Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka.
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 121 of 150 (351265)
09-22-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Silent H
09-22-2006 8:18 AM


Going It Alone
Hi Holmes,
I honestly don't see how he would have found backing for an invasion of Iraq if the world community stood against it, especially major European allies.
A couple of things here.
1. Although this is pure speculation on my part, I am firmly convinced that the evil triune god of American politics - Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld - could have easily decided to go it alone if that was the only way to accomplish what they wanted to do: make up for Daddy Bush's "failure" to topple Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm (please note the quote marks around "failure" - I don't subscribe to that view, but it is common currency in some circles in the US). In fact, the only thing that would have prevented them from carrying this project out would have been if the Saudis, of all countries, had refused basing and overflight. Look what happened when the Turks refused to play - it forced the so-called Coalition to use the worst conceivable tactical plan: "hey-diddle-diddle straight-up-the-middle". A single-pronged invasion of a heavily militarized country like Iraq? Puhlease. No general in his or her right mind would advocate that kind of potentially high-casualty assault if there had been any other choice. It's only a testament to the ability, training and sheer military power of the US/UK ground and air forces that allowed the assault to succeed as well as it did. No finesse, no deft operations, no end-runs. Just a direct frontal assault.
I submit, as well, that even UK support was ultimately unnecessary. The UK troops fought extremely well - brilliantly led, superbly trained, and exceptional in battle as they were - but were largely irrelevant in the sense that the US could have conceivably done without them - at the cost of time and additional troops. What did the Brits accomplish? They besieged Basrah and opened the northern Gulf. Although a critical piece of work, an additional US division could have done the same - a division which, btw, was available (1st Armored was the only attempt at "deception" in the entire operation). It wasn't until the collapse of Saddam's military was an all-but-foregone conclusion that they were able to enter the city and secure their strategic objectives. This is NOT a negative reflection on the Brits. However, from a strategic standpoint, the Basrah operation was essentially a side-show.
2. Most of the world DID oppose the invasion. Every single one of our NATO allies outside of the UK was firmly against (abe: Greece, Italy and Spain were the exceptions, but did almost nothing as far as "boots on the ground" goes). Few if any provided anything resembling even limited support, and that only after the thing kicked off, primarily to attempt to protect their interests after the invasion became inevitable. Who else did anything? A bunch of small countries which provided essentially "token" support. Ukraine? Please - a handful of BRDM-rKh equipped chemical reconnaissnce troops). Sweden (who originally supported the war, then bailed when it became clear the UN wouldn't back it)? Estonia? They did what, exactly? Angola? Too funny. This crowd shouldn't be called the Coalition of the Willing. A better term would be the Coalition of the Irrelevant. The world community as a whole DID stand against it - at least those countries with anything resembling global political power. And it went forward anyway.
Edited by Quetzal, : NATO participation clarification
Edited by Quetzal, : More clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 8:18 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 2:31 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 122 of 150 (351273)
09-22-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Silent H
09-22-2006 8:18 AM


Re: a comment for our american friends.
holmes writes:
He used international support, most especially that by the UK gov't to gain support in the US for his policies. He used intelligence findings from the UK to gain support in the US for his policies.
True on both counts but neither of these factors were essential in his determination or ability to wage war.
holmes writes:
I honestly don't see how he would have found backing for an invasion of Iraq if the world community stood against it, especially major European allies.
but the world community, especially major European allies like Germany and France did stand against it. The only reason he wanted backing was so that he could give the invasion some legitimacy and call it a 'Coallition' rather than the Rambo-lets kick-some-arab-ass event it really was.
holmes writes:
I guess I can't say it would have been physically impossible for us to invade without it, but it would have been more difficult and again would have resulted in more popular resistance.
yes it would have been more difficult in that you would have to commit more troops and therefore would have more casualties and more logistics to deal with, but nothing worse than that.
holmes writes:
And of course if Bush's zeal and power was as great as you make it out to be, I don't see how the american electorate would have stopped it either. If armed resistance from other nations would not change his course, how could a bunch of voters?
well, there really wasn't any armed resistance to speak of during the Iraq invasion. I don't think there's a single nation today that can stand up to the US militarily and he knows that. If, however, at the last elections 3 million americans hadn't voted for him I doubt we'd be having this conversation now. Granted, he could still seize power by other means but he would have lost any trace of legitimacy and respect he may be having today. He would be a dictator in the eyes of his people and he would know it. Instead, today he goes around thinking that he's a democratically elected leader who enjoys the support of his people and can get away with anything in the name of their safety.
That's what fuels the zeal you mentioned and that's something no other nation in the world has the power to change.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 8:18 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 12:20 PM Legend has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 150 (351290)
09-22-2006 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Legend
09-22-2006 10:24 AM


Re: a comment for our american friends.
True on both counts but neither of these factors were essential in his determination or ability to wage war.
Okay you might not be aware of this but Congress could have stopped him. With slight exception Congress is the only body with the power to declare war. They gave him the ability because of false info and promises. They allowed him to move forward on the same.
It may be true that the "coalition of the willing" was bogus, but it had enough credibility that Congress could give the prez a green light. Without any support, and indeed active resistance, Congress would not likely have allowed it to move forward.
have to commit more troops and therefore would have more casualties and more logistics to deal with, but nothing worse than that.
That alone might have made military, intelligence, and actual conservatives say wait a minute. It certainly wouldn't have been as easy, and remember they sold this on the "cakewalk" plan.
Granted, he could still seize power by other means but he would have lost any trace of legitimacy and respect he may be having today.
Uh, he already DID seize power by other means. His first election was essentially a coup.
I mean he clearly lost the popular vote, and the only reason why he received the majority electoral vote was because his brother and a campaign manager who controlled a state's voting system commited some fraudulent activity, then tried to bury recognition of that activity, and finally the republican led supreme court ordered remedies to the irregularities halted and Bush handed the presidency.
I don't see how that couldn't have happened again, or perhaps he'd just call upon some interpretation of the war powers of the presidency to argue "you can't let a populace change horses midstream".
he goes around thinking that he's a democratically elected leader who enjoys the support of his people and can get away with anything in the name of their safety.
When he visits your country why don't the people there rise up against him there? Perhaps you have the numbers there which we do not.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Legend, posted 09-22-2006 10:24 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 09-22-2006 1:00 PM Silent H has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 124 of 150 (351306)
09-22-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Silent H
09-22-2006 12:20 PM


Re: a comment for our american friends.
Okay you might not be aware of this but Congress could have stopped him.
Yes. And shame on them.
They gave him the ability because of false info and promises.
That's possible, but I doubt it. Rather, I think it was sheer cowardice. If it was obvious to me that the info was false, it must have been obvious to many in congress. Incidently, there was plenty of cowardice in the media, too.
Without any support, and indeed active resistance, Congress would not likely have allowed it to move forward.
I admit that the figleaf of support made it easier for congress folk to support their cowardice.
Incidently, on this very day congress is again showing its cowardice, by going for a "compromise" that will allow Bush to use torture (under a suitable euphemism). Shame on them.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 12:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 2:45 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 129 by kuresu, posted 09-22-2006 3:46 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 125 of 150 (351362)
09-22-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Quetzal
09-22-2006 9:32 AM


Re: Going It Alone
1. Although this is pure speculation on my part,
I don't know how easy it would have been for those guys to do it alone, as Congress would have had a say in it and dems certainly wouldn't be behind helping Jr overcome Sr's "mistake". But since Reps had control I think they might have been interested in such an angle.
I'd add to your speculation that in addition to that was an interest in removing an enemy of Israel's under the guise of doing something about terrorism. This was something planners in the Bush administration had been outlining before 9/11. Since the failure of their plan, and a discovery of one of their links to an Israeli spy within the defense dept, both najor authors have left.
The connection with Israeli interests is underscored by other activities by this administration, including its apparent lapdog status to sharon.
That said, I agree that Saudi Arabia's complicity was of vital importance, though not exactly surprising given their opposition with Hussein.
The only point of disagreement I would have is with Iraq's military capability. I think if anything the invasion revealed how bad a shape its military was in. Certainly its lack of airpower made it vulnerable to any tactic we chose, as long as we have a spot to launch an attack from and fall back to for ready support.
an additional US division could have done the same - a division which, btw, was available (1st Armored was the only attempt at "deception" in the entire operation).
This is an interesting analysis and one I was not aware of. From what I understood their effort was helpful to take pressure off US forces and keep them mobile. And I was under the impression we really didn't have flexibility to add more divisions, without posing security risks for ourselves (given our global concerns).
My opinion is not based on solid research and I am definitely interested in more accurate info.
2. Most of the world DID oppose the invasion. Every single one of our NATO allies outside of the UK was firmly against
Ah, this is where we may have a difference in definition. First of all there was more NATO support than you suggested, at least as far as political support went. But more importantly, what nations actually OPPOSED our invasion?
Remember the criticism here is that citizens of the US didn't do anything to stop Bush. Well neither did the citizens of other nations. While many nations said some negative things, that is they did not support the war, they did not oppose it. That to my mind would have required doing something.
France and to some extent Belgium and Germany put a little diplomatic pressure on the US, but essentially negligible. None of them put into play actual threats such as economic, political, or military sanctions if the US went ahead with its plans. This may of course be that they did not exactly like Hussein, and feared repercussions from the US, but that does not change my point. If one opposes something one has to risk something in that opposition, or one is just an observer.
An analogy would be a bunch of people standing around watching a murder. If all they did was yell stop, then none of them opposed it, in fact they are somewhat complicit.
The only people that took a chance (to my mind) were the people of Spain who altered their gov't in response, and that gov't did what it could to pull support and so cause some indirect pressure (belated as it was).
You mentioned Turkey and that's a great example. If European nations as a whole vowed to block air and sea channels to the US, perhaps including commercial traffic, that would likely have grabbed Congressional attention if not Bush's. Imagine Germany denying travel to/from and even threatening ejection from Rammstein... same for other bases.
If foreign citizen's were seriously opposed, and their gov'ts were seriously opposed to Bush's campaigns, I think we would have seen opposition, instead of todying and self-congratulating, heckling, bystanding/voyeurism.
Look forward to your response.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 9:32 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 3:34 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 126 of 150 (351365)
09-22-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nwr
09-22-2006 1:00 PM


Re: a comment for our american friends.
Rather, I think it was sheer cowardice. If it was obvious to me that the info was false, it must have been obvious to many in congress. Incidently, there was plenty of cowardice in the media, too.
While that is possible, I am willing to believe many in congress trusted assessments submitted by the administration, which involved convenient cherry picking of data and dismissal of alternative analyses. I think it is a shame that they waited to review the data till after the failure.
The media was and still is cowardly. Total agreement on that score.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 09-22-2006 1:00 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 127 of 150 (351375)
09-22-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Silent H
09-22-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Going It Alone
I don't disagree with most of the first part of your reply, so I'll just touch on the area where we disagree, somewhat.
The only point of disagreement I would have is with Iraq's military capability. I think if anything the invasion revealed how bad a shape its military was in. Certainly its lack of airpower made it vulnerable to any tactic we chose, as long as we have a spot to launch an attack from and fall back to for ready support.
Indeed. However, right up until the invasion, most "Iraq watchers" put Saddam's best forces (the Republican Guard, and the Special Republican Guard) at roughly equivalent troop strength to the Coalition committment - about 100,000. Not counting the remaining approx. 300,000 uniformed personnel of lesser caliber. Rumsfeld counted on simultaneous air and ground attacks, coupled with total air supremacy over the FEBA and much greater use of high tech weapons systems (by comparison to the '91 war) to overcome what normally would be a very difficult and unfavorable correlation of forces. It worked - much to my admitted surprise. Iraqi troops actually fought somewhat better than they did in '91 - but they simply couldn't come close to matching the technology and were defeated in what currently holds the record for the fastest opposed armored assault in US history.
This is an interesting analysis and one I was not aware of. From what I understood their effort was helpful to take pressure off US forces and keep them mobile. And I was under the impression we really didn't have flexibility to add more divisions, without posing security risks for ourselves (given our global concerns).
You're not a military history buff like me. Two of the heaviest divisions in the US inventory - 1st Armored and 4th Infantry - were slated for the invasion. Right up until the Turks said they weren't going to play. All the talking heads in the US media were playing up the news that these two divisions were slated for an invasion of northern Iraq via Turkey. There is some evidence that Saddam held a number of divisions, including one Republican Guard unit, in the north to counter this (non-existant) threat. Whether this was an official "deception" plan (like the fake tanks, airplanes, etc that the Allies used to confuse German defenders prior to Normandy), or whether the Coalition just never got the chance to use them, is an interesting although irrelevant point.
The only US troops in the north as things worked out were about 1,000 members of the 175th Airborne Bde and a bunch of special forces types. With a bit of heavy equipment brought in through an airfield the 175th seized early on, this was the only "northern front" that ever materialized. By the time this became important, the bulk of the Iraqi conventional forces were already prostrate.
How's that for military geeky?
If foreign citizen's were seriously opposed, and their gov'ts were seriously opposed to Bush's campaigns, I think we would have seen opposition, instead of todying and self-congratulating, heckling, bystanding/voyeurism.
Again, I don't disagree with your facts, just your interpretation. You have put your finger on exactly why the administration was able to get away with it. I mean, the Poles of all people had more troops in the invasion than any other European "supporter" outside of the UK. Australia was the only other significant foreign troop presence provided by our allies.
The question as to why there wasn't more concrete opposition from Europe is a very interesting one. One possible answer is that the US pushed into war so fast the majority of Europeans and European governments were "overcome by events". About the only thing they had time for before the invasion was a lot of chest beating and whining about "due process". After the invasion commenced there was once again insufficient time - the entire assault from crossing the Kuwaiti border to the fall of Baghdad took only about three weeks. How long do you thing it would take for a European parliment to take the unprecedented step of imposing economic sanctions on the US? If they could ever even bring themselves to that point? The Turks turned out to be our only ally with the cojones to tell the administration to piss off.
As to the question about the opposition by the citizens of various nations, that's probably more difficult. My guess would be mostly apathy - as long as their country wasn't involved. How many times have you heard our Brit colleagues talking about how bad Blair is for following the US into a war? Have they done anything about it? Have we? Most of the rest of the European "common man" might have gotten briefly exercised over it (remember, their countries weren't going to be fighting), a few radicals demonstrated, but in general no one cared. Besides, with their economic problems, rising xenophobia, etc, Europeans as a group are more concerned about domestic issues than they are about anything else - or at least that's the appearance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 2:31 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 09-22-2006 3:38 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 5:59 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 128 of 150 (351377)
09-22-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Quetzal
09-22-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Going It Alone
Q writes:
You're not a military history buff like me.
Do you think that Britain started terror bombing or Germany did in WW2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 3:34 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 4:11 PM Taz has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 129 of 150 (351378)
09-22-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nwr
09-22-2006 1:00 PM


Re: a comment for our american friends.
it all stems from the whole concept of president being the head of the party (which is crap) and the whole republican platform of--we can't back out, we're fighting to protect ourselves, and oh yeah, we're gonna scare the shit out of you with the terrorist threat.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 09-22-2006 1:00 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 150 (351384)
09-22-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taz
09-22-2006 3:38 PM


Off Topic Bombs
Do you think that Britain started terror bombing or Germany did in WW2?
The first indiscriminant bombings of civilian targets and infrastructure was conducted by the Luftwaffe in Poland. Warsaw and Frampol were the two main ones I remember. Frampol, in fact, was an "experiment" to determine the effectiveness of city bombing. The second bombing of a civilian target was Polish - the German city of Olawa in Lower Silesia where a single Polish bomber flattened a factory.
Of course, everybody else jumped on the bandwagon of such a "neat" idea pretty quickly. And of course, both sides used a more ineffective version of the same strategy in WWI.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 09-22-2006 3:38 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-22-2006 5:27 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 131 of 150 (351424)
09-22-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Quetzal
09-22-2006 4:11 PM


Re: Off Topic Bombs
Terror bombing begain in its effective form in WWII though. Civilian targets were bombed as part of war policy.
IIRC the US was a little more hesitant than Britan to bomb during the evening hours with a stated goal of preserving accuracy and isolating the raids to military or civilian war production targets. For this the US suffered much more losses in its bombing raids. The US would trade with Britan to keep up a relativly constant barrage of bombing raids. The US would fly during the day and Britan at night.
The US had no hesitation though when it came to Japan. We pretty much bombed them indiscriminatly. Again IIRC there were more deaths due to conventional bombing in Tokoyo than there were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The last two of course are the highest case of indiscriminant terror bombing you can get. We won that theater of the war on the fear that we had more bombs.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 4:11 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 5:51 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 132 of 150 (351439)
09-22-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Jazzns
09-22-2006 5:27 PM


Re: Off Topic Bombs
Fascinating topic. Unfortunately, there's this guy with a red suit and funny black hat who's about to suspend me if I respond again. Open a new thread, and I'll be happy to reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-22-2006 5:27 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 150 (351443)
09-22-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Quetzal
09-22-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Going It Alone
It worked - much to my admitted surprise. Iraqi troops actually fought somewhat better than they did in '91 - but they simply couldn't come close to matching the technology and were defeated in what currently holds the record for the fastest opposed armored assault in US history.
I wasn't so surprised at the military successes. Given the degraded nature of their airpower, which turnd out to be worse than I expected, it seemed plausible we'd eventually have to achieve success and perhaps in short order. It was always the aftermath which was my main concern. The only weird military problem I wondered about is if the citizens would openly revolt as we tried to move through. If we had to fight through them to get to military targets, that would have been very bad.
You're not a military history buff like me.
Oh I'm a buff LIKE you, just not as buff. I actually knew everything you said, except for the details such as specific strengths and unit #'s. I was watching briefings pretty much every time they gave them... much like the first Gulf War.
But I did not understand that the units slated for the north did not actually get into play somewhere else, and figured any that were not put in it was for concerns of spreading our forces too thin (on a global scale).
Thanks for the info.
About the only thing they had time for before the invasion was a lot of chest beating and whining about "due process".
This I would disagree with. Given the timeline of our buildup, I believe they had plenty of time to do something. Whether they were held back by the unbelievability of the whole thing, or figured it was sable-rattling (which is what I thought at first), I couldn't say. But I think they should have been getting their hands ready and at least warning Bush and Congress through private channels.
If they thought they were going to use UN procedures to hold him in check forever, they were vastly mistaken. And unfortunately some at the UN were giving us support.
Europeans as a group are more concerned about domestic issues than they are about anything else - or at least that's the appearance.
100% agreement which is why my feathers get a bit ruffled when I hear whining about what the US is doing, and its citizens letting Bush get away with.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 3:34 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Quetzal, posted 09-23-2006 11:51 AM Silent H has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 134 of 150 (351577)
09-23-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Silent H
09-22-2006 5:59 PM


Re: Going It Alone
The only weird military problem I wondered about is if the citizens would openly revolt as we tried to move through. If we had to fight through them to get to military targets, that would have been very bad.
I also had similar concerns that we didn't appear to take into consideration prior to the invasion. There was a predictable continuum of possible Iraqi (civilian) responses to an invasion - from the dancing in the streets that Rumsfeld et al were convinced of to open revolt. From the immediate aftermath, the dearth of follow-on forces, and the apparent failure to insure that the civilians were taken care of immediately behind the assault forces, it seems like the administration focused ONLY on the former possibility. Although obviously I have no access to the actual plans drawn up, the results on the ground seem to indicate that there was no contingency planning for a "worst case" scenario. An absolutely amazing and unconscionable lapse. We were clearly surprised by the strength of the resistance (c.f., especially Nasariyah), not from Iraqi conventional forces - which is clearly what was planned for - but from the paramilitaries who very quickly began "guerrilla" type attacks against follow-on forces and especially the lengthening and vulnerable supply lines. So much for being welcomed with open arms - the guerrilla resistance actually engendered a two-day halt in offensive operations while we (hastily?) adopted some new tactics to deal with it.
But I did not understand that the units slated for the north did not actually get into play somewhere else, and figured any that were not put in it was for concerns of spreading our forces too thin (on a global scale).
They were committed eventually, but only after the invasion moved into the occupation phase. 1st Armored deployed to Iraq around May 2003 (relieving 3rd Infantry in control of Baghdad), and the 4th Infantry crossed into Iraq from Kuwait in April (relieving 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the south). It wasn't, AFAIK, a question of being too thin elsewhere. Rather, it seems to have revolved around the failure of the northern push to materialize.
This I would disagree with. Given the timeline of our buildup, I believe they had plenty of time to do something. Whether they were held back by the unbelievability of the whole thing, or figured it was sable-rattling (which is what I thought at first), I couldn't say. But I think they should have been getting their hands ready and at least warning Bush and Congress through private channels.
I don't entirely disagree here. We started our buildup of pre-positioned equipment in Kuwait sometime in June - you'd think it would have been pretty obvious we were gearing up for something. On the other hand, it seems clear to me that the Europeans who opposed invasion didn't believe it was anything more than a bluff. Although this is speculation on my part, I don't think they quite twigged to the difference in US policy between the previous "coalitions R us" policy of Clinton and Bush Sr., and Bush Jr's willingness to operate without anyone else if he couldn't find partners. Once it became clear to them that the latter WAS the case, it was really too late to do anything about it. Even if they wanted to.
If they thought they were going to use UN procedures to hold him in check forever, they were vastly mistaken. And unfortunately some at the UN were giving us support.
Yep. This is also one element of what I outlined above, IMO. Silly Europeans - they actually thought that rule of law would apply to Bush Jr.
100% agreement which is why my feathers get a bit ruffled when I hear whining about what the US is doing, and its citizens letting Bush get away with.
Yep - talk is cheap. If they were that upset, why didn't/don't they do anything more than whine? I guess it's kind of fun to beat up on the US, while at the same time conveniently forgetting about their own lack of action.
Edited by Quetzal, : weird ubb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2006 5:59 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2006 1:07 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 137 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2006 8:16 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 139 by Legend, posted 09-24-2006 6:59 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 135 of 150 (351595)
09-23-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Quetzal
09-23-2006 11:51 AM


Re: Going It Alone
From the immediate aftermath, the dearth of follow-on forces, and the apparent failure to insure that the civilians were taken care of immediately behind the assault forces, it seems like the administration focused ONLY on the former possibility.
Oh man, absolutely. I'd consistently think after a briefing, well that was all well and good but where are the OTHER operations they should be putting in place behind the advancing front?
I was watching when they were doing that "pull down Saddam's statue" thing, and I kept yelling at the screen "Why aren't you organizing that crowd????" All they did was organize a riot, instructing them to destroy rather than move to ensure order was maintained by the locals themselves.
By the time they were showing people looting a ministry dept where records were kept, and Rumsfeld said that wasn't anything to be worried about, I knew they never put any forethought into what they would do afterward.
It wasn't, AFAIK, a question of being too thin elsewhere. Rather, it seems to have revolved around the failure of the northern push to materialize.
Although I have a differing opinion, I will bow to your better informed opinion.
I guess it's kind of fun to beat up on the US, while at the same time conveniently forgetting about their own lack of action.
Heheheh.... exactly.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Quetzal, posted 09-23-2006 11:51 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024