How's it going so far?

[jonstad]

Last night, when most of you were asleep, there was some nasty s**t going on in Iraq. Vicious fire fights erupted in Uum Qasr and Nasiriyah, cities we claimed yesterday were already under our control. So far, it appears that this "liberation" is not going exactly as advertised.

While there have been some minor mass surrenders(several hundred from reports), there doesn't seem to be the massive capitulation predicted despite months of exhortation by Rumsfield, Bush, etc. for Iraqis to do the honorable thing and lay down their arms and surrender(apparently this doesn't compute to Iraqis as "honorable"), not to mention massive propaganda drops and alleged communications with Iraqi military commanders. The Pentagon acknowledges that at least a dozen American servicepeople have been captured and some were apparently paraded out to the world on al Jazeera. And the predicted warm welcome by average Iraqis seems to be developing as spotty at best.

And of course this doesn't include "friendly fire" and accidents. At least three helicopters have crashed, a Patriot missile apparently shot down a British warplane. And some Sargent who obviously should have been granted a "section 8" rolled a couple grenades into the command tent of the 101st Airborne, killling one and injuring a dozen or so.

I have no doubt we'll ultimately prevail. The Iraqis simply don't have the resources and weapons we do. I know it's only been a couple days, but all in all this isn't shaping up to be the cakewalk that was sold to us, at least not so far. And our troops aren't even close to Baghdad yet.

Oh! But I forgot! President Bush warned us that this might not be so easy, after the war had started!

[Richard King]

You sure do appear pleased with yourself.

[Mike123abc]

It has not even been a week, the first Gulf war we bombed for 6 weeks before we even started the ground campain. In 4-5 days we are farther along than we were in the first Gulf war.

[jonstad]

Originally posted by Rking401
You sure do appear pleased with yourself.

Great response. In fact I'm not pleased at all. It makes me sick to my stomach. I'm not pleased to see rockets and bombs and bullets used on either side. I'm not pleased to watch buildings being blown up specifically because we know there's human beings inside. I'm not please that those in the buildings were firing on our troops. I'm not pleased to see British Commandos running on fire from a burning enemy compound. I'm not pleased to watch as one of the oldest cities on the planet systematically lights up the night sky with cruise missile and JDAM explosions. I'm not pleased at the images of injured and dead Iraqi civilians being removed from bombed out buildings. I'm not pleased with American POWs being terrorized and paraded by their captors for all the world to see. And most of all I'm not pleased at our utter failure to avoid all of the above.

The only thing I am slightly pleased with is that Iraq has chosen so far NOT to use the substantial chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs we KNOW they possess, nor have they shown much inclination to set fire to their oil fields as we were warned about. And I should qualify this by saying I am not pleased that this might prove our administration wrong, I am simply pleased that neither eventuality has come to pass.

[raj2001]

Originally posted by jonstad
And I should qualify this by saying I am not pleased that this might prove our administration wrong, I am simply pleased that neither eventuality has come to pass.

Don't worry, the administration won't be proven wrong. After all, the major emphasis isn't on finding WMD anymore. It's all about freeing the Iraqi people.

[jonstad]

Originally posted by raj2001
It's all about freeing the Iraqi people.

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot this is all about our great concern for the fortunes of the Iraqi people. I guess I wasn't paying attention during the last "excuse exchange".:rolleyes: And apparently, neither were the Iraqis.

[toenail]

Originally posted by jonstad

I have no doubt we'll ultimately prevail. The Iraqis simply don't have the resources and weapons we do. I know it's only been a couple days, but all in all this isn't shaping up to be the cakewalk that was sold to us, at least not so far. And our troops aren't even close to Baghdad yet.

Oh! But I forgot! President Bush warned us that this might not be so easy, after the war had started!

I guess I must have missed it Jon. When did Bush say it would be easy??

[Bogy]

Probably at the same time he said we didn't need to talk about how much it would cost. After all, if you have to ask, you probably can't afford it. Now, after we're within a hundred miles of Baghdad, he asks for the money to pay for it.

[firephoto]

Or perhaps it's that time of the month when defense spending budgets/monies come up??

The Treasury funds the military.
They make our money too.
hmmmm
Perhaps they make a little extra money for the next few months?
There hasn't been any talk of the US not having the money for this war, just talk about how much it costs. In most gov't operations you spend first, ask forgivness later (or ask for more :) ).

[jonstad]

Originally posted by toenail
I guess I must have missed it Jon. When did Bush say it would be easy??

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was all the talk of how regular Iraqi forces wouldn't, moreover couldn't, fight their way out of a paper bag and could hardly wait to trade in their Kalashnikovs for an MRE and a canteen? How about all those e-mails and cell phone calls to Saddam's commanders? To listen to Bush and Rumsfield, ill-fed and ill-equiped Iraqi soldiers amused themselves with white flag designing contests. What about the idea that the average Iraqi would view US as welcome "liberators" and pave the streets with rose petals?:sure:

It may not look like it to us, but to them it looks we are INVADING their country. AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT! How could we have been so gullible to think that they WOULD like it? Soldiers don't surrender unless they've been totally demoralized. That's not what they're trained to do. Maybe we SHOULD have begun this campaign with three weeks of relentless bombing like 1991? Contrary to our "intelligence", quite a few of these guys appear more then ready to rumble.

Armies are viewed as "liberators" only if the people whose home country they're blowing up and shooting full of holes think there's something to be "liberated" from. Regardless what you think of Saddam, he's just the latest in a long line of despots to rule Mesopotamia going back before the Bible. He's just the latest gem they've come up with. Iraq knows no better and have no expectation that any regime installed by US will be any better.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et al were itching for an excuse to go after Saddam since even before they took office. Eighteen months ago they got it.:( This is an obsession. Most of the rest of the world sees it this way. And even the "coalition of the willing":lol: is mostly made up of countries in it for expediency and expediency alone. We either bought them off directly, forgave loans or dangled favorable treaties in front of them. Some did it just to stay on our good side. Do you really think Britain and Spain and Romania would be so "willing" if it were Guatamala or India or China hot to trot for "regime change" in Iraq?:nono2:

Frankly, even I had partially bought into the fantasy that Iraq would crumble like a sand castle in a tsunami, Iraqi soldiers would make sure they had clean, white hankies at all times and babes in burkas would be hanging all over our dog-faced GIs. Guess what? Rude awakening!:eek2:

What the hell's it going to be like when we get to Baghdad? Or maybe you think they'll just give up and capitulate like Londoners did during the blitz?

[RichW]

It is extremely naive for anyone to thinks that a conflict involving ground forces would be a "quick war". (Hint: how much military presence do we still have in Afghanistan after our "victory" there)

It is even more naive to think that getting rid of Saddam will solve the problems in Iraq. My greatest fear is that the US has provided the spark that lit the tinderbox of War that will spread across the world. Anti-Americanism is at an all-time high and even many of our traditional allies are half-hearted supporters at best. Pride and arrogance goeth before the fall.

[toenail]

Well, Jon, you gave a nice long answer. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer my simple question: when did Bush say it would be easy? You obviously research the web thoroughly. Surely there must be SOMEplace that you located authority for your comment. Saying that "there's been talk" is no authority at all. Maybe a lot of people thought it would be easy, but they are not Bush. A lot of other people thought the war is immoral. They are not Bush either. I don't recall hearing Bush ever say this would be easy, or that people would be surrendering like crazy.

I recall ME betting you a sandwich that we would eventually be greeted as liberators. That jury is still out. Some have greeted us that way already. But that's not what either of us were referring to. We'll have to wait and see how the general populace feels after the war has ended and they feel safe in expressing their opinions.

[James_F]

Even though I agree with what Jon says, Bush did say it would not be easy. A quick search in Google News for February show that he said it would not be easy many times. Now did the media say it would be, yes....

[Bogy]

Originally posted by firephoto
Or perhaps it's that time of the month when defense spending budgets/monies come up??
What? That time of the month didn't come up last month?

[Karl Foster]

Actually it is that time of the quarter. The government disburses money on a quarterly basis. There is an AFP - Annual Funding Plan, and the quarterly allotment against the AFP. The new quarter starts on 1 April and ends on 30 June.

[Jacob S]

And what are we going to do when/if we get these huge bombs coming down at us and the innocent civilians in Iraq that are going to be the huge mother loads.

[RichW]

Jacob S. Your last post makes no sense to me at all. Please explain.

Toenail says:
"We'll have to wait and see how the general populace feels after the war has ended and they feel safe in expressing their opinions."

But how do we know when it has "ended"? Look to Afghanistan for an example. The cause for War was much clearer there but fighting continues, and many people have been freed from Taliban despotism only to find they are now ruled by opium-growing Warlords.

And we still didn't get Bin Laden.

[toenail]

Originally posted by RichW
Jacob S. Your last post makes no sense to me at all. Please explain.

Toenail says:
"We'll have to wait and see how the general populace feels after the war has ended and they feel safe in expressing their opinions."

But how do we know when it has "ended"? Look to Afghanistan for an example. The cause for War was much clearer there but fighting continues, and many people have been freed from Taliban despotism only to find they are now ruled by opium-growing Warlords.

And we still didn't get Bin Laden.

Good question. When the fat lady sings?

[jonstad]

Originally posted by toenail


Good question. When the fat lady sings?

How can you even compose a question from a statement like that?:confused:

Actually though, I think he was just quoting from a Homeland Security pamphlet on the subject.;)


Toenail and James! Which Bizarro new agency do you guys subscribe to? I can close my eyes and see Rumsfield and accociates droning on about how only the elite Republican Guard might be a problem. The pitiful part is that I think they actually believed it. Even the media is starting to notice there's not as many surrendering Iraqi troops as we were led to believe there would be. And Dubbya left no doubt we would be welcomed with open arms for our selfless act of "liberation".

Perhaps some passing statements were made to the effect "War is difficult and dangerous but this is a difficult and dangerous situation, and we must do it for our own security". But there were no casualty or cost estimates leaked, and you KNOW they had them. The public was led to believe this was going to be a beach party without the water and our biggest problem was going to be how to dispose of all those white flags and feed the POWs.

The media is reporting what appears to be an official change of tactics for the "coalition". The Baghdad express has been slowed to a crawl. There needs to be some mopping up done first to keep those guys who were supposed to surrender from taking pot-shots at us from behind sand dunes and ambushing maintainance details. Ironically, the same sort of tactics used by a country with a weak military against the biggest superpower on the planet 230 years ago. The Redcoats couldn't figure it out then, and we seem to be having problems now. If it wasn't all so deadly serious, it would almost be laughable.

Interesting piece on BBC radio today. Iraqi expatriates in Jordan, some who haven't been back to Iraq for twenty years or more, are desparately trying to get back to Baghdad and their families. Why? Because they feel a duty to repel the invaders. One guy made the statement he would sacrifice himself and his five sons if necessary and it would be worth it. None of these guys have any great love for Saddam. Some probably left because of him. But their country's being invaded and they want to at least try and stop that. Would you feel any different?

[Neil Derryberry]

moving to the war forum....

[James_F]

Originally posted by Neil Derryberry
moving to the war forum....

The war forum?

[Karl Foster]

Jon,

so the movement of to the outskirts of Bagdad in five days through some pretty fierce fighting and sandstorms isn't fast enough for you? You have been watching too much CNN and Fox News, who (witht the assistance of retired "military experts") all had the public believing that the Army can move an entire division 200 miles in a matter of hours.

Nobody in the Army has ever expected the war to be over in a couple of days. Our soldiers are deployed for up to two years, not two weeks. It is dangerous business moving thousands of soldiers and equipment hundreds of miles in sandstorms.

It isn't that we in the Army are a bunch of stupid idiots as you seem to want to portray. Everyone needs to exercise some patience in the whole situation. It took longer than this to get Noriega to surrender when we had him surrounded in a single building.

The press needs to back off a little and quit portraying the war as a failure and that we aren't progressing in the effort. The public has become so accustomed to quick resolutions, that there seems to be a cut-and-run attitude. War takes time, and the press acts as if the five days of fighting is the equivalent of the fighting in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam combined. :rolleyes:

[firephoto]

Uh oh, jonstad might not reply now. ;)

[toenail]

I hate to say it, but the impatience being displayed by Jon and a few others is typical of us Americans. We've come to expect instant gratification. A lot of people thought that Afghanistan would fall in just a few days. It wasn't that easy, and as some have pointed out, it still hasn't totally "fallen." You may wish to panic at this point about the war. I think its just begun. It will take awhile. Go figure.

[markh]

I guess I got the idea it would be easy from all those "military experts" on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. that said it would be a cakewalk. I got the impression that all the true believers in this(Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz(sp?) thought that too. I guess all the Iraqis didn't get the message.

[Richard King]

the impatience being displayed by Jon and a few others is typical of us AmericansWhere's my TV dinner?

When you see every crime ever committed solved every night on television in 30-60 minutes, this is to be expected. There seems to be a total disconnect from reality brought on by too much television.

[firephoto]

I propose all DBSTalk.com members protest and shut their televisions (and xm radios ha ha) off for a period of 24 hours starting at 0:00z.

:)

[Jacob S]

What I meant by the statement above is that Iraq may choose to drop bombs such as atom bombs or something major in which could kill many many civilians and many lives all at once. What would we do as a result? After hearing about how we would more than likely shoot every plane that their air force would put in the air then it makes that seem less possible.

[Nick]

McWar? I think not.

The fog of war has turned into the sandstorm of the century. One reporter described conditions as "a hurricane blowing sand instead of rain"

That the allies have come to fight under these difficult conditions is the direct result of the stalling tactics employed by SH and the UN over the past two months.

Hussein played the waiting game masterfully. His moves were calculated, the result predictable. He and his cohorts are skilled manipulaters of the truth. He is the master propagandist.

Against the backdrop of a wall of flying sand, Hussein waits. His Republican Guard waits. What new surprises await our expeditionary forces? What innocents will be exploited and sacrificed by Hussein to slow the inexorable advance of allied soldiers.

It is he who holds the ultimate weapon - our own humanity. And he will use our humanity against us until the fiery end.

[raj2001]

Originally posted by firephoto
I propose all DBSTalk.com members protest and shut their televisions (and xm radios ha ha) off for a period of 24 hours starting at 0:00z.

:)

I already did my quota the minute I got my new GBA SP. I suddenly have a renewed interest in mario type games!

[jrjcd]

keep in mind that we at least making an effort not to destroy the iraqi infrastructure -we could be there and gone in a week if we decided to just level the country, but one of the goals is to leave something there for the iraqis to have when the thugs are ousted...

[jrjcd]

ok...what did i say to get unilatterally bumped!!!!

[Nick]

What you did was spell unilaterally wrong. :D :D :D

[Bogy]

I think that the expectations of many were influenced by the statements that this was going to be a "new kind of war." That the "shock and awe" campaign would take the starch right out of the Iraqi leaders and surrender would be an immediate gimme. I realize that plans changed somewhat because our leaders thought they could take Saddam out of the game, so Shock and Awe happened on schedule, just in a different place in the program, but was I dreaming or were various government spokesman talking about how they had been in negotiations with various leaders for some time already, and running over to Baghdad was going to be a ceremonial affair, just to pick up the signed declaration of surrender and appoint the new puppet regime? Just a few days later, the future don't look so bright. And I don't think its just the sandstorm.

I have a suspicion that many military leaders are really grinding their teeth that they got set up by civilians to look like failures. I'm sure they had a much better idea of what they were really facing than the administration. Unfortunately, Bush seems to listen to his own advisers as much as he listens to the rest of the world. That, or he has surrounded himself with yes men who don't dare contradict him. Considering how his father's administration showed themselves to be masters of coalition building, and how many people made the migration from dad's administration to W's, I have been "shocked and awed" at the total lack of diplomacy and awareness of the world situation shown by this administration.

[James_F]

Or the total underestimation of the situation. :nono: