our government receiving the support of the public when they see the protesters' dangerous stunts. But if they are seriously hurt or killed, the public will begin to wonder why such harsh measures are being applied to citizens.
Still, despite the flaming hypocrisy of the anti-war crowd, in the war on terror this is one front where the criminal justice system and our civilian courts must play the lead role.
Remember, tear gas builds character. Lord knows I sucked up enough of it in my time…
"Ultimatum" (Posted March 18, 2003)
I imagine the 48-hour ultimatum was mostly a signal to Iraqi Army officers that they have this much time to overthrow Saddam before we invade. Note, too, that regardless of whether the exile option is accepted, our troops will march into Iraq to make sure we rip out the Ba'ath Party apparatus of terror and the weapons of mass destruction programs. The only question is whether any Iraqis resist.
It will be a race between our people and French, Russian, and Chinese intelligence people to see who gets to embarrassing Iraqi archives first.
Looks like Wednesday night war starts, if it doesn't begin stealthily before then. Perhaps special forces and airmobile forces slipping into western and southwestern Iraq to screen the route of advance for heavy armor to race toward Baghdad at about 40 m.p.h.
Of course, some are saying that this war will be "illegal." They say we will kill the UN's legitimacy. What rubbish. In the history of the UN, two wars have been fought with UN blessings and we led both of them. How many other wars have there been since 1945 that had no official blessing? Scores. Yet somehow the UN's legitimacy survived those only to be done in by our destruction of Saddam's regime. The silliness of those who argue for a UN mandate is truly amazing. Having lost the debate, they toss out weirder arguments to stay our hand.
Silliness used to count in these matters. But when we weigh listening to such rubbish against losing Newport in a container ship nuclear blast, silliness is finally losing. If the UN international community had united to contain Saddam, maybe we wouldn't need to invade. Having failed to squelch Saddam's desires for glory at the expense of others, including us, the international community embodied in the UN has failed to unite to militarily stop Saddam. Now, a true community of nations with similar views on preserving our world will destroy Saddam. We can't afford to take the first shot anymore—not when we stand to lose a city by doing so.
Let's roll.
And I was thinking, on the practical matter of invasion, do we really have three infantry battalions to garrison three Patriot sites in Jordan? Can't the Jordanians protect the missile sites? Boy, though, the three National Guard battalions now in Jordan would be nice to garrison the H-3, H-2, and H-1 airfields in western Iraq. Garrison duty isn't as challenging as frontline combat and frees up regulars for the main fight. A good use of the Guard, given their training (not to dismiss the Guard. It is probably better than the majority of even Western active armies; the Guard suffers from being compared to our active Army, however…).
Yep, main effort into western Iraq out of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Fifth Corps will be loud and obvious when it rolls north as a feint toward Nasiriyah.
"Clearing the Decks" (Posted March 17, 2003)
I'd guess that we invade tonight but for the need to let the inspectors get to a border. It all depends on whether they've started driving for the border right at this moment; or if they can get a plane this afternoon. Maybe tonight. Maybe tomorrow. Quickly, though, before Saddam launches a volley of chemical weapons he claims he does not have.
Over the weekend, articles on why a three-division invasion is too small to smash Saddam came out.
That would be correct if we only had three divisions. We have more.
Everybody's eyes are on Kuwait where First Marine Expeditionary Force, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), and 101st Airborne divisions are poised to attack. First of all, First MEF is a corps-sized outfit with enough line battalions on the ground (the invaluable globalsecurity.org has them listed) to outfit three decent sized divisions or two big divisions (say, 28 line battalions). Then, the Army has over thirty line battalions (infantry, armor, cavalry), enough for three divisions, really. Don't forget the British with at least ten battalions on the ground—another division. This gives us, using ten battalions as a division equivalent (yes, I know, it isn't really), seven divisions—or at least the line components of seven divisions. Add in a couple heavy divisions worth of armor in the theater that apparently has nobody crewing it (or are they sitting in Ar 'ar?) and we have two more. At worst, if we are worried about bottlenecks in the drive north, we plan to follow 3rd Infantry with two more divisions once the invasion starts. Or, we managed to slip in troops to man those brigade sets with nobody looking. We have been shipping stuff in for a long time now.
I still guess a strong effort in the western desert of Iraq. If 3rd Infantry really is still all in Kuwait, perhaps it strikes out northwest to link up with similarly sized forces advancing out of Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia. 101st (given the equipment it received, like ladders and axes and grappling hooks, it does appear this unit will be committed to city combat if needed) could go with 3rd ID or maybe hop north with some of the more mobile and armor-heavy Marines in Kuwait. Marines and most British will grab Basra and watch the Iranians.
Paras and 10th Mountain go into Kurdish areas.
Special forces all around. The Rangers remain poised to hit a strategic target (Saddam's caravan or a weapon of mass destruction site). Maybe the 82nd Airborne brigade drops on airfields in the west of Iraq or maybe it is held back to be airlifted into an airhead near Baghdad.
Whatever way we go, I bet the Army goes in as the air strikes commence while the Marines and British, with all eyes on them, stay in Kuwait for a couple days pretending to allow the air strikes to soften up the Iraqis. Mainly, we want to hide the start of the regime change as long as possible since only when Saddam feels the M-1s coming after him will he push the buttons to launch bugs and chemicals and to blow the oil fields.
We'll be outside Baghdad's western suburbs in a week.
Then, Baghdad collapses or we besiege the city and seek to crack the defenders without leveling the city. Last-ditch stand in Tikrit?
And we worry about the Iranians, Turks, and Kurds behaving themselves reasonably well. But, hey, resistance fighters took their revenge on Nazi collaborators in the wake of our troops in World War II. Parts of this will be very ugly.
Our soldiers will die fighting for us. This is sadly inevitable, but our casualties will be low compared to historical benchmarks of war where the butcher's bill ran volumes.
We have some solace, however, that it is necessary. We will be safer when we have won.
On to Baghdad. I pray we have not given Saddam too much time to prepare.
"Northern Front" (Posted March 15, 2003)
On MSNBC this morning, the reporter mentioned that airfields in Kurdish areas are being prepared so they can land 'light armored vehicles.' Normally, reporters just repeat what they are told--sometimes imperfectly--because they really don't know the difference between an MBT and an APC. Here, this is probably a specific reference to the actual Light Armored Vehicle (LAV), which the Marines use and which the Army uses in a superficially similar Stryker LAV. Apparently, then, we probably plan to airlift such units into the north. The Army could put together at least a battalion task force and may be able to put together a brigade of 2 or 3 by now. If memory serves me, the first brigade is supposed to be operational this month.
That could be a real world test of the Army's transformation endeavor--seeing if they can rapidly airlift a light armored force into hostile territory and begin fighting, and winning, right away. This would provide armored, mobile support to light infantry backing the Kurds up there. I'd sure feel better if our Stryker units were tracked instead of wheeled, but perhaps demonstrated limitations of wheeled armor in that rough terrain will be a valuable lesson.
"March 17" (Posted March 14, 2003)
Perhaps March 17th really is the day we go to war. After all the talk of going on a new moon, maybe the Iraqis will think there is no way will we invade on the eve of a full moon. Perhaps the plan calls for a rapid envelopment of Baghdad with the final assault on the city going in, if needed, on the new moon on April.1st.
Consider also, from the beginning of the latest diplomatic maneuverings, we established March 17 as the date by which Saddam must disarm. Paths through the DMZ barriers are to be cut by mid-March, units are moving to the field, ships are moving into the Red Sea to launch cruise missiles, and B-2s are finally going to forward bases. The President is going to a Sunday summit with the British and Spanish leaders, and we have demonstrated that France will not agree to any UN move that doesn't guarantee that Saddam stays in power. A lot of other hidden preparations may be concluding this weekend. So the evening of March 17th seems like a likely date for invasion.
But note also that we state that we may do a variety of "pre-war" strikes to take out Iraqi artillery and missiles that may harm our troops if Saddam pulls the trigger first. And we may also try to deny Iraq the ability to destroy Iraqi oil fields. To me, this sounds like a way of smudging the clear start of a war on March 17th. Face it, Saddam does not know what is going on outside of the major cities and in the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers valley. We can roll a couple corps across the west and southwest of Iraq and we will be the only ones to know. In the meantime, attention will be focused on the "pre-war" strikes around Basra as the Marines and British stand poised to attack. The last time, we erred by starting the Marines forward first to distract the Iraqis and had to rush the Army left hook to keep the gung ho Marines from driving the Iraqis out of the kill sack we planned. This time the Army goes first.
What rule says we must announce our invasion anyway? Let the Iraqis figure it out the hard way—when 3rd ID shows up at Baghdad.
I can't believe we have waited this long. I feared we would be derailed if we waited this long. Apparently not.
I still worry Saddam has used his French-purchased time to prepare deadly surprises for us.
With luck and a prayer—and historical precedent—our troops may overcome the results of French resistance with little loss of friendly life.
Now the battle for Iraq is at hand. May our troops rip their hearts out. Enemies who kill us and who seek to kill us must pay the price. The bill is now due. And the Third Army Collection Agency is coming to collect.
On to Baghdad.
"Never Mind" (Posted March 14, 2003)
We've already heard about President Clinton, Senators Daschle and Byrd, and other assorted anti-war politicians who breathed cordite and napalm in 1998 when the U.S. went after Baghdad for a few days of intense bombing. The rhetoric was all out of proportion to what Desert Fox was capable of achieving yet today, when we plan to achieve what the politicians asserted was best for U.S. policy in 1998, they change their minds. But that is politics and I expect as much. I don't even get too worked up over it. Both sides do it to one extent or another depending on the issue and the power division.
But this is really good. You see, the stars have largely come out against war against Iraq. From their public statements, it is clear that it is not based on any policy considerations. They haven't a clue. Nonetheless, they have aright to those opinions just as we have a right to bust a gut laughing at them. But at the heart of their opposition, is their moral opposition to war. It is evil. It is always wrong. Nothing good can come of it.
Except when their president was in power. No, not Bartlett.
Mike Farrell, whose articulateness on television reflects both his acting experience and policy ignorance, was all in favor of war over Kosovo:
In 1999, Mr. Farrell defended the Clinton administration's rationale for war in Kosovo: "I think it's appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention."
Yet Iraq is far more brutalized a place than Kosovo and is far more of a threat to us. So, Farrell's view of the world apparently leads him to think that if Iraq was less brutal, had a smaller body count of victims, had no weapons of mass destruction, didn't have as extensive a rap sheet of supporting terrorism, and didn't have any unheeded UN resolutions stacked up like a Hollywood star's bills for trips to Betty Ford Clinic, then we could justifiably invade Iraq? My, that's quite a plot twist. Never saw it coming. It is more shocking than even Colonel Blake's death in M*A*S*H on his trip home.
Sheryl Crow, too, has had a change of heart:
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the singer accompanied Hillary Clinton on a USO tour to entertain U.S. troops in Bosnia. "Once over there, I felt extremely patriotic," Ms. Crow told a reporter that year. "Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace. I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music." Ms. Crow hasn't been seen around any military bases lately.
You know, she could still go to the Balkans to entertain our troops there, since they are grandfathered in under the Clinton administration. Maybe even Korea, grandfathered in under Truman. I bet the troops there will appreciate her carefully calibrated distinction between their duress in the Balkans and their comrades in the Gulf. Shoot, even Afghanistan-based troops might appreciate a concert. Clinton, after all, did cruise missile the place over bin Laden's presence. How was this administration's actions any different—other than being effective? I just don't get her sequined opposition to war today.
Sure, I can understand Farrell and Crow, and all the rest, having different opinions about the justification of fighting one war and not another. There is nothing inconsistent about that. Shoot, I do it.
They just shouldn't pretend their morality is superior for opposing this war.
"Prisoners" (Posted March 13, 2003)
What is it about whackjob states that compel them to hold prisoners this long? Iran and Iraq have finally agreed to release all prisoners remaining from their 1980-1988 Gulf War. Seems the Iraqis stored some of them with those lost chemical weapons. Oops, so easy to misplace these things, don't you know?
Aren't these two Axis of Evil charter members worried about setting a precedent? Just wondering. I only say this because in our still ongoing war against al Qaeda and Taliban forces around the world and in Afghanistan we still hold their fighters in Guantanamo. Some think we should have released them all months ago since we won that war (oh, but the compassionate ones also say we haven't really won anything, Kabul hasn't a single strip mall, after all. So maybe the prisoners need to be held longer, after all).
If thug regimes are supposed to be motivated by our example in all things military and diplomacy, I dare say we can pick up one of their examples.
But still, I shouldn't be rude after a success like this. I guess all those marches and rallies held by the compassionate masses of the West on behalf of Iranian and Iraqi POWs unjustly imprisoned finally paid off!
There weren't any?
Oh.
Then the tender mercies of Iraqi and Iranian prison guards must be far better than American military police. How else to explain the blistering criticism of us while this festering POW problem went un-noticed by the Axis of Concerned?
"Terror War and Iraq" (Posted March 12, 2003)
Ah yes, al Qaeda will get a dose of American power when we go after Saddam. I think this is tailor made for 10th Mountain Division plus special forces and a lot of Kurds, in a repeat of the Afghanistan model of warfare. In retrospect, hiding in Iraq after Afghanistan will appear to be a major mistake on al Qaeda's part. Once again, we shall see how fighting Iraq directly helps the war on terror rather than harming it.
And as I've said before, and as Krauthammer says today, the resolution we are trying to get for Blair should simply state that Iraq is in violation of 1441—period. Dare the French and Russians to veto that statement of the obvious.
"The Carter Doctrine" (Posted March 12, 2003)
So what does the Carter Doctrine say? No, not the one that says America is always wrong. The one about the Middle East. No, not the new one that says we can't do anything to anyone, anytime. Shoot, Carter's new doctrine on that is more restrictive than even that of some Islamic scholars. No, I'm talking about the original one from 1980. You know, the one after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that did more to change Carter's mind about Soviet intentions than anything before then?
The Carter Doctrine as stated by President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union address on January 23, 1980, provided:
An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
This article has an interesting history of the doctrine.
But let's focus on the actual words.
Clearly, Carter was worried about a hostile "outside force" gaining control of the Middle East oil resources. This is, he said, "an assault on the vital interests" of America. And note that this isn't just about protecting American allies. Defending Iran was as much in Carter's mind as anybody. He was clearly concerned that hostile powers would gain control of the resources of the region—period. So, you say, he specifically said "outside" forces. Doesn't this rule out Iraq, a power within the region? Not if you consider that the "outside" power this was primarily targeted against, the Soviet Union, was a "hostile" power too. And with the Soviet border right on Iran, how "outside" was it? Clearly, the fact that a power was hostile to us was important. Not exclusively, of course, since the Carter Doctrine was not invoked against Khomeini's revolution. But Carter surely didn't want yet another hostile government to take charge in the oil region of the Middle East. Shoot, maybe the Carter Doctrine should have been enforced against Iran. In any event, the outside-hostile power issue is sufficiently gray in its distinctions that it hardly seems a stretch to say that Saddam's control of this vital region would be an "assault on the vital interests" of America.
Carter also stated that we would repel such an assault "by any means necessary, including military force." Usually, when an American president mentions "any means" they are darkly hinting at nuclear weapons to demonstrate our deadly seriousness. Or did Carter mean "any means" to mean only peaceful means. Were we to introduce limitless UN resolutions in the hope that the outside power would laugh itself to death? No, wait, Carter actually said those means would include military force. But surely, this humble man of peace, duly recognized as such by the Nobel Peace Prize, meant it should only be a last resort, right? I mean, he'd never do it, right? But no, he did initiate the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force to back up his doctrine. The RDF, initially nothing more than a concept, evolved into the force, Central Command, that drove the Iraqis back in 1991 and which will soon destroy Saddam's vile regime. This is more in line with a doctrine that stated the security of a friendly Gulf was a vital interest of America.
So today, enforcing a doctrine that Carter set forth, with a force that Carter initiated, President Bush goes to war in the teeth of the strident opposition of Jimmy Carter. As a bonus, we will advance human rights in Iraq; and we will be working to combat nuclear proliferation, which Amy Carter stated was the greatest danger we faced, and which the then-president endorsed.
I give my thanks to Jimmy Carter for his former wisdom and foresight. We couldn't do this without you.
The French could make a fine post-ironic film about this, I'm sure.
Finally, as a counter-point to Carter's proudly displayed false compassion, read this about the morality of containment that Carter thinks is a just alternative to destroying Saddam's machinery of death. Unless of course, Carter thinks we should walk away and let Saddam kill us or anyone else at his leisure. That would be truly wretched morality for Carter. I don't rule that out. Also, McCain rips Carter's op ed without naming him. Good for him.
"They Will Believe What They Will Believe" (Posted March 12, 2003)
It really gets tiresome to hear Moslems assert we are new Crusaders. They really need to get a grip. And if they don't, I don't care.
Our record of aiding Moslems and Moslem states is ignored by some Moslems who see nothing but imagined plots against them. Worse, they don't even see any circumstances under which we could justifiably fight Moslems. No outrage, no mass murder, is too awful for these Moslem legal theorists to say, "Well, we'll grant you that this time you Americans are justified in attacking a Moslem state." This is nice:
Islamic scholars at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, for example, believe that no provocation can justify an American military presence on Arab soil.
The scholars, members of the university's Islamic Research Academy, argue that Islamic law holds that "if the enemy steps on Muslims' land, jihad becomes a duty on every male and female Muslim
How can we change our policy to end that viewpoint? How is it even remotely reasonable to assert that after 9-11, that destroying the Taliban regime and their al Qaeda puppet masters was unjustified? How on earth does our measured response justify jihad? Why do we even care what they say under these circumstances?
And really, since the Crusades tried to take back the Holy Land after the Moslems conquered it, if anyone still has the right to have their panties in a wad over this, shouldn't it be the Christian West? I mean, since when does the thief get the right to be all righteous? I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, but really, let's remember what happened, eh? Talk to the Moslems who don't think this way. Ignore the ones who think nothing is too evil to do to us. We cannot sway them. They will believe what they will believe.
Inshallah, we will do what we must do.
"Yet Another Material Breach" (Posted March 11, 2003)
The Iraqis tried to intercept one of our U-2 surveillance planes on an announced mission over Iraq. I know, material breaches have flowed like the Euphrates through Baghdad, but will not this latest outrage at last trigger our overdue invasion? We have gone far beyond the point where any fair person could say we failed to try to get the international community to see what has been obvious for a dozen years—Saddam wants nukes and will never stop trying to get them; and he will never give up his arsenal of gas and bugs.
Delay will increase our casualties. The only justifiable reason to continue to debate is to put into place whatever last unit we think is necessary to crush Iraqi resistance.
Let's move.
"Fair Fight?" (Posted March 11, 2003)
From NRO, via Andrew Sullivan, who links to this. Check this out:
Quite probably the worst thing about the inevitable and totally unjustifiable war with Iraq is that there’s no chance the U.S. might lose it. America is a young country, and intellectually, emotionally, and physically, it has been exhibiting all the characteristics of an adolescent bully, a pubescent punk who’s too big for his britches and too strong for his age. Someday, perhaps, we may grow out of our mindless, pimple-faced arrogance, but in the meantime, it might do us a ton of good to have our butts kicked. Unfortunately, like most of the targets we pick on, Iraq is much too weak to give us the thrashing our continuously overbearing behavior deserves, while Saddam is even less deserving of victory than Bush.
Don’t get me wrong—I don’t want American soldiers killed. But I don’t want Iraqis killed, either. I’m just not one of those people who believes that American lives are more valuable than the lives of others.
So the worst thing is that we can't lose? Amazing. While some say we should not fight because too many of our soldiers may die, this guy Robbins says that we shouldn't fight because not enough will.
Wow.
But then, this is like the same silly argument made in the Cold War by some. They asked, how can we be so cowardly to attack little Grenada when the Soviets are much bigger and we don't attack them? Of course, they simultaneously argued we should not resist the Soviets since we were really no better than they were. Well cheers all around folks! We finally did take care of the strongest foe on the block, so now we can rip apart the mini-tyrants before they can do real damage to us.
It's always the same story regardless of the era: we can't pick on X because Y is stronger and therefore it is cowardly or unfair to attack X first. But then, they argue Y is too strong to fight. Why on earth is it the height of foreign policy genius to take on the strongest foe first?
His playground analogy is really screwed up, too. If little Billy had a vial of anthrax and was about to pour it into the air conditioner intake, I hope little Tommy would hit Billy so hard his head spins off. This is no school ground. And it is no place for a fair fight. Our enemies know that, or is 9-11 forgotten?
The Iraqis need to be stunned into submission by a violent and rapid attack that makes their head spin. No mercy, boys.
For the record, I don't think that there is anything wrong with Americans believing American lives are worth more than the lives of foreigners—especially enemy lives. And don't the peace activists really believe that anyway? After all, they don't think any Americans should die to free an entire nation of prisoners who are shackled, impoverished, tortured, and killed by one madman.
The measure of our success will not be our kill ratio, but if it is obscenely high in order to win, I will sleep just fine at night.
On to Baghdad.
"Nuclear Nightmares" (Posted March 11, 2003)
North Korea can rest easy for now, because I think Iran just stepped into the on deck circle and will be our next priority problem. I know, I know, we should deal with the Palestinian issue first and North Korea does have bombs, but as with Iraq, stopping the mad mullahs before they get their first bomb trumps stopping the mad Korean from getting his third.
But the idea that North Korea has anything to do with any of the other axis of evil members is silly, right? As silly as any al Qaeda-Iraq link, right? But not nearly as silly as any of the dark conspiracies that war opponents have dug up to explain why America will go to war. No tale of secret interests that explains this war as one waged for a purpose other than to eliminate a beastly regime that is a threat to us is too far fetched for the anti-war crowd.
Strangely, no linkage between our enemies is solid enough to believe. Go figure.
"Our Arrogance" (Posted March 10, 2003)
Just a small note.
If we have failed to gain allies for the war against Iraq because of our "arrogance" and our supposed "unilateralism," why do we have more support now, on the eve of war in 2003, than we did under a humble, multilateralist administration beloved by the Europeans, in 1998, when we struck Iraq? Then, we had Britain and Kuwait on our side. Certainly, the administration warned us then that Saddam would develop and use weapons of mass destruction eventually if we did not deal with him. And why were the sanctions and inspections unraveling at that point because our allies were walking away from containment? Again, weren't we just all warm and fuzzy with lip-biting multilateralism oozing from our pores?
Just wondering. Because I thought that type of sensitive foreign policy was supposed to do wonders for gaining allied support.
"Iraqi Nuclear Program" (Posted March 9, 2003)
The International Atomic Energy Agency does not think Iraq has a nuclear program.
The IAEA did not know that North Korea had a nuclear program and was surprised when Pyongyang admitted to the program when we confronted them.
The IAEA expressed surprise that Iran's nuclear program is so far advanced.
"Western Front" (Posted March 9, 2003)
Combined with the news of a base that could host a logistics point for an armored invasion of the western part of Iraq in a drive on Baghdad, the news that Jordan is playing a sizable role in the invasion adds up to a major effort here. Unnamed American soldier says Saddam is in for a surprise and heavy equipment has been unloaded in Jordan. Perhaps a multi-brigade strike force of Marines and Army troops will advance into the area out of Jordan to be met by 3rd ID advancing out of Saudi Arabia to approach Baghdad from the west. The 82nd AB brigade combat team could drop ahead of the heavy forces. Fifth Special Forces group and maybe allied special forces too have likely scouted and prepared the route. We again struck targets in far western Iraq (from the article linked below).
Although I am distressed at the time we are giving Saddam, I am at least pleased we are going in with overwhelming force in case Saddam's forces resist. I am also happy we will not be just driving north from Kuwait along predictable routes of advance. Saddam will have pre-planned chemical strikes plotted for the road north from Kuwait.
We are breaching the border barriers on the Kuwait-Iraq border, the UN is pulling in its troops in the DMZ, and Iraq is issuing demands of the UN! Said the article, "Glossing over the negative aspects of the latest report by the weapons inspectors, a government statement issued from a meeting presided over by Saddam Hussein and editorials in the government-controlled press all reached the same conclusion: that Iraq had been declared sufficiently free of weapons of mass destruction to warrant the cancellation of sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war." Amazingly enough, the Iraqis under Saddam seem to have a special talent for not knowing when they are going a bridge too far.
On to Baghdad. Let's go soon to gain tactical surprise.
"Worthless" (Posted March 9, 2003)
I see that once again, Jimmy Carter has shown himself to be as abysmal an analyst and historian as he was our president. The man who cherishes his Nobel Anti-American Prize speaks out, saying war against Iraq is unprecedented.
He says war must be the last resort. His conclusion that war after a 12-year cease fire in which we tried to disarm Saddam peacefully does not practically speaking exhaust peaceful means is ridiculous. First of all, the war is only suspended and Saddam has obligations to keep the cease fire going. He has failed on that count. Plus, by definition, there is always one more non-violent method to try if you have no ability to judge between the possible and the silly. Is there anything Carter would rule out as a peaceful means of trying "before" war? He has no credibility in judging whether we have reached the point of war since he clearly concedes no final step.
He says the war must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. His failure to see that our military is unmatched in its desire and ability to do just that says as much about his loathing of America as it does about his ignorance of American military power. Yes, some civilians will die in combat despite our best efforts to avoid them and even quite apart from Saddam's best efforts to use them as shields. Yet non-war kills too as so many point out.
He thinks it is not proportional to strike Iraq. He ties it to 9-11 and then says it is wrong to connect them. The government has not. It has said that in light of 9-11 it is wrong to let Saddam plot against us. I do find it curious that this man of "peace" appears to think we should take a nuclear first strike and then would bless a proportional nuclear strike in retaliation. It is our duty to defend our people-not to make sure our people die in proportional numbers to our enemy. That is just a sick concept of defending the American people. I am not surprised Carter views the world this way.
He says legitimate authority must authorize war. Again, and this is telling, he dismisses the overwhelming vote of Congress for war-the representatives of the American people-in favor of granting that authority to the rogue's gallery of the UN.
He also thinks the peace following the war must be better than the pre-war condition. Wow. He honestly thinks it is acceptable to leave the Iraqi people and our people's safety in the tender mercies of Saddam's nail-pulling psychopathic regime.
He finds that we will lose sympathy and prestige by attacking "unilaterally." Since, in recent memory, from Grenada to Panama to Haiti to Kosovo, we have struck other nations even though they did not attack us first and did so alone or virtually so, this is just Carter's ignorance speaking. Consider too the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. Army led the way and the most significant military force to assist us was the Marine Corps. For foreign states, only Britain and France had militarily significant forces in the war. The rest were just consuming supplies in the desert and were of no use to us once shooting started. This time, we are shy only the French. And we will likely get Turkish help too. And for all the whining about this too becoming another Vietnam, recall the South Koreans, and Australians, and Thais, and Filipinos, and New Zealanders, and (I think) Canadians who fought with us in that war. Not to mention the South Vietnamese. If allied help is the unit of measurement for just wars, a whole lot of protesters will need to rethink their views.
Carter sickens me. On to Baghdad.
"American Forces in Saudi Arabia" (Posted March 8, 2003)
This is seriously good. Reports of American forces in Arar and Tabuk in Saudi Arabia. I sure hope that 3rd ID is in Arar ready to drive into Iraq and head up that road toward Baghdad. Why we are at Tabuk I do not know. Unless it is a stepping stone for flights to points north.
With all due recognition of 'The Princess Bride,' it is inconceivable that we would wait until mid-March--when we are widely expected to go--to invade Iraq. Maybe the French veto threat to the ultimatum resolution will shoot that down on Tuesday and we will go Wednesday. Lordy, Lord, just don't give Saddam a chance to shout I surrender, haul out some VX for a month, and then say 'That's all I have, UN get out.' Then we are into the summer months. Just go, people.
"War Versus Civil Liberties" (Posted March 8, 2003)
Ah yes, there was a "woman's march for peace" today. That makes sense-stand up for a movement that would veil them and stone them if they have sex outside of marriage (or if they are raped) and otherwise provide them with a firmly enforced second-class status. And given that many opponents of war are warning that al Qaeda will strike if we invade Iraq, I guess it should be time for them to concede a link between Iraq and the Islamofascists.
These are the most extreme, of course, those who defend our enemies and wish them victory even as they go home at night comforted by the notion that we will not lose. Others decry our pending war against Iraq (it better be pending, I think we have made a terrible-though hopefully not grave-mistake in giving Iraq another deadline. Hopefully the French veto will save us from this mistake), unable to see the link between an anti-American despot with weapons of mass destruction and anti-American terrorists who dream of having weapons of mass destruction. Some of the "toughest" of these opponents say we should take the money we will spend destroying Saddam and plow it into homeland defense. We should, they say, pull back into fortress America.
Yet at the same time, these same people decry any effort to increase security at home, crying out that civil rights are being eroded. And they have a point. As long as we fight our enemies our civil liberties will be reduced. That is what happens in war. One of the mundane aspect of this threat level hit me yesterday. I received a rejection letter from a defense journal for an article I submitted (oh well, I'm one for two for the submissions I made in the fall). What really struck me were the two copies of my paper that they returned. They were yellowed. Then I remembered, oh yeah, as a government outfit they would have to zap every mail package with whatever device they use to neutralize Anthrax. This process yellows the paper.
This is just one of the prices we pay for defending against terrorists. And if we are to pull back into fortress America, how many police and soldiers will be needed on our streets? How many questions will we need to answer as government security people question us wherever we move? How many public places will be closed off to the public to keep terrorists from destroying our monuments and buildings?
Loss of privacy and freedom are the prices we will pay for letting our enemies live to plot against us. And every time they strike, we will crack down more. By sitting on the defensive, we guarantee that our enemies will eventually strike us successfully. Defense can only slow the pace, not end the attacks against us. Would these opponents of war say that we should do nothing to prevent attacks? Will they say that exploding malls and occasional plagues are the price we should pay to arrive at the airport five minutes before our flight?
If we want our liberties back fully, if we want the luxury of not having our mail irradiated because nutballs would kill us by mail, we must take the offensive and go after our enemies. Al Qaeda and the states that support them because of their common hatred of America must be destroyed.
Then we can debate our civil liberties and go on with our lives.
On to Baghdad. Our lives and freedom really do count on it.
"The French Better Not Join Us" (Posted March 7, 2003)
The French have very recently shipped parts to get Saddam's Mirage fighter planes air worthy.
Note to American and allied pilots. Shoot down any French-manufactured plane you see.
And that worm de Villepin said he is against war because he is worried about American boys dying in war.
Truly, the French government disgusts me. Defeating Iraq is our immediate business. Screwing with Chirac when this is all over will be pure pleasure. We need regime change in Paris.
"Bingo" (Posted March 7, 2003)
I feel a little better. (I'll cut back on italicized emphasis after this) This from CNN online: "The U.S. military is establishing a highly secret base inside Saudi Arabia within miles of the Iraqi border, CNN has learned. The base would serve as a launch point for special operations into Iraqi areas such as oil fields, weapon facilities and other sensitive sites. Search-and-rescue missions also would be mounted from the base if U.S. air crews were downed in Iraq. Saudi Arabia played a major role in the 1991 Gulf War and is now home to a large U.S. air facility, the highly secure Prince Sultan Air Base."
Special operations? Search and rescue? Oil fields? Man, we will own western and southern Iraq in the first 48 hours. We don't need a base to launch raids and rescue missions into the region. Now, if this is a cover for a logistics point and kick-off point for a full armored invasion? Now that makes sense.
"ARRGGGHHH" (Posted March 7, 2003)
I just cannot believe we are going to drag this out some more. Another freaking resolution? This better be a big old deception to mask war soon—like tonight. Who will we convince with a deadline for Iraqi disarmament? What good can possibly be accomplished? Weigh that against the North Koreans looming over us and ratcheting up their crazy factor daily. Balance this against the weather. Balance this against the possibility that one of our allies will face a no-confidence vote and fall from power. Weigh how much we will tire our pilots and crews with the aerial deception going on if we let this drag for weeks more. Balance this against the bloody time we are giving the Iraqis.
"Flying Pigs" (Posted March 7, 2003)
If professors had a clue, they wouldn't have tenure. This guy's alternative to invading Iraq is truly foolish. Ok, it isn't "I'm a Moslem cleric and think we should all fight America to the death" stupid, but it is up there.
He wants "a little war" to stop Saddam.
It doesn't even make a little bit of sense.
But this is what he says:
- Enforce a no-fly zone over all Iraq. He says the containment must be "tighter"(what happens when one of our planes goes down—AA fire or mechanical—and Saddam gets an air crew? How will the dreaded "street" react to more bombing even if we never lose a plane?)
- Stop and search every ship going into Iraq. (what about overland routes?)
- Maintain the threat of force while this is going on. (and where do we base the forces needed to compel his grudging cooperation? How many do we keep in the Gulf ready for war at all times?)
- "Challenge" the French, Germans, and Russians to join us in this enforcement. (seriously. This guy teaches "advanced" topics related to foreign policy?)
Of course, he has a caveat: "If an American proposal along these lines received strong international support, if there was a real commitment to sustain the little war for as long as necessary, there would be no good reason for the big war. The march [to our big war] could safely be stopped." (Well there's that little detail that gums it all up, eh? If we received strong international support. Why in blazes does this gentleman think we are at this point in the first place? Are we on the verge of war because the international community stood with us to contain Iraq all these years? Does he really think the international community, after failing to contain Iraq seriously after only a half-dozen years of containment, will really sustain his little war for as long as necessary? Mind-numbing, mossy-rocked idiocy.)
I don't think we should wait until pigs have wings and try out his solution.
On to Baghdad. Tonight, please.
"We Really Try" (Posted March 7, 2003)
You know, we really try to keep this from becoming a war between Western civilization and Islam, we really do. Shoot, even the Pope is against the war. But Islamic religious leaders just don't cooperate with the script. This is what one "respected" cleric in Qatar preached:
During his sermon, Qaradawi urged Iraqis to resist any U.S.-led invasion and "if they can't drive them back, all their Muslim neighbors should. This is a religious duty."
You know, if western Europeans had closed ranks behind Nazi Germany, urging solidarity against Slavs, we might say that the rest of the Europeans were a little whacked. Just a tad, don't you think?
What really amazes me—since the ability of Islamic religious leaders to spew hate isn't really shocking anymore (and let me say, I will grant that the ones who rant get the publicity, so I do not actually think they reflect the majority—I hope not, anyway)—is their willingness to pick a fight with the West when I believe Spain alone has a GDP greater than the Arab world (I'm not sure if you toss in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iran what western state would fit that tag, probably France would cover the bill). If they really do work themselves up in a killing frenzy, I do believe even the French would respond with force. And if it ever came to a pure killing contest, the Moslem world would lose hands down.
Honestly, just how freaking stupid are those clerics? How twisted are they that they would defend the likes of Saddam and his evil regime? How is it possible to think his continued rule is superior to siding with the United States in eliminating it?
Come on people, give us a reason to avoid thinking this is a clash of civilizations. Display that great tolerance for other faiths that Said claims Islam has.
Don't turn this into a religious war. We won't lose it.
"The President's News Conference" (Posted March 6, 2003)
We will have a vote on our resolution no matter what. I'm surprised. Nine votes plus a veto is fine. But would four votes, if just ourselves, Bulgaria, Spain, and Britain vote yes look better than no vote at all with a denunciation of the Security Council's blindness? There is some satisfaction in making them vote.
The President said he is unwilling to risk Saddam with weapons of mass destruction. I don't understand why opponents of war don't think Saddam with chemicals, or bio weapons, or nukes is too risky. They see war and tremendous uncertainty, and fear what could happen if we fight. They think the results of war are too risky.
In part, I think this stems from the difference between action and inaction. That is, as we have prepared for war, the fact that there will be unknowns unleashed stares you in the face. You know action is coming. And with action comes the reaction of others. Consequences flow from action. Inaction, in contrast, has no suspense. You go on with your life without any reminder that action is coming. Prior to 9-11, perhaps two years prior, that day was coming as al Qaeda trained and prepared for that day. We were simply unaware that action was coming. We did not have time to contemplate the consequences of our inaction. We waited in ignorance. Yet consequences happened despite our time spent in the happy land of the end of history. It may be easier to wait, unaware that others plan our destruction; rather than plan to destroy our enemies, with full awareness that we will fight; but it does not erase the fact that consequences will arrive regardless of whether you take action against your enemies or wait in ignorance for action to be taken against you.
The risk of doing nothing is truly too risky. I would not wait in happy ignorance until the day that my workday is interrupted with the news that we just lost Savannah in a nuclear flash.
On to Baghdad.
"Jackboots on Their Necks" (Posted March 6, 2003)
So, before the President's press conference tonight, MSNBC has a rapper on who has put out a CD featuring a picture of a low-flying passenger jet flying toward the White House. He put it out, he says, because he believes that opponents of the war are being suppressed and that people don't question the war. He thinks Bush is doing this for his popularity. He thinks the patriotism people show is false.
His CD was not confiscated.
He was on MSNBC stating his case.
He would probably say the public is against this coming war without reconciling how that increases the President's popularity.
He will be free to rap as he will and speak out wherever he is invited. He doesn't even need to make sense.
Yep, that is some repression he bravely defies.
"Oh Yeah, Soon" (Posted March 6, 2003)
General Franks briefed the President. We are cracking down on Iraqi agents prior to invasion so they can't trigger terrorist attacks—and just before the attack I would guess, so they can't be replaced. The President is speaking tonight to the nation—although the White House says it is not the war speech. Powell said yesterday that Saddam already had his last chance—and failed. Powell will try to persuade the UNSC tomorrow after Blix's report. We are dropping more leaflets warning the Iraqis not to carry out scorched earth orders.
On top of the air surge, war is imminent.
My question is, do we go tomorrow night? Does the President lay out the case tonight and then let Powell give the last-chance speech tomorrow—followed by a snap vote on our resolution if we have the nine votes (and veto be damned), or a speech explaining we won't push for a vote because Russia, China, and France cannot be convinced to see what is right in front of them?
I've called war dates before and seen them slide into the past so I won't be shocked if we really do wait another week or more; but never before have the signs been so many that our war machine is actually gearing up to high speed.
My second question is, are we really making the main effort out of Kuwait? All the signs say yes, but I don't know. Too obvious. The Iraqis will have every crossroad and village pre-targeted for chemical strikes. Unless our special forces have really cleared the way north from Kuwait, it makes sense to bypass the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Main effort under XVIII Airborne Corps from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Marines and Brits to Basra, and then on to the north. V Corps feints the main effort out of Kuwait. 10th Mountain and 173 AB to Kurdish areas. What the heck, in for a penny, in for a pound.
On to Baghdad.
"Surge" (Posted March 5, 2003)
The number of air sorties in the Gulf has surged. We are very close to war. We would not tire the crews with this level of flying unless it was to get them to peak performance and to dull Iraqi reaction to hundreds of planes airborne. I've consistently (but wrongly) believed we would go to war soon. My basic thought still holds-we will go to war before people think we will. Now people say the end of next week at the earliest. I'm honestly tensed for it to begin at any time. I would not be shocked at a Friday start.
"So Just Where Is Maureen Dowd's Imperial America?" (Posted March 5, 2003)
Maureen Dowd says disparagingly that we seek to impose democracy on Iraq yet find the democracy of our allies inconvenient when they decide not to cooperate with us.
I'd say that pretty much sums up American imperialism. We live with and respect decisions that go against us. We continue to pursue such democratic governments even though we know they may freely decide not to cooperate with us. And when Iraq tells our troops to go home, we will go home.
Yeah, Maureen, we are quite the quirky imperialists.
On a lighter note, hee hee, a story from the borders of our "empire": The guy with the busses for the human shields is stuck in Lebanon. He was leaving Iraq, shocked that he couldn't guard bunny farms and kitten ranches. I guess the bake sales for bringing the human shields home aren't exactly churning up scads of money. Yep, when you have scarce resources to spend on peace, paying for the big skedaddle isn't high on your priority list. Because, after all, as generous as Western European welfare payments are, there is only so much to go around after you pay for cable TV, Mig Macs, that trip to EuroDisney, and cheap table wine.
On to Baghdad, people. More deadlines are insulting and dangerous. We have waited 12 long years for disarmament. Let's do it the right way now-by stringing up Saddam by his heels in the public square. Or rather, let the Iraqis do it.
"The Kevorkian Trio" (Posted March 5, 2003)
Germany, France, and Russia will not allow a second UN Security Council resolution to pass. We should put the resolution up the day we plan on going to war. If we get nine votes and they vote against it, we invade. If we can't get nine votes, we do not put it up for a vote, blast the Russians and French for threatening veto against this terrible threat from Saddam, and then invade. Let those boobs, those "sophisticated" old countries wise in the ways of the world, destroy their influence by killing off the UN Security Council. Even now, they are hooking up the suicide machine to the Security Council.
The UN will not be dead. It will still do valuable health work amidst its vast silliness. It will still be a place for the nations of the world to vent and to talk. It just won't have any pretensions to stopping us any more.
"Stalin" (Posted March 5, 2003)
This is how evil flourishes. Elderly Russians getting all misty eyed over Stalin's death 50 years ago. They are not unique. Occasionally, there will be stories here about some aging "feisty" communists who still dream of happier times and hope that gulags and firing squads and bread lines will finally come to America. How can they honor that monster's memory after all we know today. It was clear even during his time that he was evil yet many looked away. Now, how can they? Just the same way human shields speak so fondly of Saddam as a victim. Even when the Iraqis can finally openly weep about their ordeal and show us what Saddam and his minions did to them, the whack jobs in our country with tears tattooed on their cheeks will still think we are the evil party.
Freaking, mossy-rocked idiocy.
"So What Can We Really Do About North Korea?" (Posted March 5, 2003)
This article says nations, including the U.S., are coming around to accepting North Korea as a nuclear power.
This has been the heart of my worries about what to do about North Korea. Although I don't take seriously those who say we must do something about North Korea before we deal with Iraq-they want action against nobody; others who say we might need to use force against North Korea must answer this question: how do we do it alone?
The total red line is the sale of nuclear weapons material," said Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.), who follows the North Korea issue closely. "Nuclear weapons transferred to the Iraqis would be tantamount to nuking Jerusalem."
The Senate source said the administration was playing "a very dangerous game" in not acting to stop reprocessing before it starts, because the resulting materials could be hidden in the country's network of caves awaiting export.
But administration officials argue they have no good military options for eliminating North Korea's nuclear capability. A surgical strike might neutralize the plutonium plant, but the country's effort to enrich uranium is proceeding at another, unknown site.
Now, I'm obviously not a pacifist. I am certainly no war monger, but war is a tool to protect us. The question of how we do this alone is critical. For Iraq, we do have the power to carry all of the burden of war if we chose to do that. Having allies, even if they only contribute 10%, is tremendously worthwhile as far as I am concerned.
But we would need the South Koreans for the mass of troops and for their bases. We would need Japan for their bases and hopefully their navy and air force. We would need China and Russia to cut off all shipments to North Korea to starve them of oil and other resources to prosecute war.
Clearly, we aren't going to get that kind of support. Shoot, we couldn't get a declaration of war out of our own Congress. The costs are so high and so virtually guaranteed that the idea that we would be forestalling an even greater toll would not be heeded. And such skeptics could be right.
Even if we decided that enduring a million American and South Korean casualties was worth keeping North Korea from going nuclear-and it may be-we cannot do that. At best we could take aerial shots at North Korea's nuclear and missile facilities and then gird to take the hit from the North. We would then rely on South Korean troops resolutely fighting even though the Seoul government did not want war. The South's morale might crack under those circumstances.
War might still come from miscalculation on Kim Jong Il's part. He may invade, thinking in his paranoia that he is preempting us. Like many tyrants before him, the North Korean psychopath may very well strike before he is really ready to defeat us. Should he strike us in the next couple months, we will likely absorb the first blow successfully, mobilize the reserves like they have never been called up since 1945, ship in 750,000 personnel to the region, bomb the North around the clock, and then advance on Pyongyang. A North Korean invasion would take the decision out of our hands.
But short of that, what do we do?
Well, we'd need to build up anti-missile defenses. We'd need to get 2nd ID off the firing line. We'd need to build up air power in the region. We'd need to halt North Korean exports of plutonium by any means necessary. If regime survival is truly the goal of the North, this might not push them over the edge. But we would really have to get the Chinese and Russians to seal their borders with North Korea and we would need to intercept North Korean ships. Perhaps sink them with our subs. We'd need to be prepared to destroy any North Korean plane that lands anywhere in the world if it refuses to be searched when it lands by our people.
And with all that, even if we have the cooperation of most of the world, eventually we will fail. The North will get plutonium to a state or group that will use it.
Which is all the more reason to destroy rogue customer regimes now, before they can buy their nuclear nightmare from Pyongyang.
And then welcome a nuclear South Korea and Japan.
If we are lucky, North Korea will collapse before the worst comes to pass. If we are unlucky, somebody loses a city.
Welcome to our future.
"Turkish Front" (Posted March 4, 2003)
The Turks will reconsider their decision to deny us a Turkish front. Some say this will delay our war because we must wait to redeploy 4th ID. Others that it will hasten it since we won't wait for 4th ID to deploy elsewhere.
I just don't think we planned to send the division in as the northern front. Sure, if the Iraqis collapsed, it could have been thrust into the Mosul region to mop up, but I don't see why we would have forced our way in.
What do we want from a Turkish front anyway? We want the Iraqis up there, especially the Republican Guards, frozen in place. We want to protect the Mosul region oil fields. We want to support the Kurds. We want to nail Ansar al Islam. We want to stifle refugees flowing into Turkey. We want to keep the Kurds from declaring independence. We want to block the route north as a bolt hole for Saddam and his cronies trying to escape in a retreat from Baghdad. We want their air space and we want to launch air attacks from the north to complicate Iraqi air defenses.
Do we need 4th ID for these objectives?
The talk of a northern front worked to keep the Iraqis pinned for a while; but with one Republican Guard division moving south, we've lost that.
If we secure southern oil fields, getting the northern ones isn't as important in the short run since Iraq isn't about to pump at OPEC-busting levels anyway. We have time to put out fires and fix the fields.
Tenth Mountain Division, special forces, and air power will protect the Kurds. Ditto regarding the al Qaeda thugs holing up in Kurdish regions. Our troops should also have a good effect on persuading the Kurds they owe us for sending troops to help them and so therefore stay within Iraq.
Turkish troops will likely push across the border a small way to forestall refugees. They don't need aid to do that.
A thrust from the west that approaches Baghdad from the west could also swing north to cut off Iraqi retreat routes. Precision air power should also be very good at stomping fleeing Iraqis.
All we need the Turks to do is let us use their air space and hopefully their air bases. Even the latter is something we can probably replicate from the Mediterranean Sea since Jordan has opened her air space to American aircraft flying from carriers.
So, Turkish cooperation in a northern front is not really needed. In case of a quick Iraqi collapse, it could have been a nice bonus, but a war stopper? Nope. I'll be real curious to find out how much of this negotiation was farce pure and simply a modern-day Patton feint across from Calais.
On to Baghdad.
"Still, We Wait?" (Posted March 4, 2003)
We wait for the Blix report this Friday? And then we wait some more to see if France and her allies will side with us?
Enough troops are flowing to start right now. Hopefully, we are just rounding up some more cells based on the KS Mohammed arrest to forestall terror attacks in defense of Saddam's regime.
Enough Blix reports already. And enough French whining. The North Koreans will not wait patiently forever, as their interception of our recon plane shows.
I know not why we wait any longer. I concede such decisions and the information to make them are well above my pay grade. Still, let's go!
"Iraqi Nuclear Program" (Posted March 9, 2003)
The International Atomic Energy Agency does not think Iraq has a nuclear program.
The IAEA did not know that North Korea had a nuclear program and was surprised when Pyongyang admitted to the program when we confronted them.
The IAEA expressed surprise that Iran's nuclear program is so far advanced.
"Western Front" (Posted March 9, 2003)
Combined with the news of a base that could host a logistics point for an armored invasion of the western part of Iraq in a drive on Baghdad, the news that Jordan is playing a sizable role in the invasion adds up to a major effort here. Unnamed American soldier says Saddam is in for a surprise and heavy equipment has been unloaded in Jordan. Perhaps a multi-brigade strike force of Marines and Army troops will advance into the area out of Jordan to be met by 3rd ID advancing out of Saudi Arabia to approach Baghdad from the west. The 82nd AB brigade combat team could drop ahead of the heavy forces. Fifth Special Forces group and maybe allied special forces too have likely scouted and prepared the route. We again struck targets in far western Iraq (from the article linked below).
Although I am distressed at the time we are giving Saddam, I am at least pleased we are going in with overwhelming force in case Saddam's forces resist. I am also happy we will not be just driving north from Kuwait along predictable routes of advance. Saddam will have pre-planned chemical strikes plotted for the road north from Kuwait.
We are breaching the border barriers on the Kuwait-Iraq border, the UN is pulling in its troops in the DMZ, and Iraq is issuing demands of the UN! Said the article, "Glossing over the negative aspects of the latest report by the weapons inspectors, a government statement issued from a meeting presided over by Saddam Hussein and editorials in the government-controlled press all reached the same conclusion: that Iraq had been declared sufficiently free of weapons of mass destruction to warrant the cancellation of sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war." Amazingly enough, the Iraqis under Saddam seem to have a special talent for not knowing when they are going a bridge too far.
On to Baghdad. Let's go soon to gain tactical surprise.
"Worthless" (Posted March 9, 2003)
I see that once again, Jimmy Carter has shown himself to be as abysmal an analyst and historian as he was our president. The man who cherishes his Nobel Anti-American Prize speaks out, saying war against Iraq is unprecedented.
He says war must be the last resort. His conclusion that war after a 12-year cease fire in which we tried to disarm Saddam peacefully does not practically speaking exhaust peaceful means is ridiculous. First of all, the war is only suspended and Saddam has obligations to keep the cease fire going. He has failed on that count. Plus, by definition, there is always one more non-violent method to try if you have no ability to judge between the possible and the silly. Is there anything Carter would rule out as a peaceful means of trying "before" war? He has no credibility in judging whether we have reached the point of war since he clearly concedes no final step.
He says the war must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. His failure to see that our military is unmatched in its desire and ability to do just that says as much about his loathing of America as it does about his ignorance of American military power. Yes, some civilians will die in combat despite our best efforts to avoid them and even quite apart from Saddam's best efforts to use them as shields. Yet non-war kills too as so many point out.
He thinks it is not proportional to strike Iraq. He ties it to 9-11 and then says it is wrong to connect them. The government has not. It has said that in light of 9-11 it is wrong to let Saddam plot against us. I do find it curious that this man of "peace" appears to think we should take a nuclear first strike and then would bless a proportional nuclear strike in retaliation. It is our duty to defend our people-not to make sure our people die in proportional numbers to our enemy. That is just a sick concept of defending the American people. I am not surprised Carter views the world this way.
He says legitimate authority must authorize war. Again, and this is telling, he dismisses the overwhelming vote of Congress for war-the representatives of the American people-in favor of granting that authority to the rogue's gallery of the UN.
He also thinks the peace following the war must be better than the pre-war condition. Wow. He honestly thinks it is acceptable to leave the Iraqi people and our people's safety in the tender mercies of Saddam's nail-pulling psychopathic regime.
He finds that we will lose sympathy and prestige by attacking "unilaterally." Since, in recent memory, from Grenada to Panama to Haiti to Kosovo, we have struck other nations even though they did not attack us first and did so alone or virtually so, this is just Carter's ignorance speaking. Consider too the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. Army led the way and the most significant military force to assist us was the Marine Corps. For foreign states, only Britain and France had militarily significant forces in the war. The rest were just consuming supplies in the desert and were of no use to us once shooting started. This time, we are shy only the French. And we will likely get Turkish help too. And for all the whining about this too becoming another Vietnam, recall the South Koreans, and Australians, and Thais, and Filipinos, and New Zealanders, and (I think) Canadians who fought with us in that war. Not to mention the South Vietnamese. If allied help is the unit of measurement for just wars, a whole lot of protesters will need to rethink their views.
Carter sickens me. On to Baghdad.
"American Forces in Saudi Arabia" (Posted March 8, 2003)
This is seriously good. Reports of American forces in Arar and Tabuk in Saudi Arabia. I sure hope that 3rd ID is in Arar ready to drive into Iraq and head up that road toward Baghdad. Why we are at Tabuk I do not know. Unless it is a stepping stone for flights to points north.
With all due recognition of 'The Princess Bride,' it is inconceivable that we would wait until mid-March--when we are widely expected to go--to invade Iraq. Maybe the French veto threat to the ultimatum resolution will shoot that down on Tuesday and we will go Wednesday. Lordy, Lord, just don't give Saddam a chance to shout I surrender, haul out some VX for a month, and then say 'That's all I have, UN get out.' Then we are into the summer months. Just go, people.
"War Versus Civil Liberties" (Posted March 8, 2003)
Ah yes, there was a "woman's march for peace" today. That makes sense-stand up for a movement that would veil them and stone them if they have sex outside of marriage (or if they are raped) and otherwise provide them with a firmly enforced second-class status. And given that many opponents of war are warning that al Qaeda will strike if we invade Iraq, I guess it should be time for them to concede a link between Iraq and the Islamofascists.
These are the most extreme, of course, those who defend our enemies and wish them victory even as they go home at night comforted by the notion that we will not lose. Others decry our pending war against Iraq (it better be pending, I think we have made a terrible-though hopefully not grave-mistake in giving Iraq another deadline. Hopefully the French veto will save us from this mistake), unable to see the link between an anti-American despot with weapons of mass destruction and anti-American terrorists who dream of having weapons of mass destruction. Some of the "toughest" of these opponents say we should take the money we will spend destroying Saddam and plow it into homeland defense. We should, they say, pull back into fortress America.
Yet at the same time, these same people decry any effort to increase security at home, crying out that civil rights are being eroded. And they have a point. As long as we fight our enemies our civil liberties will be reduced. That is what happens in war. One of the mundane aspect of this threat level hit me yesterday. I received a rejection letter from a defense journal for an article I submitted (oh well, I'm one for two for the submissions I made in the fall). What really struck me were the two copies of my paper that they returned. They were yellowed. Then I remembered, oh yeah, as a government outfit they would have to zap every mail package with whatever device they use to neutralize Anthrax. This process yellows the paper.
This is just one of the prices we pay for defending against terrorists. And if we are to pull back into fortress America, how many police and soldiers will be needed on our streets? How many questions will we need to answer as government security people question us wherever we move? How many public places will be closed off to the public to keep terrorists from destroying our monuments and buildings?
Loss of privacy and freedom are the prices we will pay for letting our enemies live to plot against us. And every time they strike, we will crack down more. By sitting on the defensive, we guarantee that our enemies will eventually strike us successfully. Defense can only slow the pace, not end the attacks against us. Would these opponents of war say that we should do nothing to prevent attacks? Will they say that exploding malls and occasional plagues are the price we should pay to arrive at the airport five minutes before our flight?
If we want our liberties back fully, if we want the luxury of not having our mail irradiated because nutballs would kill us by mail, we must take the offensive and go after our enemies. Al Qaeda and the states that support them because of their common hatred of America must be destroyed.
Then we can debate our civil liberties and go on with our lives.
On to Baghdad. Our lives and freedom really do count on it.
"The French Better Not Join Us" (Posted March 7, 2003)
The French have very recently shipped parts to get Saddam's Mirage fighter planes air worthy.
Note to American and allied pilots. Shoot down any French-manufactured plane you see.
And that worm de Villepin said he is against war because he is worried about American boys dying in war.
Truly, the French government disgusts me. Defeating Iraq is our immediate business. Screwing with Chirac when this is all over will be pure pleasure. We need regime change in Paris.
"Bingo" (Posted March 7, 2003)
I feel a little better. (I'll cut back on italicized emphasis after this) This from CNN online: "The U.S. military is establishing a highly secret base inside Saudi Arabia within miles of the Iraqi border, CNN has learned. The base would serve as a launch point for special operations into Iraqi areas such as oil fields, weapon facilities and other sensitive sites. Search-and-rescue missions also would be mounted from the base if U.S. air crews were downed in Iraq. Saudi Arabia played a major role in the 1991 Gulf War and is now home to a large U.S. air facility, the highly secure Prince Sultan Air Base."
Special operations? Search and rescue? Oil fields? Man, we will own western and southern Iraq in the first 48 hours. We don't need a base to launch raids and rescue missions into the region. Now, if this is a cover for a logistics point and kick-off point for a full armored invasion? Now that makes sense.
"ARRGGGHHH" (Posted March 7, 2003)
I just cannot believe we are going to drag this out some more. Another freaking resolution? This better be a big old deception to mask war soon—like tonight. Who will we convince with a deadline for Iraqi disarmament? What good can possibly be accomplished? Weigh that against the North Koreans looming over us and ratcheting up their crazy factor daily. Balance this against the weather. Balance this against the possibility that one of our allies will face a no-confidence vote and fall from power. Weigh how much we will tire our pilots and crews with the aerial deception going on if we let this drag for weeks more. Balance this against the bloody time we are giving the Iraqis.
"Flying Pigs" (Posted March 7, 2003)
If professors had a clue, they wouldn't have tenure. This guy's alternative to invading Iraq is truly foolish. Ok, it isn't "I'm a Moslem cleric and think we should all fight America to the death" stupid, but it is up there.
He wants "a little war" to stop Saddam.
It doesn't even make a little bit of sense.
But this is what he says:
- Enforce a no-fly zone over all Iraq. He says the containment must be "tighter"(what happens when one of our planes goes down—AA fire or mechanical—and Saddam gets an air crew? How will the dreaded "street" react to more bombing even if we never lose a plane?)
- Stop and search every ship going into Iraq. (what about overland routes?)
- Maintain the threat of force while this is going on. (and where do we base the forces needed to compel his grudging cooperation? How many do we keep in the Gulf ready for war at all times?)
- "Challenge" the French, Germans, and Russians to join us in this enforcement. (seriously. This guy teaches "advanced" topics related to foreign policy?)
Of course, he has a caveat: "If an American proposal along these lines received strong international support, if there was a real commitment to sustain the little war for as long as necessary, there would be no good reason for the big war. The march [to our big war] could safely be stopped." (Well there's that little detail that gums it all up, eh? If we received strong international support. Why in blazes does this gentleman think we are at this point in the first place? Are we on the verge of war because the international community stood with us to contain Iraq all these years? Does he really think the international community, after failing to contain Iraq seriously after only a half-dozen years of containment, will really sustain his little war for as long as necessary? Mind-numbing, mossy-rocked idiocy.)
I don't think we should wait until pigs have wings and try out his solution.
On to Baghdad. Tonight, please.
"We Really Try" (Posted March 7, 2003)
You know, we really try to keep this from becoming a war between Western civilization and Islam, we really do. Shoot, even the Pope is against the war. But Islamic religious leaders just don't cooperate with the script. This is what one "respected" cleric in Qatar preached:
During his sermon, Qaradawi urged Iraqis to resist any U.S.-led invasion and "if they can't drive them back, all their Muslim neighbors should. This is a religious duty."
You know, if western Europeans had closed ranks behind Nazi Germany, urging solidarity against Slavs, we might say that the rest of the Europeans were a little whacked. Just a tad, don't you think?
What really amazes me—since the ability of Islamic religious leaders to spew hate isn't really shocking anymore (and let me say, I will grant that the ones who rant get the publicity, so I do not actually think they reflect the majority—I hope not, anyway)—is their willingness to pick a fight with the West when I believe Spain alone has a GDP greater than the Arab world (I'm not sure if you toss in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iran what western state would fit that tag, probably France would cover the bill). If they really do work themselves up in a killing frenzy, I do believe even the French would respond with force. And if it ever came to a pure killing contest, the Moslem world would lose hands down.
Honestly, just how freaking stupid are those clerics? How twisted are they that they would defend the likes of Saddam and his evil regime? How is it possible to think his continued rule is superior to siding with the United States in eliminating it?
Come on people, give us a reason to avoid thinking this is a clash of civilizations. Display that great tolerance for other faiths that Said claims Islam has.
Don't turn this into a religious war. We won't lose it.
"The President's News Conference" (Posted March 6, 2003)
We will have a vote on our resolution no matter what. I'm surprised. Nine votes plus a veto is fine. But would four votes, if just ourselves, Bulgaria, Spain, and Britain vote yes look better than no vote at all with a denunciation of the Security Council's blindness? There is some satisfaction in making them vote.
The President said he is unwilling to risk Saddam with weapons of mass destruction. I don't understand why opponents of war don't think Saddam with chemicals, or bio weapons, or nukes is too risky. They see war and tremendous uncertainty, and fear what could happen if we fight. They think the results of war are too risky.
In part, I think this stems from the difference between action and inaction. That is, as we have prepared for war, the fact that there will be unknowns unleashed stares you in the face. You know action is coming. And with action comes the reaction of others. Consequences flow from action. Inaction, in contrast, has no suspense. You go on with your life without any reminder that action is coming. Prior to 9-11, perhaps two years prior, that day was coming as al Qaeda trained and prepared for that day. We were simply unaware that action was coming. We did not have time to contemplate the consequences of our inaction. We waited in ignorance. Yet consequences happened despite our time spent in the happy land of the end of history. It may be easier to wait, unaware that others plan our destruction; rather than plan to destroy our enemies, with full awareness that we will fight; but it does not erase the fact that consequences will arrive regardless of whether you take action against your enemies or wait in ignorance for action to be taken against you.
The risk of doing nothing is truly too risky. I would not wait in happy ignorance until the day that my workday is interrupted with the news that we just lost Savannah in a nuclear flash.
On to Baghdad.
"Jackboots on Their Necks" (Posted March 6, 2003)
So, before the President's press conference tonight, MSNBC has a rapper on who has put out a CD featuring a picture of a low-flying passenger jet flying toward the White House. He put it out, he says, because he believes that opponents of the war are being suppressed and that people don't question the war. He thinks Bush is doing this for his popularity. He thinks the patriotism people show is false.
His CD was not confiscated.
He was on MSNBC stating his case.
He would probably say the public is against this coming war without reconciling how that increases the President's popularity.
He will be free to rap as he will and speak out wherever he is invited. He doesn't even need to make sense.
Yep, that is some repression he bravely defies.
"Oh Yeah, Soon" (Posted March 6, 2003)
General Franks briefed the President. We are cracking down on Iraqi agents prior to invasion so they can't trigger terrorist attacks—and just before the attack I would guess, so they can't be replaced. The President is speaking tonight to the nation—although the White House says it is not the war speech. Powell said yesterday that Saddam already had his last chance—and failed. Powell will try to persuade the UNSC tomorrow after Blix's report. We are dropping more leaflets warning the Iraqis not to carry out scorched earth orders.
On top of the air surge, war is imminent.
My question is, do we go tomorrow night? Does the President lay out the case tonight and then let Powell give the last-chance speech tomorrow—followed by a snap vote on our resolution if we have the nine votes (and veto be damned), or a speech explaining we won't push for a vote because Russia, China, and France cannot be convinced to see what is right in front of them?
I've called war dates before and seen them slide into the past so I won't be shocked if we really do wait another week or more; but never before have the signs been so many that our war machine is actually gearing up to high speed.
My second question is, are we really making the main effort out of Kuwait? All the signs say yes, but I don't know. Too obvious. The Iraqis will have every crossroad and village pre-targeted for chemical strikes. Unless our special forces have really cleared the way north from Kuwait, it makes sense to bypass the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Main effort under XVIII Airborne Corps from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Marines and Brits to Basra, and then on to the north. V Corps feints the main effort out of Kuwait. 10th Mountain and 173 AB to Kurdish areas. What the heck, in for a penny, in for a pound.
On to Baghdad.
"Surge" (Posted March 5, 2003)
The number of air sorties in the Gulf has surged. We are very close to war. We would not tire the crews with this level of flying unless it was to get them to peak performance and to dull Iraqi reaction to hundreds of planes airborne. I've consistently (but wrongly) believed we would go to war soon. My basic thought still holds-we will go to war before people think we will. Now people say the end of next week at the earliest. I'm honestly tensed for it to begin at any time. I would not be shocked at a Friday start.
"So Just Where Is Maureen Dowd's Imperial America?" (Posted March 5, 2003)
Maureen Dowd says disparagingly that we seek to impose democracy on Iraq yet find the democracy of our allies inconvenient when they decide not to cooperate with us.
I'd say that pretty much sums up American imperialism. We live with and respect decisions that go against us. We continue to pursue such democratic governments even though we know they may freely decide not to cooperate with us. And when Iraq tells our troops to go home, we will go home.
Yeah, Maureen, we are quite the quirky imperialists.
On a lighter note, hee hee, a story from the borders of our "empire": The guy with the busses for the human shields is stuck in Lebanon. He was leaving Iraq, shocked that he couldn't guard bunny farms and kitten ranches. I guess the bake sales for bringing the human shields home aren't exactly churning up scads of money. Yep, when you have scarce resources to spend on peace, paying for the big skedaddle isn't high on your priority list. Because, after all, as generous as Western European welfare payments are, there is only so much to go around after you pay for cable TV, Mig Macs, that trip to EuroDisney, and cheap table wine.
On to Baghdad, people. More deadlines are insulting and dangerous. We have waited 12 long years for disarmament. Let's do it the right way now-by stringing up Saddam by his heels in the public square. Or rather, let the Iraqis do it.
"The Kevorkian Trio" (Posted March 5, 2003)
Germany, France, and Russia will not allow a second UN Security Council resolution to pass. We should put the resolution up the day we plan on going to war. If we get nine votes and they vote against it, we invade. If we can't get nine votes, we do not put it up for a vote, blast the Russians and French for threatening veto against this terrible threat from Saddam, and then invade. Let those boobs, those "sophisticated" old countries wise in the ways of the world, destroy their influence by killing off the UN Security Council. Even now, they are hooking up the suicide machine to the Security Council.
The UN will not be dead. It will still do valuable health work amidst its vast silliness. It will still be a place for the nations of the world to vent and to talk. It just won't have any pretensions to stopping us any more.
"Stalin" (Posted March 5, 2003)
This is how evil flourishes. Elderly Russians getting all misty eyed over Stalin's death 50 years ago. They are not unique. Occasionally, there will be stories here about some aging "feisty" communists who still dream of happier times and hope that gulags and firing squads and bread lines will finally come to America. How can they honor that monster's memory after all we know today. It was clear even during his time that he was evil yet many looked away. Now, how can they? Just the same way human shields speak so fondly of Saddam as a victim. Even when the Iraqis can finally openly weep about their ordeal and show us what Saddam and his minions did to them, the whack jobs in our country with tears tattooed on their cheeks will still think we are the evil party.
Freaking, mossy-rocked idiocy.
"So What Can We Really Do About North Korea?" (Posted March 5, 2003)
This article says nations, including the U.S., are coming around to accepting North Korea as a nuclear power.
This has been the heart of my worries about what to do about North Korea. Although I don't take seriously those who say we must do something about North Korea before we deal with Iraq-they want action against nobody; others who say we might need to use force against North Korea must answer this question: how do we do it alone?
The total red line is the sale of nuclear weapons material," said Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.), who follows the North Korea issue closely. "Nuclear weapons transferred to the Iraqis would be tantamount to nuking Jerusalem."
The Senate source said the administration was playing "a very dangerous game" in not acting to stop reprocessing before it starts, because the resulting materials could be hidden in the country's network of caves awaiting export.
But administration officials argue they have no good military options for eliminating North Korea's nuclear capability. A surgical strike might neutralize the plutonium plant, but the country's effort to enrich uranium is proceeding at another, unknown site.
Now, I'm obviously not a pacifist. I am certainly no war monger, but war is a tool to protect us. The question of how we do this alone is critical. For Iraq, we do have the power to carry all of the burden of war if we chose to do that. Having allies, even if they only contribute 10%, is tremendously worthwhile as far as I am concerned.
But we would need the South Koreans for the mass of troops and for their bases. We would need Japan for their bases and hopefully their navy and air force. We would need China and Russia to cut off all shipments to North Korea to starve them of oil and other resources to prosecute war.
Clearly, we aren't going to get that kind of support. Shoot, we couldn't get a declaration of war out of our own Congress. The costs are so high and so virtually guaranteed that the idea that we would be forestalling an even greater toll would not be heeded. And such skeptics could be right.
Even if we decided that enduring a million American and South Korean casualties was worth keeping North Korea from going nuclear-and it may be-we cannot do that. At best we could take aerial shots at North Korea's nuclear and missile facilities and then gird to take the hit from the North. We would then rely on South Korean troops resolutely fighting even though the Seoul government did not want war. The South's morale might crack under those circumstances.
War might still come from miscalculation on Kim Jong Il's part. He may invade, thinking in his paranoia that he is preempting us. Like many tyrants before him, the North Korean psychopath may very well strike before he is really ready to defeat us. Should he strike us in the next couple months, we will likely absorb the first blow successfully, mobilize the reserves like they have never been called up since 1945, ship in 750,000 personnel to the region, bomb the North around the clock, and then advance on Pyongyang. A North Korean invasion would take the decision out of our hands.
But short of that, what do we do?
Well, we'd need to build up anti-missile defenses. We'd need to get 2nd ID off the firing line. We'd need to build up air power in the region. We'd need to halt North Korean exports of plutonium by any means necessary. If regime survival is truly the goal of the North, this might not push them over the edge. But we would really have to get the Chinese and Russians to seal their borders with North Korea and we would need to intercept North Korean ships. Perhaps sink them with our subs. We'd need to be prepared to destroy any North Korean plane that lands anywhere in the world if it refuses to be searched when it lands by our people.
And with all that, even if we have the cooperation of most of the world, eventually we will fail. The North will get plutonium to a state or group that will use it.
Which is all the more reason to destroy rogue customer regimes now, before they can buy their nuclear nightmare from Pyongyang.
And then welcome a nuclear South Korea and Japan.
If we are lucky, North Korea will collapse before the worst comes to pass. If we are unlucky, somebody loses a city.
Welcome to our future.
"Turkish Front" (Posted March 4, 2003)
The Turks will reconsider their decision to deny us a Turkish front. Some say this will delay our war because we must wait to redeploy 4th ID. Others that it will hasten it since we won't wait for 4th ID to deploy elsewhere.
I just don't think we planned to send the division in as the northern front. Sure, if the Iraqis collapsed, it could have been thrust into the Mosul region to mop up, but I don't see why we would have forced our way in.
What do we want from a Turkish front anyway? We want the Iraqis up there, especially the Republican Guards, frozen in place. We want to protect the Mosul region oil fields. We want to support the Kurds. We want to nail Ansar al Islam. We want to stifle refugees flowing into Turkey. We want to keep the Kurds from declaring independence. We want to block the route north as a bolt hole for Saddam and his cronies trying to escape in a retreat from Baghdad. We want their air space and we want to launch air attacks from the north to complicate Iraqi air defenses.
Do we need 4th ID for these objectives?
The talk of a northern front worked to keep the Iraqis pinned for a while; but with one Republican Guard division moving south, we've lost that.
If we secure southern oil fields, getting the northern ones isn't as important in the short run since Iraq isn't about to pump at OPEC-busting levels anyway. We have time to put out fires and fix the fields.
Tenth Mountain Division, special forces, and air power will protect the Kurds. Ditto regarding the al Qaeda thugs holing up in Kurdish regions. Our troops should also have a good effect on persuading the Kurds they owe us for sending troops to help them and so therefore stay within Iraq.
Turkish troops will likely push across the border a small way to forestall refugees. They don't need aid to do that.
A thrust from the west that approaches Baghdad from the west could also swing north to cut off Iraqi retreat routes. Precision air power should also be very good at stomping fleeing Iraqis.
All we need the Turks to do is let us use their air space and hopefully their air bases. Even the latter is something we can probably replicate from the Mediterranean Sea since Jordan has opened her air space to American aircraft flying from carriers.
So, Turkish cooperation in a northern front is not really needed. In case of a quick Iraqi collapse, it could have been a nice bonus, but a war stopper? Nope. I'll be real curious to find out how much of this negotiation was farce pure and simply a modern-day Patton feint across from Calais.
On to Baghdad.
"Still, We Wait?" (Posted March 4, 2003)
We wait for the Blix report this Friday? And then we wait some more to see if France and her allies will side with us?
Enough troops are flowing to start right now. Hopefully, we are just rounding up some more cells based on the KS Mohammed arrest to forestall terror attacks in defense of Saddam's regime.
Enough Blix reports already. And enough French whining. The North Koreans will not wait patiently forever, as their interception of our recon plane shows.
I know not why we wait any longer. I concede such decisions and the information to make them are well above my pay grade. Still, let's go!
"Cops" (Posted March 3, 2003)
Is it just me, or does the arrest picture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed look like something out of 'Cops.'? I swear, he could be any drunken man standing on his front lawn after the police responded to a too-loud party. Then, when the police find he is behind on child support and has about two dozen unpaid parking tickets, his problems really start. Of course, he gets upset and takes a swing at an officer. Before you know it he is perp walking to the squad car. Most appropriate. All he is missing is the proper 'wife beater' t-shirt.
"Very Soon" (Posted March 3, 2003)
The war must begin very soon. Tonight if we decide to just stiff the UN, take advantage of the new moon, and get tactical surprise; Thursday if we really want to go the extra mile for Blair.
Human shields realized they are not impervious to bullets and became quite distressed that the Iraqis were unwilling to accommodate their symbolic mission by stationing them at Starbucks outlets and convents. Being put next to military targets was a bit much for their love of peace to endure. Oh well. At least the bus trip to Baghdad was one Hell of a non-stop party. I'm sure the bongs were full going through Turkey. The trip back is bound to be more subdued, I bet. And the peace activists of Europe will not likely buy them drinks and food as they beat a hasty retreat to the safety of their western nations.
The really funny thing is, when they get home they could still be human shields at convents and pizza parlors in London and Paris and Brussels and Hanover. Sadly, the Islamofascists have those as their primary targets—not the American military bases in Germany. Funny, huh?
The Iraqis will find their last-minute destruction of some of their missiles will be for nothing. The peace side has a funny view on these too. They are impressed with Iraqi cooperation. But why? The Iraqis are supposed to be disarmed of all such weapons following the 1991 cease fire. Why is it a success that we have now discovered new weapons banned but developed and built since 1991? Is this what we must support in inspections? Not the final conclusion of destroying all weapons extant in 1991, but a game to discover even the new ones? So how does this square with Iraq's supposed desire to cooperate?
Get on with it. The North Koreans exploit our delays.
Oh, and the same estimates used by anti-war types to judge the size of their rallies should be used to count the Iraqis crowding the streets, crying in relief and joy when American forces sweep into Iraq. And like the Germans herded through the concentration camps in 1945 to see what they would not believe, make the protesters and apologists for Saddam see what we have destroyed in Iraq. Make Chirac go there one last time to see his handiwork.
Let them see who and what they defended.
"Disaster! Catastrophe!" (Posted March 2, 2003)
Well, I guess some will say that now that Turkey has turned down our request to deploy conventional ground forces in Turkey for an overland thrust into northern Iraq. Some say the war will be "twice" as long. I didn't know we had a baseline to double.
Personally, I never believed that more than a few light brigades going into Kurdish areas would be our northern front. It seemed that a heavy brigade to back the Turks would be the only Americans outside of special forces heading for Mosul. It all seemed a charade to pin the Iraqis in place. Now that the Iraqis have moved a Republican Guard division south, and Turkey has formally turned us down, we must attack quickly to gain the effects of distracting the Iraqis for so long.
The northern front could airlift 10th Mountain Division (2 brigades) plus 173rd Airborne Brigade into Kurdish areas by overflying Turkey. A Turkish corps could still advance into northern Iraq. Perhaps we have been fairly successful with our overtures to Iraqi regular army guys up there and some will defect and have American or British or Aussie special forces embedded to direct American air power in support.
Mostly, I wonder if the Turks will let us run an air war out of Turkey. That is more important at this point.
Mind you, after we busted a gut to get NATO to honor its commitment to Turkey, it is very disappointing that Turkey voted us down. But that is their right, and I don't think we ever planned an invasion from the north. It just never made sense to send a heavy division wading into the masses of the Iraqis up there. Not that I worried they would defeat that one division. Although if the Iraqis went for broke and threw a Republican guard corps at the isolated division, they might inflict some heavy casualties. No, I worried more that we would have to annihilate any Iraqi regular unit that we got near just to be on the safe side. Since we would likely want Iraqi regulars to take some role in the occupation after the war, we don't really want to destroy the army. We just want it to become the defender of the Iraqi people and not their executioners.
So the northern front farce has ended. We had a good run on very slender effort on our part. Not a bad disinformation campaign as far as I'm concerned.
A newspaper article today noted that 3rd Infantry is still in Kuwait. Still no TV stories about the division. I'm way too cynical. Just where is that division?
Now get on to Baghdad.
"3-172" (Posted March 1, 2003)
So, 173rd Airborne Brigade has had the 3rd battalion of the 172nd Infantry (ARNG) attached to it. That Guard battalion is the only true mountain unit in the Army. I'd earlier thought a British unit might have rounded out 10th Mountain Division (actually just a light infantry division) for the northern front. Putting an actual mountain unit in 173rd indicates it is going north and not part of the southern or western invasion forces.
Oh, and we got an al Qaeda bigwig in Pakistan. So how is Iraq distracting us?
"Northern Iraq" (Posted March 1, 2003)
Airfields in northern Kurdish areas are ready to receive US troops. The article only mentions 4th ID but that makes no sense to try to ship in a mechanized unit to this mountainous region. Now, shipping 10th Mountain Division directly into these Kurdish areas would make sense. These forces could be directed to capture the Kirkuk region, with Turkish and relatively small American forces (a brigade combat team of 1st ID?) Driving south from Turkey. With a Republican Guard division bugging out of the north, the regulars are probably feeling a little lonely. Which is good for us. They know they are on their own and they know that the regime enforcers are no longer behind them. Could we see defections from these divisions in the next couple days?
American regulars would also be useful to back up Special Forces and Kurds going after the al Qaeda thugs in Kurdish areas who have set up a little mini-Taliban enclave.
Oh, and I guess 101st AB, at least in part, must be scheduled for invasion duties. Perhaps a brigade initially and then the remainder in follow-up waves will secure the western part of Iraq in a sort of low-opposition, war-time "training" mission. This will prepare them for occupation duty without exhausting them in combat. At the same time, they will be a powerful reserve in case we need them for the battle for Baghdad. They could isolate the city to the east and north if needed. I still think they would be a great component of an occupation army. Yet a role in the west should not harm them for this mission. And basing out of Kuwait will not require them to fly too far west since I think Army and Marine forces will advance out of Jordan to grab the H-3 and H-2 fields close to Jordan and then drive east.
New moon soon. Let's go.
"North Korean Threats" (Posted March 1, 2003)
The North Koreans shrilly accuse America of preparing for nuclear war. Our President makes one "Axis of Evil" reference and we are escalating the situation; North Korean hysteria and threats to annihilate Seoul and strike America are to be ignored, if you are to believe some.
Yes, we are gearing up for contingencies. But we are incapable of invading North Korea without massive American reinforcements. Nor could we go without South Korean full-hearted assistance. North Korea by contrast is forward deployed on a hair trigger.
North Korea's threats of nuclear war are scary, but would they initiate nuclear war? They say that they wish them to deter an American invasion. If this is so, then regime survival is their prime objective and even a disarming strike against North Korea's nuclear infrastructure should not prompt a North Korean nuclear strike. After all, we would still retain the ability to destroy North Korea with nuclear weapons in a retaliatory strike.
A cool assessment says the North would bluster but if we struck their nuclear facilities, they would hesitate before responding. First they'd figure out if they still had their nukes. If they survived, they might feel more free to respond in a limited fashion. A deadly retaliation to be sure, but short of a general war. They'd not want to give us the excuse to attack again to finish the job. If they lose their nukes, then they have to worry about their regime if they retaliate. If we know they are defanged, and the North shells Seoul, we might go all out with an aerial offensive to dismantle everything above ground and some of the buried stuff.
Also, the North Korean army may very well be a very brittle instrument most scary when it is poised to invade. It may start out the war fine, behind a massive bombardment, but when it faces serious resistance it could break. This is a poverty-stricken, oppressive, regime, whose people are starving and fleeing to China for God's sake. It is possible that the North's army is really only prepared for a parade march behind a curtain of chemical bombardment against token resistance.
So, we must calculate the South's ability to resist. On paper, it is good. But given the apparently widespread desire to blunt American tough moves, are they up to it? A whole lot of our troops need Southern troops to hold firm to avoid a debacle on the peninsula. I imagine we'd drop nukes all around 2nd ID to save it if we have to. And once we do that, we'd better go after the Northern regime too.
Very messy. Very deadly. And much depends on all sides calmly calculating what is in their best interest. Even rational actors will have trouble with that if the balloon goes up. What Pyongyang's frame of reference for rationality is a mystery to me. So much could go wrong if fighting starts. Yet is paying the North off the right step? At some level, it may be the best thing to do. Especially if the North really is mostly interested in regime survival now. We can't just sign something-anything-and then just look away as we did in 1994. We would have to have intrusive inspections. We'd have to have inspectors look at every plane and ship and train leaving North Korea to make sure the North was not exporting missiles, nukes, or components.
One thing for sure, I'll feel more confident once the Iraq war is concluded. North Korea will feel relatively free to thumb their nose at us until we are in the post-war phase in Iraq. We may yet pay the price for delaying on Iraq. The bill may come due at the DMZ and not on the west bank of Baghdad.
