Is This Hussein's Counterattack?

[jimnyc]

** What do you guys all think, is Saddam behind the attacks or is it just unruly insurgents & terrorists fighting the occupation?**

BAGHDAD, Nov. 12 -- The recent string of high-profile attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Iraq has appeared to be so methodical and well crafted that some top U.S. commanders now fear this may be the war Saddam Hussein and his generals planned all along.

Knowing from the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites) that they could not take on the U.S. military with conventional forces, these officers believe, the Baath Party government cached weapons before the Americans invaded this spring and planned to employ guerrilla tactics.

"I believe Saddam Hussein always intended to fight an insurgency should Iraq fall," said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division and the man responsible for combat operations in the lower Sunni Triangle, the most unstable part of Iraq. "That's why you see so many of these arms caches out there in significant numbers all over the country. They were planning to go ahead and fight an insurgency, should Iraq fall."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ashpost/20031113/ts_washpost/a34071_2003nov12

 

[SLClemens]

Given the chance he had seven months ago to engage us in urban combat with a force of tens of thousands I really doubt this. He didn't even take such simple precautions as blowing up bridges and mining roads. From all indications there was no organization whatsoever to Iraq's defense and I strongly suspect that many of the top generals were bribed (it would be interesting to know what's happening to them now, if that was the case).

I find it interesting why we need to keep searching for answers to who, exactly, these insurgents are. It seems too obvious to me that they likely come from a wide variety of sources. Are they anti-American terrorists, anti-Western terrorists, Saddamites, Baathists, no-hopers, just plain dickheads, people who lost family and friends to American soldiers, people who've felt humiliated by our soldiers, people who think we're stealing their oil, common thugs who now have an excuse to kill, Islamist or secular, foreign or local? I'm quite sure it's all of the above. The ony thing they have in common is their enemy.

 

[jimnyc]

The ony thing they have in common is their enemy.

That and the desire to see state run terrorism reign. Not to mention the violence that is apparently imbedded in them.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That and the desire to see state run terrorism reign. Not to mention the violence that is apparently imbedded in them.

I don't think they do all wish to see state terrorism reign, and some attacks have clearly been planned so as not to involve civilians (shooting down a helicopter in a rural area, for instance, or hitting US military bases with mortors when there are no civilians in the blast area). Some of them, I'm sure, dream of a peaceful and prosperous Iraq free of American interference, with Iraq fully in control of its incredible resources and free from the humiliation of an occupying power. Some of them most certainly wish to see state terrorism reign. But we're not dealing with state terrorism here; we're dealing with anti-state terrorism, and this is almost impossible to control.

I see a few patches of black and white, but mostly just shades of gray, albeit a fairly dark gray.

 

[rtm]

haha jimmy, you sound frightened? Is it not normal for them to fight off occupiers?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtm
haha jimmy, you sound frightened? Is it not normal for them to fight off occupiers?

What in the hell do I have to be scared about?

RTM, please stop coming to the board and trying to stir up shit and start contributing instead. If you desire to continue in this fashion, please go elsewhere. We can assist you in doing so if necessary.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
** What do you guys all think, is Saddam behind the attacks or is it just unruly insurgents & terrorists fighting the occupation?**

Yeah, I think you have a point. I doubt Hussein came up with the plan, he's an idiot, but some bright boy in the Iraqi military aparently had a brainstorm. At this point we have to worry that the resistance groups are sharing support and intel so you might expect to run into itinerant mujahdeen with brand new Iraqi weapons. That would confirm the existance of a hidden arsenal as well as the overall cooperation between the groups.

 

[NightTrain]

RTM, please stop coming to the board and trying to stir up shit and start contributing instead. If you desire to continue in this fashion, please go elsewhere. We can assist you in doing so if necessary.

Yeah, I'm with ya, Jim... he has contributed no meaningful conversation whatsoever & actually is quite annoying.

He ranks up with the 'Can you hear me now?' geek on the irritation scale.

 

[NightTrain]

From all indications there was no organization whatsoever to Iraq's defense and I strongly suspect that many of the top generals were bribed (it would be interesting to know what's happening to them now, if that was the case).

There was some organization, but I agree that quite a few key players were sidelined by threats / bribes. I remember reading a news article about how prior to hositilites the Pentagon spammed all the officers with a message telling them it was futile to fight and they would be personally held responsible if they obeyed an order to use WMDs. Pretty slick.

Another possibility is the Iraqi armed forces vividly remembered how outclassed they were in Desert Storm and they knew it was hopeless to fight & die for a lost cause. There was a large campaign aimed at the Iraqi troops telling them to surrender or to lay down their arms and go home.

Since this time the declared goal was to roll all the way to Baghdad, a great many may have decided that they didn't want any part of it again.



I think Saddam is behind the attacks & the continued resistance. Once he's captured or killed, things will quiet down.

Communication has to be a major problem for Saddam, I would guess that he's relying on couriers to hand carry dispatches since using any sort of radio, online computer or phone would be suicide. This would account for the apparent lack of coordination of the resistance.

and some attacks have clearly been planned so as not to involve civilians (shooting down a helicopter in a rural area, for instance, or hitting US military bases with mortors when there are no civilians in the blast area)

I have yet to see any indication of any concern on the part of the Iraqis to avoid civilian casualties. I still remember the scene where a gunman was standing in a doorway pointing a gun and holding a small child in front of himself as a shield.... there were many cases of this sort of behavior. In another apalling case there were several fighters sniping from the basement of a building & when the building was rushed by Marines there were about 20 children & young women standing in doorways and windows.

It's possible, Clemens... but I think the helicopter & the other attacks were just targets of opportunity.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by NightTrain
There was some organization, but I agree that quite a few key players were sidelined by threats / bribes. I remember reading a news article about how prior to hositilites the Pentagon spammed all the officers with a message telling them it was futile to fight and they would be personally held responsible if they obeyed an order to use WMDs. Pretty slick.

Another possibility is the Iraqi armed forces vividly remembered how outclassed they were in Desert Storm and they knew it was hopeless to fight & die for a lost cause. There was a large campaign aimed at the Iraqi troops telling them to surrender or to lay down their arms and go home.

Since this time the declared goal was to roll all the way to Baghdad, a great many may have decided that they didn't want any part of it again.



I think Saddam is behind the attacks & the continued resistance. Once he's captured or killed, things will quiet down.

Communication has to be a major problem for Saddam, I would guess that he's relying on couriers to hand carry dispatches since using any sort of radio, online computer or phone would be suicide. This would account for the apparent lack of coordination of the resistance.



I have yet to see any indication of any concern on the part of the Iraqis to avoid civilian casualties. I still remember the scene where a gunman was standing in a doorway pointing a gun and holding a small child in front of himself as a shield.... there were many cases of this sort of behavior. In another apalling case there were several fighters sniping from the basement of a building & when the building was rushed by Marines there were about 20 children & young women standing in doorways and windows.

It's possible, Clemens... but I think the helicopter & the other attacks were just targets of opportunity.

They may just be targets of opportunity, hit by the same people organizing the car-bombing of civilian targets. But striking a military vehicle of an occupying army away from civilians is not a terrorist act.

As for Saddam, if he's highly involved in insurgency he's taking a very different path from what his sons were doing. I think it would be in his best interest to try to hole up and just send the occasional dispatch. It will be interested to see what happens if they find him (in which case they'll likely kill him on the spot). I'll be interested to see your explanation for guerrilla and terrorist attacks if they continue at a high rate after such time. If anything I think that Saddam is inspiring insurgents by demonstrating that the US military cannot achieve such a primary objective as finding him. If they can't find him what are the odds of finding you if you're one of the mere 50,000 involved in insurgent opperations, according to the recently leaked CIA memo.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
If they can't find him what are the odds of finding you if you're one of the mere 50,000 involved in insurgent opperations, according to the recently leaked CIA memo.

I haven't read about that memo, can you please post a link. I don't doubt it, I just haven't seen it myself.

Here's the latest I read, and the number was 5,000

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_the_threat_2

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I haven't read about that memo, can you please post a link. I don't doubt it, I just haven't seen it myself.

Here's the latest I read, and the number was 5,000

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_the_threat_2

The leaked memo reportedly makes reference to 50,000, a number said to estimate all Iraqis involved. Subsequent reports have claimed that of these only 5,000 are supposed to be actual fighters.

Doing a quick Google news search I was quite amazed to see how most foreign news sources mentioned the 50,000 figure and most domestic ones did not.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/992513.asp

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,3736851.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...eadline=-IRAQ-NEEDS-MORE-BRITS-name_page.html

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12925610,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1084862,00.html

 

[jimnyc]

I'll stick with what the General in charge says for now, he most likely knows best.

Who do you think leaked the cia memo? If the cia comes out and specifies how they came up with this figure it will be more credible.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'll stick with what the General in charge says for now, he most likely knows best.

Who do you think leaked the cia memo? If the cia comes out and specifies how they came up with this figure it will be more credible.

The CIA is certainly not going to make a habit of confirming leaked memoranda. They may, however, publicly deny memos that they don't want to get too much attention.

Who leaked it? Probably someone in the CIA who's freaked out about what's happening and what Americans don't know about it.

As for the General in charge - do you not think the CIA would have consulted him in preparing their report? It seems quite clear that in this war, like in most wars, what the generals know and the impression they'd like us to have are not necessarily the same.

 

[jimnyc]

The CIA or ANYONE involved can easily backup claims of the 50,000.

The CIA document was more than likely leaked by a democrat looking to have the insurgency appear to have higher numbers.

1- A confirmed report from the General in charge, and nothing to dispute the figures.

2- A leaked article, always shady, and usually carries an agenda. Also, nothing to backup the claims. Shoot, even the CIA hasn't acknowledged the numbers are correct. Confirming so certainly wouldn't be a security issue.

Which would you believe with the current facts?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The CIA or ANYONE involved can easily backup claims of the 50,000.

The CIA is never going to confirm anything specific in a leaked document if they can help it - just think of the precedent it would set: anyone who wanted a solid answer about something could just come up with leaked memo and ask "is this really true?".

The only source I can find discussion how it was leaked is at http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/11/13/1839796. Apparently only a summary of the report was leaked.

What seems to be happening is that US officials are trying to qualify, not back up or deny the 50,000 figure, suggesting that these are merely people in some way involved in insurgency and not actively fighting.

In reality I doubt there's any way to accurately guage just how many Iraqis may be involved. There almost never is in a guerrilla war, and there's almost no way to define what involvement means.

 

[SLClemens]

Oopsie, missed it ... the above report states that the memo was first leaked to the Philadelphia Inquirer. I don't know a lot about this paper, but I suspect the editors would be hesitant to stake their paper's reputation on something they felt was not credible.

 

[jimnyc]

Your link doesn't work, it comes back with "story not found"

Oopsie, missed it ... the above report states that the memo was first leaked to the Philadelphia Inquirer. I don't know a lot about this paper, but I suspect the editors would be hesitant to stake their paper's reputation on something they felt was not credible.

This and your prior statement about inconsistencies comparing US and abroad journalism is, in my opinion, unfounded.

These papers and news outlets will print just about anything, regardless of it's credibility. Most of them are slanted towards their own views and they will give their own blood for any leak that may support their view.

I suggest you read the book "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Your link doesn't work, it comes back with "story not found"



This and your prior statement about inconsistencies comparing US and abroad journalism is, in my opinion, unfounded.

These papers and news outlets will print just about anything, regardless of it's credibility. Most of them are slanted towards their own views and they will give their own blood for any leak that may support their view.

I suggest you read the book "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/11/13/1839796

Here - I think the period at the end of the sentence above screwed it up.

Yes, surprise, suprise, all news media is biased. The main difference I find between domestic and foreign sources is that foreign ones are usually much more open and honest about their biases, and such leanings are better known to their readers / viewers, whereas here most news media maintain a myth of objectivity and a huge number of their readers / viewers believe that this is possible.

Just what "sources abroad" were you referring to when you suggest that the inconsistencies I point out are unfounded? I find stuff regularly reported in foreign sources all the time that does not make most US news sources reporting on the same topics.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc

I suggest you read the book "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg.

Oh, and on this note - I haven't read _Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite_, and I don't know if I want to because I gather that he talks mostly about domestic social issues that I'm less interested in. Since you've presumably read it, could you tell me whether he discusses biases in reporting foreign policy and if he discusses other countries' presses? If so, what does he have to say about them?

From what I've heard of him I'd be inclined to agree that American media does have to a large extent an intrinsic bias when it comes to reporting on abortion, gay rights, and minority rights. Yet, when it comes to questioning the political and economic structure of our society, I find the mainstream media very conventional and ignorant of things outside our boarders.