Article

2003-05-13 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-05-13 12:50 am|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 dan : re: credibility - we're talking about 2 different things - our credibility that we will use force when we say we will - and the credibility of our intel on WMD. It would be preferable to have both. Failing to find WMD hurts the latter, and (given that we went in) does not help the former. I am not arguing that we shouldnt have gone in - but that we should have been more prepared.

Re:looting - yes it should have been expected - but apparently its been going on for weeks since. Its still going on to this day as far as i can tell. And i am not saying we should have focused on covering everything - if furniture from a govt office gets looted thats easy to replace. I am concerned about WMD evidence. Was any evidence was destroyed done so early - maybe - Im not sure.

Posted by liberalhawk 5/13/2003 2:25:28 PM|| 5/13/2003 2:25:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Old Patriot: I agree that Rumsfield is in a tough spot. My answer to you is that he should have called up the NG combat units. (USAF, USN, and USMC all make good use of their reserves and Guard units. Hell, the Marines had a combat regiment that fought very well in Iraq. For some reason, the Army just can't seem to make their system work. It's not for want of trying. There is no shortage of USPFOs, Readiness Groups, Training Divisions, MATES, STARCS and God knows what else out there. And despite all of that capital expenditure, training and support infrastructure, the NG units are weak and the RA leadership doesn't trust them as far as they can throw them.) The Powell doctrine has taken some bashing on this site, but it is fundametally correct. If you think a strategic mission is of vital national importance, then you better be prepared to mobilize the nation. Rumsfield and Bush are making the same mistake as LBJ and McNamara -- they want guns and butter. So far they've succeeded. I can't predict the future and I won't say that they're doomed to failure, but they are assuming substantial risk. I hope that they succeed, but ultimately I think that hope is for losers like Al Qaeda. The globe's dominant power needs to focus its energies, assert its strength and crush these vermin.

Posted by 11A5S 5/13/2003 6:58:24 PM|| 5/13/2003 6:58:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Any coincidence that these labs are showing up "clean" at the same time Dr. Germ & Dr. Anthrax surrender?

Posted by kelly 2003-05-13 05:45:18|| 2003-05-13 05:45:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Perhaps this is where the alk runners in Saudi-controlled Arabia buy their hootch - if you like to drink poisonous pond scum ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2003-05-13 07:17:45|| 2003-05-13 07:17:45|| Front Page Top

#5 Where are the missing weapons? Apparently even weapons facilities have been looted - and if you ask why someone would loot such a place, recall that many of the looters were not ordinary Iraqis, but Baathist thugs engaged in planned operations.

Now some of the looting happened before our troops even had real control - couldnt have been avoided. But some happened after, due in part apparently to failure to prepare adequate MP forces as follow on. If we lose WMD evidence because of poor planning (as i fear we will) the idiotarians will not blame the poor planning, but will claim the WMD were never there (which i do not believe at all) In that case Rummy will have much to answer for in front of us hawks.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 08:58:16|| 2003-05-13 08:58:16|| Front Page Top

#6 liberalhawk it will not matter if wmd is found or not. for the last 15-20 years irag has engaged
in a policy of strategic ambiguity in regards to it's wmd, as long as the belief was there that hussien could turn his neigbors into a sea fire he held the upper hand in the region. if irag did not have any this was a very dangerous game that was all about the cold war strategic thinking. why did he dodge and a play games with the un if he did not have any? for strategic a policy that furthered his imperial ambitions in the region. a new day dawned on 9-11 and bush called his bluff. this should send a clear message that strategic ambiguity is dead policy. your right there will always be some idiot out there - but we cannot blame rumsfield for a failed strategic policy conducted by hussien.

Posted by Dan 2003-05-13 10:56:12|| 2003-05-13 10:56:12|| Front Page Top

#7 strategic ambiguity - yeah works for me as a strategic rationale - but US credibility is also at stake, and in some future confrontation we may need people to believe our claims.

And i am not convinced that the reason we havent found any WMD is because of Saddams policy of deliberate ambiguity without having WMD - I think there is an excellent probabality that he DID have WMD - if they disappeared in the post-war chaos, and if the chaos was preventable, we CAN and SHOULD blame Rumsfield.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 11:07:52|| 2003-05-13 11:07:52|| Front Page Top

#8 "... we CAN and SHOULD blame Rumsfield."

Sure anything to get at the President for 2004. The partisan long knives come out.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 12:00:10|| 2003-05-13 12:00:10|| Front Page Top

#9 liberal hawk
actually US credibility has been enhanced. we called his bluff - if he had wmd or not - this more than anything else will help in any confrontation in the future with rogue states. i am sure powell had a sea change in the diplomatic arena with sryia a few weeks ago. these countries now understand that the bush admin will act and not just talk. we lost alot of our credibility with clinton. these countries took us for a joke.

as for the chaos in the post-war - this is natural - look at watts and la riots. even if we had put 500,000 troops in we still could not of been everywhere at all times. and just think what a deployment of 500,000 troops would of done. and in retrospect not needed - we got rid of hussien and scared the shit out of syria and to a lesser extent iran (but man our they worried and rightly so) with half the force thanks to rumsfield. we have too many worldwide security concerns to repeat a gulf 1 deployment.

hussein played with fire thinking the US would play as usual. and in the end the only audience that needs to be convinced is the american people.

sane nations do not threaten the US if they do not have the means to back up - yes our credibility is now repaired from the clinton years and the world is starting to understand this. though kimmie will never!

yes i do believe (strongly) that hussien had these weapons. but either way hussien played his cards poorly.

just what are you going to blame rumsfield for? for allowing looters? our troops were fighting in a war - policing civil populations comes after major combat.

if there was an wmd program i am sure it was dispersed/disposed of before any american tanks were near bagdad.
so what are we to blame rumsfield for? if you are going to blame then blame bush..
let see ... for standing up to america's enemies, restoring our place in the world strategic balance, for ignoring the weasels, for righting past wrongs.
i just don't see it, our military did a superb job and was led superbly.

Posted by Dan 2003-05-13 13:21:21|| 2003-05-13 13:21:21|| Front Page Top

#10 'we CAN and SHOULD blame Rumsfield." Sure anything to get at the President for 2004. The partisan long knives come out.'

I have defended administration policies here and elsewhere. Is criticizing any administration policy an example of "partisan long knives"?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 14:21:06|| 2003-05-13 14:21:06|| Front Page Top

#11 dan : re: credibility - we're talking about 2 different things - our credibility that we will use force when we say we will - and the credibility of our intel on WMD. It would be preferable to have both. Failing to find WMD hurts the latter, and (given that we went in) does not help the former. I am not arguing that we shouldnt have gone in - but that we should have been more prepared.

Re:looting - yes it should have been expected - but apparently its been going on for weeks since. Its still going on to this day as far as i can tell. And i am not saying we should have focused on covering everything - if furniture from a govt office gets looted thats easy to replace. I am concerned about WMD evidence. Was any evidence was destroyed done so early - maybe - Im not sure.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 14:25:28|| 2003-05-13 14:25:28|| Front Page Top

#12 liberalhawk - for a dem your ok...damn there's my partisan politics creeping out....
i firmly believe our intel was right on the money. yes it would be preferable to have both in regards to wmd and credibility - but then that would be a perfect world. our enemies just do not sit around and wait for us - active steps were taken ensure our intel looked false to the world. does not convincing the french or russians justify doing nothing on our intel, i sure hope not. even if we found wmd there would be those who say we planted it as evidence. remember who were trying to convince, countries with embedded interests in the tryanical regime of hussein.

your right about the looting - more could of been done - but was wmd looted? i do not know - i sure hope not. i personally believe it was looted by the regime and sent to sryia well before any us tanks entered bagdad.

Posted by Dan 2003-05-13 15:10:20|| 2003-05-13 15:10:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Dan: You unknowingly contradict yourself with you remarks about the LA riots. It was precisely the LAPD's policy of not being everywhere (the so-called "tactical response doctrine") that helped lead to the complete breakdown of order. It was only when we saturated the community and put a uniformed peace officer or soldier on every street corner that calm was restored. I know. I was there.

Shinseki and the Army brass told Rumsfield that he was sending in too few troops. As a result, he is industriously canning all of their asses even as we speak. In an operation like this, winning the peace is as important as winning the war. A proper mission analysis would reveal this. In my opinion, Rumsfield and his running buddies, while aggressive and strategically correct, lack the diplomatic, tactical, and operational skills to successfully accomplish the mission in Iraq.

In Vietnam, everything that we did was a success: Strategic Hamlet, Phoenix, The Cambodian incursion, the Tet counteroffensive, everything. But we still failed to accomplish the mission, which was to preserve South Vietnam as non-communist nation. We failed to stop the infiltration (military task) and we failed to win over the Vietnamese peasantry (civil task).

To me, folks that say that we couldn't forsee all possiblities are ignoring the published record. People on the Army staff obviously forsaw that we'd need more troops. Their vast experience in peacekeeping operations over the past years convinced them that a smooth transition to a free Iraq was a mission essential task. Some of them went so far as to risk their careers to make their differences with Rumsfield publicly known.

Lost WMDs are a big problem. Another is all of the Wahhabi and Shia scumbags taking advantage of the current chaos and infiltrating Iraq. Rumsfield should have listened to the Army staff. We should be preventing these things from happening.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-05-13 16:22:19|| 2003-05-13 16:22:19|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm personally upset that our Intel wasn't better. I spent 26 years in that business. I know what we knew back before GW1, and I know what we COULD know before GW2. We should have had better knowledge of virtually EVERYTHING that was going on in Iraq for the last twelve or thirteen years. We should have known where every single vehicle, aircraft, and roll of toilet paper was. The actions of the ground commanders doesn't square with that kind of knowledge.

Hussein was known to be building underground facilities - that information was even in our local newspaper several years ago. We've found many of those underground storage areas, but obviously not all of them. There was an underground OIL REFINERY, for crying out loud! What else is under all that sand? It may take years, even decades, for everything to be brought to light.

Right now, we need several hundred thousand more "boots on the ground". Unfortunately, there's a major problem with that - actually, two. One is water. It takes about 8 gallons of water per person per day. That doesn't sound like much until you multiply that by 24 MILLION to cover the Iraqis living there, or by a million or more non-Iraqis. The amount of water consumed would soon make supply a major headache.

The second problem is the lack of knowledge. We have a few trained individuals in just about every field known to man. That doesn't mean we have the people, or have them available, to do what needs to be done in Iraq. There's a good possibility that there just aren't enough people with the proper training available ANYWHERE. That means everything will take longer, and cost more.

A note to 11-Alfa. Rumsfeld also knows just how many people are being used in every other God-forsaken area where US troops are being used. That's a big number - something like more than two hundred locations in 120 countries. We've now got all or parts of five divisions in Iraq - the 1st, the 3rd, the 4th, the 101st and the 82nd. We only have what, eight divisions of active duty soldiers, total? That's a big share taken out of commission. I'm not sure we HAVE that many more "boots" we can PUT on the ground, and still meet other commitments. I'm just danged glad I don't have to make those kinds of decisions.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-05-13 18:11:57|| 2003-05-13 18:11:57|| Front Page Top

#15 Old Patriot: I agree that Rumsfield is in a tough spot. My answer to you is that he should have called up the NG combat units. (USAF, USN, and USMC all make good use of their reserves and Guard units. Hell, the Marines had a combat regiment that fought very well in Iraq. For some reason, the Army just can't seem to make their system work. It's not for want of trying. There is no shortage of USPFOs, Readiness Groups, Training Divisions, MATES, STARCS and God knows what else out there. And despite all of that capital expenditure, training and support infrastructure, the NG units are weak and the RA leadership doesn't trust them as far as they can throw them.) The Powell doctrine has taken some bashing on this site, but it is fundametally correct. If you think a strategic mission is of vital national importance, then you better be prepared to mobilize the nation. Rumsfield and Bush are making the same mistake as LBJ and McNamara -- they want guns and butter. So far they've succeeded. I can't predict the future and I won't say that they're doomed to failure, but they are assuming substantial risk. I hope that they succeed, but ultimately I think that hope is for losers like Al Qaeda. The globe's dominant power needs to focus its energies, assert its strength and crush these vermin.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-05-13 18:58:24|| 2003-05-13 18:58:24|| Front Page Top

16:13 Tadderly
08:30 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:18 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:15 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
06:57 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
02:19 R. McLeod
01:57 R. McLeod
01:53 R. McLeod
01:41 R. McLeod
00:24 Phil_B
00:04 Phil_B
23:29 Frank G
22:35 Fred
22:15 Bubblehead
21:50 OKIE
21:42 OKIE
20:36 Alaska Paul
20:11 Douglas De Bono
20:08 Alaska Paul
20:06 Fred
19:38 Tony
19:21 rich_h
19:20 Tony
19:08 Tony