Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Actually, both sides of the aisle agreed that the combat opps against Hussein's Army went like clockwork. But then neither side of that same aisle predicted or calculated the overwhelming threat of the insurgency.> I don't know about "both sides of the aisle" - I'm on record as critcizing heavily Congress's willingness to slough off their responsibility to declare war and simply authorize the president to do as he wanted - but there were scads of thoughtful people who predicted exactly what has happened with the insurgency. ElKay quoted a British source, and all you have to do is look back at contemporary periodicals to see plenty of examples from the US as well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <ElKay quoted a British source, and all you have to do is look back at contemporary periodicals to see plenty of examples from the US as well.> Elkay's source doesn't predict the insurgency.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Elkay's source doesn't predict the insurgency.> Ahem. "This could be critically important. I[Manning, UK foreign affairs advisor] think there is a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it. Will the Sunni majority really respond to an uprising led by Kurds and Shias? Will Americans really put in enough ground troops to do the job if the Kurdish/Shi’ite stratagem fails? Even if they do will they be willing to take the sort of casualties that the Republican Guard may inflict on them if it turns out to be an urban war, and Iraqi troops don’t conveniently collapse in a heap as Richard Perle and others confidently predict? They need to answer there and other tough questions, in a more convincing way than they have so far before concluding that they can do the business." Note especially the line about American troops having to face the Republican Guard if it turns into urban warfare - most experts believe the insurgency (especially early on) was dominated by former Baathists and R.G.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh All that talk is about the initial combat, not about the insurgency. The Republican Guard folded, and did not conduct any significant amount of urban combat, as was feared. Urban warfare is not the same as people blowing up bombs while our soldiers hand out food to children.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Urban warfare is not the same as people blowing up bombs while our soldiers hand out food to children." My goodness, it sure sounds like it is to me. What would be your definition of urban warfare then, pray tell?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<All that talk is about the initial combat, not about the insurgency. The Republican Guard folded, and did not conduct any significant amount of urban combat, as was feared.>> This is correct. The insurgency facing Iraq today was not predicted pre war as it is mostly made up of foreign fighters led by Al Zaqwari being generated out of Syria. Make no mistake, these are a type of mercenary. They do these acts in the name of money first and foremost, not solely to defeat the infidel Americans. If that were true, then thousands of foreign fighters would be pouring into Iraq. That is simply not the case.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What would be your definition of urban warfare then, pray tell?> Fighting armed soldiers in an urban environmnet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <All that talk is about the initial combat, not about the insurgency. The Republican Guard folded, and did not conduct any significant amount of urban combat, as was feared.> Note that the memo talks about an "uprising." The initial combat, against regular Iraqi forces, was not an uprising. The R.G. may have folded as a regular fighting unit, but they and other Baathists sort of melted away and formed the bulk of the early insurgency.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This is correct. The insurgency facing Iraq today was not predicted pre war as it is mostly made up of foreign fighters led by Al Zaqwari being generated out of Syria.> No, that's not correct. The insurgency is not "mostly" foreign fighters - the numbers of foreigners is pegged much lower. I've seen as low as 7% and never higher than 25%. And many people predicted the insurgency. Again, just check contemporary periodicals. Some predicted a homegrown insurgency against the occupation, some predicted Iraq becoming a magnet for foreign fighters, some predicted both (which is what we got).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Note that the memo talks about an "uprising." The initial combat, against regular Iraqi forces, was not an uprising.> They were talking about an uprising against Saddam, not against us. They were wondering if we could use an Afghanistan type strategy against Saddam - i.e. fewer coalition troops aided by Iraqi rebels.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Note that the memo talks about an "uprising." The initial combat, against regular Iraqi forces, was not an uprising.>> <They were talking about an uprising against Saddam, not against us. > Okay, I can see how you could read it that way, and maybe I read it too broadly. But whether ElKay's source predicted the insurgency is minor point - many other people did. Some people on these very boards did, including me. Plenty of journalists, think tankers, and middle east experts did too.
Originally Posted By ElKay I firmly believe that the Blair Cabinet in this and other memos were very concerned in the potential recklessness in Bush's drive to oust Saddam through military measures, with or without the support of NATO powers or the UN's cover. Like it or not, the Republican (what a name?) Guard has not actually surrendered when Bush landed on the USS Lincoln with that banner proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished". As this memo stated, the if RG doesn't collapse and urban fighting ensues, how will the Bush Admin. respond? Those fears have actually come true. There's not much doubt that much of the attacks have been funded and directed by underground ex-leaders of Saddam's RG and other special forces. Much of the the effective fighters are those Iraqi with military training. Dispite what the Bush Admim and especially Cheney (VP FOR Torture) says the overall situation in Iraq has gotten worse since the declared victory back after the fall of Baghdad. Over the weekend, two US Congressmen visiting Baghdad were moderately injured in an accident while taking "normal" evasive actions for the protection of those special VIPs. If the country, especially the road from the Green Zone to the airport isn't secured, with the sizable numbers of US troops along with our Iraqi trainees, how can this Admin. declare success in the distant corners of Iraq? We're being stung repeatedly by a swarm of mosquitoes. Sure, we won't die from those stings, but we didn't plan ahead and bring the netting, repellant, or the citron coils to drive them away. What we've done is taken off our shirts and sprayed ourselves with sugarwater and aftershave.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Like it or not, the Republican (what a name?) Guard has not actually surrendered when Bush landed on the USS Lincoln with that banner proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished". As this memo stated, the if RG doesn't collapse and urban fighting ensues, how will the Bush Admin. respond?> The Republican Guard crumbled way before major combat operations were completed. The small amount of urban fighting that has happened under our occupation has not been with the Republican Guard. <Dispite what the Bush Admim and especially Cheney (VP FOR Torture) says the overall situation in Iraq has gotten worse since the declared victory back after the fall of Baghdad.> Not by any reasonable measurement. <If the country, especially the road from the Green Zone to the airport isn't secured, with the sizable numbers of US troops along with our Iraqi trainees, how can this Admin. declare success in the distant corners of Iraq?> For the most part, the distant corners of Iraq were the easiest to secure. The "Irish Road" is as secure as any road in Israel. <We're being stung repeatedly by a swarm of mosquitoes. Sure, we won't die from those stings, but we didn't plan ahead and bring the netting, repellant, or the citron coils to drive them away. What we've done is taken off our shirts and sprayed ourselves with sugarwater and aftershave.> We're draining the swamp. Soon, the mosquitos will have no place to breed, and will be gone. In the meantime, we're swatting them whenever they buzz around.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Draining the swamp may not be the best analogy. When you do that, you wind up killing beneficial species and making it more likely that a future storm will wreak even more havoc on your community. All to kill a couple of mosquitos that will never be able to kill us.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When you do that, you wind up killing beneficial species and making it more likely that a future storm will wreak even more havoc on your community.> That's a possibility, I suppose, but evidently, a much less likely one than the malaria outbreaks that used to occur, before we started draining swamps.
Originally Posted By ElKay Are we actually draining the swamps or is the Admin. just telling the American they are doing, because they don't have any clue how to accomplish that task? To gauge how much of that swamp we're draining go see my "Documented "Metrics". . ." thread. Looks like the swamp is spreading over more and more territory.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Elkay, do you want us to win the war in Iraq even if it guaranteed Bush would be a hero and a republican much like him would get the presidency in 08? O'Reilly was talking today about the 20% of Americans who want us to lOSE in Iraq. Your in that group.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Elkay, do you want us to win the war in Iraq even if it guaranteed Bush would be a hero and a republican much like him would get the presidency in 08?" What's there to loose, Beau? It's not like the insergents are going to march on Portland or the Dalles. You watch to much "Hogan's Heros." Iraq is a wasteful sideshow to the war against terrorism. Waving the flag, to justify GOP politics and to hid Bush's mistakes is really ridiculous. Needlessly fighting in Iraq is ruining the military and weakening our leadership role in the world. Bush's adventure in Iraq hasn't prevented a spreading of terror bombing in several capitols of our allies and these could be the pre-show for another attack on the US during Bush's presidency. He ignored the signs of the first attack on 9/11, what makes you sure he isn't distracted by his poor poll numbers if there are right now the same missed signs in 2001? >>O'Reilly was talking today about the 20% of Americans who want us to lOSE in Iraq. Your in that group.<< Oh yeah, if Bill says so you parrot him. Beau, you talk like John Wayne but act like Don Knotts.
