This is on the Op-Ed page rather than the Global Recon one, as no-one in MSM wants to mention the elephant in the room.
From CNN :
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat remained in a coma Friday at a French military hospital on the outskirts of Paris, amid various reports over the gravity of his prognosis.Two U.S. administration officials told CNN that Arafat, 75, was being kept alive by machines while French, Israeli and Egyptian officials negotiate with his family and aides over where he should be buried.
And to figure out where he stashed the $4.5 billion in loot.
Arafat’s family always has wanted him to be buried in Jerusalem, but Israeli officials have said they would not allow that. There is some discussion about Arafat being buried in Egypt.Leila Shahid, the Palestine Liberation Organization representative in Paris, confirmed that Arafat was in a coma but said it was “reversible” and he could come out of it.
On Judgement Day, the dead shall rise again!
Speaking in an interview on French Radio Friday morning, Shahid denied reports that the Palestinian leader was brain dead.
Some would say that he’s been that way for decades, of course. But not literally, till now.
Shahid said the coma was initially induced by doctors on Wednesday afternoon in order to perform a biopsy after his condition took a turn for the worse.
In other words, Whoops…. the biposy was successful, but the patient, er, well, his condition became more complex.
The two U.S. officials say that since Muslim custom requires burial within 24 hours of death, no one will declare Arafat dead until they figure out where to bury him. They said Arafat will not be taken off life support or declared officially deceased by his family until the negotiations are complete, and they hope to have those talks wrapped up within 24 to 48 hours.
Whereupon they can officially pull the plug on the fully-automated all-electric Arafat. Batteries not included.
“This is a very sensitive matter,” one official said, adding, “We are running out of time.”
In other words, bits are falling off, and he’s starting to smell. Even worse, that is.
When the French Military said that Arafat’s condition had become “more complex” a few days ago, this meant that the corpse could now only be kept fresh by continuous heart stimulation and a ventilator. In other words, his feet are nailed to the perch. He wouldn’t go “Voom” if they put 20,000 volts through him - because that’s what they have to do now just to stop a certain greenish tinge on his face, and grey fuzz growing from the eyeballs.
Arafat’s condition is now “more stable than it was”, in fact, it’s as stable as a doornail. He is an ex-Arafat. Bereft of life, he doesn’t rest in peace though. The Peace of the grave will be denied him, until they find where the money is, or the charade gets too difficult for even the French Military (experts in farces) to keep up.
Thursday afternoon, French President Jacques Chirac was allowed to briefly visit Arafat’s room. He also spent about a half hour with Suha Arafat, the Palestinian leader’s wife.Shahid, who was in the room during Chirac’s visit, told French radio that when the French leader held Arafat’s hand, he opened his eyes and smiled although it was not clear if he recognized Chirac.
Dare we hope that some spark of awareness might remain, some activity within the stimulated, oxygenated, ventilated, and medicated rotting nervous system? I doubt it. Some things are too much to hope for. But maybe there is justice after all. And just think, with luck this could last for days, even weeks!
Winds of Change.NET has a really sharp comments section, and reader John Farren left a very smart insight the other day. In discussing al-Qaeda and its motivations, he said:
“I wonder if there is any sort of reverse analogy with South Pacific “cargo cults”. Instead of creating symbols in the hope of “magically” obtaining Western goods, [they use] the destruction of symbols to emphasise, and subconciously perhaps “magically” obtain, the rejection of Western contamination.”
UPDATE: Athena has some worthwhile thoughts over in the Winds of Change.NET comments section.
At 6:50 p.m., I posted about the 3 Southern Baptists who were killed in Mosul. The information about these individuals was obtained from the Baptist Press news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. Now, at 9:35 p.m. EST, this is the information at NYTimes.com:
Gunmen kill 3 U.S. Civilians in car in Mosul
BAGHDAD, March 15 — Three American civilians were killed and two others wounded Monday when their vehicle was raked by gunfire in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, a military spokesman said.
The victims were affiliated with a private aid organization working in Iraq, and not the American-led reconstruction effort, the military spokesman said.
The names of the victims and of their organization were being withheld pending notification of family.
I don’t get it. Even if they were waiting to name the individuals out of deference to the families, there is absolutely no reason to refuse to name the “private aid organization” they worked for. I am mystified as to why the Times would do this.
Is it possible that there’s some religious bias at work here? The writer doesn’t even mention that it’s a Christian aid organization. Or (the more likely scenario, I admit) why is the reporter relying on a military spokesperson? Could it be that the reporter didn’t do any actual reporting, but just showed up at the daily press briefing in Baghdad?
Hmm.
The suggestion that Iraq and Saddam Hussein has a working relationship with Al Qaeda, possibly extending to involvement with the 9/11 hijackers, is seeing something of a resurgence lately.
There is of course the much touted report in the Weekly Standard about a leaked CIA memo, containing 50 enumerated pieces of intelligence linking the former Iraqi regime with Al Qaeda - some data going back over a decade.
That report has since been attacked by the US Administration, for reasons unknown, occasioning the author of the original Weekly Standard piece to issue a followup, defending his analysis (or rather, defending the CIA's analysis).
Add to that a new piece in Slate, offering strong evidence for reconsidering the strength of the 'Prague connection' between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officers, and you start to get a pretty compelling picture.
ALSO: Don't miss Lt. Smash's semi-professional analysis of the original intelligence report, which comes off very convincing.
Here's my response to this controversy about Baghdad blogger "Salam Pax" being a Ba'athist agent, sparked by a David Warren column that also makes some good points about Pax's moral myopia.
I buy the family connections, the moral myopia, and the narcissist streak. I also think there's a kind of mentality at work that likes to be seen as a "bad boy" out there "on the edge," whether he is or not in real life (personal bet? Not). But an Iraqi intelligence officer? I'm not exactly naive about intelligence matters, so I understand the theoretical possibility. What I don't see here is the point of the op. A real intelligence op should try to accomplish concrete things, and Pax was too all over the map to fit that profile for any intelligence organization I can think of. He actually undermined the Iraqi story in important ways, and a trained agent wouldn't accidentally reveal the things David Warren cites re: his family connections. Cover is an agent's priority one, and Salam Pax has done a less than stellar job of that throughout.
No, my point of view corresponds to Occasional Reader's instead, not to mention Mike G's. When Saddam's agents wanted to shape opinion, they bought it.
As for the claims that Salam didn't post anything critical of Saddam et. al. before the war, I suggest doing one's research first:
--- UPDATES ---
Speculation is rampant right now that senior Iraqi leaders who escaped into Syria are now busily arranging visas to get into France.
Perhaps Chirac, Villepin & Co. realized that one dramatic way they might be able to rescue France's reputation would be to lure the escaping Tikrit mafia into France, then turn them over to -- Kofi Annan?
Scott Ott has the last word on the studio generals. Once you're done laughing, I have a couple of questions:
Who was the best "studio general?" (doesn't have to be an actual general)
Who was the worst "studio general?"
Who was the best embedded reporter?
What was the best embedded report? (i.e. one story/dispatch)
Who was the best non-embedded reporter?
What was the one single stupidest thing you heard someone say on TV or saw them say in print?
You can answer in the comments, my answers are below.
Who was the best "studio general?" Col. Bob BevilacquaWho was the worst "studio general?" Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the Bill Parcells of generals. You know that he knows his stuff, but he never shares his insights with you.
Who was the best embedded reporter? Bob Arnott (with Rick Leventhal as a close second).
What was the best embedded report? Brett Sadler's drive into Tikrit or Bob Arnot's 45 minute report from a firefight.
Who was the best non-embedded reporter? John Burns
What was the one single stupidest thing you heard someone say on TV or saw them say in print? Alex Witt asking Arnott stupid, inane questions while he was being shot at.
Prepare for all contingencies. During interim governance by Americans and local leaders, Iraq will experience a vast and rapid transformation. In just a few months, people's lives will improve in drastic and overwhelming ways, all thanks primarily to the courage, sacrifice and benevolence of America.
The changes cannot be understated. Decades of constant fear, unjust poverty, conscription into battle, betrayal by foreigners, and depraved torture for any dissidence will quickly give way to vast, free humanitarian aid; freedoms of speech, movement, religion, travel; real education, for boys and girls; jobs in a booming oil-based economy...the mind boggles.
Then, just as suddenly as this 1-month war, Iraqis will vote on a permanent government. The Americans that saved and liberated them, by then beset with other world crises and anxious to leave, will leave the very next day--just as they promised, for good.
What would I choose, faced with such a sudden, wrenching decision? Forced into independence, fending for ourselves--in this rough neighborhood?
I'd petition for statehood. In fact, I might even wage war for it. Think of the advantages: US citizenship, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, federal revenue sharing, permanent military security....
Millions worldwide struggle mightily to get into the United States, to live and prosper in the promised land of the millennium. Obviously, a whole country can't do that--America just couldn't absorb the population. Not that it wouldn't be willing, though: America is practically that open and generous.
But a newly freed and restored people, suddenly given a momentous, historic opportunity to choose, by popular vote, its own governance (and how rare is that!) conceivably could become one of the United States. Stranger things have happened.
America needs to prepare for that contingency.
According to this:
A group of al Qaeda terrorists is attempting to infiltrate the United States from Mexico to conduct attacks in the country, The Washington Times has learned... At least 14 al Qaeda members are said to be in Mexico, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The al Qaeda members are working with Mexican organized crime groups, such as drug-trafficking organizations, in an attempt to enter the United States covertly, the officials said.
This follows the similar story "Iraqis Hunted in Mexico" story of a couple weeks back.
See also "Some 9/11 conspirators entered via Mexico?" and the older "Texas sheriff warns of unidentified troops."
The Washington Post Pentagon reporter Tom Ricks has (a bit) more information on the Marine commander who was relieved of duty that we linked to earlier.
Ricks reports:
Col. Joe W. Dowdy has been the officer in charge of the 1st Marine Regiment, one of the three major Marine Corps ground units fighting toward Baghdad. His regiment is reported to have been used to pin down Republican Guard units in the city of Kut while the other two major units, the 5th and 7th Marines, crossed the Tigris River on Thursday and raced toward Baghdad. Those units encountered heavy ground fighting yesterday on the outskirts of the capital and had at least three M1 tanks disabled by Iraqi fire.[...]
Dowdy's immediate superior, Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of the 1st Marine Division, has the reputation of being an extremely aggressive commander, which is regarded as a plus in the Corps.
[...]
"Jim Mattis was one of my battalion commanders during the first Gulf War," said retired Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford. "I have great confidence in his judgment. I know of Joe Dowdy by reputation, but not personally. He has a fine reputation."
The key to the situation, some officers suggested, is likely Mattis's views on how forcefully a unit should act in combat. "Jim Mattis is a very aggressive commander -- we wouldn't want it any other way," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Jack Klimp.
Most unusual.
What is the prevailing wisdom about the use of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Here's what I think. As of now, the use of chemical/biological weapons would not help the Ba'athists. Their entire war plan relies on delaying U.S. forces until they can rally world opinion to parley for cease-fire and essentially repeat Gulf War I.
So, attacking coalition forces with chemical weapons would turn the world against him. (Even the French said they would support us if Iraq used chemical weapons)
Now, in what instance would it benefit the Ba'athists to use WMDs? I can think of one - if they could goad the U.S. into using nuclear weapons. Well, that's theoretically an option, but it's not going to happen.
So the only other reason they would use them, that I can see, is if they are desperate and hopeless. And I suppose they will be if Baghdad starts to fall quickly.
So what I'm asking our eminent and supremely thoughtful readers is: What do you think? What weapons are likely to be used? VX? Ricin? Anthrax? (For that matter, could Anthrax have already been deployed?)
Surely some bloggers smarter than I have opined on this topic. Please inform me. What's going to happen in the next few days with regard to WMDs?
Every now and again I hear some speculation as to why Saddam hasn't tried to fly a single plane yet. The usual answer given is that any plane that goes into the air would be shot down right away, so he's holding them in reserve.
Perhaps that's true, but if he doesn't use his planes, he'll soon lose the opportunity to use them at all. And his tanks aren't that useful, but he sends his ground troops out to get themselves killed day in and day out.
I wonder if it might be something else. If you were in Baghdad and you were given the kys to a supersonic plane, wouldn't you just try to fly the hell out of there? I suppose that Saddam could do the same "torture the family" trick on the pilots that he uses on his other hapless troops, but I wonder...
Bête noire and all around superhawk Richard Perle has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why he resigned from the advisory Defense Policy Board:
Last week I resigned my position as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board after news stories, rich in innuendo, suggested that I had acted improperly in advising Global Crossing (the New York Times) and, in a separate matter, in meeting over lunch with two Saudi businessmen (The New Yorker). They provoked an avalanche of stories, mostly repeating points in those first two, with each iteration making more extreme allegations than the last. There was no way I could quickly quell the press criticism of me, even though it was based on factual errors and tendentious reporting. So I wrote to Donald Rumsfeld, "I have seen controversies like this before and I know that this one will inevitably distract from the urgent challenge in which you are now engaged. I would not wish to cause even a moment's distraction from that challenge."
Do read it all since there's plenty of red meat for sharks all along the political spectrum.
Tareq Aziz must be getting his war reports from Reuters:
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said in an interview on Sunday that the war against U.S. and British invasion forces was going well, and he described Iraq's decision to use suicide bombings as heroic."When you fight an invader by whatever means available to you, you are not a terrorist; you are a hero," he told the ABC television network a day after an Iraqi officer killed four U.S. soldiers in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint near Najaf.Aziz said Iraq has been bringing in would-be suicide bombers from other parts of the Muslim world for further attacks on the U.S.-led invasion force.
"From outside or from inside (Iraq), these people are heroes. They are freedom fighters against invaders, against colonialists, against imperialists," he said.
A while back I saw a report from a journalist with a Marine unit. This journalist asked a Marine if he understood his mission. The Marine replied, "yes sir, our mission is to beat the Army to Baghdad." I'm sure that when Aziz meets the Marines (or the Army) they will have a nice chat about how well the war is going.
Tim Blair has a post discussing the missile. Apparently Robert Fisk was given a piece of metal with serial numbers on it, and those seem to indicate that the missile was American. Fisk says "The piece of metal bearing the codings was retrieved only minutes after the missile exploded on Friday evening, by an old man whose home is only 100 yards from the 6ft crater. Even the Iraqi authorities do not know that it exists." The possibility exists however that the missile fragment was planted in some way.
I think the hijacking of the Turkish plane warrants very close attention. I am no conspiracy theorist, but the timing is extremely suspect, and the target extremely curious. Who would hijack a Turkish plane?
Al Qaeda? Well, Turkey is a relatively moderate Turkish state, and that doesn't sit will with Wahabi ideology. But this wouldn't seem to be the right time for that, not when an "infidel" army is at the gates of Baghdad.
Iraq, perhaps? That would be absurd; Ankara has stayed on the sidelines, preventing even the passage of U.S. troops through its territory, so Baghdad would be suicidal to provoke the wrath of thousands of fierce Turkish warriors.
Well, that leaves the Kurds, right? There is no love lost among Turks and Kurds, of course, and Kurdish terrorism in Turkey in recent years is well-documented. But why now? Why engage in a distraction from the most significant development in recent Kurdish history, the imminent destruction of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime that has persecuted and slaughtered Kurds since its rise to power? No, this doesn't sound right.
Then what?
How about Turkey? Only Ankara stands to gain here, as it would provide the Turkish government with an incredibly convenient pretext for the invasion of northern Iraq, ostensibly in the name of the war on terror. And how could the U.S. or Europe argue with that? After all, it is our war on terror that has brought us to Iraq.
This is, of course, rank speculation, but the possibilities are extremely unsettling.
I have a couple of entries on my site that are really too long for this site, I think, regarding Kofi Annan's recent remarks about the deaths in the market in Iraq and the idea of approaching the UN again. Saddam's barbarism is addressed as well as the UN's inexplicable lack of anger over it.
The Reader's Digest version is we should stay as far away from the UN as possible. It's an amoral organization and deserves no part in the reconstruction or administration of Iraq when the war is over. If you're interested, the posts are here and here.
There has been much discussion on Blogwolves about why the Allies are avoiding the city of Tikrid. There are few obvious points. One is that it is the home city and stronghold of Saddam. It contains his tribe, Islamic sect and party colleagues, and thus has much to lose if he is overthrown. The town is probably heavily fortified to protect its inhabitants both from the allied military might and possible revenge from other tribes in post-war Iraq. There is no doubt a strong "irregular" contingent there that are fiercely loyal to Saddam.
All these factors lead me to the following conclusions. The allies will wait until after the defeat of Baghdad to try to take the town. More importantly the allies are leaving it as an "example" city. If Saddam or his people used WMDs on the allied troops or non-loyal Iraqi citizens the US will use a nuclear weapon on the city. Much as the allies used a nuclear weapon at the end of WWII, this will be a strong message to the remaining junta members that we are not afraid to pull out our big guns. This sort of "ultimate" shock and awe will convince the remaining fighters that is not worth continuing. It will also educate other rogue states that there is nothing in our arsenal that beyond use. If we have weapons, we must be willing to use them, otherwise what is the point?
WSJ.com - 'Universal' Insanity
Belgium's claim that it has universal jurisdiction and can prosecute "crimes against humanity" is ludicrous. If they ever try to go after Bush 41, Secretary Powell, Vice-President Cheney or Norman Schwartzkopf, they'll find themselves on the receiving end of a bombing campaign. We'll keep bombing until they recognize their jurisdiction is limited to their physical borders.
Belgium is a country full of surprises. These days it seems that, just when you think its stature on the world stage has reached a nadir, someone here will do something to drive the home of Tintin even lower in the league tables.Cross-posted on The Mind Of Man.The latest stunt came last week with the filing of an accusation in a Belgian court that the civilian and military leaders of the U.S. at the time of the first Gulf War were "war criminals." Colin Powell, the first President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf are all among those named in the complaint.
Technically, the suit is being brought by seven Iraqi families, said to be relatives of victims of a terrible mishap on the nights of Feb. 12 and 13, 1991, when allied planes mistakenly bombed a civilian refuge, killing some 400. But in all but name, the suit is the brainchild of Patrick Moriau, a Socialist member of the Belgian Parliament and staunch opponent of the current war.
Apparently unsatisfied by the damage done to Belgium's relations with the U.S. by the country's recent shenanigans at NATO, Mr. Moriau decided to respond to the start of the allied campaign last Wednesday by orchestrating the filing of the Iraqis' suit the following day. Nor was he shy about the political motives behind the suit, telling the French press that the complaint was being filed now to send a message that any "war crimes" in the current campaign would be met with further legal action in Belgium.
So, what it is that empowers Belgium to try American leaders in a Brussels court for alleged crimes committed in Iraq? It goes back to a 1993 law by which Belgium arrogated to itself the supposed right of "universal jurisdiction" in the case of certain crimes against humanity. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also faces trial -- after he leaves office -- under the same law. His crime was that Lebanese Christians went on a rampage against Lebanese Muslims in Lebanon while he was defense minister of Israel 20 years ago.
The thinking, if you can call it that, was that the oppressed people of the world would be offered a tribune in Belgium. Since the victims of crimes against humanity could not rely on their own courts to bring their oppressors or killers to justice, Belgium would fill the gap. That's the same Belgium, mind you, where Marc Dutroux, perhaps the world's most infamous accused pedophile-murderer, sits in jail untried seven years after his belated arrest. But never mind.
By the logic of universal jurisdiction, the downtrodden would be given their day in court, be allowed to stand up and face their oppressors and see them brought to justice.
In practice, of course, it's never worked that way. And never will. Belgium is a small country, and unless you happen to be invading France from Germany, it's easily circumvented. So the accused, unless they're unlucky enough to be passing through looking for chocolate when the charges are sprung and the police descend, are unlikely ever to see the inside of a Belgian jail cell.
A recent post suggested that GPS jammers do not matter. The military has said that the jammers have not affected our campaign.
As someone with RF Engineering experience I believe the second statement to be true but not the first.
An obvious question: if the GPS jammers did not matter, why would the military use precious resources to bomb them?
To answer this, one needs to understand some technical details.
GPS satellites transmit very low power signals around 1.5 GHz. These signals can thus be overwhelmed with relatively weak signals. For example, a 4 watt jammer can block civilian GPS for many tens of miles. It appears that the jammers in Iraq were more powerful. One could easily imagine powers to 1000 Watts or more (radars often use peak power of 100,000 to 1,000,000 watts). This means the jammer may be putting out 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (190 dB) times as much power as the valid signal received by the weapon or many times the power of the satellites that are at least 12,000 miles away!
Now lets consider how the precision weapons used so far work. Two weapons systems are most prominent: JDAM equipped bombs, and TLAM cruise missiles.
JDAM is a kit that converts an ordinary iron bomb to a guided bomb. It uses two guidance systems: GPS and inertial. The latter is quite accurate, but not as good as the GPS. From a jamming standpoint, the antenna of the JDAM is critical. When dropped from high altitude, the bomb has two advantages over the jammer: it is far away above it, and the antenna is pointed receive signals from above, "blocking" those from below - the jammer. As the bomb falls, it's GPS receiver may eventually be overwhelmed by the jammer. By this time, the bomb is much lower and its inertial guidance system (constantly updated from the GPS, presumably) can provide great accuracy for the rest of its fall.
The cruise missile also has at least inertial and GPS guidance. Because of its greater size and cost, it can have a more sophisticated GPS antenna(it uses a steered antenna) and more precise inertial guidance On the other hand, the cruise missile typically flies at low altitude and thus may be in effective range of the jammer for a longer portion of its flight. Again, however, it will be highly accurate because of its inertial guidance system which is presumably updated accurately from the GPS.
Thus both of these systems can work well, if not perfectly, in a jammed environment.
However, there are other combat systems that are very susceptible to jamming. These are the GPS receivers used by ground troops and low level aircraft (such as Apaches) when used in the vicinity of the jammers. Today, GPS is used for navigation, deconfliction, indirect fires targetting and air support.
I believe that the military destroyed some high powered jammers because they were protecting the vicinity of Baghdad and the positions of the Republican Guard around Baghdad, and thus threatening the operations of forces about to enter those areas.
Technical notes:
Definition of dB = 10*log10(power ratio)
Definition of 1dBm = 1 milliwatt
Guaranteed signal level at GPS receiver: -130dBm spread spectrum (20 dB below thermal noise)
Power of hypothetical 1000 watt jammer: +60dBm (can be built with inexpensive microwave-oven technology: magnetron)
There has been much speculation here and elsewhere as to why we haven't taken out Iraqi television. Apparently, now we have (according to the Telegraph; although I have since been informed that it has come back on, albeit weakly). Might it be that we were waiting to replace it with images of jubilant Iraqis cheering the impending end of Saddam's regime? Presumably, we should have such pictures from Basra soon, if the reports of the uprising there are accurate. Obviously, this is rank speculation, but an intriguing thought, nonetheless . . .
As bleary-eyed warbloggers rise tomorrow morning, some will be cursing my creation. The Blogwolves chat-room on AIM regularly has more than 30 participants and even (very) late at night has 7 or 8 die-hards. Since Friday of last week the room has not closed except for a few AIM crashes. Overnight you find people wandering in late at night, claiming to be unable to sleep, wanting to know what is going on. On Saturday night, we managed to sustain a large crew until 5am est.
We chat about the war, make predictions and more importantly monitor all the media outlets. It is amazing to behold that we are able to watch all the networks and even foreign news together. Breaking news is suddenly broadcast over vast areas of cyberspace. New postings and stories are slung into chat at a frantic pace. It has been a source of knowledge for all of us. Those with military experience, knowledge of the region and wargamers share their thoughts on battles, tactics, equipment and possible outcomes.
We even managed to come up with a logo and a motto. They can be found on our merchandise. The stuff was created by Murray of Silent Running.
Is this 24/7 chat healthy for us, our relationships and our jobs? Who knows, but it is damn good fun to be a part of, that is for sure. Amusingly enough, there were some who felt left out of the Blogwolves after the first night. We did not exclude, it just took a few hours to get the word round, honest. Several bloggers have downloaded AIM just to be part of the room.
And to think Mike, Ben and I just started the room to avoid having three windows open on our desktops.
Another thought, what are Blogwolves going to do after the war is over (hopefully soon)? Will there be Blogwolf withdrawl...shakes...sweating?
Oh yes for those of you who might be wondering; I am Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge otherwise known as Lagwolf .
When I see pieces like this talking about Iraqi anger (or, in some cases, merely indifference) toward our troops, I confess to having two visceral responses: first, I wonder what the hell these Iraqis are thinking, defending their bloodthirsty dictator; second, I shudder at the sight in my mind's eye of all of the anti-war freakos lining up with fingers wagging and chanting a chorus of "I told you so".
However, the absence of logic in this reaction by the Iraqi populace demands a closer look at this situation. I recall other reports coming from the already-liberated (albeit far from free of danger) cities of Umm Qasr and Basra that, once the U.S. and British Marines had moved on, the citizens voiced anger and concern to reporters that we had arrived as an invading army of occupation intending to seize oil for our own uses. This is very telling: these people don't support Saddam; they are merely employing the time-honored logic of "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know". Which, of course, makes it painfully clear that, while we may be winning the psy ops battle tactically (the surrender of two divisions is no mean feat), when it comes to the battle for hearts and minds, it is a draw -- the Iraqi people trust neither side.
This situation has to be turned around before we find ourselves fighting in the streets of Baghdad, or the results will be ugly. Easier said than done, of course. So what can we do?
It seems to me that we need to take our case directly to the Iraqi people not through flyers or even the radio, but through the one medium to which they all pay attention: television. If we could, for example, get Lt. Gen. Abizaid (who speaks Arabic) on their television screens telling them that we are there to liberate, not dominate, Iraq and that we are holding the oil fields in escrow for the Iraqi people, maybe we could win back the hearts and minds. I doubt that the average Iraqi believes much of the bombastic pro-Saddam propaganda currently filling their airwaves, but, in the absence of a credible refutation to the assertions that we are an ill-intentioned, oil-hungry, crusading Christian force, they cannot be faulted for wanting to hedge their bets.
Moreover, I heard Anthony Cordesman give an excellent radio analysis a couple of days ago in which he noted that, demographically, the Iraqi population is incredibly young. With poor health care, the senior population is thinning while birth rates remain high. What this means, according to Cordesman, is that a huge percentage of the Iraqi population does not remember that, when we had a clear opportunity in 1991, we did not conquer Iraq, subjugate its people and steal its oil. Many Shiites do not remember their uprisings following Gulf War I. Simply put, their information is roughly four years old, so they remain highly suspicious and fearful of the U.S.
I am certain that all of these things are being taken into account by the Bush administration and Gen. Franks and his staff, but it is worth tracking. Even a modest improvement of our image in Baghdad could save many, many lives, both military and civilian, in the looming battle.