In the 'uh fricking DUH' category today for Iraq...

I heard someone theorizing (not too sincerely) that the reason Bush went unilateral was to create some degree of support (eg France refusing to say who they want to win) for Hussein, support he couldn't afford to squander by, for example, using chemical weapons. He was talking out of his ass, but he also noted that by going unilateral it greatly increased American (and British and Australian in theory) influence in post-Saddam Iraq, influence that would've been diffused under a UN umbrella. Plus weaker UN, split EU, other juicy tidbits for Bush et al.

The US Army's senior ground commander in Iraq, General William Wallace, warned that long supply lines and Iraqi guerrilla-style tactics had reduced the chances for the swift war military planners had hoped for.

"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," he told The Washington Post.

All that goddamn time to prepare for other eventualities and they apparently forgot that one. Cripes.

everytime i hear the fleshy blank-eyed FoX AnchorMan call Iraqi tactics cowardly I want to cry. barking from his chair with the adjustable back and little wheels... ARGGGGHHH
whatever they are they are NOT cowards. they are defending their villages pastures and children. the term IRAQI RESISTANCE is an accurate one.

VICHY FRANCE VICHY FRANCE VICHY FRANCE VICHY FRANCE

I think they then changed the rules so the invasion was able to go ahead despite the invasion fleet having been destroyed, and the retired general still kicked their arse.

did '2nd world' refer to the communist bloc?

I used "simultaneously" twice. How embarrassing.

As this concerns so-called American intelligence, I'm not surprised by the slip-up. However, so much for following Rumsfeld's "communication silence" decree about war tactics to the media. If these commanders are supposed to be the best examples of US Army forces, we just might be in deep shit.

But ultimately I blame the US administration who as noted above, could and should have forseen exactly these tactics and thus stayed the hell out.

This short-sighted attititude was never uncommon within the US Govt, let's face it. The eagerness to steamroll in and conquer Saddam has clearly been clouding their judgement. One of my concerns is that the Army will cease pretending to be humanitarian (if that's what you can call the results thus far), and just drop the missiles any- and everywhere. The reasoning being that 'if the Iraqi forces are mixing in with the civilians, why not simply get rid of them all, instead of trying to differentiate?'

I don't think that the war is going badly, but it's all about appearances and posturing, isn't it? And from that standpoint it is going badly for all of the reasons that you state (too high of expectations, unrealistic goals).

I love Tuesday Morning Quarterback! Easterbrook's also apparently like 'the' shuttle expert/critic to see also, there was a big whoo-ha about whether Time or Newsweek would get him after the Columbia was lost.

There's no way Rumsfeld will get canned, no matter how poorly he bungles things. He's a media darling and the face of the DoD (or at least the one that Bush wants to put forward) -- to fire him would be a tremendous loss of face, as the WH has definitely created this role as Bush's Right Hand Man all along, mainly cuz the media digs his willingness to run his trap (and even Vanity Fair got into the act with the "This is the Kinda Conservative We Luv" piece they ran in the Salma Hayek issue).

While the soldiers in the field could give (rightly) two shits about a media war (makes me think of that part in Three Kings, actually), isn't this whole thing really a media war? The tactical advantages and benefits of this war are hazy at best, as any gain won't be seen for decades (if ever), and the hawks don't strike me as long-range thinkers (and yes I know of the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld Dominocracy Effect but that's such an unbelievably rosy world-view for two war-planners to take it baffles me to no end). So this war is more about America asserting its power by toppling a dictator (who needs to be toppled, mind you) in an effort to prove 9/11 was a fluke, scare Al Qaeda into becoming the good little Muslims that Bush can invite to photo-ops and maybe, as a bonus, boost a wayward economy while we're at it. I don't think this is Bush's idea of what this war will do, but within the DoD and State Department I have a feeling it might be. So if we are losing the PR battle we're losing a war, cuz the on-field victor of this war was decided long ago (it's like Yankees vs. Brewers in a 200,000,000 game series -- yeah, Sexson might hit a homer for a fluke win one of those 200 million times, but we all know how it's gonna end).

See, I'm not convinced that Bush even considered this aspect fully. It's become pretty apparent that his handlers (I hate using that word cuz it makes him sound like a circus animal) shield him away from any information negative or detrimental to their viewpoint (to the extent that they knowingly show him a forged Nigerian document claiming Iraq tried to order uranium...). Maybe I'm giving Bush too much credit, but I think that he either hasn't thought through post-war Iraq, or he thinks it'll be trouble. I base this mainly on the fact that he's spoken so little about it in public -- this says that he sees it as a problem area, as his war pep rally speeches have been so all over the map trying to touch on any facet of the potential conflict to drum up support. Sure, he says "bring democracy to the people of Iraq" and "self determination" and all of that jazz, but never anything even remotely specific. Maybe it's cuz there are no specifics yet, or maybe it's cuz he realizes that a vast majority of Americans haven't even begun to consider that side of the coin, and he wants to keep it that way. (and yes, if the Dems offer even a semi-viable candidate in 2004 i think they might actually have a shot; but no one with their hat currently in the ring has a shot that i can see)

Heavens no, considering how many troops are over there and how many soldiers have been lost (not a whole damn lot, to be blunt). Things could be a hell of a lot worse.

gee whiz they shoulda used the Powell doctrine

Heh. I remember reading a story Mike Daddino linked some time back about how back in 1990/91 Powell had to tell Cheney to cool his jets and stop acting like a generalissimo. The tables being turned here in terms of influence, the difference is telling.

It's become pretty apparent that his handlers (I hate using that word cuz it makes him sound like a circus animal) shield him away from any information negative or detrimental to their viewpoint (to the extent that they knowingly show him a forged Nigerian document claiming Iraq tried to order uranium...).

Blackly hilarious thing was that there was a story a couple of days ago somewhere essentially saying the same thing about Hussein and how he might be being shielded from his own bad news. Figures. Does no leader have the equivalent of someone saying "Remember thou art mortal" in their ears anymore?

I would give good money to see Bush I send Bush II to his stateroom without dinner over the whole UN fiasco.

I don't think Baghdad rolls over in two weeks, but it wouldn't shock me. I was (er, am) against the war because it had (er, has) the potential to turn into a disaster and I didn't think the risk was worth it, not with other very viable options out there, but that doesn't mean I want to see my worst fears confirmed.

100% how I feel/felt.

Here's my fear: That in two months there is still enough action to see 24 hour live cable news coverage of military action in Iraq. If that's the case, then I think we've definitely lost the PR war.

Here's my long-term fear: That the reconstruction process turns nasty, and we finally decide to just botch it in favor of moving on to other targets. And judging by the swift decline in ratings/attention in the week since this war began (and I am certainly a culprit in this), not many Americans will be paying close enough attention to hold the administration culpable for some an obviously awful thing to do.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/891794.asp

Is a good description of the attitudes of the Iraqis to their liberators - does not bode well for an occupation.

But I do not believe that the majority of the Iraqi people will be welcoming the coalition troops, whether they're called "liberators" or "invaders" or "colonial troops." Yes, they've been pretty well screwed by the reign of the whole Saddam regime, but I believe they must not look fondly upon the forces that are showing-up and making their already difficult lives that much more of a struggle.

I feel badly for the troops in the field (hell, all of the troops for that matter). I don't blame them for the situation that they're now being thrust into, as that can be laid at the feet of this administration. I think, though, that the coalition troops have been fed a lot of optomistic (over-confident? Egotistical?) bullsh*t about being great liberators and being met with welcome and open arms, flowers, and so forth by the Iraqi people.

We're going to lose some wonderful young men and women, though many more Iraqi's will be losing their lives - and this is what saddens me the most: the death of civilians is NEVER acceptable - in this case I do not see that the ends (removal of Saddam/whatever the goal is) justify the means (needless destruction of infrastructure by all sides, death of innocents, environmental destruction, etc.), no matter how the situation is presented.

Iraqi Freedom, yeah. I wish I were drunk.

Calibrate this asshole!

I think you're referring to this story in Suck.

'I'm not saying he's still alive or not still alive, but you don't seem to see him walking the streets much these days...'

Yeah that's perceptive John. If war was occurring in Sydney I fully expect I'd see you inside Parramatta Leagues Club or Hurstville 7-11, or walking down the Manly foreshore with the wife, in full public view, especially if the other side had specifically nominated your ass as a target.

I think we'll know by the end of the week how long the war is going to take. The battles gong on south of baghdad at the moment should give some indication of the kind of resistance that the US/UK forces are going to meet. If people are going to start giving themselves up then it will be as the fighting reaches baghdad. I think thats when iraqis will realise that they won't be abandoned again.

However, the fact that the coalition is not as broad as in '91 and contains no muslim or arab nations leads me to worry that a sufficient proportion of iraqis will see the US troops as nothing other than an invasion force and will resist doggedly. The iraqi propaganda machine is sharp and I think it was a smart move not to have saddam come on tv last night. the iraqis I think are trying to make this war about iraq and not about saddam or wmds. Iraqis will fight for iraq.

We shall see though.

As for reconstructing post-conflict iraq I believe that the US.gov have made some blunders. The plan floating about this morning seems to be doing nothing but enraging the iraqi opposition and is likely to do the same to the iraqi people.

If the occupying forces don't want to see an 'intifada' then very quickly things have got to get a whole lot better for the iraqi people or very quickly nostalgia for the good old ba'athist days will quickly turn nasty, exploited by what ever demagogues are out there.

Post conflict iraq is going to require great deal of magnanimity on the part of the occupying governments. They must not exact their pound of flesh they must get a democratic iraqi government started and stably installed as quickly as possible. Lessons can be learnt from South Africa, an Iraqi Truth and Reconciliation commision might be better than a war crimes tribunal or shipping people off to the ICC. Post conflict iraqi governance must be beyond reproach or all hell will break loose.

And can Mr Rumsfeld please keep his gob shut about syria and Iran. Especially iran every time one of the bush junta opens his mouth on the subject of iran it strengthens the hand of the iranian conservatives.