War in Iraq - Get out clause

PH01

This operation Iraqi Freedom doesn't seem to be working. The initial hope of the Iraqi people dancing in the streets welcoming the 'liberators' seems now like a distant dream. The people of Iraqi hate invaders, irrespective of their intentions, more than they hate Saddam.
The UK/US will be hoping that they can kill Saddam soon, distroy the regime, and then get out. And leave the clearing up to the UN.
Other than that, there doesn't seem to be a 'Get Out Clause'. A way in which the US and the UK can extract themselves from this conflict other than admit defeat.
If they don't do that, this war could last months, even years.

Wook

That means european taxpayers can cough up for the clean-up bill ?

Sand

Em, whilst the Iraqis have been resisting more stongly than expected - apparently theyre slightly more scared of Saddam whose been executing anyone even suspected of running as a traitor, hence the rebellion in Basra which apparently was anger from troops over the execution of a tribal leader who apparently had had enough - the war is going pretty damn well.

Last I heard more allied troops died in accidents and in friendly fire incidents than actual combat caualties - Iraqi combat losses apparently being a rather scary mutiple of the allies. Allied troops are pushing through Iraq quite easily all told, with the only concerns being Iraqi units holed up in a few towns which they cannot leave without being annialated by 100% allied air superiority.

As for the Iraqi people the humanitarian supplies have been arriving recently to liberated areas and the hearts and mind campaign is well under way - watching the news there scenes of British troops handing out aid to civillians, large crowds cheering and smiling, british soldiers treating a baby rather hideously burnt ( domestic fire apparently ) whose understandbly distraught parents had been looking for a doctor for 2 days - who gets the credit for helping the child, thats right- the allies.

I dont know where youre getting all the negativity from regarding the success of the campaign so far- the worst enemy the allies have faced so far are the sandstorms which have slowed their advance and made air support harder to provide. The only thing which has been underestimated is the sheer terror the Iraqis view Saddam with, compared to their fear that the allies will pull out and let Saddam return as the anti- war protestors wish - I saw an interview with a rather friendly civillian who had been liberated, he was happy to see the allies, but when asked if he was glad to see the back of Saddam he got rather nervous and sheepish saying he couldnt answer that question. Once the people are re-assured Saddam is gone for good and the allies are there to help then youll see more and more scenes like what were seeing now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

froggy 2

In fact it depends on what you consider.
For many people, it seems that "innocent victim" is an equivalent for “civilian”; I cannot agree with that:
If Saddam HUSSEIN, his militias, his elite guards cannot be considered as innocent… the question remains when it gets to the basic Iraqi soldier. Don’t we have to take him into account if we number dead Iraqis? Is he guilty of anything? How many of those soldiers will die?
Of course, you can answer that he is forced to fight under menace by fanatics, but it seems to me :
a) That this version of the story is only -at best- partially true. Reports of the (french) medias indicate that the proportion of the civilian population greeting GI's joyfully is real, but it's far from being a general feeling[1].
b) That it doesn’t change the fact: they are innocent victims of the war; and I don’t consider you can avoid this question answering just “well, it’s the price to pay”, since this war is being led in the name of freedom, and against the axis of evil… It is precisely what makes the difference between good and evil.


[1] You can say French medias are biased on that point, but they are certainly not half as biased as CNN or al-jazirah (not to mention FOX NEWS). Additionally, resistance in OUM QASR by basic, non-professional, and most of all ISOLATED units seem to indicate at least a minimal -real- will of fight of them and imply laso -at least- a minimal support of the local population, this tends to confirm the french media version.
Furthermore the "they feared SADDAM" do not apply there : as a POW, those soldiers perfectly know they would have been beyond HUSSEIN's reach; as armed soldiers they could have killed fanatics (far less dangerous than US artillery !!) if there were any.
Also confirmed by an interview of a shiite leader on TV yersteday : if they hate HUSSEIN, they don't like westerners either: they clearly menaced of anti-american restistance would G.W. BUSH impose an american gov. (remember : it was a leader of anti-HUSSEIN resistance!).

Sand

They control the ports, the air ports, the roads, the oil wells. The Iraqis control ( controls the wrong word, theyre hiding in ) towns, not fortressess, theyre not self sustaining, the Iraqis cant keep them supplied whilst the allies can resupply pretty much at will now that they have the port. The Iraqi regime is now losing a hearts and mind war with humanitarian aid arriving. Theyve had to machine gun and bomb their own civillians to try and keep them in the town as human shields, whilst theyre cracking down on their own troops savagely to try and keep them fighting, which I think will mean their morale cant hold forever as the infighting at Basra demonstrated.

All this after a week. But youre right, the Iraqis are onto a winner.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

What the mortars being ranged inside the town which had the British puzzled as they werent inside the town? Or the militia mowing down people as they tried to leave the town?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand
The Iraqis control ( controls the wrong word, theyre hiding in ) towns, not fortressess, theyre not self sustaining, the Iraqis cant keep them supplied whilst the allies can resupply pretty much at will now that they have the port. The Iraqi regime is now losing a hearts and mind war with humanitarian aid arriving. Theyve had to machine gun and bomb their own civillians to try and keep them in the town as human shields, whilst theyre cracking down on their own troops savagely to try and keep them fighting

Sounds remarkably like Stalingrad to me.

dathi1

hence the rebellion in Basra which apparently was

Turns out that it was bull**** spin provided by the British Military with the help of the BBC. As we have seen here in the North the British Military machine are masters at spin and dirty tricks campaigns wherever they go and occupy.

Shia Civilians leaving the outskirts of Basra will say anything you want them to as long as the Aid comes in.

The Iraqis control (controls the wrong word, they’re hiding in) towns, not fortresses, they’re not self sustaining, the Iraqis cant keep them supplied whilst the allies can re-supply pretty much at will now that they have the port.

Every body hated Stalin but they fought for Russia against the Nazi invaders. Bagdadgrad is probably on the way.

Theyve had to machine gun and bomb their own civilians to try and keep them in the town as human shields, whilst they’re cracking down on their own troops savagely to try and keep them fighting, which I think will mean their morale cant hold forever as the infighting at Basra demonstrated.

I've been threading though Al jezeera footage in Basra all week and I still cant see any sign of this...what sat channel do u have ?? Israeli kill all the Arabs TV?

davelerave

Originally posted by PH01
This operation Iraqi Freedom doesn't seem to be working. The initial hope of the Iraqi people dancing in the streets welcoming the 'liberators' seems now like a distant dream. The people of Iraqi hate invaders, irrespective of their intentions, more than they hate Saddam.
The UK/US will be hoping that they can kill Saddam soon, distroy the regime, and then get out. And leave the clearing up to the UN.
Other than that, there doesn't seem to be a 'Get Out Clause'. A way in which the US and the UK can extract themselves from this conflict other than admit defeat.
If they don't do that, this war could last months, even years.

i agree with you.there's no way back militarily in the short term obviously.the UN may be called upon during a transition period . i'm sure the US will have enough money spent by the time the war is over and will want the rest of the world to pay for the clean-up.I think it's too early to predict the outcome.If basra is anything to go by it could be a long drawn out conflict and the longer it goes on the harder it will get for the coalition.
George bush said yesterday that they will stay as long as it takes but i don't beleive that .After a fixed period
they will need to find a way out

froggy 2

I) Originally posted by Sand :
"They control the ports, the air ports, the roads, the oil wells. The Iraqis control ( controls the wrong word, theyre hiding in ) towns, not fortressess, theyre not self sustaining, the Iraqis cant keep them supplied whilst the allies can resupply pretty much at will now that they have the port. The Iraqi regime is now losing a hearts and mind war with humanitarian aid arriving. Theyve had to machine gun and bomb their own civillians to try and keep them in the town as human shields, whilst theyre cracking down on their own troops savagely to try and keep them fighting, which I think will mean their morale cant hold forever as the infighting at Basra demonstrated.

All this after a week. But youre right, the Iraqis are onto a winner."

I don't undertand if it was an answer to my post (don't think so)... However let's be clear: the US/UK will win (of course); my point was : at what price?. It's a question you can't avoid if you want to deserve the role of the "good". On that point your post is not an answer; you simply count on starvation of the IRAQI towns to solve the problem; it's an efficient method as old as the war itself, but it is not really "good" (to say the least).

II) Originally posted by dathi1:
"I've been threading though Al jezeera footage in Basra all week and I still cant see any sign of this"
Al jezeera is pure propaganda (a bit like CNN). Although the fact has been reported by UK soldiers (who have given a lot of "approximative" news until now), it is likely to be true.
Remember, it is a siege; to get information about those situations, read a bit of the middle-age history: after 1 week the moral lowers, civilian population is starving, so a part of them wants to flee.
IRAQI militias are perfectly aware that if some do flee, the whole population would deband sooner or later, and there would be a massive attack... so they shoot at fleeing civilians: it is an effective method, although it is clearly evil.

III) Anyway, but it's another matter, one thing is clear: there's no "get out clause": US/UK almost managed to make a fascist dictator the martyr of arab cause, WE cannot afford to change him into a victorious hero. This war was unnecessary, but it has become necessary to win it; it's awful, but BUSH should have thought about it before (it is a fact, HE did decide this) ...
Sorry, this will probably be a massacre, but now that it has begun there is no retreat and no surrender.

Jake303

Originally posted by Sand
Em, whilst the Iraqis have been resisting more stongly than expected - apparently theyre slightly more scared of Saddam whose been executing anyone even suspected of running as a traitor, hence the rebellion in Basra which apparently was anger from troops over the execution of a tribal leader who apparently had had enough - the war is going pretty damn well.

Last I heard more allied troops died in accidents and in friendly fire incidents than actual combat caualties - Iraqi combat losses apparently being a rather scary mutiple of the allies. Allied troops are pushing through Iraq quite easily all told, with the only concerns being Iraqi units holed up in a few towns which they cannot leave without being annialated by 100% allied air superiority.

As for the Iraqi people the humanitarian supplies have been arriving recently to liberated areas and the hearts and mind campaign is well under way - watching the news there scenes of British troops handing out aid to civillians, large crowds cheering and smiling, british soldiers treating a baby rather hideously burnt ( domestic fire apparently ) whose understandbly distraught parents had been looking for a doctor for 2 days - who gets the credit for helping the child, thats right- the allies.

I dont know where youre getting all the negativity from regarding the success of the campaign so far- the worst enemy the allies have faced so far are the sandstorms which have slowed their advance and made air support harder to provide. The only thing which has been underestimated is the sheer terror the Iraqis view Saddam with, compared to their fear that the allies will pull out and let Saddam return as the anti- war protestors wish - I saw an interview with a rather friendly civillian who had been liberated, he was happy to see the allies, but when asked if he was glad to see the back of Saddam he got rather nervous and sheepish saying he couldnt answer that question. Once the people are re-assured Saddam is gone for good and the allies are there to help then youll see more and more scenes like what were seeing now.

Not a very dignified reply I agree.....................
But you sir are talking bollox!
Do you honestly believe that lot?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Jake303 we expect people to prove someones position is unsound not call it "bollix". We expect people to treat others with respect especially if you don't agree with them.

Gandalf.

dathi1

read a bit of the middle-age history: after 1 week the moral lowers, civilian population is starving, so a part of them wants to flee.

I do read a lot of middle-age history.
The other great British invasion in the middle east led by Richard De Lionheart with the Christian Crusade spun great propaganda stories of Muslims roasting Christian babies on spits and eating them.....looks like the Scottish Black Watch brigade are in keeping with the above.

and recent history...
read The Battle for Stalingrad.

Sand

I don't believe that.

/me shrugs. Weve reached an impasse then.

Sounds remarkably like Stalingrad to me.

Not in the way you think, The Russians were able to keep Stalingrad supplied sending in thousands of reinforcements, tons of food and milatary supplies. On the other hand when the Germans became trapped in Stalingrad and were only able to resupply via air (i.e. they really couldnt resupply ) the Germans were doomed and they eventually surrendered.

The Iraqis cant keep Basra supplied - any sort of supply convoy is going to be bombed to kingdom come, the nearby river is now being patrolled by allied forces, and its rather hard to hide a ho chi minh trail in the desert when your enemy has 100% air superiority. Their civillians/human shields are gradually slipping out and being let through Allied lines to receive humanitarian aid. The regimes forces in Basra are doomed, whether they want to admit or not and whether you want to admit or not. All the allies need to do is be patient and minimise their own casualties. Theyve no need to fight an urban battle which nullifies their total advantage.

I don't undertand if it was an answer to my post (don't think so)... However let's be clear: the US/UK will win (of course); my point was : at what price?.

nah sorry, it wasnt - but for the point you raised, theres a price attached to everything. Do I want to see Saddam toppled, his regime smashed, the Iraqi people free of his terror, and served by a democratic, tolerant government accountable to them which can see an end to sanctions and a once more prosperous nation? Yes - but there is a price, the missiles and bombing are so precise compared to say that of WW2 as to be unreal but you will *still* have civillian casualties, far, far, far less but you will.

On the other hand, if those civillians who have died and will die are to be saved then there is also a price - and again you cant avoid it. You leave Saddam in power, you have to leave sanctions in place which have turned Iraq into a poorhouse with hideous child mortality rates, you have to run risks of Saddam one day cracking his WMD problem, you have to leave him and his band of butchers to have a free hand against their defenceless population, and you have to hope that your inaction doesnt leave you with more blood on your hands than your action does.

So there is a price to toppling Saddam, but in my opinion its not as heavy as that attached to leaving Saddam in power.

you simply count on starvation of the IRAQI towns to solve the problem; it's an efficient method as old as the war itself, but it is not really "good" (to say the least).

No, Id count on starving out the Iraqi milatary - and not just of food or water but of reinforcements, shells, bullets, grenades, missiles, medical supplies etc etc. Iraqi civillians are getting out now, theyre not the enemy - theyre allowed to pass through the alllied lines. Its not like a middle ages castle seige I read about years ago where the French decided the civillians in the castle were taking up too much food and kicked them out, and the english beseiging the place reckoned they were probably spies or soldiers in their midst and wouldnt let them through their lines and they slowly starved to death in no mans land:|

Going into the town and fighting a pitched battle there would be far bloodier for the civillian Iraqis in my opinion. People were ranting on 6 months ago about the Israelis fighting such a pitched battle in a refugee camp/town with Palestinian gunmen and suicide bombers holed up there and the impact it had on civillians. Thats pretty much the reality of urban warfare when you want to try and get your men home alive, misson accomplished though. Id expect the allies to have far more respect for the local civillians but if theyve got a unit trapped, screaming for artillery or air support at just about everything around them what are they going to do? leave them to die?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand


Not in the way you think, The Russians were able to keep Stalingrad supplied sending in thousands of reinforcements, tons of food and milatary supplies. On the other hand when the Germans became trapped in Stalingrad and were only able to resupply via air (i.e. they really couldnt resupply ) the Germans were doomed and they eventually surrendered.

Your partly correct here. Yes the Russians were able to resupply throughout the "seige", thousands of reinforcements as you say, but they weren't always able to provide food or military supplies in the quantities required. They were at an advantage to the Germans in that when the tide turned, the Germans could only provide 10% of the supplies they required by air, and as you say "they really couldn't resupply". I quote from Anthony Beevor's superb Stalingrad:

"New boots, uniforms and equipment were reserved for new armies being formed in the rear. For front line soldiers at Stalingrad, replacement items did not come from the quartermaster's store, they came off the bodies off dead comrades [my emphasis]. Nothing was wasted when it came to burial. Men were even sent forward at night into no man's land to strip corpses to their underclothes." (p174)

The situation for civilians was even worse. Again, Beevor:

"Soldiers at least had some sort of purpose and fairly regular rations to keep them going. The civilians trapped in Stalingrad had virtually nothing. How over 10,000 of them, including 1,000 children, were still alive in the city's ruins after over five months of battle, remains the most astonishing part of the whole Stalingrad story." (p174)

Originally posted by Sand
Theyve had to machine gun and bomb their own civillians to try and keep them in the town as human shields, whilst theyre cracking down on their own troops savagely to try and keep them fighting

This quote was really what I was getting at with my sounds like Stalingrad comment. The Soviets were ruthless when it came to punishing "desertion" and "un-Soviet activities", with both the military and civilians. For the last timen I quote Beevor:

"'In the blazing city,' wrote Chuikov, 'we did not suffer cowards, we had no room for them.' Soldiers and civilians alike were warned with Stalin's quoptation from Lenin: 'Those who do not assist the Red Army in every way, and do not support its order and discipline, are traitors and must be killed without pity.' All 'sentimentalism' was rejected...that the Soviet regime was almost as unforgiving towards its own soldiers as towards the enemy is demonstrated by the total figure of 13,500 executions, both summary and judicial, during the battle of Stalingrad." (p166)

Sounds remarkably like the current state of affairs in Iraq, if the media is to be believed.

It appears the Iraqi strategy is to draw the Coalition forces into the cities, with the inevitable high casualty rate amongst Iraqi and Coalition forces, but most crucially amongst the civilian population. The longer the conflict goes on, the more pressure will be applied to the US and UK governments from within their own countries, and also from the wider international community. There is no telling what effect a protracted war, with significant civilian casualties, along with high Allied casualties, would have domestically, especially for Tony Blair. So the option of waiting for Saddam's regime to crumble over time is risky, would you agree Sand?

Finally:

Originally posted by Sand
You leave Saddam in power... you have to run risks of Saddam one day cracking his WMD problem

I thought the war was being fought because he had already "cracked" his WMD problem???

Sand

Okay reckless with your first paragraph youre merely saying how hard the russians found it when they *could* resupply - how hard will it be when the Iraqis cant?

As for your second Stalin apparently kept civillians in the town so his troops would know who theyre fighting for. Whilst its impossible to know where in Iraq the soldiers in Basra, for example, are from, its safe to say theyre not fighting for the less than friendly Shi'ite Iraqis who are the majority in the south. And yes the russians apparently machine gunned any troops which routed from the front line - it should be noted that the russians initially welcomed the germans as liberators from the soviet dictatorship, it was only when they became aware of the Nazis racial heirarchy (Slavs at the bottom if not exterminated ) that they became as definat as they did, the allied troops are doing their best to be the friends of the Iraqis with success in the liberated areas.

The longer the conflict goes on, the more pressure will be applied to the US and UK governments from within their own countries, and also from the wider international community.

What youre talking about here is most directly the media. Allied milatary have apparenlty alreadly claimed that the embedded media are exaggerating combat and difficulties. Having seen Sky News report of a 4 hour firefight which apparently was relaxed enough that the sky news guy could give a running commentary of whilst interviewing troops doing the fighting I tend to agree. Ive got to say I find it amusing that the medias timescale of the war has jumped from days (this was apparently how soon they expected the war to be over ) to years due simply to heavier than expected iraqi resistance - though the resistance so far has been rather ineffective. I actually feel pity for the milatary doiung the fighting trying to win the war in the way theyve been trained whilst the medias in the back seat chorusing "are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet? " and trying to bring their- and i stress their - "expert" ( every actual retired soldier Ive seen so far has claimed to be impressed with how well the war is going ) opinion to bear.

God almighty, if ever the west had to fight a war against an equivalent foe ( USSR? ) the media would be declaring defeat if they werent reporting live from the ruins of the kremlin in the first 24 hours. They provide a useful role but theyre nothing more than information gatherers.

I thought the war was being fought because he had already "cracked" his WMD problem???

Heh, thats the US's poor exscuse, not mine. Saddam should be deposed simply because of what he is and the threat he poses, long term or otherwise.

Hell if you want a justification that involes Saddams threat to the US try this. The US is deployed in the middle east because Saddam poses a threat to his neighbours. Bin Laden despises the US because their troops are in his holy land. He carries out terrorist acts against the US because theyre in the holy land. US takes out Saddam, gets a friendly government in, withdraws (they hate nation building remember? ) - no Saddam, no need for troops in holy land, less annoyed bin laden and co......... RESULT!!!

I dunno, just something I was thinking of - probably not bushes long term view, but hey?

halkar

I think US and UK really hit themselves by foot when they start invading Iraq. And now they are in, it will be difficult to get out without winning over Saddam as they want world to believe that is why they are there :rolleyes: . However I doubt Iraqi people are fighting only for Saddam but they are fighting for their lands after all they are being invaded. All that liberating Iraq and bla bla is rubbish and after hearing all the stories off uprising in Basra which turned out to be there was no uprising Everyone has their own opinions on the uprising but if US couldn't fool people of Basra who can they fool. After all they did uprise against Saddam in the Gulf war and they were let down by US. Same with the Kurdish at north Iraq though Kurds are supporting US as they have probably have their own ideas about the region but I doubt they are ruling out the fact that if Saddam stays after US they will pay the price of their uprising so it looks like they are cautious too. So much welcoming for liberators, they are simply not wanted there and if US and UK succeeds chaos in the region will continue for many years which will cause of many thousands civilians to die.
I think US and UK just pack their bags and go back home and play their war games in front of screens as if this war is dragging in to the summer they will probably die in Iraq deserts with the heat not Iraqi bullets. Temperature will rise to around 35 degrees in April and it will make much harder for the troops to fight with all the equipment they have to carry around and I dare to think the heat in the deserts of Iraq after April.
Iraq is far more complicated then just taking Saddam down and any government after him will have a lot of ethnic groups to deal in the country which probably bring the country in to a civil war, and I am sure by then US and UK will get what they wanted.
There is also a possibility of other Muslim nations being dragged into this war as they simply hate US and already they have being calling the people to jihad to fight against the coalition. After all US is accusing Syria and already bombed (by mistake :rolleyes: ) Iran. And what if Kurds wants to become independent state? I don't think Turkey and Iran will have that as their proposed lands are in the borders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
Well well well sh!t happens

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand
Okay reckless with your first paragraph youre merely saying how hard the russians found it when they *could* resupply - how hard will it be when the Iraqis cant?

As for your second Stalin apparently kept civillians in the town so his troops would know who theyre fighting for. Whilst its impossible to know where in Iraq the soldiers in Basra, for example, are from, its safe to say theyre not fighting for the less than friendly Shi'ite Iraqis who are the majority in the south. And yes the russians apparently machine gunned any troops which routed from the front line - it should be noted that the russians initially welcomed the germans as liberators from the soviet dictatorship, it was only when they became aware of the Nazis racial heirarchy (Slavs at the bottom if not exterminated ) that they became as definat as they did, the allied troops are doing their best to be the friends of the Iraqis with success in the liberated areas.

Well Sand, we return to this.

Firstly, my first comment was to highlight that while you were in the vicinity of the truth regarding Russian resupply of Stalingrad, it certainly was no cakewalk, which is what it appeared to be from reading your initial post. Shall I quote it? All right then:

The Russians were able to keep Stalingrad supplied sending in thousands of reinforcements, tons of food and milatary supplies

Sound like a cakewalk? Well, I tried to shed a little light on the topic, but I accept that resupply will be a huge problem for the Iraqis, no doubt about that.

As for the comment regarding Russian troops "apparently" being machine-gunned. Are you denying it happened? And is the point that the Russians initially welcomed the Germans supposed to explain Soviet troops deserting? I suggest you read the book I referred to, Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad. Pay particular attention to chapter 11, Traitors and Allies.

On a final note, I agree with you regarding the media reporting of the conflict. But remember that they have been the direct receipients of the Coalition spin for nigh on a year now. Remember they have also been useful politically, as chief cheerleaders and prophets of doom. Is it surprising that they began to believe the hype that they were expected to deliver unthinkingly to the masses??? I suspect that the Coalition have not only misjudged the Iraqis, but also the extent to which an over-friendly media can be relied upon to say what they want said.

bonkey

I'm unconvinced as to how well or badly the war is going.

There are reasons as to why every setback is reasonable...you know, like Iraqi soldiers apparently firing on Iraqi civilians.

What amazes me is that even if the US allegations are true, and it all is deliberate oppression of the people, how could they not have expectecd and planned for it?

Did they somehow believe that this regime they class as brutal and oppressive in peacetime was going to suddenly become the model exponent of "clean" warfare when they squared against a military power they couldnt possibly defeat? How could they not have expected these tactics?

So either the excuses for the slowness are pretty damning, are simply another layer of misdirection to make us believe that the allies realistically believed there wouldnt be humanitarian crises, or its a pretty damning comment on the allied execution of the war.

The control the open spaces - well done. That was never in doubt. What the Iraqi's have done is forced them to take it slower than was possible (perhaps even slower than was planned). They have forced more resources to be tied up along the way than the US tells us was expected. They have made the progress towards Baghdad as costly as possible in terms of time.

The Iraqi army is not dumb. It knows that there is one way to win this war, and that is to get the US to bow to some form of pressure and cease its aggression. They cannot beat the coalition militarily, and everyone knows this. What they need to do is slow them, make them bleed, make the ensuing humanitarian cost higher than the invaders and their public are willing to pay.

While the US Command Centre tells us that drinking water has been returned to "up to 60% of Basra's populace", that still means that 400,000 + have been without water for 6 days. Is this the fault of the Iraqi's defending their own land, or the US forces who seek to depose them? Thats an endless question...the US will damn Saddam for making it necessary, and he in turn will blame the US for making it happen. Both sides will have expected something like this to happen, so its the occurrence a sign of a war going to plan, or a war gone astray? If its going to plan...does this tell us anything about just how humanitarian those plans really are?

Similarly, when this turns to urban warfare - and it will in my opinion - the death-count on all three sides will rise dramatically. The US will tell us this is the Iraqi's fault for not standing out in the open where they could be easily massacred by unimagineable superior hardware in accordance with the rules of war the coalition would like to see. Here...they are right, but could anyone honestly expect anything else?

Here, again, if the coalition can stomach the civilian losses combined with the increased body-count of its own, combined with escalating costs and probably the odd humanitarian disaster thrown in there.....then it cannot be stopped. However, it is far from certain that it can stomach it over the long term.

It cannot lose this war militarily, but it can lose.

So when we talk about the war "going well", I always wonder what exactly that means....and find it hard to decide if it is or not. Is it going as well as it could have? Most certainly not. Is it going as well as could reasonably be expected or as well as was really planned? I'd say its pretty close, but such low expectations could never be sold to the public beforehand because they would reinforce the figures being touted a reasons to not have this war :

Less than a fortnight in, and 400,000 people in Basra have been without water for 6 days.

The humanitarian cost of this war is not from the direct casualties. Horrific as the scenes in that market destroyed by two missiles from some side, they pale into insignificance against the plight of hundreds of thousands without water supplies. The media (at least on CNN - the only english news channel I have access to ) made a big deal about humanitarian progress when the plant was back to producing something like 6,000 L of drinking a water per day. Thats a whopping 10ml per person per day for the 60% of the people they claimed had water restored to them, so where was the rest coming from, and why was this pathetically small amount in any way significant?

Even yesterday, when aid packages were handed out by SOF to feed several thousand refugees, they themselves admitted that they had neither the resources nor the intentions of feeding everyone. They just wanted to win them over to the US side before the international humanitarian agencies came into supply the real aid.

The Hearts and Minds campaign does not have the capability to avoid humanitarian disaster. What it can do is alleviate enough suffering which has already been caused by the conflict to give positive pockets of civilians, which typically is necessary to be able to have any sort of effective presence. It also gives great TV images to win the media war - look how caring we are for 1% of the people we have put in this position...isnt this a big crowd.

Thats all its for - its not about caring for the people - its about winning a psychological war.....because thats where this will be won and lost. The allies need to convince world and national opinion in their own nations that things have slowed down, so that they dont have to admit they expected these situations from day 1. They need to convince us that the humanitarian crisis isnt out of hand, because as soon as they fail to do so, they will have lost their chance to win this war.

jc
jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Allied milatary have apparenlty alreadly claimed that the embedded media are exaggerating combat and difficulties.

They provide a useful role but theyre nothing more than information gatherers.

Agreed.

What a lot of people tend to overlook is that having moved to "embedded" coverage, no reporter is gonna get airtime by saying "well, we're just sitting about here, not doing much. Its no big deal - some planes will shoot out that building sometime later, and then we can move on - its not worth taking a risk over it, and we're in no big rush really.". Nope - what they need to tell is that an entire division has been halted by withering fire from determined Iraqi opposition, where it has been necessary to call in air-support, and that the unexpected resistance is costing valuable time".

The media have moved to 24-hour war coverage. They're having difficulties adjusting to the fact that there isnt always 24-hour war news. Couple that to war being the best forum to make a huge name for yourself - reporting calmly while in true mortal danger - and you have an almost unmissable tendency for the reports to exaggerate. It suits their careers, it suits the parent company, and up to a point it suits the military.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
and its rather hard to hide a ho chi minh trail in the desert when your enemy has 100% air superiority.

Just a slightly off-topic correction here....

The Ho Chi Minh trail was successful because it ran through neighbouring nations (Laos and Cambodia), bypasing the DMZ, and the US wasnt willing to take significant action in those nations for fear of international embarrassment of running operations against them.

Its not like the US didnt have 100% air superiority and defoliants in Vietnam....before someone wants to use that as a counter-argument

But I agree....resupply should prove to be a deciding factor...although that will entirely depend on the size of the stores the Iraqis have built, and both sides willingness to allow a humanitarian crisis to develop rather than risk their own soldier's lives....rightly or wrongly.

jc