Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 138 of 150 (351709)
09-23-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by riVeRraT
09-23-2006 7:19 PM


Re: crap on a stick
Sounds like the same stuff Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler sells in Ankh-Morporkh. "Named meat" on a stick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2006 7:19 PM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 140 of 150 (351897)
09-24-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Legend
09-24-2006 6:59 PM


Re: Going It Alone
it's a bit like watching a car accident happen on television. You can scream 'stop, don't do it!' all you like but there's fuck all you can do to prevent it from happening.
That's what you'd expect the people at the scene to try to do.
Heh. Watching this administration over the last six years IS just like watching a car accident happening. Bush currently has the lowest approval rating of any president in recent memory. OTOH, we did vote him in again last go-around. I think there's something fundamentally flawed with the system. However, if you'd care to re-read the exchange between holmes and myself, you'll see the thrust of the comment you referenced is that there were sufficient European nations opposed to the invasion of Iraq - adamantly, I might add - they didn't do anything to halt it either, using those diplomatic and economic pressures they could have brought to bear. In essence, then, neither of us have any room to talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Legend, posted 09-24-2006 6:59 PM Legend 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