Poll: When will the war in Iraq end?

[Wayne Grabert]

Before voting, you may want to read this. (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2431362)
SOUTH OF BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - As the convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by, the Iraqi boys on the side of the road were all smiles and waves.

But once it had passed, leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to scowls. "We don't want them here," said 17-years-old Fouad, looking angrily up at the plumes of gray smoke rising from the embattled southern city of Basra, under attack from U.S. and British forces for more than two days.

He pulled a piece of paper from the waistband of his trousers. Unfolding it, he held up a picture of Saddam Hussein.

"Saddam is our leader. Saddam is good," he said defiantly, looking again at his well-worn picture showing the Iraqi leader with a benign smile, sitting on a majestic throne.

(snip)

"There is fighting in the center, on the streets. It is terrible," said Hussein, a 24-year-old engineer who works for the state-run southern oil company.

Hussein said he escaped from the city on Saturday with his wife and young son. More civilians streamed out of Basra on Sunday, in trucks and battered cars crammed full with household belongings. The sound of machinegun and artillery fire echoed behind them.

"We don't want Americans here. This is Iraq," said Hussein.
Bear in mind that this is southern Iraq--the part of the country that was supposed to be most eager to welcome "the liberators." It seems like they are being regarded as "the invaders," despite whatever contempt the Iraqis may feel toward Saddam.

From what I've read and what I heard on a report tonight from Peter Arnett on CNN or MSNBC, many Iraqis don't trust the Americans. They recall how they were encouraged to rebel after the 1991 war, only to be left at the mercy of the Republican Guard. They are bitter about the sanctions. They believe that America's intentions don't have anything to do with their welfare, but are to occupy their country to get at its resources and to serve the interests of Israel. I guess its a natural reaction to resist an invading foreign army--especially when no other foreign army is occupying you. (Although there are exceptions. The Cambodians were glad when the Vietnamese invaded their country to overthrow Pol Pot.)

So what does it look like now?

[DrBenway]

Yes, I read that article. It's very depressing.

If there's any hope at all, it rests in how the US/UK coalition behaves after Saddam is removed.

[Wayne Grabert]

I forgot to add that Iraqis may be more reluctant to surrender this time, despite some early surrenders. The reason is that they know how Iraqi POWs were slaughtered in 1991. (http://www.polyconomics.com/sy.html)

On the morning of March 2nd, a day before the Iraqis and the Allied coalition were scheduled to begin formal peace talks, McCaffrey reported that, despite the ceasefire, his division had suddenly come under attack from a retreating Republican Guard tank division off Highway 8 west of Basra, near the Rumaila oil field. The Iraqis were driving toward a causeway over Lake Hammar, one of five exit routes from the Euphrates River Valley to the safety of Baghdad. Overriding a warning from the division operations officer, McCaffrey ordered an assault in force -- an all-out attack. His decision stunned some officers in the Allied command structure in Saudi Arabia, and provoked unease in Washington. Apache attack helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, and artillery units from the 24th Division pummelled the five-mile-long Iraqi column for hours, destroying some seven hundred Iraqi tanks, armored cars, and trucks, and killing not only Iraqi soldiers but civilians and children as well. Many of the dead were buried soon after the engagement, and no accurate count of the victims could be made. McCaffrey later described the carnage as "one of the most astounding scenes of destruction I have ever participated in." There were no serious American combat casualties.

McCaffrey's assault was one of the biggest and most one-sided-of the Gulf War, but no journalists appear to have been in the area at the time, and, unlike the "highway of death," it did not produce pictures and descriptions that immediately appeared on international television and in the world press. Under Defense Department rules that had been accepted, under protest, by the major media, reporters were not permitted on the Gulf War battlefields without military escorts.
McCaffrey's insistence that the Iraqis attacked first was disputed in interviews for this article by some of his subordinates in the wartime headquarters of the 24th Division, and also by soldiers and officers who were at the scene on March 2nd. The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey's offensive, two days into a ceasefire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally fulfilling the requirements of the retreat; most of the Iraqi tanks travelled from the battlefield with their cannons reversed and secured, in a position known as travel-lock. According to these witnesses, the 24th faced little determined Iraqi resistance at any point during the war or its aftermath; they also said that McCaffrey and other senior officers exaggerated the extent of Iraqi resistance throughout the war.

A few months after the division returned home, an anonymous letter accusing McCaffrey of a series of war crimes arrived at the Pentagon. It startled the Army's top leadership and led to an official investigation into McCaffrey's conduct of the war. The letter directly accused McCaffrey's division of having launched the March 2nd assault without Iraqi provocation. A 24th Division combat unit was said to have "slaughtered" Iraqi prisoners of war after a battle. The letter was filled with information, including portions of what were said to be recorded communications between McCaffrey and his field commanders, that could have come only from the inner circle. The anonymous letter writer alleged that McCaffrey had covered up the extent of "friendly fire" casualties within his division, and claimed that he had chosen to award a combat badge to a close aide who had not served in a combat unit.

[Skeptic]

They believe that America's intentions don't have anything to do with their welfare, but are... to serve the interests of Israel.

(Sigh...)

Ah, yes, the war is (of course) all the jews' fault to serve jewish interests. Now, where have we heard THAT one before? Oh wait--during WWII, and before that during WWI, and before that... well, come to think of it, during virtually EVERY war since the crusades, if not earlier.

Not that I am surprised. The state-run media in most arab nations (with some notable exceptions) supplies continual doses of the "it's all the jews' fault" paradigm for EVERYTHING that goes wrong, from war to economic recession to the decline in girls' morality and people getting eaten by alligators in the local river (seriously). Living where the only media is state-controlled, it is no wonder that 20-30 years of such "news" creates, ahem, a certain bias against jews.

If only israel had 1/10th of the nefarious, secret, all-powerful influence attributed to it by the arabs...

[bjornart]

I'm against the war. I think Bush is a dangerous man to have run the world's only super power. I'm from a country that has insisted on going through the UN for any action. And still I identify with the American and British troops. Up where my 'real' brains are I think it's terrible with each and every death, but in my gut the only thing that registers is Coalition casualties. Not Iraqi army, and not even Iraqi civilians.
So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the arab world cheer the arab side of this war. Their support for Saddam may come from media brainwash, but their hearts would still be with the Iraqi soldiers. Which is why I'm guessing it'll go on and on, although I hope it'll end soon.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I forgot to add that Iraqis may be more reluctant to surrender this time, despite some early surrenders. The reason is that they know how Iraqi POWs were slaughtered in 1991. (http://www.polyconomics.com/sy.html)

Can anyone confirm whether this is true? If it is, it's a disgrace and takes away Western claims for the moral high ground when complaining about Iraqi war crimes.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Can anyone confirm whether this is true? If it is, it's a disgrace and takes away Western claims for the moral high ground when complaining about Iraqi war crimes.

I'd never heard the story before either but it seems to be a popular rumour, at the very least. If it's hard to find reasonable analysis of the facts though, it's even harder to find an unbiased opinion of McCaffrey. Given his role in the Clinton Administration, he's not exactly Mr Popular anyway. Here are some relevant links that I found:

Barry McCaffrey - A War Criminal? (http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bm.html)

BARRY McCAFFREY AND THE MASSACRE AT RUMALIA (http://www.militarycorruption.com/barry.htm)

ABCNEWS Talks With General and Reporter on War Crimes Charges (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq000515.html)

JUDD: You spent six months investigating the 24th infantry division led by Gen. Barry McCaffrey. You interviewed several hundred people. What did you come away believing about how they had behaved during the war?

HERSH: There were some terrible incidents that took place toward the end of the war, particularly in the first brigade headed by a colonel named John Lemoine, who was very close to McCaffrey, and in one case, some soldiers stopped as many as 350, 400 prisoners, some on a marked hospital bus marked with the crescent, the equivalent of a red cross sign here, they radioed what they were doing to the troops behind them, and they got them in line, gave them their food. They drove off.

Behind them came a squadron, 14 or 15, 13 maybe what they call Bradley — sort of like tanks, fighting machines with machine guns capable of firing several hundred rounds a minute. Boom, they open up on all the prisoners as the kids — as the first group was leaving.

It was a horrible mess, and afterward, somebody complained, and they began an investigation.

The investigation was Colonel Lemoine picked his chief deputy to run the investigation, it was kept inside, and the conclusion of the investigation was that nobody was shot.

(snip)

JUDD: Did he commit war crimes?

HERSH: The 24th Division committed some terrible acts that weren’t investigated or prosecuted properly.



McCaffrey says:

GIBSON: Gen.McCaffrey, let me start with the specific charges that Sy Hersh levels. Number One, that on two dates, your troops or troops under your command fired on first penned up prisoners and secondly, Iraqi civilians with a white flag.

MCCAFFREY: Hersh and his article lack integrity. That’s the bottom line. He maligns the characters of 26,000 great young soldiers who conducted a 400-kilometer attack successfully, where thank god we only lost eight killed and 36 wounded.

Charlie, what he’s doing is recycling charges that were investigated in ’91. Here’s the front page of the newspaper, Savannah newspaper, in those months.

A total of 2,000 pages of investigative material, hundreds of interviews, there is no truth to this stuff, and this is a nonobjective attack on the character of these great young soldiers.

Personally, I don't like that response - it seems to me that he's answering the charges not by tackling the specific allegations but by claiming that, by even asking the question, the reporter is automatically in the wrong.

Graham

[RandFan]

"Saddam is our leader. Saddam is good," he said defiantly, looking again at his well-worn picture showing the Iraqi leader with a benign smile, sitting on a majestic throne. An interview and a conclusion with one individual??????????

Have we all gone daft? Where is the skepticism. Yesterday on MSNBC I watched an interview with a reporter who has spent much of his time in Iraq before and since the Gulf War. He said that most of the Iraqi's who oppose Saddam are distrustful of us. I don't blame them. We did a lousy job at the end of the war. But the reporter also said that there is widespread hate and resentment of the Iraqi dictator. Nearly everyone lost a friend or relative in the Iran war. A war no one wanted. Most know people who have been killed, tortured or simply disappeared. Most know about the soccer players who were murdered simply because they (the players) lost a soccer game. Most of the people have no illusions that Saddam is a brutal dictator. They are not stupid. Yes they have reasons to distrust us but they don't "love" their leader, at least according to this reporter.

So let's not make decisions based on such anecdotal stories.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
Personally, I don't like that response - it seems to me that he's answering the charges not by tackling the specific allegations but by claiming that, by even asking the question, the reporter is automatically in the wrong.

Graham Graham,

Thank you for the information. I have heard and read some of this but not to this extent. I would be mortified to find that this is true. The fact that the story has been reported to the extent that it has suggests to me that it is indeed possible. The Gulf war was to be, in part, the war to exercise the demons of Viet Nam. It would not help that end if it got out that we refused to intervene to help those that we encouraged to rise up against Saddam. It would also not be a good thing for it to be found out that Americans and particularly generals were involved in war crimes. It is for this reason that I distrust the investigation. On the other hand it would serve the desires and agendas of many to make a war criminal out of someone who was not a war criminal.

I think there are motivations on both sides to lie. I am as yet uncertain. On the other hand tens of thousands were taken as prisoners of war. Nearly all of them were treated better as POW's than soldiers. When they surrendered they were starving and feared both the Americans and their own officers who told them tall tails of the American brutality of POW's. They found out first hand that it was not true.

If the story of McCaffrey is true then I'm not sure how that would influence the Iraqis more than the 10's of thousands of stories given by returning POW's that were treated better than their own country treated them.

[LTC8K6]

How did retreating Iraqi soldiers become POWS?

I think they became POWs in the retelling of the stories.

[RandFan]

MCCAFFREY: Well, first of all, let me just say that I think his story is going to melt like a snowball this week.

The two scout platoon leaders involved in both these incidents, they were thoroughly investigated, he went to the same people, cleared two elements of all wrongdoing. They simply did not harm Iraqi soldiers or civilians. The allegations, the bottom line, are not true.

GIBSON: He purports to have an audiotape that some of your troops were horrified that these prisoners, who were restrained, were coming under fire

MCCAFFREY: The audiotape is sort of good news. What it says is a bunch of young soldiers hearing machine gun firing assumed that the follow-on unit was engaging these prisoners, who were standing there unguarded, several hundred of them. So they did report it. That’s good news. Great young soldiers.

The investigation revealed, however, that the machine gun fire they heard was directed at Iraqi vehicles.

It was not directed at these poor Iraqis, who were treated with enormous compassion and discipline all throughout this battle force.

The incidents did not occur according to exhaustive investigation at the time.

GIBSON: Also charges March 2, 1991 that you provoked a battle with retreating Iraqi forces, used heavy firepower against them even though the guns on the Iraqi tanks were pointed away from your troops, that they were retreating.

MCCAFFREY: Yeah. It would almost be comical, Charlie.

He’s quoting a scout platoon, a couple young soldiers as saying that they believe that they were not really Iraqis firing on the Americans. The scout platoon was 9 kilometers away. So, when the scout platoon leaders were asked this week what do you think he’ll say, they say we weren’t there.

John Lemoine’s soldiers acted appropriately and used overwhelming force and protected U.S. lives.

GIBSON: He quotes the commander of the 82nd Airborne as saying there was no need to be shooting at the Iraqis. They couldn’t surrender fast enough.

MCCAFFREY: My son was a first lieutenant in the 82nd Airborne, great division. My commander said it was appropriate use of force, I’ll bet Johnson was quoted out of context, and he was 400 kilometers away.

Why would anyone argue with an infantry batallion commander and say two company commanders were reporting a fire? This is comical.

Has anyone disputed McCaffrey's response?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
How did retreating Iraqi soldiers become POWS?

I think they became POWs in the retelling of the stories. I was going to make the same argument but the article by Wayne does mention Prisioners of war. "A 24th Division combat unit was said to have "slaughtered" Iraqi prisoners of war after a battle. " And I believe later details the "slaughter". It is not very clear to me. It's a long article and I guess I need to read it and Grahm's articles again.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
A few months after the division returned home, an anonymous letter accusing McCaffrey of a series of war crimes arrived at the Pentagon.


The "anonymous letter" is a bit of a red flag for me indicating the story may include half-truths and rumors. For an event which must have had many witnesses, typically, people who wanted to speak up, but were afraid to do so, would first talk amongst themselves, until they could corroborate each other's story. Then they'd probably consult with an attorney. Then they'd have their attorney or some other representative put the case for an investigation before the relevant body. To give their accusation credibility, their names would be put forward with the complaint.

Anyway, that's how it's gone in similar situations I've witnessed.

It isn't clear to me what the motive for the attack might be. Glory?There's not much glory in a fight at the end of a war that's already been won.

I don't doubt that soldiers who see their buddies killed might develop a blood lust that drives them do commit atrocities. But those are usually smaller scale, more personal crimes.

Misunderstanding? Misperceived engagement because of the sounds of gunfire someplace?

[Graham]

Originally posted by DrBenway


(snip)

It isn't clear to me what the motive for the attack might be. Glory?There's not much glory in a fight at the end of a war that's already been won.

I don't doubt that soldiers who see their buddies killed might develop a blood lust that drives them do commit atrocities. But those are usually smaller scale, more personal crimes.

Misunderstanding? Misperceived engagement because of the sounds of gunfire someplace?

Yeah, I was wondering that too. There doesn't seem to be much logic behind the attack, if it happened.

There was some suggestion that the objective was to prevent the Iraqis escaping with their armour and equipment intact but surely that could have been done without blowing them to pieces?

It sounds more to me, if the incident actually occured, as though there was some confusion and miscommunication between the first troops on the scene and those following up in the Bradleys. McCaffrey describes them as a scout platoon, very young and inexperienced. Maybe they were jumpy, got the wrong impression and just let rip.

If that is the case, however, there has at least been a cover-up. Even if it was all just down to a mistake, I would have preferred to see it dealt with openly, which I don't think this has been.

Graham

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
An interview and a conclusion with one individual??????????

But the reporter also said that there is widespread hate and resentment of the Iraqi dictator.

So let's not make decisions based on such anecdotal stories. [/B]
There is widespread hatred of Saddam in Iraq, but anecdotal stories of Iraqis greeting American tank columns with smiles and waves (while "others stood stoicly" is how one reporter described it) are being used to make Americans think that what we are doing there is welcome. The story illustrates how appearances can be deceiving. It is an anecdote worth attention.

There are people in Iraq who may rally around their dictator, not because they value him, but because they believe they are defending their country.

It's not a perfect analogy, but Russians hated Stalin. When the Nazis first entered the country, the Russian villagers greeted them as liberators. They later turned against the Nazis when they figured out that they were an even bigger threat than Stalin. The point is not that the U.S. troops are the equivalent of Nazis (so don't go there), but that people who are subjugated by a ruthless dictator may still fight against an invasion by a foreign army.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrBenway


The "anonymous letter" is a bit of a red flag for me indicating the story may include half-truths and rumors. For an event which must have had many witnesses, typically, people who wanted to speak up, but were afraid to do so, would first talk amongst themselves, until they could corroborate each other's story. Then they'd probably consult with an attorney. Then they'd have their attorney or some other representative put the case for an investigation before the relevant body. To give their accusation credibility, their names would be put forward with the complaint.

Anyway, that's how it's gone in similar situations I've witnessed.


But there was corroboration of the charges in the letter, as mentioned in the article. Your suspicions are reasonable and appropriate, but it is also plausible that an anonymous letter could be accurate under these circumstances. The charges were being made against a high-ranking military man by someone who may have been a career soldier. He may have wanted to remain anonymous at least for as long as he thought raising the charges might jeopardize his career. "Whistle blowers" are often punished.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
There is widespread hatred of Saddam in Iraq, but anecdotal stories of Iraqis greeting American tank columns with smiles and waves (while "others stood stoicly" is how one reporter described it) are being used to make Americans think that what we are doing there is welcome. The story illustrates how appearances can be deceiving. It is an anecdote worth attention.I agree that it is is worthy of attention but I would be willing to give it more weight if the anecdote were in a vacuum. It is not however and there are reporters and people who are intimate with the people of Iraq who paint a much different story.

I don't doubt that many have nationalistic pride and are offended by this invasion. I also believe that there are many who are distrustful of us. But they are announcing today that there soldiers are being shot for surrendering and people are being used as human shields. I'm not certain how much nationalistic pride can over come such obvious evil from such a murderous thug.

There are people in Iraq who may rally around their dictator, not because they value him, but because they believe they are defending their country.

It's not a perfect analogy, but Russians hated Stalin. When the Nazis first entered the country, the Russian villagers greeted them as liberators. They later turned against the Nazis when they figured out that they were an even bigger threat than Stalin. The point is not that the U.S. troops are the equivalent of Nazis (so don't go there), but that people who are subjugated by a ruthless dictator may still fight against an invasion by a foreign army. The problem I have with this analogy is that there was real reason for the Russians to fear Hitler. As I said before 10 of thousands of Iraqis have been under our watch as POW's and they were treated far better than their own leaders treated them. This information has reached many if not most of the Iraqis.

I'm sorry but while I think the anecdotal story has some significance and I think we would be foolish to assume that we are loved by the Iraqis I don't think this particular story paints an accurate picture.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm sorry but while I think the anecdotal story has some significance and I think we would be foolish to assume that we are loved by the Iraqis I don't think this particular story paints an accurate picture.
What it doesn't do is paint a comprehensive picture. Other stories, though accurate, would not paint a comprehensive picture either--nor are they intended to do so. Take the stories coming out of Basra today about Iraqis rebelling against the regime. That is just another part of the picture. The Kurds are another matter. They are fiercely opposed to Saddam's regime and they are also mistrustful of the United States. They suspect that the U.S. will sell them out to Turkey.

There are many parts to the picture and the picture itself is fluid.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
What it doesn't do is paint a comprehensive picture. Other stories, though accurate, would not paint a comprehensive picture either--nor are they intended to do so. Take the stories coming out of Basra today about Iraqis rebelling against the regime. That is just another part of the picture. The Kurds are another matter. They are fiercely opposed to Saddam's regime and they are also mistrustful of the United States. They suspect that the U.S. will sell them out to Turkey.

There are many parts to the picture and the picture itself is fluid. No argument Wayne. And I think we both agree that it is hoped that we do a better job after this war than we did the last.

And it is hoped that we are able to do a better job of international relations. I already wonder if we are doing the right thing in Afghanastan. Well, that's another thread.

I know we don't agree on many things but I do apreciate your input.

Thanks,

RandFan.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
No argument Wayne. And I think we both agree that it is hoped that we do a better job after this war than we did the last.

It may be that the decision to "embed" reporters with the troops was a way to ensure that our troops did not engage in any atrocities. It not only keeps them honest; it is also a defense against false charges.

We have a lot of work to do to improve international relations.

Thank you for your input and your usual courtesy.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

My Rant:

I despise polls like this whether they are on CNN or any media for that matter! I am saddened that I see similar polls posted here.

Polls are overdone and are mostly not representative of the views of the respective larger group they are to represent.

It is presumed by many that polls will solve the disenfanchisment resulting from a failure of representation by population (In Canada any way).

As I understand it, the "polligarchy" that Clinton's administration aimed for was a crippiling and unhelpful approach to determining policies.

Regardless, numbers can be misleading.

In this poll, for example, I may wish the war to end sooner rather than later to reduce human suffering. I would prefer that no people die, but if there is a war I wish that civilians and soldiers, would not have to die.
I am not making an educated guess, I do not have the perspective of Generals, military recognisance, tactics, resistance in Iraq, and many other factors.



I am not qualified to determine how long the war will last and my bias towards reducing human suffering causes me to want to choose the "sooner than later" option.



:mad: grrrr, polls!

end of rant

PPG

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
My Rant:

I despise polls like this whether they are on CNN or any media for that matter! I am saddened that I see similar polls posted here.


There is a difference. This poll and others on this board do not pretend to be anything other than a gauge of the opinions of the people participating on this board. I trust that the participants are sophisticated enough to know that it is not a scientific poll.

I share your dislike for phone-in or log-on polls conducted by news outlets. They give the misimpression that the results are a gauge of the country at large when the methods are unscientific and are usually significantly different from those of scientific polls.

I think it is interesting that so few of the people voting are selecting the first option. I think the results would have been very different if the poll had been initiated three days earlier. In fact, what prompted me to start this poll (my first) was recalling how someone on this board thought (last week) that the war would be over by this past Monday.