Plan's Defect: No Defectors

[James_F]

LA Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/battle/la-war-intel28mar28,1,3119600.story?coll=la%2Diraq%2Dbatt le)

A highly publicized U.S. campaign to persuade senior Iraqi military and civilian leaders to surrender has failed to produce any significant defections, and U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that those closest to President Saddam Hussein are unlikely to give up.

The effort now appears to be one of several miscalculations in a high-stakes U.S. strategy to use bombing, secret contacts and inducements -- including cash payments -- to key Iraqi leaders to quickly overthrow Hussein.

"We underestimated their capacity to put up resistance," said a Bush administration official who requested anonymity. "We underestimated the role of nationalism. And we overestimated the appeal of liberation."

[gcutler]

You figure it is basic psychology when your back is to the wall to defend your home. Our advantage of 1991 was that many Iraqis were in Kuwait at the time and couldn't rationalize that, and those in Iraq knew that Kuwait was part pyschology.

The other thing on our side in 1991 was a month of no supplies and constant B-52 raids on frontline troops (which tends to destroy morale among other things)

[James_F]

Originally posted by gcutler
You figure it is basic psychology when your back is to the wall to defend your home.
Which is my point. Why was this overlooked?

[gcutler]

I'd like to know as well. My connections in the Pentagon as not as good as they were (well, in my imagination)

[firephoto]

It's hard to defect, or escape a city even, when there is a "police" force (probably a better word for that) that keeps a gun pointed at you and tells you what to do or you will die. This force was sent to Basra to "recruit" people to fight. They had to fight or die, but the to die came at the hand of the "recruiters".

[Roger]

James:

When does boring baseball start?

[James_F]

Monday. :D

[James_F]

Originally posted by firephoto
It's hard to defect, or escape a city even, when there is a "police" force (probably a better word for that) that keeps a gun pointed at you and tells you what to do or you will die. This force was sent to Basra to "recruit" people to fight. They had to fight or die, but the to die came at the hand of the "recruiters".
So where are the military leaders? All backing Saddam. Its not the reason why they aren't defecting, its why did the U.S. Administration believe they would?

[Rick_EE]

Because they played the US like a harp with all these emails and phone calls.

[firephoto]

I would guess that these "leaders" have the same guns pointed at them in a way.
Most likely a case of wishful thinking.

[James_F]

Maybe, but how could they be so wrong. The top U.S. General in Iraq was quoted on NPR saying that they didn't war game for this stuff at all. How can we be this unprepared? Our troops are getting molested out there and the administration should be accountable. I'm not saying George should step down (well maybe that would be a good idea ;)), but the Rumsfeld should be held accountable for these actions.

[RichW]

I find it hard to believe that we were not prepared for guerilla warfare. The military just isn't that stupid. I blame the Bush administration Public Relations for making this war about Saddam and his sons. It isn't. Its about a LARGE group of Iraqis wanting to exercise control over other Iraqis. After we kill Sadddam and his sons we will find that there is yet another moustachioed dictator ready to take his place. We will either have to be there a long time, fighting a terrorist war or we will have to withdraw, like in Vietnam. If we withdraw, we will have abandoned the Kurds once more and have lost any credibility we have withthe Shi-ites. And then Iran will attack.

[gcutler]

Originally posted by RichW
I find it hard to believe that we were not prepared for guerilla warfare. The military just isn't that stupid. I blame the Bush administration Public Relations for making this war about Saddam and his sons.

But hasn't it usually be part of US policy to present us with a boogey man leager as the representation of who we are fighting, which tends to imply that if that person is killed the enemy will stop fighting and give up (and only the Boogey man and his group followers believe in what they are doing)

Panama - Noriega, Somalia - Adid, Serbia - Milosovich, Iraq - Hussein. While the average Joe in those countries don't agree, there is probably a much larger support base than we suspect...

[James_F]

So again why have we screwed this up so bad? It seems like the Defense Department thought we would be welcomed like liberators. Not even close.

[Karl Foster]

Just because it isn't over in nine days, doesn't mean everything is screwed up. :rolleyes:

I don't remember seeing Pres Bush or Sec Rumsfeld saying that the Iraqis would be in the streets throwing rose petals at us like the Parisians did. I remember seeing lots of retired "armchair Generals" on CNN, FNC, and MSNBC saying it would be a cake walk, and I think they are becoming a complete annoyance.

Everyone is so impatient! The reserve component soldiers, on their orders, are activated for 365 days with the government option to extend that up to another 365 days. They aren't called up for 30 days.

I do believe that our soldiers ned to to "toughen up" when dealing with enemy troops. They have been far too trusting of soldiers who are surrendering. I know the Army troops have training in dealing with ambushes and urban warfare - even an Administrative NCO like me that has rudimentary infantry training knows how to deal with an ambush. I think some of the problem is the soldiers being too soft. I'm sure seeing people dying or being captured will toughen them up much more quickly than war gaming. YMMV.

[James_F]

Donald Rumsfeld
We are in communication with still more people who are officials of the military at various levels - the regular army, the Special Republican Guard - who are increasingly aware that it's going to happen, he's going to be gone," the secretary said. "Once they are persuaded that that regime is history ... then their behavior begins to tip and change

Sounds like those "officials" fooled our Defense Secritary. :rolleyes:


http://www.naplesnews.com/03/03/naples/d927575a.htm

[cooper]

The only thing that's screwed up is the administration's choice to fight a pollitically correct war. Nobody wants to see civilian deaths but there is only one way to fight a war and that is to win or don't fight it at all. If General Franks was allowed to, I'm sure he'd steamroll right through Iraq in a couple of weeks. The war is not going poorly just slowly.

[James_F]

And then what. Kill thousands of Iraqi civillians? They would sure welcome us then...

[cooper]

Not at all. I'm simply saying that the admin chose this kind of war. People (ie: the press) need to understand that things take time. We're not bogged down or at a loss as to what to do next. I think they "hoped" for mass surrenders but since that ain't happening I think they're going to take things slow to minimize casualties, civilian and allied. Which is a good thing, just a slow thing.

[James_F]

So do you think its more the press or the administration for why there was the perception that this might go as well as the gulf war?

[cooper]

I think the admin hoped it would go as well, but without that type of air campaign, of course the ground war will be tougher. I don't know where or who actually started the "cakewalk" talk but I think that was the general perception of a lot of people. I do think a cakewalk was and is still physically possible however that would come at an unacceptable civilian death toll. You're absolutely right, we're supposed to be liberating them, not slaughtering them.

[RichW]

While "Shock and Awe" sounds like a death-and-destruction strategy, it is really just the opposite. The strategy is to conduct attacks on vital targets in hopes that the enemy will see the futility of carrying on any further and simply yield. It is as humane a strategy as any wartime activity can be... but it is an uproven strategy designed by a "think-tank". It does not appear that it is working in Iraq. Saddam may have already been killed or neutralized. Certainly we have damaged the command and control capabilities of theri military, but that just means that the war becomes a guerilla war.

[Bogy]

U.S. Marines certainly don't sound as if they were prepared for a guerrilla war. In an interview the other day one of those wounded when they thought they were dealing with civilians sounded very betrayed. Not to put the guy down, but it was like a little kid complaining that the other kid in the playground wasn't playing by the rules. Didn't anyone think that this was going to happen?

[Mike123abc]

What are they supposed to say? Before even going in that it will be tough gorilla war and fighting will drag on for months as we fight all sorts of unconventional forces, or that it should be quick, everyone is ready to surrender and people will welcome us?

Just because they say the latter does not mean that they did not actually plan for the former. They would not have near the support for war if they said it would be tough.

[waydwolf]

This was not a screw-up. The press I've noted has tried repeatedly to put everything into the mouths of the administration heads, repeatedly, and they spend a good ten minutes of every news conference backpedaling and denying things they didn't even say but were rather said and inferred by the press during questioning.

Sort of like asking, "so how long have you been a total failure in the bedroom?" and then proceeding to the damning, "so are you still molesting small children?"

No-win questions that have to be denied first before they can be answered are one problem. A press that is determined to present ANY casualties as too many is another.

Anyone care to look up the casualties suffered at Mount Suribachi? Or Normandy in the first 24 hours? We've taken much larger hits with a much closer ration between our loss and the enemy's loss.

This is still a major league ass kicking and as we tighten around Baghdad, it will get slightly worse for us, but it will get humongously worse for them as with nowhere to run and hide, massed where they cannot spread out, they will get pounded to blood and sand right quick.

And this is still about Hussein and the Psycho Twins. Cut them off the top of the pyramid and you eliminate much of the mystical appeal of the Ba'ath Party. Saddam is the one and only hero now of that entire alleged organization. His megalomania has made certain that focus remains on him while in good times, and will make certain that focus will be utterly lost when he is gone.

[Bogy]

Originally posted by waydwolf
This was not a screw-up. The press I've noted has tried repeatedly to put everything into the mouths of the administration heads, repeatedly, and they spend a good ten minutes of every news conference backpedaling and denying things they didn't even say but were rather said and inferred by the press during questioning.

Sort of like asking, "so how long have you been a total failure in the bedroom?" and then proceeding to the damning, "so are you still molesting small children?"
You mean its kind of like having the opinion that the Administration has totally bungled diplomacy and foreign relations and that the decision to go to war was ill advised, and having to spend the first 10 minutes of any answer explaining that you support the troops, you are patriotic, and no, you don't think Saddam is the greatest ruler in the world just because you think Bush screwed up and you don't support Saddam's regime? Kinda like that?:D

[RichW]

"And this is still about Hussein and the Psycho Twins. Cut them off the top of the pyramid and you eliminate much of the mystical appeal of the Ba'ath Party. Saddam is the one and only hero now of that entire alleged organization."

The history of Iraq "politics" proves you wrong. Behind Saddam are several wannabees, even excluding his sons. We repeatedly hear that we have eliminated Iraq's Command and Control abilities, yet the fighting is a brutal as if Saddam were out there egging his forces on. If Saddam is already neutralized, wounded, or even killed, why are his forces continuing to battle.

In fact, you our a victim of your own diametricly opposed thinking. In one post you say that Saddam is the one and only hero, in another you make him the poster boy of the Al Qaeda conspiracy. Which Saddam are we fighting?

[Jacob S]

Maybe we think different of the opinions of the Iraqi's than what they really are. Maybe some of the Iraqi's like Sadaam and his control when we think they dont, and when we leave there will be another leader in there just as before if not worse if we do not take care of this ourself, and to try to make it a democracy may not work if someone else comes in and does the same thing Sadaam did, but if we have Iraq a territory of the U.S. or another country that can take up for the country then we can keep things under control and the oil they have will pay for that in which should be more than worth it.

What are the Iraqi's really thinking of all of this? Do they think we are the enemy or trying to help? If we do go in and try to set up that democracy they may not like that and just be against it. The results of this war may be different than we had thought it would be.

[James_F]

But Jacob, we are the ones who should be surprised, not the military.