The best laid plans of Mice, Men and Dick Cheney...

[headscratcher4]

The war is only a week old. To me, it seems to be going well, for the most part. At least, it seems to be going as well as a real war could be expected to go. US casualties are relatively low, in spite of the screaming of certain quarters, civilian casualties are remarkable low (though, certainly every civillian casualty is a tradgedy).

The issue today seems to me to be one not about the value or importance of the objective (to over throw Saddam), or the power that the US and the brits have brought to the battlefield. The issue for me is twofold -- and I say this never having believed predictions that this would be a swift engagement (though, I suppose, it still could be). WHile I think Coalition victory has a certain inevitability about it, the longer this is prolonged the not only more deadly it gets, but the more problematic it becomes for the coalition with respect to global opinion (already decidedly negative).

I also feel that while our (US) leaders are today trying to steel the public for a long struggle, that is not what they were saying as they beat the drum for this war. THis was, to quote Ken Adleman, going to be a cake-walk. Iraq would crumble. The military would revolt. The populace would rise against Saddam. All of which could still happen, and Saddam's thugs could indeed be terrorizing the population out of revolt...but the point is, all of these things that were counted on for propganda purposes and STRATEGIC purposes has yet to occur.

Here, taken from Salon, are quotes from many American leaders, comentators and strategic "thinkers" predicting the ease of this war:

March 28, 2003 | Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:

"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16:

"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23:

"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time."
"And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11:

"Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?"

"In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'"

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003:

"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."

Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.

"The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:

“I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.


Now, as noted above, all things could still, quickly, fall into place. But every day it seems more and more unlikely. I note that even in defeat, as horrible as the Nazi's were, there was no military revolt against Hitler, though he kept throwing them into impossible battles against superior forces.

My ultimate point is this: I don't believe that our (US) leadership has undersold the horror of Saddam. If anything, he is worse than we've been willing to admit for some time. However, I do believe there's been more than a little hubris and arrogance in our war planning. THe Powell Doctrine -- which seems to apply here, like Powell himself -- seems to have been ignored. And, the longer we're there, the more the diplomatic blunders of the Bush Administration and its failure to build a truely international coalition and agreement about Saddam will haunt our actions.

Just thinking out loud....

[corplinx]

Well, most of the real cakewalk talk I heard came from the shills on the news. For the most part though, it _has_ been a cakewalk. If we weren't so concerned about civillians, I am sure this war would take much less time but of course we seem to be striving towards minimizing all loss of life.

What I do find interesting however were two predictions from the left.

A. We would wipe out Iraq immediately because Iraq's troops suck and their weapons suck.

B. This would be a new vietnam.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by corplinx
Well, most of the real cakewalk talk I heard came from the shills on the news. For the most part though, it _has_ been a cakewalk. If we weren't so concerned about civillians, I am sure this war would take much less time but of course we seem to be striving towards minimizing all loss of life.

What I do find interesting however were two predictions from the left.

A. We would wipe out Iraq immediately because Iraq's troops suck and their weapons suck.

B. This would be a new vietnam.

I am not sure that I've ever heard "a" from the "left"...maybe, but I'd be interested in seeing a quote. Besides, "a" could still be true...a week is still a pretty short time for any kind of war.

"b" has been said, though it is difficult to see that the analogy applies. 'Nam, from the side of the North was a war of liberation. THe population was highly motivated to create an indipendent country. I think the dynamics here are very different. I think we (the US) could get "bogged" down, but that is in terms of weeks, months, not years. There isn't the infrastructure to support a long engagement on the Iraqi side...the 'Cong could live off the land, it isn't as true for the Iraqis.

My point in writing the above was to consider the possibility that this administration in its drum beat for war oversold the ease of a very difficult, tricky operation. As stated, the plans may still be on track and this could be over relatively quickly...it just feels like there is a lot of back-peddling going on.

[DavidJames]

Interesting comments corplinx. Headscratcher provided quotes with dates along with the names of prominent and respected people in around government. You responded with what you think you've heard from "shills on the news" and "the left".

Could you also provide quotes, dates and names of prominent and respected people?

Edited typo and to add, your quicker Headscratcher :)

[headscratcher4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39935-2003Mar27.html

The above is an interesting commentary from the Washington Post that seems apt given this thread...

[Crossbow]

Amen headscratcher4, that was a good post!

I too have noticed that sort of thing.

Originally, the plan called for coordinated ground assaults to be launched from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Then as the troops moved in, they would be attacking positions from at least two directions at once which would force the Iraqis to split their forces in order to mount a defense. But, as the troops converged on their targets, their firepower could be combined which would be very difficult for the Iraqis to deal with.

However, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have nixed their part in this plan, so the Bush Administration essentially said, "No problem. We would prefer a two front strategy, but we can make do with one." They also tried to get other countries to commit troops to the fight, and when they balked, the administration essentially said "No problem. We would prefer if more were on board, but the US and the UK will make do." And now that the Iraqis are fighting much harder than originally expected, they are essentially saying "No problem. This is just a rolling start and we will win."

By the way, wonder how long it will be before the administration starts to get publicly worried about volume and frequency of the anti-war protests.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

March 28, 2003 | Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:

Carefully and correctly worded.

Richard Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an independent group that advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But he will remain on the board at Rumsfeld's request.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/perle.resigns/index.html

As for the war, I think the easiest part is over, taking the vast and empty stretches of desert. Taking Baghdad will be much more difficult because of the way the Iraqi forces are useing civilians as shields.

I have serious concerns about the post-war era. How can you impose democracy on a people who have known only brutal and treacherous government for millenia?

[arcticpenguin]

If the Pentagon is worried about PR they should get some more action going up in the Kurd zone. The Kurds seem like the only group that is openly welcoming U.S. forces.

[headscratcher4]

I just wanted to add, whatever fault lies here -- with respect to unrealized expectation, etc. -- I do not blame the military. This war is being driven from Washington -- rightly or wrongly -- the military is doing its best under conditions and policies set by some of the people quoted above. I believe that the US military is, for the most part, responding admirably to the situation. My concern here is as much over the popoganda and spin war as it is over the actual battle...and I think that this Administration has been losing that battle for months. Again, while I do believe that things could resolve quite quickly, making all of my ruminations here the wavering thoughts of a weak-willed fence-sitter, it just seems/feels that the Administration has tried to raise unrealistic expectations and that the "chickens," as it were, are "coming home to roost".

I hope I am wrong. I hope the "leftist" matriarchal totalitarian commie news media is wrong and I am just being silly. Sadly, I do not think history is on that side.

[Scared Chicken]

I don't think Iraq's military capabilities have been vastly underestimated; afaik, US/UK forces have not even lost 1 tanks so far, and more aircraft/heli's by FF or crashes than by enemy fire.

What has been seriously underestimated though, is the Iraqi resolve, and their resent against the US. Thats much harder to fight than a few more tanks.

As for your assesment of the war so far.. i tend to agree; especially, as you say, civilan casualties have been amazingly low. What makes this even harder to grasp, these low numbers are reported by the Iraqi's themselves. I would have expected them to declare hundres or even thousands of civilian casualties. As far as one can judge from here, it seems they are pretty honest about these numbers.

One point where I disagree is that the war would be going well. Sure, they are close to Bagdad in just a few days, but they so far, they have conquered almost nothing but desserts the Iraqi's didnt feel worth defending. Iraq learned from '91, and with no airsupprt whatsoever, they will think twice before confronting the US troops in the open. So its a bit early to say all is going wel... or if it is, at least it doesnt mean much.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Could you also provide quotes, dates and names of prominent and respected people?



He researched his post, mine was just a reaction. Right now I am too busy and too lazy. Not to mention, there is a good chance I could be full of it.

[corplinx]

Let's remember, these quotes are very selective. I remember hearing many times to not expect a quick resolution, that there are many unknowns, etc, etc. I don't suppose anyone has a ratio of the optimism versus the cautious talk?

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, most quotes are selective...regardless of whether from the right or left.

However, are you honestly suggesting that prior to this week people in the Administration were saying this was going to be a long, costly war?

I saw Cheney on Meet the Press. He was certain, or at least projecting certainty, that this was going to be quick and relatively painless...so to that extent, that quote is not "selective", it was what the man was saying (I note that the Administration was at least smart enough to keep Bush away from such over-confident public statements...).

Yes, the "media" has played into this...just a little better "reality" programming...but they've done so as much a part of what is wrong with Washington reporting as a "bias". By this I mean that all of the insiders talking to insiders at the White House and the Pentagon have been saying/leaking "off the record" (of course), that this was going to be quick and easy. That Iraqi's would revolt at the first sign of pressure.

Recall the first night, when they tried to get Saddam, there was much speculation that the regime would fall quickly, that the Iraqi generals would turn on Saddam fast, that there was much communications with generals eager to flee Saddam. It didn't happen. However, I don't believe the "media" invented those stories, they got them from the pentagon. Maybe it was dis-information -- a legitimate tactic. But it wasn't correct (at least not yet, it still could happen).

How many times did they report the fall of that Iraqi port city? It fell every day for four days running. Basra was in revolt, now it is confused. Is that the reporter's fault, or is it a projection of wishful thinking on the part of the Administration and passed through those reporters? Both?

In short, I don't think the media invests this stuff...thought they may badly report it and are prone to 20/20 hindsight second-guessing. THey ask bad questions. However, they are also notorious for taking this administration's "leaks" at face value and reporting them as real news.

Now, I know that I am not the only one out here who heard the media and this administration and its supporters reporting that this was going to be a cake-walk. It may still be...it really is far too soon to suggest otherwise (anyone who thinks that a war tha lasts a month or two is a prolonged military disaster, given the logistics of the thing, is a fool -- but what happens after a month or two if that comes to pass?).

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx
Let's remember, these quotes are very selective. I remember hearing many times to not expect a quick resolution, that there are many unknowns, etc, etc.

Well, if you heard it from Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, or Ken Adelman, then they contradicted themselves. If you heard it from others in the administration, then it can be said that their views were not shared by all in the administration, including the VP.

[richardm]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


I am not sure that I've ever heard "a" from the "left"...maybe, but I'd be interested in seeing a quote. Besides, "a" could still be true...a week is still a pretty short time for any kind of war.

Headscratcher, I've certainly seen "a" said from the Left; it has been implied that the USA is a dreadful bully for using overwhelming superiority against a pitiful opponent. I'm sure there's a concrete quote around here somewhere...

[corplinx]

Every indication I have seen suggests that they expect the conflict last for at least a month or longer. Noone has said they expected us to be there for a year though.

So I guess on one hand a military person would say that is a "quick" war whereas someone who gets their french fries at a drive thru window thinks that is a long/costly.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by richardm


Headscratcher, I've certainly seen "a" said from the Left; it has been implied that the USA is a dreadful bully for using overwhelming superiority against a pitiful opponent. I'm sure there's a concrete quote around here somewhere...

Put that way, I am not sure I disagree...however, I think it has been more a "truth" championed by war advocates. By this I don't mean that the US is a "bully" but that because of overwhelming force and technology, combined with the expected revolt of the Iraqi people their army would fall apart. So, with different spin, I guess it was something a lot of "sides" have been saying.

Besides, as noted, a week is not a strategic defeat or set-back by any means. It is only a week. It could all still fall into place. Here's my question...do you think that if it all "falls" into place in the next week to 10 days, revolts and army collapse, and all of that, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Adlemen and even Bush will stand up there and say: "This is a complete surprise. We had no idea it was going to be this quick. We knew we'd win, but we thought it be months...etc." ?

I'm thinking no, if it plays out quick, there will be a lot of "high-fiving" in the Administration and "We told you so..." while pointing fingers at doubters like me.....

[corplinx]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Here's my question...do you think that if it all "falls" into place in the next week to 10 days, revolts and army collapse, and all of that, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Adlemen and even Bush will stand up there and say: "This is a complete surprise. We had no idea it was going to be this quick. We knew we'd win, but we thought it be months...etc." ?


Rumsfeld just said we are closer to beginning than end. They just requested a months worth of budget.

If they claim they expected such a sudden victory, my reply would be "bull feathers".

[Bearguin]

The only thing it seems they underestimated was the reaction of the citizens. It looks like there is a lot less open arms for the US/UK than I was led to believe.

That it's taking days to secure Basra is a bit of a surpirse but that it could be weeks or months to take Bahgdad isn't.

[ZeeGerman]

I note that even in defeat, as horrible as the Nazi's were, there was no military revolt against Hitler, though he kept throwing them into impossible battles against superior forces.



Good post Head, I just want to make a minor correction. There have in fact been several threats and actual attempts to assassinate Hitler, many of them made by high ranking military.
The guy was just damn lucky and proved to be impossible to kill. In the end he had to do it himself.

Sorry, the list is in german, but you get the message ( each entry with "drohung" in it is a threat, all the others are actual attempts:
1933 ca. 10 Attentatsdrohungen
1934 ca. 4 Drohungen
1936 Attentat Helmut Hirschs in Nürnberg
1937
Drohungen der "Schwarzen Front" und jüdischer Emigrantengruppen
1938
Drohungen der "Schwarzen Front" und jüdischer Emigrantengruppen

Maurice Bavaud auf dem Obersalzberg und in München

Berlin ein Attentat

1939
Georg Elser verübt im Bürgerbräukeller ein Attentat

Attentat von Erich Kordt

1943
Lanz, Speodel, Graf von Strachwitz
In Hitlers Flugzeug wurde eine Zeitbombe angebracht, die jedoch aufgrund der Kälte nicht explodierte

Geplantes Attentat im Berliner Zeughaus

1944
von Kleis (Wolfschanze)
von Breitenbuch (Wolfschanze)

Geplantes Attentat von Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (Obersalzberg)

Attentat von Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

1945 Geplantes Attentat von Albert Speer

[edited for bad HTML]

[headscratcher4]

Z:

Thanks for the facts. I certainly didn't mean to imply that there was not German resistence to Hitler -- either civilian or military -- or that there were no attempts to assisinate Hitler. You don't get to be Hitler, or Saddam for that matter, without being particularilly ruthless and lucky.

The point I was attempting to make -- or the analogy, at any rate -- was that in spite of the horrors and repression of Nazism, dispite the fact that Hitler had pushed the Germans into war, repressed their rights, murdered fellow citizens, and dispite the fact that by about mid 1944 (if not after the Battle of Stalingrad) it was obvious to most observers -- including those in Germany -- that the war was one of horrible attrition and that Germany would eventually have to give.

However, there was no army "revolt" (though, I suppose the Stauffenberg [sp?] attempt at Wolf's Lair was essentially a miltary plot). German units were not surrendering because they wanted to save Germany the horror of war, or because --at heart they rejected Hitler and his brutality. German troops surrendered when they were defeated miltiatrilly -- when they were surrounded, when their supplies ran out, when their options were gone -- but not because they were repulsed by Hitler or because they saw the allies as liberators (other than distinguishing between the Western allies and the Russians). Germany collapsed when Hitler was dead and Berlin fell. Period.

My only point was to suggest that Iraqi resistence -- seemingly unexpected by US military planners -- might have as much to do with Iraqi nationalism and anti-US/Colonialism as it does with support for Saddam. Nonetheless it appears to be an element. They are not crowding into the street and in many places yet to be "liberated" the Baath party still is in real control.

Now, the Iraqis may be killing their own people to keep that control, or not. But, they've not washed into the street, strangled the Baathist and thrown down the pictures of Saddam (they've a bad history of getting killed when they do so...). Some, I think, are honestly fighting for their country, and that has nothing to do with Saddam. And, in the end it means, to me, that even when the Coalition prevails, ruling the country -- making it ready for "Iraqi" control -- will be a real challenge, just as will engendering trust and respect from the rest of the Arab world.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

However, there was no army "revolt" (though, I suppose the Stauffenberg [sp?] attempt at Wolf's Lair was essentially a miltary plot). German units were not surrendering because they wanted to save Germany the horror of war, or because --at heart they rejected Hitler and his brutality. German troops surrendered when they were defeated miltiatrilly -- when they were surrounded, when their supplies ran out, when their options were gone -- but not because they were repulsed by Hitler or because they saw the allies as liberators (other than distinguishing between the Western allies and the Russians). Germany collapsed when Hitler was dead and Berlin fell. Period.

My only point was to suggest that Iraqi resistence -- seemingly unexpected by US military planners -- might have as much to do with Iraqi nationalism and anti-US/Colonialism as it does with support for Saddam. Nonetheless it appears to be an element. They are not crowding into the street and in many places yet to be "liberated" the Baath party still is in real control.

Now, the Iraqis may be killing their own people to keep that control, or not. But, they've not washed into the street, strangled the Baathist and thrown down the pictures of Saddam (they've a bad history of getting killed when they do so...). Some, I think, are honestly fighting for their country, and that has nothing to do with Saddam. And, in the end it means, to me, that even when the Coalition prevails, ruling the country -- making it ready for "Iraqi" control -- will be a real challenge, just as will engendering trust and respect from the rest of the Arab world.

That's a precise analysis, I couldn't put it better - not even in German, I guess your profession makes one really good with words :)

You are right of course, a largely supported military putsch was unthinkable in Nazi Germany and I think it has somewhat to do with the German ethics if I may say that without sounding too stupid. Every soldier of the Wehrmacht vowed his loyalty and life to Hitler in person, they had to of course, but nonetheless, they gave it to him and most of them kept it, regretably. So, not to get too deep in the failures and the reasons therefore of the german army between 33 and 45 (hey it says that on my turntable, IT'S A SIGN!) all I want to say is this:

If Saddam can rely on a loyalty from the people in Iraq like Hitler could, then the whole thing will go way messy.

Zee