War!

[moe.ron]

it's billion, but it will be earmarked for the slush fund for the un for the reconstruction of the UN. the $1 billion cost is a different cost. i'm going to find out how much money they've raise so far over the weekend. i doubt its very much.

[Cloud9]

Since our own media is somewhat remiss in broadcasting this information, I thought I would post someone's experience on the other side of this war. It's an opinion article, so don't take what you read as fact, but it's an interesting emotional reaction to the war so far from the Iraqi citizens' point of view.

Baghdad’s Night of Terror
Robert Fisk, The Independent



Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s main presidential palace, a great rampart of a building 20 stories high, simply exploded in front of me — a cauldron of fire, a 100ft sheet of flame and a sound that had my ears singing for an hour after. The entire, massively buttressed edifice shuddered under the impact. Then four more Cruise missiles came in.

It is the heaviest bombing Baghdad has suffered in more than 20 years of war. All across the city last night, massive explosions shook the ground. To my right, the Ministry of Armaments Procurement — a long colonnaded building looking much like the facade of the Pentagon — coughed fire as five missiles crashed into the concrete.

In an operation officially intended to create “shock and awe,” shock was hardly the word for it. The few Iraqis in the streets around me — no friends of Saddam I would suspect — cursed under their breath.

From high-rise buildings, shops and homes came the thunder of crashing glass as the shock waves swept across the Tigris River in both directions. Minute after minute the missiles came in. Many Iraqis had watched — as I had — television film of those ominous B-52 bombers taking off from Britain only six hours earlier. Like me, they had noted the time, added three hours for Iraqi time in front of London and guessed that, at around 9 p.m., the terror would begin. The B-52s, almost certainly firing from outside Iraqi airspace, were dead on time.

Police cars drove at speed through the streets, their loudspeakers ordering pedestrians to take shelter or hide under cover of tall buildings. Much good did it do. Crouching next to a block of shops on the opposite side of the river, I narrowly missed the shower of glass that came cascading down from the upper windows as the shock waves slammed into them.

Along the streets a few Iraqis could be seen staring from balconies, shards of broken glass around them. Each time one of the great golden bubbles of fire burst across the city, they ducked inside before the blast wave reached them. At one point, as I stood beneath the trees on the corniche, a wave of Cruise missiles passed low overhead, the shriek of their passage almost as devastating as the explosions that were to follow.

How, I ask myself, does one describe this outside the language of a military report, the definition of the color, the decibels of the explosions? When the Cruise missiles came in, it sounded as if someone was ripping to pieces huge curtains of silk in the sky and the blast waves became a kind of frightening counterpoint to the flames.

There is something anarchic about all human beings, about their reaction to violence. The Iraqis around me stood and watched, as I did, at huge tongues of flame bursting from the upper stories of Saddam’s palace, reaching high into the sky. Strangely, the electricity grid continued to operate and around us the traffic lights continued to move between red and green. Billboards moved in the breeze of the shock waves and floodlights continued to blaze on public buildings. Above us we could see the massive curtains of smoke beginning to move over Baghdad, white from the explosions, black from the burning targets.

How could one resist it? How could the Iraqis ever believe with their broken technology, their debilitating 12 years of sanctions, that they could defeat the computers of these missiles and of these aircraft? It was the same old story: Irresistible, unquestionable power.

Well yes, one could say, could one attack a more appropriate regime? But that is not quite the point. For the message of last night’s raid was the same as that of Thursday’s raid, that of all the raids in the hours to come: That the United States must be obeyed. That the EU, UN, NATO — nothing — must stand in its way.

No doubt this morning the Iraqi minister of information will address us all again and insist that Iraq will prevail. We shall see. But many Iraqis are now asking an obvious question: How many days? Not because they want the Americans or the British in Baghdad, though they may profoundly wish it. But because they want this violence to end: Which, when you think of it, is exactly why these raids took place.

Reports were coming in last night of civilians killed in the raids — which, given the intensity of the Cruise missile attacks — is not surprising. Another target turned out to be the vast Rashid military barracks, perhaps the largest in Iraq.

But the symbolic center of this raid was clearly intended to be Saddam’s main palace, with its villas, fountains, porticos and gardens. And, sure enough, the flames licking across the facade of the palace last night looked very much like a funeral pyre.

Arab News Features 22 March 2003

[Dionysus]

Um...why is Iraq claiming victory? Sorry, I haven't been following along as I should.

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by Dionysus
Um...why is Iraq claiming victory? Sorry, I haven't been following along as I should.

They are? How weird!

I have been following this -- with the exception of this last weekend.. my boyfriend's apartment doesn't have TV yet

[AlphaSigOU]

Quick recap on the war so far for T*P:

US forces find suspected chem agent factory in An Najaf, so well camouflaged it could not be seen from the air or space. By sheer luck a GI noticed something out of the ordinary with this factory and they found it.

British Army 'Black Watch' soldiers find cache of Iraqi cruise missiles, supplied by Russia. According to some of the date codes on the missiles, they're recent, which means the Russkies or some other greedy arms dealer got 'em -- in clear violation of the Iraqi arms embargo.

101st Airborne division soldier 'frags' command tent, killing one and injuring 12 others. Almost at the same time a British Royal Air Force Tornado attack aircraft is blown out of the sky by a Patriot missile. Crew of two dead, probable cause is an IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) transponder malfunction.

At least five members of an Army transportation company are captured by the Iraqis, another six or seven appear to have been killed, possibly executed. Arab TV network Al-Jazeera transmits graphic footage of dead soldiers and POWs paraded around by Iraqi TV, the latter a clear violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs. President and other high government officials extremely p*ssed.

Baghdad locals go apesh*t over reports that a Coalition aircraft was shot down and the pilots seen to be bailing out in downtown Baghdad. Whipped up by the local militia and Saddam's Fedayeen, they shoot up the Tigris river and burn down reeds in the shoreline in an attempt to flush out the pilots. Turns out it was a false alarm.

Troops are about 100 miles south of Baghdad, and they're expected to reach the outskirts of the city by late Monday or Tuesday.

[texas*princess]

AlphaSig, thank you! I genuniely appreciate it.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by texas*princess
AlphaSig, thank you! I genuniely appreciate it.

No problem, glad to help.

[AlphaSigOU]

From the New York Post op-ed column: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/71625.htm

WINNING BIG
By RALPH PETERS

March 24, 2003 -- In combat, the ideal leader is the man who remains calm and methodical under fire. Today's 24/7 broadcast news demands just the opposite: raised voices, an atmosphere of crisis and a rush to judgment. After declaring victory on Friday and Saturday, a number of media outlets all but announced our defeat yesterday, treating the routine events of warfare as if they were disasters.

Nonsense.

We're winning, the Iraqis are losing, and the American people have executive seats for what may prove to be the most successful military campaign in history.

I do recognize that the majority of our journalists are doing their best to cover this war accurately and fairly. But, with a few admirable exceptions, even seasoned reporters lack the perspective needed to judge the war's progress. Few have read military history. Even fewer have served in the military. They simply don't understand what they are seeing.

Every low-level firefight seems a great battle to them. Each pause in the advance is read as a worrisome delay. While they see friendly casualties up close, they rarely witness the devastation inflicted on our enemies. And when isolated groups of Iraqis do stand and fight, the journalists imply it means the Iraqi people are opposed to our intervention.

Let's try to understand what's actually happening.

Is Iraqi resistance a surprise? No. And it isn't nearly as strong as some reporting suggests. In a nation of 22 million people, 1 to 2 million have a stake in Saddam's regime - the officers in "elite" units, corrupt Baath Party officials, secret policemen and all those who have enjoyed good careers at the expense of the other 20 million of their countrymen - who all want Saddam dead.

Some thousands of Iraqis will fight to the death. Out of 22 million.

But wasn't the war supposed to be a cakewalk? No responsible official ever said this would be a bloodless war. The pundits who suggested such nonsense never served in uniform themselves. Anyone with the least knowledge of warfare expected some measure of resistance - and friendly casualties.

Were we less humane, of course, this war would have gone even faster. We could have destroyed the Iraqi military in days, killing tens of thousands of their soldiers from the sky. Instead, we have been trying to spare lives by giving our enemies a chance to surrender. Many are doing just that - or simply deserting and going home.

But what about the Iraqis still resisting in the cities in the south, such as Um Qasr and Basra? Those are small groups of die-hard regime supporters, thugs from the security forces that answer directly to Saddam's sons. Their fates are tied to Saddam's rule. Many of the men firing at our troops from building or bunkers in the south would be killed by their fellow Iraqis if they laid down their arms.

Haven't they tricked us? If they have, the tricks weren't very effective. CENTCOM did confirm that, in several instances, Iraqi elements pretended to surrender, then opened fire on our troops. Others have worn civilian clothes to ambush resupply convoys. These are not regular Iraqi army forces or even members of the Republican Guards. They appear to be from the fidayeen, gangs of murderous thugs, and from the security services and the Special Republican Guards - the regime's Gestapo and SS.

While they certainly want to kill allied troops, their most important mission is to make it harder for all the thousands of Iraqi soldiers who truly do want to surrender. They want to convince us to fire on white flags. But we won't.

And the perpetrators of these fake surrenders, as well as those using civilian clothes to stage ambushes, are war criminals. Both the traditional laws of war and the Geneva Convention prohibit such actions. If captured, these men could be executed on the spot, with complete legality. But we're too decent to do that - even to them.

In the end, all the Iraqi irregular forces are accomplishing is to make our troops more determined. The latest message I had from a friend serving in the war made it clear that our troops are enraged, not deterred, by Iraqi actions - not least by the execution in cold blood of American prisoners and the abuse of other POWs.

Hey, weren't all those cities in the south supposed to be secure? No. Even in Um Qasr, our priority was to secure key port facilities, not to occupy neighborhoods. Consistently, allied forces have bypassed major population centers to avoid getting drawn into urban combat and causing needless harm to civilians.

A great deal of potential resistance can simply be left to wither away. Some Iraqis are zealots - for instance, the Sunni Baath Party enforcers now stranded behind our lines. They will either die or be taken prisoner.

Isn't that risky, just bypassing entire cities? Yes. In war, calculated risks are required. Our British allies are fond of saying that "Fortune favors the bold." You don't win wars through timidity. Our lead ground forces were more than two-thirds of the way to Baghdad yesterday. That sort of progress is unprecedented in the annals of warfare. But it does leave some potentially dangerous enemy elements in the rear.

We are relying on speed to operate "inside the Iraqi decision cycle" - to keep the enemy on the ropes, physically and psychologically. We are aiming for a large-scale, operational victory. But the inherent risks mean that there will continue to be sharp tactical encounters - isolated, but deadly - behind our advancing tanks.

It sounds like there have been big, tough battles all of a sudden. No. Every fight is tough for the soldiers under fire, of course. But what the broadcast media reported as significant battles consistently have been one-sided tactical encounters, with overwhelming casualties on the Iraqi side.

When our forces pause to destroy enemy forces methodically, that is a sign of professionalism and common sense, not of fear or a reverse. Cameramen might wish our troops would charge wildly into the enemy machines guns, but that's not the American way of war. When faced with a dangerous situation - if the mission allows us the time - we break contact to a distance that allows us to call down a storm of mortar fire, field artillery and airstrikes on the enemy. Whenever possible, we spend shells, not bodies.

Still, there are times when our forces have to get up close and personal with the enemy, as the Marines did in Nasiriyah yesterday. When that happens, we win. Period.

So you think we can just roll on to Baghdad, huh? No. We'll get to Baghdad in due time and in good shape. Several Republican Guard divisions may make the mistake of trying to take us on in large-scale battles as we move closer to the city.

If they do, there may be some intense tactical encounters. But those Iraqi divisions will be attacked so ferociously that a key decision for Gen. Tommy Franks will be when to turn off our destructive power and spare the survivors.

Will they use chemical weapons? That remains the greatest single risk to our troops and to the Iraqi population. If any weapons of mass destruction are used, it may slow us down for a time - and there could be painful casualties - but any such attacks will only strengthen our resolve, while proving to the world that we were right all along about the threat posed by Saddam.

But we've taken casualties and American soldiers have been captured - doesn't that mean we're in trouble? No. I wish it were otherwise, but, in any war - especially one of this magnitude - soldiers die, suffer wounds, or fall into enemy hands. We cherish every servicemember and mourn every loss. But, to be frank, our losses thus far are remarkably low, given the scale of our enterprise.

We may lose considerably higher numbers of casualties before this war is over. But I can promise you that our military commanders are relieved by the low level of our losses to date.

Are the Iraqis really trying to lure us deep into their country so they can spring a trap on our forces? The Iraqis have no choice in the matter. Our troops go where they want to go.

Yes, the Iraqis are probably planning a large military confrontation, an operational-level ambush, close to Baghdad - while forces remaining in our rear area attack our supply lines. They may even have left some of the bridges across the Euphrates standing on purpose.

If so, it was a grave error. If those Republican Guards divisions confront our forces, they simply will not survive. Even if their plan includes the use of chemical weapons.

Thus far, our troops have performed magnificently, seizing an ever-growing list of airfields, bridges, roads, oil fields and other critical infrastructure, enabling us to maneuver swiftly and freely, while preserving the backbone of Iraq's economy for its people. And we prevented an ecological catastrophe, although those on the left will never credit us for doing so.

Even if the Iraqis have some ambitious master plan they still believe they can spring on us, they never expected to lose so much of their country so quickly. They are reeling; any plan could only be executed piecemeal, at this point.

After less than four days of ground operations, the Iraqis have lost control over half their country, they have lost control over most of their military, and allied forces are closing in on Baghdad.

But what about the "Battle of Baghdad"? Will it be a bloodbath? Haven't the Iraqis already lured us into urban warfare in the south? No. The Iraqis haven't lured us into anything. We have consistently imposed our plan and our will upon the enemy. While there have been some incidences of urban combat to date, with friendly casualties, our forces are far better prepared for such encounters than are the Iraqis. The Marine Corps, especially, has been training intensively in urban environments.

We are not going to be lured into a "Stalingrad" in Baghdad. Ignore the prophets of doom, who have been wrong consistently. As this column has steadily maintained, we have time, but Saddam doesn't. If we have to sit in a ring around Baghdad for several weeks while the last resistance is dismantled in innovative ways, then that's what we'll do.

Grave dangers lie ahead. Only a fool would underestimate them. But this war is not being run against a clock. The counsel that we must all be patient and let our troops do their jobs remains the best a former soldier can offer.

As long as the American people keep their perspective - which they will - it really doesn't matter how many journalists lose theirs.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."

[DeltAlum]

Really outstanding piece. Although, given the authors' background and pro-military mindset, I can't find much to disagree with.

In terms of the media covering the war, he's pretty well right on, with only a few exceptions.

Thanks for posting it.

[AlphaSigOU]

Thanks! We've been getting too much spin lately from the media over the conduct of the war, and so much conflicting information that when someone on another board pointed this article out to me it was literally a breath of fresh air.

BTW news reports say the locals in Basrah are rising up against the Saddamites (what's left of the local militia and Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam's Martyrs). This time British and American troops are fully supporting them, unlike the Mongolian clusterf*ck that occurred shortly after Gulf War I when we left the Shias holding the bag.

[ZTAMiami]

The Shiites have started an uprising against Saddam in Basra:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82088,00.html

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AlphaSigOU
Thanks! We've been getting too much spin lately from the media over the conduct of the war, and so much conflicting information that when someone on another board pointed this article out to me it was literally a breath of fresh air.

You might be interested in taking a look at some of the ongoing information from the broadcasting point of view:

www.broadcastingcable.com

There are some interesting thoughts from some high-level broadcast news people in the March 24 issue.

[Munchkin03]

AlphaSig, that was a very good article. Normally, I place the NY Post about one step above the Enquirer in its sensationalism and distortion of the truth. But, unlike many Post articles, that was a sensible, well-thought discussion.

I have no doubt that American military might can topple the Hussein regime--that is not why I am against the war (after all, we were the first and only country to use nuclear weaponry). Instead (and for other reasons), I am against the war because I am unsure and afraid of what costs will come with that victory. Can we really handle another event on the scale of 9/11? Even though we own nuclear weapons and other WMD, can we really protect our own peoples against it? Until then, I cannot support the war.

[Cloud9]

Sooo...I don't understand. From that article, you would assume that this is an inevitable win for our country, and a very easy one(relatively) at that. So HOW was Iraq a threat to us again? I'm apparently missing something. The government has done it's best to make us believe that any minute Saddam will be blasting into the country and attacking us, yet they don't seem to really be near a match for us.

Of course, this is something I understood before the war began. The US has a history of only engaging in fights that are thought to be an easy win. I say THOUGHT to be, that wasn't always so, and this does not apply to every war/battle/military strike.

One question---we say Iraq has all these weapons, which is why we must bust ass. But I think the only reason we're going after their country is because somebody knows they DON'T. Why do you think the Cold War lasted so long without us running in to disarm Russia? It may not be oil, but I can't help feeling there is something else that is in the interests of our government driving these events.

I dunno, I'm speaking out of my head rather than referencing my thoughts right now, so I could be missing key facts, but it seems very odd to me.

[texas*princess]

I just heard on the news that Iraqi forces opened fire on the locals in Basra