Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I posted htis in the TLF war thread but it was lost in the 'fog of war', so I decided to post it here in the hope of starting a discussion from it.

quote:

---

Siege mentality by Brendan O'Neill

'Four miles from Baghdad' say today's headlines, as coalition forces apparently amass around 'their final target'. 'Having travelled hundreds of miles we will now go the last 200 yards!' declared a fist-slamming President Bush last night, to cheering marines in North Carolina (1).

Coalition forces may be close enough to 'see the lights of Baghdad' (until a bombing raid caused a blackout, that is) - but what happens next? Alongside the 'unstoppable advance' to their 'final target', US officials appear increasingly uncertain about what to do once they get there, how to define victory, and what to replace the regime with.

The troops 'storming towards Baghdad' seem to have little intention of entering the city. 'We are not expecting to drive into Baghdad suddenly and seize it in a coup, or anything like that', says US Major General Stanley McChrystal. Instead, US forces are apparently planning a 'stand-off' - where fighter planes will continue bombing from the sky while ground troops peer in menacingly from the ground (2).

According to one report, the Pentagon doesn't want US troops 'to force their way into [Baghdad] en masse, out of fear of being drawn into dangerous street warfare' (3). Coalition forces will employ 'tactical patience' instead, where they will wait for something to give inside Baghdad, and attempt to seize small strategic parts of the city, before entering in full force (4). One former US diplomat thinks coalition forces are planning to play 'the game of "political stand-off"', where 'someone will have to blink' (5). So having failed to decapitate Saddam's regime, perhaps the coalition can stare it out of existence instead.

The Pentagon defines its Baghdad strategy as 'surround and squeeze', rather than being a 'traditional siege' (6). And US General Richard Myers is confident that the people of Baghdad will help the coalition forces in their squeezing. According to one report, Myers expects that 'a good portion of the five million residents - the oft-persecuted Shi'ite population in the eastern half of the city - could quickly switch their loyalty to US forces' (7).

Sound familiar? Part of the plan for Basra was that a good portion of its oft-persecuted Shi'ite population would quickly switch their loyalty to the coalition forces. Yet two weeks later that city remains untaken. (However, one report this morning claims that British forces around Basra have managed to 'poke a toe' into the city.)

For all the media reports of 'endgames' now that Baghdad is in the coalition's sights, it seems that coalition forces are approaching their final target with the same combination of hoped-for low-level engagement and wishful thinking that has defined the campaign from the outset. Part of the plan seems to be to besiege (sorry, squeeze) Baghdad, and hope that it implodes from within - either as a result of the continued 'shock and awe' bombing from overhead, or the people of Baghdad standing up to the regime, or something…anything.

At the same time as Bush urged his forces to 'go the last 200 yards' to 'nothing less than complete and final victory', some in the Bush administration are redefining what victory in Iraq might look like. According to the Washington Post, some US officials now talk up a 'rolling victory', where they would 'declare victory in Iraq even if Saddam Hussein or key lieutenants remain at large and fighting continues in parts of the country' (8).

For coalition forces, victory would not require 'a formal Iraqi capitulation', but simply 'a moment when the military and political balance tilts decisively away from Hussein's Ba'ath Party government' (9). For General Richard Myers, even if Saddam and his henchmen were still struggling to survive in Baghdad, the coalition could declare victory. According to Myers, when Baghdad is isolated from the rest of the country, the city will become 'almost irrelevant': 'Whatever remnants are left would not be in charge of anything except their own defence.' (10)

Baghdad irrelevant? Before the war, US officials drew up a Baghdad-or-bust plan for invading Iraq, with a focus on getting to Baghdad as quickly as possible (within two days, according to some officials) - yet now they claim the war could be won without winning the capital.

Coalition forces may be squeezing Baghdad while British forces are poking their toes into Basra, but according to one senior US military officer that doesn't matter - because victory in Iraq isn't just a geographical thing: 'The objective is not necessarily to take buildings or occupy areas. It's the people. It's getting them to accept the fact that the regime is gone. That's the essence of the thing. It's not going to be a geographic piece.' (11)

In this new-fangled idea of victory, Saddam and co could still be holed up in Baghdad and Basra could still be burning, but as long as the people 'accepted' that the regime had gone (even if it hadn't) then the coalition would have won the war. This elevates the image war in Iraq to a new height - where coalition forces could declare victory on the basis of a perception that the regime had disappeared, rather than on the reality of the regime's defeat.

Some are even talking about starting the US occupation before Baghdad has fallen, by administering Iraq from somewhere in the south (not Basra, surely). And if anything is likely to be less stable than the already-planned postwar occupation, it will be a half-cocked half-war, half-occupation.

Others raise the problem of what kind of image could define the coalition's victory in Iraq. In a war where US forces have been told not to fly the Stars and Stripes and where all troops have been warned against 'displays of triumphalism', winning a victory and depicting it to the world could prove problematic. Writing in The Times of London, Ben MacIntyre says that 'perhaps the liberation of Baghdad will not be symbolised by flags, shattered statues, uniformed generals, recaptured monuments, formal acts of capitulation or parades - but by packets of food, handed out to hungry children' (12).

Finally, there's still the issue of what to replace Saddam's regime with après la guerre. The 'political stand-off' with Saddam's forces around Baghdad has been mirrored by an internal stand-off within the US elite, as disagreements about postwar Iraq have come to the fore. Some hawks apparently want America to be the boss, while others are cautious of explicitly imposing American values and want to involve the UN - as captured in the debate about Iraq's postwar currency.

According to one report, 'one of the first concerns of the [American] government-in-waiting is what to do about Iraqi banknotes which - horror of horrors - carry a picture of Saddam'. Someone in the administration suggested the solution of replacing Iraqi banknotes with the US dollar - but then that idea was scrapped in case it was interpreted as 'proof of America's imperialist intentions' (13). Even if Baghdad was to fall through the magic of wishful thinking, it seems the coalition is deeply uncertain of what to put in its place.

As coalition forces surround the Iraqi capital with little idea of what to do either inside the city or after the war, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this campaign is still a load of shock and awe signifying nothing.

Footnotes

(1) Bush motivates Marines to 'go the last 200 yards', Bill Sammon, Washington Times, 4 April 2003

(2) Battle of Baghdad may be neither siege nor surge, Kansas City Star, 4 April 2003

(3) Myers: No 'siege' planned for Baghdad, Pamela Hess, United International Press, 3 April 2003

(4) At Baghdad's gates, speed and caution, Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, 4 April 2003

(5) See Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall, 30 March 2003

(6) Allies take airport as noose tightens, Phillip Coorey, Melbourne Herald Sun, 4 April 2003

(7) Myers: No 'siege' planned for Baghdad, Pamela Hess, United International Press, 3 April 2003

(8) 'Rolling' victory key to US endgame, Peter Slevin and Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 4 April 2003

(9) 'Rolling' victory key to US endgame, Peter Slevin and Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 4 April 2003

(10) 'Rolling' victory key to US endgame, Peter Slevin and Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 4 April 2003

(11) 'Rolling' victory key to US endgame, Peter Slevin and Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 4 April 2003

(12) Forces must find definitive image of victory, Ben MacIntyre, The Times (London), 4 April 2003

(13) Beyond Baghdad, Brian Whitaker, Guardian, 2 April 2003

From Spiked Online

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

That was a good post deserving a well thought-out reply. Most of the "victories" you outlined will need to be satisified in part for their to be total success/total victory.

Total victory will not come without regime change and the real way to change the regime is to get people to 1. stop following orders given by the regime and 2. Get people to accept the regime is no longer their government.

As far as geographic victory and endgame, you will see Baghdad being asymetricaly "quartered". That is, you will see US forces taking certain key locations in the city and "no cross" lines between these key locations. The "no cross" lines are lines which enemy soldiers/militia etc will not be able to cross. Its basicaly the classic move where you surround an enemy force, then divide it, then quarter it then break it into eighths and so on until you only have tiny pockets of resistence that are unable to reinforce or communicate to each other. You can only break a force down into so many smaller peices until the isolated peices begin to surrender. If they don't surrender they are taken out by small laser guided munitions put through the windows they are sniping out of. Note that in the end some of the "fractions" will be larger than others but I doubt that any will be more than a tenth of the size of the entire city. Dense urban areas with streets too narrow for a tank to roll down are likely to be larger fractions while more open areas are likely to be smaller.

As the article demonstrates, there is a dearth of information about "victory conditions" and it is all correct to some degree. Don't plan on seeing a months long "seige" or a months long "rolling victory". The enemy forces in Baghdad will be completely quartered in a matter of a week and the regime will cease to exist as anything but fugitives. The death of the individual known as Saddam Hussein is a much smaller priority than the defeat of the dictator/icon Saddam Hussein.

The Brits, btw, have far more than a "toe" in Basrah and now control the city center, municiple facilities and key intersections.

The article seems in general to be more of the hand-wringing and pessimism that the media loves to spew. 17 days into this war and we already have the capital surrounded and are starting to divide its defense. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itch
The Brits, btw, have far more than a "toe" in Basrah and now control the city center, municiple facilities and key intersections.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

Basra = anarchy at the moment, anything nailed down or not, getting looted.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

...it also depends on if your watching Iraqi news. This reminds me of when Baghdad Bob and Frisk said we didn't take the airport and people were silly enough to beleive him. I guess we really don't have c-130's taking off and landing there. There really wasn't dancing and celebrating in the streets of Baghdad yesterday. That statue really didn't fall. It was a hollywood production.

There is alot of looting and civil chaos but that will subside. The people of Iraq have been living under strict rule for quite while, many of them all their lives. There likely isnt a very strong internal authority paradigm in Iraqis as individuals- a sense of self-control. They have been under external control for so long. But it will come together soon. And this doesn't have as much to do with a police presence or strong governmental force as it does with the general Iraqi mood changing from "new freedom, hurrah, lets go nuts awhile" to "wow, now we are truly sovereign and it is up to us to control ourselves as proud individuals and proud Iraqis."

edit: The Iraqis might not literaly think in those terms but each knows that Iraq exists within them, that they- by choice- .are Iraq and how they conduct themselves will determine the future of their Nation.


I think stoicism can border on defeatism and it suprises me that the Brits would adapt a defeatist attitude. But I guess it is American to stick our big stupid chins out. Maybe you guys call it stupidity or arrogance but I think alot of us think of it as boldness.

Oh, and I would think Fisk lost a good bit of credibility with this.

Last edited by Itch on 04-10-2003 at 02:35 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itch
Fisk lost a good bit of credibility with this.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
When?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itch
something that isn't true

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

No really, Itch, I know that this is not the Robert Fisk credibility thread, but when did he tell an untruth? I'll like to know, because I'm still reading his daily reports from Baghdad.

Back to the seige. (Fisk)


"Arson, anarchy, fear, hatred, hysteria, looting, revenge, savagery, suspicion and a suicide bombing"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

Man, that story you linked to does an excellent job of maximizing every construable negative of the situation and minimizing every positive. It almost made me sick to read. His spin makes the Iraqi people sound like a bunch or drooling, foaming, swarthy, half-retarded barbarians and his contempt for them is naked throughout his "news stories". He totaly fails to put the whole situation into context and annoyingly refers to liberation as occupation and when he does day liberation he puts it in quotes.

The wider context here is that Saddam Hussein will no longer be able to kill off 5000 Iraqis a month, no longer be able to torture or opress them. In Iraq there is now LIBERTY, so Fisks use of the quotes is fucking retarded. Get it? People that were once oppressed and now have liberty have been LIBERATED not "liberated". Its more accurate to say that what Fisk spews is "news" not news. Yes, the coalition will have to occupy Iraq for a time but this occupation is only a phase in its overal liberation. If the larger context was indeed occupation as Fisk asserts than the coalition would put into place a permanent hand-picked government and would never allow for any type of represewntative government.

Maybe your right, Fisk didn't lose any credibility as anyone with an ability to reason will see his reporting as the slanted garbage that it is.

I am still kind of shocked at just how much contempt Fisk seems to feel for the Iraqi people themselves. I am wondering if this veiw is not just Fisks but British in general and not just British but European in general. Can Europe see the people of the middle east as a bunch of anarchronistic niggers lacking the good sense to even be properly ruled and unworthy of anything like "liberation"? Is THAT why France and Germany were against the LIBERATION of the Iraqi people? Perhaps they feel that you can't liberate subhumans and swarthy ape-men, you can only hope that one of the greasy subhumans becomes strong enough to opress the rest of them into something that is stable enough for european exploitation and security. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Thank God for America.

Frisk reports that the apes and mongrels are looting the embassies of the nations of superior peoples- and this feeling of "superiority" is pretty blatent in the subtext, though Frisk doesn't come out and call the Iraqis "sand niggers", his loathing of their inferiority is implicid. He mentions how the Iraqis toss the albums of great German composers into the street while carting away the tacky and cheap stuff they found in the Iraqi government buildings. This implies rather strongly that not only did the Iraqi leadership have the poor unrefined tastes of the savages of a lesser peoples but that the people themselves prefered the taudry overstated cheap stuff over the cultural greatness of europe. Frisk shows rightious anger at how the marines simply allow the Iraqis to continue this grotesque display of cultural inferiority when it is the duty of an occupying force to protect europe---ooops, I mean foregin embassies. He is even good enough to "rescue" the EU flag from a puddle.

The story might as well have been titled, "The Barbarians are at the Gates and the Americans have let them in". Maybe we Americans have some barbarian in us to and people like Fisk just can't stand it. Can't stand our lack of "culture" and "refinement" our wearing our hearts on our sleeves, our big stupid grins and our unabashed robust laughter. How fucking French.

Man, as I wrote this I have been reading some of the stuff written by Frisk. He is vehemently anti-American and this is obviously at the root of his blatently anti-iraqi freedom crusade. When someone said Frisk was a "respected journalist" I didn't realize just what an extremist they were talking about. The guys fucking loony. "“How are we supposed to carry on if American shells are targeting
Western Journalists?” asks Frisk. Assuming first that journalists are being targeted and assuming second that the American military, while engaged in battle, needs to put the saftey of journalists above their military objectives. Frisk is a pathetic moron if he thinks a battlefield is a safe place to be. He might as well have asked, "How am I supposed to describe the front bumper of a bus going at 80 miles an hour when the damn thing runs me over?" fool.

Once again, anyone with a sound mind who reads Frisks garbage will hardly say that he is anything like a "respected journalist". I'd be happy to see Frisk turned into 170 lbs of ground meat beneath the tracks of a tank.

One more thing...Frisk is a perfect example of the racist/elitist underpinnings of the liberal-left. The paradigm is that the majority of the people are too damn stupid and (colored) to rule themselves or act with any real degree of self-government so their lives must be managed by people of superior class and race. This is the dirty secret of the left and it is hidden (even usually to themselves) beneath an overly emotional facade of pity and concern for "human rights". This is how the Stalinist paradigm has evolved. Even Stalin felt he was doing the best thing for his people. All roads left lead to Stalinism- I am more convinced of that every day.

Robert Fisk and his ilk are a good example, as they would prefer a GENOCIDAL, brutal, dictator to stay in power rather than the people ever actually have the chance to manage their own affairs. The face of the political resistence to this war of liberation is one of sensativity and sympathy for the (exeptionaly few, especially as compared to what Hussein would have killed over the next few fucking years) civilian casaulties but at its heart is the fact that leftists just can't fucking stand to the spread of real self-government; they are currently HATING the fact the George Bush is doing so well and that he will likely go down in history as one of the greatest American presidents who acted boldly, consistently and victoriously in the face of the greatest threat to America that the nation has faced since its civil war.

Last edited by Itch on 04-11-2003 at 04:19 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

Thanks for the reply Itch, I really appreciate getting a view from "the other side of the fence", especially when portrayed with civility.

Here is something that Fisk said once though...

quote:

---

A slaughter by the U.S. in retaliation for the New York and Washington bloodbaths might just move the Arab masses from stubborn docility to the point of detonation.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Itch

I am still kind of shocked at just how much contempt Fisk seems to feel for the Iraqi people themselves.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

I guess I was due for an emotional outburst.

"Point of detonation"? I don't get that. The arab world is as detonated as it can get. Hordes of fanatics throb through the arab streets screaming "death to America" as hundreds of various cells and bands of terrorists plot and execute with every bit of resource they can muster, destruction to America and its interests. When a people "detonate" order is lost and they become that throbbing disorganized hord screaming in the streets and strapping bombs to their waists in suicidal attempts to kill as many of their enemy as possible. The arab world detonated quite awhile ago and that shockwave finally hit the US on Sept 11th 2001. The governments of the arab world stay in power by managing the detonated and exploding masses. It is hardly likely that any of the dictatorial regimes would even stay in power if the people themselves cooled down long enough to see what was actually happening and get organized.

I can't see anyone saying that Robert Frisk is "unbiased". Anyone who asks a question like, " How are we supposed to carry on if American shells are targeting
Western Journalists?" is certainly biased. The question is obviously a set up question that assumes the US is intentionaly targeting journalists. It is blind to the obvious fact that a war zone is a dangerous place which journalists willingly put themselves in despite repeated warnings of coalition governments to keep out. And that is just one question. Everything else he writes is likwise "set up" writing that assumes the barest veil of impartiality.

Balances out CNN? I tend to think CNN is somewhat biased as well. I see Fox and Sky as being to the right, CNN being on the left and MSNBC as being somewhere in the middle. Frisk is just off the charts. http://www.robert-fisk.com/ does that website seem unbiased to you?

There is a real need for intellectually honest dissent here, and by and large it either goes unfulfilled or gets lost with the less honest dissent. Hussein is in part a creation of the US, as is Islamic Jihad to an extent and consequently, partialy 9-11. People need to be asking about those things without any kind of tilt. Its pointless to take out a dictator now if we are going to simply be installing more later, if we are going to persist with the same foreign policy. US human intellegence is about nil, and it was this type of intellegence (at least intel communities re cia) that created Saddam and helped to kick off jihad in a big way. We have a chance to rebuild that intellegence with current goals in mind.

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be asked. Bush as baby-killer in cheif doesn't wash with most voting Americans, in fact they like the guy alot, so when all this drama and dead-baby hooplah is thrown at us we tend to shrug it off. When the good questions are wrapped in those dead-babies we shrug them off too. I haven't shrugged the honest questions off, and for as patriotic and seemingly biased as I may be I KNOW there are some very serious questions that need answered and I know we can't proceed in the first half of the 21st century like we did in the later half of the 20th or we will suffer multiple 9-11s. Not to mention the world will suffer more and a weakened, less wealthy world means a weakened less wealthy America.

We can't have that. So please remind Frisk and the others that wrap themselves in the guts of civilians while they wave their little EU flags and sneer in resentment at culturaly inferior America (and Islamic world) that they need to be beter dissenters, and ask the honest questions rather than bullshit like, "How can we do our job when we are being targeted by American shells?"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged