You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Iraqi Officials Emerge, Bolstered By U.S. Setbacks
2003-03-24
After days of preparing Baghdad to brace for a last stand, President Saddam Hussein's government emerged emboldened today and asserted that its carefully laid plans to create a quagmire for U.S. forces were succeeding. In a day of spectacles that officials seemed to savor, the government repeatedly broadcast footage of what it said were American prisoners of war and at least four soldiers killed near the southern town of Nasiriyah. Hundreds of people gathered on a bridge to gawk at a search for a U.S. or British pilot rumored to have been downed over Baghdad. And, in a sign that residents are increasingly setting aside fears of war to reclaim elements of a normal life, Iraqis gathered in the streets to cheer as a cruise missile appeared to be struck by antiaircraft fire.
Someone got lucky.
For the first time in a week, senior officials made public appearances, some of them seemingly startled by reports of resistance in the predominantly Shiite Muslim south, which many in Baghdad had expected to fall almost immediately. "We have drawn them into a swamp and they will never get out of it," Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf declared, referring to U.S.-led forces.
How far away are we from Baghdad, Saeed?
The official optimism was tempered by the bleak landscape that greeted residents at daybreak. Across the horizon, billowing black smoke cast a shroud over the city as at least 20 oil pits, set alight by Iraqi forces, burned for a second day in an attempt to conceal Baghdad from air strikes. The acrid haze blotted out the sun, as the thunder of bombs rolled over the city day and night. In their most delusional clearest terms yet, Iraqi officials outlined their war strategy, exuding a boastfulness confidence that only a day earlier seemed to wane. In a series of appearances, government leaders said they expected to draw U.S. and British forces into bloody urban battles in southern Iraq, with the most aggressive defense planned for Baghdad. They appeared cheered by televised reports of resistance in the port of Umm Qasr, a small southern town that the U.S. military claimed to have taken in the early hours of the war. They also predicted that U.S. forces would experience setbacks similar to the one delivered in Nasiriyah as they neared other cities. "They will have to come to cities if they want to achieve their victory," said Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed. "They only depend on their weaponry and they try to fire from far away. If they plan to take Baghdad, they will have to pay a high cost."
Far away or up close, however you want it.
Added Vice Thug President Taha Yassin Ramadan, the most senior official to appear in public since the war began: "They are roaming in the desert, and in fact, we have had no choice but to allowed them to roam the desert. I tell you, we wish and beg that they come to Baghdad so that we will teach a lesson to this evil administration and all who cooperate with it."
We're coming, don't worry.
While regularly predicting victory, even the most delusional optimistic Iraqi officials hesitate to say their military can defeat U.S. forces, and the government appears in appropriate awe of their foes' technological prowess. They seem to envision a prolonged and bloody war of attrition, hoping to exhaust the U.S. will to fight and to rally public outrage over civilian casualties to force a negotiated solution. In an hour-long news conference, Ramadan bitterly criticized U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan for withdrawing U.N. inspectors and ending the oil-for-food program that provides Iraq its scarce revenue. He contended that Annan had bowed to the wishes of the United States and Britain, looking ahead to a post-Hussein Iraq. He made an explicit bleat call to the United Nations to intervene and halt the fighting, the first time an Iraqi official has done so since the war began. "We believe the time is now right if the Security Council wants to prove its existence. To be a significant tool and instrument, it must condemn this aggression and call for a halt in this aggression," he said.
Prove its existence? Finally one of these thugs says something we can't disagree with!
Ramadan appealed to Arab governments to press for useless diplomacy. He and other officials appeared to take heart from footage of eye-rolling protests across the Arab world, and screamed at chastised Arab leaders for blocking silly chest thumping antiwar demonstrations. "Every Arab and Muslim should be a bullet in the chest of the aggressors until they leave the land of Arabs and Islam," he said.
That diplomatic pressure is most of what they're relying on. They've got to realize that their military is getting waxed, and that the casualties we're taking are mostly from unconventional warfare and ruses — a lot of stuff that only works once.
Sahhaf, the information minister, said 77 civilians had been killed in the southern city of Basra. Although there was no way to verify the number, the pan-Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera broadcast gruesome footage of corpses that was seen across the Arab world. Sahhaf said 366 were wounded in Basra, along with 147 in three other cities in Iraq — Baghdad, Diyala to the east and Samarra to the northwest.
Someone needs to point out that given the intensity of the fighting, these numbers are low, not high.
Posted by:Steve White

#24  no air defense in Bagdad in response to latest wave of air attacks

Assumeing that the large explosions we here on TV are comming from the air and not the ground.
Posted by: Domingo   2003-03-24 15:16:22  

#23  More good news - reports of little or no air defense in Bagdad in response to latest wave of air attacks - have we finally put an end to AD in Bagdad??
Report that Aussie special forces have attacked Command and control center, taken out elite troops.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-24 12:09:35  

#22  Steve - biggest item on your list, IMHO, is number 4.

1 and 2 Id pretty much taken for granted before D-day - that the Kurds were already supporting us (although the political cooperation on the sensitive Turkey issue has been particularly good and that we could take Al-ansar down easily whenever we want to. 6 - i never expected such a res, in fact im still suprised the French havent flipped back to us yet. 5 - has there really been anything new the last few days - a break between ANSWER and moderate elements, whatever - there have been a few violent incidents, but i dont see enough evidence of coordination to change public opinion.
3. Yeah, well, after the hopes raised the first night, im not inclined to focus on that. I think hes alive but wounded, and perhaps not all that seriously (how he might have survived I dont know)In nay case the political leadership is still there - whether its being run by Uday, or Ramadan or whomever doesnt really matter. It IS good that the political leadership doesnt seem to be coordinating an effective resistance - that may be what is behind all the bridges captured intact, the non-use of CW/BW, etc. But until I see a real collapse Im not willing to count those chickens.

Not that i dont see your point - this is starting to feel like that point in the Afghan war, when the NA had not yet taken any large towns, and people (including hawks) were getting impatient about progress.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-24 11:53:17  

#21  LiberalHawk, some more good news for your list (keep it up, it's a useful list):

1) Kurds cooperating with us
2) Ansar-al-Islam taking it in the chops
3) Doubts raised about Sammy's survival
4) Jordan appears to be helping a whole lot more than previously thought
5) Anti-war demonstrations revealing their hard-left core
6) no UN resolution tabled to condemn us
Posted by: Steve White   2003-03-24 11:40:22  

#20  I sure can't buy the Vietnam analogy! In Vietnam, all options were on the table, except one: victory. Here, victory is the ONLY option.
Posted by: John Hale   2003-03-24 11:33:31  

#19  Uncertainties in Kurdistan likely to begin to resolve soon - Massive bombing underway between Kirkuk and Kurdish frontline. US officer officially announces US presence in Kurdistan - and he turns out to be a MARINE!!! And he says "dont assume we came by air"!!! At same time reports that 2nd Marine expeditionary unit (a division plus airpower?) was in JORDAN! Looks like they came in overland from Jordan - note taking of H2 and H3 on first day of ground campaign - since then they MAY have moved up and around Mosul into Kurdistan - no solid evidence - (just the above) but if so it would be audacious move, better even than "left hook" in GW1. Would also be consistent with lower concern over Turkish issues, move of 4th ID away from Med. (and with political strategy, less reliance on Turkey, shift toward Iraq Interim Authority) Airborne units (173rd Brigade, elements of 82nd)may be going in with Marines - or may be
held back for use elsewhere.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-24 11:18:16  

#18  tu - i have that under uncertainties - until the information is clarified - for all we know this could be an Iraqi set-up - something that looks like a CW facility, but turns out not to be, for the very purpose of embarassing the coalition. I know that sounds paranoid, but i think its wise that Centcom seems to be sitting on this one.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-24 11:10:04  

#17  Liberalhawk:

1. Capture of a possible chemical weapons facility and it's alleged commanders.

Add that to your list on the good side.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-03-24 10:29:03  

#16  Peter, you need to watch the news with a wider lens. The "barbarians" are not "ultimately winning," they're just putting up a fight for their homeland at an early stage in the war. With your current approach and perspective, we would have abandoned WWII and Japan would never have been occupied. I must admit, though, that it pains me to see our soldiers dueling with pockets of Iraqi's that could easily be wiped out with heavier weaponry. On the other hand, everything I've seen suggests that in just a few days the Iraqi military has suffered tremendous losses from our heavier weaponry.
Posted by: Tom   2003-03-24 09:37:06  

#15  Further good news
1. Few civilian casualties
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-24 09:28:21  

#14  good news and bad news

So far
Good news
1. No North Korean attack
2. No sttack on israel
3. no terr attack on Conus or UK
4.No intervention from Iran, cautious intervention by Turkey
5. No chem or bio attack - yet
6. Bridges, airfields, etc, captured intact
7. Damage to oilfields limited
8. No pouring oil into Persian Gulf
9. Patriots appear to be working
10. Rapid advance north
11. Polls show Brits behind Tony

Bad news.
1. Frag attack on 101st
2. Some friendly fire, heli crash losses
3. Continued resistance by Securitate and Brownshirts in Basra, Umm Qasr, Nassiriya
4. Um Qasr situation holding up usage of Umm Qasr port, especially for huminitarian aid

Continued uncertainties
1. Shiites in south not rising up - are they less enthusiastic for us than we thought, or still cautios in view of Securitate presence, fear we wont stay
2. Resistance in south - how serious is it - a lot of guys, or just a few taking advantage of residential areas - how do we deal with them - is this a bunch of "jenins"
3. Republican guard - are they waiting to surrender, or were communications Iraqi version of psyops?
4. What is happening in Kurdistan
5. Where is the 101st going?
6. Where are the follow-on units - any divisions on their way aside from 4th ID?
7. Political/diplo - have we really found chem weapons plants - what impact on world opinion? when will we get cheering iraqi pictures (beyond just Safwan) and what will be impact on arab "street"?
What are next steps wrt IIA (Iraqi Interim Authority)?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-24 09:10:27  

#13  Peter. Scorched earth? Didn't we try that in, ummmmmm, Vietnam? How'd it work out then?
They are a week in and 60 miles from Bagdhad, if not closer. When they meet resistance, they wipe it out. There are going to be deaths, accidents, POWs, all the ugly things that happen in war but WE ARE GOING TO WIN THIS WAR.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-03-24 08:08:15  

#12  This won't be another Vietnam because this is a different leadership. Way different. I agree with Dar, the vast majority of Iraqis (if they're smart) are waiting to cheer after its 100% sure Saddam is gone and the Americans are going to follow through.
Posted by: charlotte   2003-03-24 08:04:21  

#11  Peter--Iraq is a nation of 20 MILLION or more. If just 1% of them are fighting for Saddam, that's 200,000 yahoos we have to deal with--and we will. However, it's not going to happen overnight.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis are just waiting to see if we're serious about kicking Saddam out this time, and justifiably so after our bait-and-switch back in '91. Once they see we're here to stay, Saddam is deposed, and they are free, they'll be more cooperative and, dare I say, grateful.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg   2003-03-24 07:02:16  

#10  Excellent link, theSarge! Thanks!

We were never promised a rose garden by the government or the military: Only by those who shoved those words into their mouths and hope we're stupid enough to believe the victims thought those thoughts before uttering them.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-03-24 06:56:21  

#9  It's four days into the war and the good guys are sixtyish miles from Baghdad, having met no significant organized resistance. The only folks fighting are the ones who have no chance in a post-Saddam universe, and there aren't all that many of them and they haven't managed to make any real threat to the mission. I'm missing the "quagmire" aspect here, somehow.
Posted by: jrosevear   2003-03-24 06:28:43  

#8  Haven't you been watching the News, Peter? There's been plenty of footage of surrendering regulars and happy, happy liberated civvies. Fighting to the end are a relatively few fanatics who've got nothing left to lose. It's a process of being wise to their presence and blowing their s**t holes and SUVs off the planet when their ugly mugs appear. The general population does not support Saddam and his thugs, and there's no evidence they're rallying round him. The Ba'atists etc. are doing us all a favour by resisting - it leaves a population of friendlies behind when they're dismembered. Why are you sounding so defeatist?!
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-03-24 06:15:49  

#7  I'm not losing my nerve, but I can only observe that the mass surrenders and the joy of being relieved from Saddam did not materialize. The allied approach has clearly failed. This campaign requires Sherman style torched earth tactics. No Iraqi town or village should remain intact. In fact, one should have a panoramic view of the country standing on a chair. Those tactics are no longer acceptable for a western army, because the public cannot stand it. That's why the barbarians ultimately win. Afghanistan was a success because we had our own barbarians doing the awful job of slaughtering whomever they saw running around.
Posted by: Peter   2003-03-24 06:03:52  

#6  Fer all the weak sisters...lissen up! Here's a little dose of spine...read and heed.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/71625.htm

Posted by: theSarge   2003-03-24 05:40:50  

#5  Taha Yassin Ramadan, the most senior official to appear in public since the war began:
Hey, thanks for pinpointing your location.

Jazeera broadcast gruesome footage of corpses..I know this plays well on The Street(TM), but I'm at a loss how this is playing well in Baghdad to inspire the troops with the Weak and Cowardly American theme.

Vietnam? This has been going on less than a week. If Iraqi's believe they can sustain this type of fighting for a year, then we'll talk. In the mean time, expect the Support-Our-Troops rallies to get bigger. Did you hear Michael Moore was resoundingly booed at the Oscars? The Oscars! Digest that one. The times they are a chang'n. Anti-war protestors aching for the "Summer of Love" reruns are as archaic as puka shells and petoli(sp?) oil ...this is more like Pearl Harbor/WWII than Vietnam.
Posted by: becky   2003-03-24 04:06:53  

#4  Worse than Vietnam?...Whazza matter Pete, losing yer nerve after (only) three days?
Posted by: theSarge   2003-03-24 03:59:28  

#3  Worse than Vietnam? How so? Some Iraqis have rallied, the usual suspects of course. Where have they rallied? Oh- cities! How large a part did cities play in the Vietnam experience? OK, then there we have it.
Most of Iraq is desert or plains. Some nice old mountains, that's about it. You've got some lush areas between the rivers, but it hardly compares to true jungle. These rallied Iraqis are going to plot their resistance from cities or yurts out in the country, and are going to be visible the moment they move. A few blocks might have to be burned wholesale. That's what we saw starting on the news yesterday.
Precisely how is this going to be worse than Vietnam?
Posted by: therien   2003-03-24 03:27:12  

#2  I'm afraid those SOBs are right. The Iraqis have indeed rallied behind their butcher. This is going to be worse than Vietnam.
Posted by: Peter   2003-03-24 03:01:14  

#1  More good news - reports of little or no air defense in Bagdad in response to latest wave of air attacks - have we finally put an end to AD in Bagdad??
Report that Aussie special forces have attacked Command and control center, taken out elite troops.
Posted by: liberalhawk   3/24/2003 12:09:35 PM  

00:00