We're seeing the results of the Bush Regime's "Magical Thinking." They don't face reality, they ARE reality! Or so they think, until things go horribly wrong... Krugman had a good column about this in the NYT, they really live in a fantasy world where they control everything, and everything turns out just the way they like it.

We saw that in the diplomatic debaucle -- they thought they could bluff and bully the world into backing them on this little adventure, and were stunned when that didn't work. We're seeing it now in Iraq, where the natives aren't embracing their liberators like they were supposed to. And we'll see it pretty soon in our economy, as Bush's ridiculous policies wreck the dollar.

This is the worst president and the worst administration ever. Ever.

What a lovely little answer to my lovely little question. I can't say I feel much better right now.

Can you please get this guy on staff?

re: comments, yes all too true.

from dailykos:
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002117.html
Urban Combat in Basra

The surrendered 51st division. This fight is not going to be a walk over by anyt means. This is an invasion of their land and they want to protect themselves, regardless of who their leader is.

Oh, the stream of information is drying up because things are going badly on the ground, so the DOD isn't releasing anything. Reasonable conclusion.

Thankyou once again for your fantastic work Sean.

I am regularly checking the updates at uni, between lectures and in between sleeping, when at home :)

Thankyou.

We're dominating on the battle field. We are winning and winning big. Just because a few resisters are holding out now doesn't mean they can hold out for more than a few weeks. The Iraqi resisters have no supply lines. Now coalition forces found the hidden weapons cache at Umm Qasr. Instant disarmament.

We are not losing, people. Just because they took some POWs doesn't mean we aren't winning by a wide margin.

NBC now reporting that a second possible chem weapons site has been found....

(It's late, my thoughts are coming in dribs and drabs.)

Of course the professionals in the Pentagon and CIA had lots of bad news for the prospects for war and the case for the war, but you can't give bad news to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Oh no, that would never do. Can't tell them that: Saddam would only use WMD if attacked and doesn't present a threat, there's no Iraqi link to Al Qaeda or 9/11, the invasion is illegal, the Iraqis will resist an invasion, it will take hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground to maintain the occupation... that's not what Prince Idiot Boy wants to hear.

hey, don't you sleep?? do you need some help man!? even that fuckin' CNN with all those "REPOTERS" can't do what you do!
good luck

Things aren't going completely smoothly. But let's look at the big picture. In a few short days we've covered more ground than either side in the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. We're moving 50, 60 miles a day, and the main thing slowing us down is not the flak from Iraqis that pins down small numbers of our forces, but the ability of our fuel trucks to keep up with with our tanks.

Also, we are mercilessly bombing what we belive is the Republican Guard in the North. Unless our intelligence is completely bunko, I have to believe we're having some effect.

The media is still nuts, and way too simplisticly gung-ho about our chances. But, overall, I don't think we're doing too badly.

Sorry to post again, but I have to go.

Didn't Bush, before the failed UN resolution say something along the lines of 'being able to take military action against NK if required, while being involved with iraq'.

That seems rather fanciful now.

I think many have lost touch with reality of what really happens in a war. Contrary to the movies, war is filled with screw-ups, and unexpected situations, especially when ground troops are involved.

I haven't heard anything from the administration that promised this war would go perfectly.

FOXNews just said a total of 70 cruise missles fired at Ansar positions 60 km NorthEast of Baghdad

When the northern route through Turkey dried up, the role of the 4th Infantry Div kind of went into limbo.

Routing it through Jordan would have just cost alot of fuel to run through alot of desert. Running the 4th through Kuwait wouldn't have lead to Umm Qasr falling any quicker and would have just balled up the logistics worse than they are now.

The media is in over thier head with military operations and equipment, but they are trying.

The LAV that was hit was most likely from a scout platoon, sad to say but that's what happens to LAVs, and will happen to Strykers when they get into deployed service.

Apaches aren't that vulnerable to small-arms, in Afghanistan AH-64s were taking numerous hits from 14 mm and RPGs and kept fighting.

I haven't seen this elsewhere, so I'll espouse it here. What I believe the Pentagon planners have decided to do is to do a form of "Island Hopping," a la WWII, in the desert. In WWII, the strategy was to secure needed bases and surround the rest of the islands with a naval vessel to prevent resupply or escape. But instead of leaving troops to surround the "island" they are trying to pacify them before Baghdad falls. The planners should either use massive force and crush all opposition or ignore the little towns along the way. Refueling and resupplly posts can be made in isolated areas. As the author states, don't send LAVs or even Bradleys in. Just keep them outside of town, with gunships and airstrikes in the ready. Knock out Baghdad, then go back if trouble still exists.

No, we aren't doing badly at all. The resistance in the south is said to be from elements of the Special Republican Guard. These are Saddam's most fanatical supporters based on his Tikriti tribe. They were never going to just surrender. But there's only a few thousand of them. They can't keep it up for weeks and months.

Having the 4th Mtn. Inf. in, ah, strategic reserve will work great! They can spend a couple weeks sweeping southern Iraq for brigade-sized units of the Iraqi army and retaking all the towns the 3rd/7th blew through... nothing like having your panzers reach the Volga without any support on their flanks...

Forgive me if am wrong, but a crazy thought has crept, embedded, itself in my thinking loop: What if, and remember, it's an if, Bush is just giving payback to the military industrial complex for campaign support???

Those guys can't make business if there aren't any orders ...

Just a creepy thought.

http://www.yellowtimes.org/ has been pulled off the web by it's provider.

Nabeel

BTW, as I pointed out on my web log, the reason why we are not taking mass surrenders was covered in the Doha press conference. The Iraq regulars are quitting the battlefield and going home, just like our psy ops leaflets encouraged them to do. Don't be fooled by all the negative media coverage. We're winning.

If this takes weeks or even months we still win. Time is on our side. The Iraqi regime is running out of money, guns, ammo, and will. Unlike Vietnam, we can take their capital city. Saddam's regime is going to be wiped out. Just because a few wannabe ninjas shoot some guns off doesn't mean the Iraqi population doesn't like us. 95% of Iraqis are in fear of the pajama monsters that run that country. Taking the pajamamen down will not be easy. Like the military commanders are saying, it may be a long time. But time is on our side. No need to rush things. Take it slow, and take as few casualties as possible. I've never been more optimistic about our military chances in Iraq than right now. We've taken out their chemical arms, their artillery isn't as good as ours, they have no air power, and they have only old tanks. Their supplies are dwindling. There is not much they can do, but fight back with the knowledge that they can fight and be killed by Americans, or give up and be torn apart by the people they've oppressed for so long.

Our military is doing an outstanding job. We should all be proud of them.

The Iraqi resisters have no supply lines.

the main thing slowing us down is not the flak from Iraqis that pins down small numbers of our forces, but the ability of our fuel trucks to keep up with with our tanks.

Yegods, fellas, that attentuated line of communication is OUR soft spot. As a former Air Force logistician, I have to say that the logistical tail has made me uneasy since day one. Happily, Iraq has virtually no air power, but they do seem to understand that they can harrass us badly if they concentrate on our LOC. The more they harrass it, the more assets we're going to have to devote to protecting it.

The Iraqi resisters have no supply lines.

the main thing slowing us down is not the flak from Iraqis that pins down small numbers of our forces, but the ability of our fuel trucks to keep up with with our tanks.

Yegods, fellas, that attentuated line of communication is OUR soft spot. As a former Air Force logistician, I have to say that the logistical tail has made me uneasy since day one. Happily, Iraq has virtually no air power, but they do seem to understand that they can harrass us badly if they concentrate on our LOC. The more they harrass it, the more assets we're going to have to devote to protecting it.

Been junking out on news all weekend long. Have also noticed complete dry up of new information as of about 1800 GMT from official and mainstream sources. All major news outlets reporting different low casualty figures (NY Times highest with 20 killed, 50 wounded *this day*, meaning not inclusive of other accidents in the days before). Has anyone else noticed the US networks, especially CBS, are showing regular crappy shows instead of war coverage? The only network coverage that is on is very jingoistic as to both announcers and interviewees and spotty at that. Also saw on MSNBC ticker within last 30 minutes that there is *still* fighting in Umm Qasr.

Air Raid Siren in Baghdad, but I think it is the all clear siren because it was the long continuous pitch

One point made in The Threatening Storm was that while there were mass surrenders in the first Gulf War, there were Iraqi units (particularly Republican Guard units) that fought with real esprit de corps and followed orders as required of them. I thought that the predictions that the Iraqi military would not put up a fight when defending its homeland.

One point made in The Threatening Storm was that while there were mass surrenders in the first Gulf War, there were Iraqi units (particularly Republican Guard units) that fought with real esprit de corps and followed orders as required of them. I thought that the predictions that the Iraqi military would not put up a fight when defending its homeland were fantastical.

News from an interesting perspective, but mostly true: http://www.irna.com/en/head/index.shtml

The Iranian News Agency,

We will win this war, but the setbacks have proven that it's a very dangerous thing to believe your own press releases. Imagine what would have happened if we had gone with Rumsfeld's plan and been as surprised as our officers are now saying they are. God forbid, but it could have made Mogadishu look like Disneyland.

The 'believing your own press releases' game has gotten the Bush team into a bit of trouble here -- they claimed, and directed our intelligence services to support, that we were going to be welcomed with open arms across the board by the rose-and-rice-throwing grateful victims of a brutal rapist thug, and now our guys have to grapple with the shocking reality of robust defenses, urban combat, boobytraps, and 17 year olds who sneer once the troops are gone and pull out folded pictures of Saddam.

We're going to have to be in Iraq, solving their problems and easing their tempers, for a very long time if we expect democracy, or even neutrality towards Americans, to emerge from this. Under the Rumsfeld plan, we'd have what, 1 special forces guy per 20,000 Iraqis administering the peace? There's probably 1 extremely disgruntled Iraqi per 1,000 at a bare minimum.

I pray for my Marine friends.

Rafe, most of the Iraqi military is not putting up a fight. Huge chunks of it have just deserted and gone home. But you're right that the Republican Guard elements are something else. They likely have to be fought and destroyed.

I think Gored Ox is on to something. The planners for this op had some serious limitations to work past, not the least is that this is a keyhole operation limited by what we can get through limited port facilities in Kuwait. It's looking like the strategy, at least from last Wednesday on, was to try for a decapitating strike, then while things were still confused, charge into Baghdad as fast as practicable. If the strike works, and the Iraqi forces surrender, you're in good shape. For the first day or so it seemed to work. But fedayeen strikes at flanks does not take much coordination, just guts.

I don't think we have "weeks and months." I absolutely believe that the Bush team would consider that a disaster-- if not in the perspective of historical warmaking, then in the perspective that "there are two hundred million Americans who had no idea this was going to go this way." With the Bush media machine as relentless as it is, the excuse that they were realists all along, that the media didn't listen-- that doesn't fly. This media always listens, listens and parrots. It's quite possible that as many soldiers died today as did during a bad day in Vietnam, and Vietnam is how far back you have to go for combat this bloody. But there is a less cynical reason to view an extended, lethal war as a failure.

The arab world would explode. There is a reason Al Jazeera is covering this war the way they are: it's eliciting a tangible reaction among Muslims everywhere. Four weeks of daily firefights would change the world political scene dramatically. It boils down to the fact that we needed the Iraqis to surrender, en masse, right away. Anything else and we've "lost the initiative." If this war in any way begins to resemble the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, any positive goals we have for the restructuring of a postwar Iraq may as well be worth a Dinar.

Thanks to all for the feedback and corrections. Let me say that I in no way think the military is failing us; I don't think we're going to lose this, and I don't think, based on the limited info I'm able to get, that there is no way the questions I raised above can be answered to my (and others) satisfaction. Rather, I want to emphasize that these are the questions that *I* consider of paramount importance as we do our best to support our forces and give them the support and prep they need. I don't even want to get into the rights and wrongs of this war; I'm saying that now that it's started, I feel I have a duty as well as a right to demand explanation from my government for things I feel are problems, and CNN et. al. are *supposed* to be my proxy for doing so (especially with the Democratic party unwilling to actually suck it up).

If these questions even got asked on camera and got 'No comment' answers, I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed.

Thanks again all, and keep the information coming - as the CIA says, the Truth shall Set you Free. As I like to add, Data shall Save your Ass.

I think it's late and all you arm-chair generals should go to bed, give Sean-Paul a a rest, and let the professionals of war do their job. Do you really think that people in charge, whether that be Lts. or Colonels or Generals, deliberately put their fellow soldiers in harms way? I don't think so. It's war and sometimes people get lucky or unlucky as the case may be. Commanders sometimes take chances, sometimes because they have to. I wouldn't be so hasty to rush to judgement based on a very limited resource of information.

Goodnight/Buenos noches from Nicaragua
mmmmm....pizza sounds good, not much of that here.

Reality check: It's been 4 days? We are within sights of Baghdad. We have control of the southern oilfields and two major airfields in the west. We have control of the skies. We have apparently siezed two chemical weapons plants. We have prevented retaliatory missile attacks on Kuwait.

I would never in my wildest dreams expected we would be this far with as few casualties as we have experienced so far.

The coalition is doing a great job.

What has scared me all along about this is that the strategy seemed to rely too heavily on the notion that we were going to be greeted as liberators. Of course the military planners will deny that and I'm sure they tried to build something like reality into their plan. But I think that this notion was so pervasive within the administration that they just didn't want to hear anything contradictory. It reminds me of the Bay of Pigs in the sense that we have this somewhat radical exile community with disproportionate influence in administration planning. Turns out you really can't trust these guys.

Andrew Hagen, InstaPundit is theorizing that the surrendering soldiers are indeed giving up and going home... putting on civilian clothes, keeping their guns and firing on our troops.

While I take (the undeniably smart and generous with his time) IP* with whole shakers of salt, this seems plausible. One of the last entries on Salam Pax's weblog mentions that he and a cousin were watching Iraqi soldiers surrender on TV, and the cousin kept muttering, "What shame."
Some may be avoiding the official surrender by just abandoning the whole war. Some may be trying to be heroes by becoming guerillas/ "freedom fighters."

As for the Administration's never saying that this would go perfectly, that's true. But I was a little disturbed when they said, just as the war began, that the American public should expect some casualties. That means that
a) the Administration thinks Americans are idiots who don't realize that our soldiers will die in a war;
b) the Administration had just figured that one out for themselves; or
c) they're covering their asses. "Well, we told you once we'd started the war that there would be casualties! What, you expected us to mention it in the lead-up to the war?"

* If InstaPundit asks protestors to protest the actions of regimes that ignore the complaints of their own people one more time, I'll scream. I could organize a million mom march against Kim Jong Il in 4 cities tomorrow, and he won't care. Why is that so hard to understand?
The people protesting the war, especially now, have a lot more faith in Bush than I (and apparently IP) do because they still think that they can change his course.
Good luck, kids. Try your chances with China's communist regime, I hear they're PR-sensitive lately.

Also making me crazy: the fools who keep talking about how Americans are free to protest, but Iraqis aren't. No shit, that's one reason Iraqis move to America, but Americans haven't moved to Iraq. Do those people want America to be more like Iraq, with no dissent from the Great Leader?
Some of them also suggest that we shut down al Jazeera. Some of them go off and sue American journalists in British libel court.
I'm not sure what they love about America, but it doesn't seem to be the First Amendment.

The coalition has done a good job so far, but keep in mind that they're bypassing all Iraqi troop concentrations so they can be mopped up/surrender/otherwise dealt with later.

I want to know what's supposed to happen when the 3rd Infantry Division gets to Baghdad.

Extra points always go to whichever forces are defending their own territory. In an urban zone a foreign force is essentially dealing within an unknown maze. The global picture is known by the defender alone. All avenues (literally) of mobility are easily predictable by the locals. American forces are not as well trained in urban warfare unlike the British who've had the Northern Ireland experience to bring them up to speed. Iraqis know all this and, as predicted, are falling back into urban settings where they can somewhat equalize the huge disparity between the combatants. Unfortunately, the US population is not prepared for the kinds of losses their boys might incur if this devolves to a primarily urban conflict. The pre-war diplomatic bungling, which left the US and the British morally and legally naked, have restricted their leeway to either stretch this out over time or to quickly pulverize Iraqi cities because of the inevitability of civilian casualties. For all these reasons we should not rely on the historical precedent of the first Gulf War. This is vastly different and may not so easily terminated.

Also, if there truly has been a sudden termination of all information coming out of CENTCOM, the Pentagon, and southern Iraq, that silence is difficult to reconcile with a situation the military fully expected to deal with.

On a slightly related note, an embed for CNN just reported the 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment is pinned down under intense artillery fire. The reporter seems extremely downtrodden. And Wesley Clark just repeated almost verbatim Sierran's comment about Apaches and dug-in positions.

Don't they consider worst-case scenarios in military planning? Hello? Like, what do we do if they don't surrender? That's a battle plan?

Ari: You can keep calling him "the president" but that's like every other big lie you try to put out there. There is nothing in that ape's intellect or stature as a human being that qualifies him to run a large university or company let alone a country. Let alone leading a democracy with real responsibilities to take the high road and encourage the strength of civilization in an uncertain world. Why not just call him "his majesty" because apparently any bit of foolishness on the part of King George sets the tone around his majesty.

"The president doesn't have time to listen to things he doesn't want to hear????!!!" This isn't an oil company you can run into the ground, cash out and go home. You sent OUR KIDS to go KILL THEIR KIDS and you don't want to hear anything that might disturb your sleep or keep you from feeling good?

Why do you think so many people around the world turned out to scream "don't do this!" Why do you think the council of churches urged you, "Jesus changed your heart, now let Him change your mind." They had to put it in an open letter in the newspaper because you would not meet with them. Guess you did not want to hear that either.

King George, you did not even treat war as a last resort. It was your agenda all along instead of the option of no other choice. War is worse than a last resort, its unleashing a Pandora's box of horrors, letting loose the hounds of our worst nightmares.

What are the goals here? Why did we initiate a war, why now? Why in this way? Could we not have accomplished the goals with an ounce of respect for our credibility as a nation?

How could any human being bomb children? Was this our only choice? Did we think a people's only response to that was to surrender and welcome us with open arms?

I hope someone in the picture has more of a clue and a better game plan than it appears. God help us all.

Don't they consider worst-case scenarios in military planning? Hello? Like, what do we do if they don't surrender? That's a battle plan?

Ari: You can keep calling him "the president" but that's like every other big lie you try to put out there. There is nothing in that ape's intellect or stature as a human being that qualifies him to run a large university or company let alone a country. Let alone leading a democracy with real responsibilities to take the high road and encourage the strength of civilization in an uncertain world. Why not just call him "his majesty" because apparently any bit of foolishness on the part of King George sets the tone around his majesty.

"The president doesn't have time to listen to things he doesn't want to hear????!!!" This isn't an oil company you can run into the ground, cash out and go home. You sent OUR KIDS to go KILL THEIR KIDS and you don't want to hear anything that might disturb your sleep or keep you from feeling good?

Why do you think so many people around the world turned out to scream "don't do this!" Why do you think the council of churches urged you, "Jesus changed your heart, now let Him change your mind." They had to put it in an open letter in the newspaper because you would not meet with them. Guess you did not want to hear that either.

King George, you did not even treat war as a last resort. It was your agenda all along instead of the option of no other choice. War is worse than a last resort, its unleashing a Pandora's box of horrors, letting loose the hounds of our worst nightmares.

What are the goals here? Why did we initiate a war, why now? Why in this way? Could we not have accomplished the goals with an ounce of respect for our credibility as a nation?

How could any human being bomb children? Was this our only choice? Did we think a people's only response to that was to surrender and welcome us with open arms?

I hope someone in the picture has more of a clue and a better game plan than it appears. God help us all.

How could surrendering soldiers keep their guns?

I could see surrendering soldiers turning in their guns, finding new ones, then returning to war, but that kind of defeats the purpose of surrendering in the first place.

The race here is between our ability to win and our ability to sour Arabic/Iraqi public opinion. The latter has gotten a head start from the "crusade" and "ending states" etc. bluster, threats and unilateralism from Rumsfeld, Perle and Bush, but the race isn't over yet.

If we can win faster than public opinion tips towards Americans-are-all-murderous-conquering-thugs, then we get to go on to the next stage, which is where we have a year or two for the Bush administration to figure out how to run three countries successfully at the same time, up from their current total of zero.

~350 mile long supply lines that have entrenched enemy positions all along them because the need for speed trumped the need for security of supply....

Suck.

The only hopes for quick resolution of this mess:

Overthrow of the regime by top generals who surrender or organize a ceasefire.

Mass surrenders on a much larger and more comprehensive scale.

Immediate application of devastating force - carpet bombing those cities regardless of their occupants.

With a sandstorm possibly on the horizon, and the subsequent suppression of US air support, those supply lines, and their exhausted, feul and ammo depleted leading elements are wide open for serious damage.

My question:

Do the planners of this have any freaking idea of what they are doing?

Do they play chess, or even checkers (never mind Go or Shogi)?

Or is the entire situation completely unknown and the apparently negative information we are getting part of the whole Psyops thingy?

My inclination is to believe that the info we are getting is actually being buffed up, vetted, and approved - i.e. the situation is probably worse than we know, not better.

But that is me.

Any takers?

"There is nothing in that ape's intellect or stature as a human being that qualifies him to run a large university or company let alone a country."

Does this poster expect anyone to take them seriously?

I think the war coverage has been more in-depth than any war to date. If you don't like the US media version, you can have anyone elses' version (including the enemy's) in a few mouseclicks.

As for a "quick resolution to this mess." Christ, it's been 4 days!! Gulf War I air campaign alone took 40 days!

Foo,

Considering your behavior and the quality of your input, you are hardly the person to be asking that.

Now, your absolute faith and overwhelming optimism aside, how do you address the apparent facts as they stand....

1) No mass surrenders

2) Fierce resistance all along the lines -- including in places that have been under the constant watch (and bombardment) of allied air forces for the last 12 years and are occupied by those elements of Iraqi society that are supposed to be most antipathetic to the Hussein regime

3) Long and confused supply lines supporting what have to be exhausted and depleted front lines.

4) Media blackouts after a day of bad news.

care to explain the above?

Foo,

up until about five days ago, we were being constantly bombarded by claims from the top officials and politicians, and some brass, that we would be greeted as liberators, that the soldiers would revolt and surrender in gratitude, that Hussein would be overthrown or assassinated, that this would be quick, clean, and decisive.

Nobody with a brain believed it.

And now it is turning out to be not true.

Why do we need a quick end to this?

Because if it doesn't end fast and end well, we will face revolutions across the ME, hostilities in the North, possible conflicts with Iran, and a wave of violence and hatred for years to come that will make 9-11 look like the Debutants ball.

'kay?

Even though I am very torn about the merits of this war, as I understand the horror of the Iraqi dicatorship, I am very angry at the way the US initiated it and the transparent lies and shifting goals on the part of the administration that represented us to the world. What about a mea culpa on the administration's part? Could they not have approached the UN saying, this dictator is a larger scale disaster waiting to happen. We know because the US put him there and sold him the weapons. We set him up and we will go take him out and we need your support.

My earlier post did turn into a rant and I have noticed that the level of conversation on this weblog is more intelligent than that. I think I am like the Iraqi people I read about who, when interviewed, start off expressing gratitude for the coalition's presence but the more they talk, the angrier they get about being invaded and their privations.

Terrible things are happening here. I was angry when I saw the network news pundits celebrating the bombing of Baghdad as though it were reality tv, instead of a horror of war. Not even the tone of a regrettable but necessary step.

My country is committing a "necessary evil". It just seems that a lot of lies were spread to pound the war drum.

I just don't have confidence that the decision was made to go to the war with the full gravity it was due. Someone who pumps his fist before the announcement and says "feels good" to an aide off-camera before announcing the invasion of another country strikes me as a child not really understanding where they are... in an adult situation, launching not just an invasion but an unprecedented policy of preemptive war.

How could Rumsfeld call the Iraqis on a violation of the Geneva convention when Khofi Anna is calling this an illegal war?

Similarly, what could we say if China invades Taiwan on the same principle or NK invades SK on the premise of a preemptive war?

Who could feel good and sleep well taking that step?

Just imagine ... what if Rumsfeld had really gotten things his way? Mind-boggling.

On the issue of military strategy in Iraq:

1. If the Iraqi military is fighting a guerilla campaign in urban areas, then they don't need supply lines. We're the ones who need supply lines. It's like the Civil War. The reason it lasted so long is that the Union had to support huge supply lines into the south, while the Confederacy just ate at home. The only way to starve out the enemy is to starve out the civilians.

2. Leaving lots of hostiles in your rear is a bad idea. Are you going to bring "overwhelming force" to bear every time you resupply the front? Those big tanks don't run on sand.

3. War is not a boxing match. This is going to get very dirty. If our values can be exploited, they will be.

4. Our smart bombs weren't even that good in Afghanistan. See Stephen Biddle's article in Foreign Affairs. Essentially, the smart bombs didn't work after the Taliban and Al-Queda caught on and starting effectively using cover in urban and mountainous regions. You can't bomb what you can't see.

Does this poster expect anyone to take them seriously?

Yes. Many of us take this poster VERY seriously. Now that George got his "war on", my question remains... why? Still there remain questions about the real reasons for this travesty.

In Afghanistan (you do remember Afghanistan?), we were told by the Bush administration... we will get the bad guys (terrorists)and Mr. Dead-or-Alive Osama, rebuild the country, install a lasting democracy, and help the Afghans to rise above their means.

What did we do? We turned rubble to smaller rubble, chased the Taliban rulers to the hills, can't find Osama, and have appropriated almost ZERO $ for the reconstruction. The opium trade is back in full swing. Warlords and tribal chieftains continue to run the country, and the benevolent US runs the country by military superiority and might. Here's the best part -there is almost NO news of what goes on there.

Welcome to Iraq in one year!

"What about a mea culpa on the administration's part? Could they not have approached the UN saying, this dictator is a larger scale disaster waiting to happen. We know because the US put him there and sold him the weapons. We set him up and we will go take him out and we need your support."

We said to the UN that " this dictator is a larger scale disaster waiting to happen." However, France, Germany and Russia all armed him much more than we ever did, and they don't want their boy hurt.

"up until about five days ago, we were being constantly bombarded by claims from the top officials and politicians, and some brass, that we would be greeted as liberators, that the soldiers would revolt and surrender in gratitude, that Hussein would be overthrown or assassinated, that this would be quick, clean, and decisive."

Funny, I read a lot of news sources and I don't recall being "bombarded" with that. It was certainly speculated, and has been true to some extent.

Afganistan - things are much better there than they were, but they are certainly not perfect, and you don't turn around a situation like that in one year. And we did appropriate $ for reconstruciton via USAID.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm
Per the above link:
[One mantra from the Bush administration since it launched its military campaign in Afghanistan 16 months ago has been that the US will not walk away from the Afghan people.]

The Bush 2003 budget proposal appropriated ZERO $ for Afghan reconstruction. It has been reported Congress "found" $300M.

So much for nation building.

Yes it is true that
... "The Bush 2003 budget proposal appropriated ZERO $ for Afghan reconstruction."

It is also meaningless.

The budget proposals do not have line items for countries. They have line items for project types.

ad 3) At the end of World War II everybody thought Germany would just collapse when Russian and US/British forces started to invade Germany. But the opposite happened. The lesson generally learned from this - at least in Europe - is that when it comes down to defending their own country even weakened armies can put up quite a fight. Maybe Rumsfeld et al. should watch less Hollywood movies and learn their lessons from the past instead.

I dunno. I think the round-the-clock coverage and the "embeds" give us a false impression that we know more about what is going in than we really do. But I seem to recall a lot of moaning and wailing a few days into the Afghan campaign, (even a breathless Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker quoting all sorts of "inside sources" about how everything was going to hell in a handbasket), right before the Taliban collapsed. We'll know soon enough, and there will be plenty of time for recriminations and told-you-so's later...

The fact is there Iraqi military has performed horribly, it hasn't been able to hold choak points nor any major urban areas that were vital for them. The military advance looks more like a bunch of speed freak teenagers than a military advance. The speed of advance has been limited by the supply train. The Iraqis haven't been able to mount any sort of intradiction effort. The lack of cohessiveness is demonstrated by the seizure of airfields near Kirkurk, airborne troops operating far from supply lines in the face of a vaunted army. The fact is the Iraqis can't mount any type of effective measures against our troops.
Their tactics do not demonstrate bravery, motivation, or even sense but rather desperation. Faked surrenders may make it harder for Iraqis to surrender, hum, wonder who'd want this possibility?
If their troops were motivated they'd crush our forces out of sheer weight of numbers. The Iraqis can mobilize over a million troops and they can't stop one mech division? If the Iraqis were Japanese we'd have been stopped cold at the border.

My questions regarding the war planning is as follows:
-Why haven't we taken out their television facilities. This allows them to broadcast propoganda and part of this war is directed at the Arab street and world opinion.

-Why is Baghdad International airport still operational?

-Where are the 1st Armored and 1st Cavalry divisions?

-Why were Apaches used to scout for Iraqis when airstrikes would have shaken up the Iraqis.

I have no doubt that the bypassed garrisons are finished and that there is no possibility of an Iraqi flank attack. What does worry me is that one mechanized division cannot encircle Baghdad.

The Iraqis irregulars are either Iraqi security forces or possible Tailiban types. Iraqi Revolutionary Guards are not very good troops, and in any army they would be third grade stuff. An entire guard division engaged one brigade and was crushed in the past war. In less than 8 hours they stampeded towards the border despite orders to hold.

If there is a problem it is that there is an over dependence on miracle weapons and air power and not enough foot soldiers.

One more point, how did the British aircraft get shoot down? Where were the AWACS and JSTARS?

One last point, as casualties add up the American public will demand greater effort and less talk of civilian casualties. The possible execution of American troops has probably clarified the war and the nature of our enemy in spite of ABC news and the NYTimes.

Can anyone out there cite a source or give a date for the Fleischer quote, "the president doesn't have time to listen..." to Tommy Franks?
This quote is in Sean-Paul's 03-24-03, 12:19 entry.