A Russian take on the war

[svero]

This is not really flattering to US forces...

"The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of the war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report based on the Russian military intelligence reports."

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

I have no idea if this assesment is of any value, but I thought I'd post it in case some found interest. Of course Russia was diplomatically opposed to the war so this may be yet more propaganda. Who knows...

[Jon_in_london]

I thin kits a fairly good counter-balance to the stuff we get fed.

[Jon_in_london]

Two enormous mistakes made by the US command during the planning stages of this war resulted in the obvious strategic failure. The US has underestimated the enemy. Despite the unique ability to conduct reconnaissance against the Iraqi military infrastructure through a wide network of agents implanted with the international teams of weapons inspectors, despite unlimited air dominance the US military command has failed to adequately evaluate combat readiness of the Iraqi army and its technical capabilities; the US has failed to correctly assess the social and political situation in Iraq and in the world in general. These failures led to entirely inadequate military and political decisions

Makes a good point. Iraq was seriously underestimated and the diplomatic incompetence of the Bush team is staggering.

[LTC8K6]

Wow! How well would we have done if we hadn't seriously underestimated Iraq! I guess it would already be our 51st state by now if our military planners hadn't been so wrong!

It appears that Iraq seriously underestimated our supply clerks!

[Wolverine]

It should be noted, however, that the way the war is being fought did create a certain sense of disappointment in most of the troops. Many are feeling that they've been lied to and are openly talking about the stupidity of the high command and its gross miscalculations. "Those star-covered Pentagon idiots promised us a victory march and flowers on the armor. What we got instead were those damned fanatics fighting for every dune and the sand squeaking in your ass!" said one of the wounded recuperating at a hospital in Rammstein. [ Reverse translation from Russian ]

May be propoganda? Ya think?
It's like saying John Ashcroft may be religious. ;)

Originally posted by Jon_in_London
I thin kits a fairly good counter-balance to the stuff we get fed.

Sure, as long as you don't mind sacrificing objectivity for something that potentially sounds appealing to one's personal ideology.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Sure, as long as you don't mind sacrificing objectivity for something that potentially sounds appealing to one's personal ideology.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Uh, no. What justice is served by placing any creedence in incorrect information?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Uh, no. What justice is served by placing any creedence in incorrect information?
Uh huh. Why haven't we found any of those Weapons of Mass Destruction yet? Could it possibly have been incorrect information?

[svero]

Originally posted by Tricky

Uh huh. Why haven't we found any of those Weapons of Mass Destruction yet? Could it possibly have been incorrect information?

We may yet... It's not unreasonable to assume he may have some hidden weapons despite lack of evidence so far.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Uh, no. What justice is served by placing any creedence in incorrect information?

Guess you wont be tuning in to CNN/NBC/ABC or any 'coalition' militray press briefings then?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by svero


We may yet... It's not unreasonable to assume he may have some hidden weapons despite lack of evidence so far.

There may yet be invisible pink unicorns... It's not unreasonable to assume they dont exist despite lack of evidence so far.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tricky

Uh huh. Why haven't we found any of those Weapons of Mass Destruction yet?

A question I wish I were equipped to answer. Sorry.

Could it possibly have been incorrect information?

While I certainly cannot rule out that possibility, we don't yet have enough information upon which to form a conclusion.

An observation, from the same site (http://www.aeronautics.ru/news.htm) (note the pictures on the left). Oh yeah. Nice objectivity. ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by svero


We may yet... It's not unreasonable to assume he may have some hidden weapons despite lack of evidence so far.
That is quite possible. I have zero trust for Saddam. However, the ostensible reason for starting this war was that we had information that they not only had WOMDs, but that we knew where they were.

My point is that we are no better than the Russians in disseminating unsubstantiated information. It would take an extremely naïve person to think that all the information we are being fed by politicians, generals and the media is credible, simply because it is "our side" who produces it.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Guess you wont be tuning in to CNN/NBC/ABC or any 'coalition' militray press briefings then?

Which are you claiming present incorrect information:

CNN/NBC/ABC?

Military press briefings?

Both?

[Mel]

Quote :

Two enormous mistakes made by the US command during the planning stages of this war resulted in the obvious strategic failure. The US has underestimated the enemy. Despite the unique ability to conduct reconnaissance against the Iraqi military infrastructure through a wide network of agents implanted with the international teams of weapons inspectors, despite unlimited air dominance the US military command has failed to adequately evaluate combat readiness of the Iraqi army and its technical capabilities; the US has failed to correctly assess the social and political situation in Iraq and in the world in general. These failures led to entirely inadequate military and political decisions

----

One BIG problem is that the administration didn't take into account FRANCE. France begat Germany, Russia & then Turkey.....

Bush bluffed and won..... but he really lost.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Which are you claiming present incorrect information:

CNN/NBC/ABC?

Military press briefings?

Both?

None and all.

[iain]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Which are you claiming present incorrect information:

CNN/NBC/ABC?

Military press briefings?

Both? I vote for both.

Whether the information has been intentionally misleading or just genuine mistakes I don't know, but there has been a lot of incorrect information - probably a combination of the two.

We know for a fact that in every past war, all sides have shown no problem with telling lies when it suited them tactically to do so. It would be amazingly naive to think that this is the first war where this hasn't happened.

[Denise]

Could someone please tell me what the Coalition's war plan was, or is, and where it has been published?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


None and all.

Ok, let's try it this way: what information presented during the military press briefings or the networks you cite which cover them has thus far been incorrect?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by iain
I vote for both.

Whether the information has been intentionally misleading or just genuine mistakes I don't know, but there has been a lot of incorrect information - probably a combination of the two.

Well, I was asking Jon, but if you'd like to take a crack at it, refer to the question in my previous post.

[Mel]

Propaganda has always & will always be a VERY important part of wars (and what leads UP to wars)..... it is foolish to even think ANY government does not look to their own media to put out their spin.

Since the media is made up of CITIZENS it stands to reason that even they have a vested interest in the outcome of wars..... why is it so hard to believe they would be or could be or SHOULD always be totally unbiased?

[svero]

Originally posted by Tricky

That is quite possible. I have zero trust for Saddam. However, the ostensible reason for starting this war was that we had information that they not only had WOMDs, but that we knew where they were.

Sure, but even the neoconservatives unilateralists who now run the country have some belief that WMD are a credible reason for the war. To understand the viewpoint of Rumseld and co. I think one should look at the letter drafted to Clinton by PNAC members 5 years ago... Specifically... From the letter...

-->

"We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.

"That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. "

"Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production."

"As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons."

"Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. "

"We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."


<---

Signed by...Donald Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz Richard Perle Richard L. Armitage amongst others... Jeb bush is also invovled with PNAC although not a signatory on that letter. Note agagin that the letter was written in 1998.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that WMD could be seen as one reason for the war. In terms of whether they actually had any real evidence of that, other than a nagging doubt or uncertainty as their letter states, their credibility was badly hurt IMHO by the embarassing fake Niger documents. One has to really wonder if the US administration is so incompetant as to produce bad fakes this way or whether they knew from the outset that the documents were forgeries but they produced them anyway to further their ideology. Either way it's embarassing.