babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » US in Iraq quagmire: open revolt a "50-50" chance

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US in Iraq quagmire: open revolt a "50-50" chance
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 27 June 2003 02:19 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So sayeth a story in the Financial Times

US widens post-war Iraq review

quote:
The Pentagon has sent a team of outside policy experts to conduct an independent review of postwar operations in Iraq amid growing criticism that the US failed to prepare adequately for occupation.

A group from Washington left on Thursday at the invitation of Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary.

They are under instructions to provide an outside opinion on a strategy review being conducted by Paul Bremer, America's de facto viceroy in Iraq, and the Defense Department.

The mission comes as companies looking to invest in Iraq or win reconstruction contracts are being warned of an "even" chance of the country descending into open revolt.



From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 27 June 2003 02:24 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
THE STRANGE SURRENDER OF BAGHDAD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PLANNED ALL ALONG

quote:
Most analysis rejected the idea of a guerrilla war on the basis that Iraq's terrain would not support one. Nevertheless, this is the strategy the Baathists apparently have chosen to follow.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban declined combat, withdrawing and dispersing, then reorganizing and returning to guerrilla warfare. Hussein appears to have taken a page from that strategy.

Certainly, most of his forces did not carry out a strategic retreat to carry on as guerrilla fighters. Most went home. However, a cadre of troops, first encountered as Mujahideen fighters in Basra, Al Nasiriyah and Karbala, seem to have withdrawn to fight as guerrillas.

What is important is that they have retained cohesion. The tempo of operations – daily attacks in different locations – seems to imply an element of planning by someone. It means that the basic infrastructure needed to support the operation – reserve weapons, a communications system and intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities – were in place prior to the war.



From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 June 2003 04:39 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rasmus's site says there is an even chance that Iraq may "descend" into open revolt; but here's what happened Thursday, according to the US:

[The US military reported on Thursday that one special forces soldier was killed and eight more injured in an attack, while one Marine was killed and another two injured in an accident on the way to assist forces that had come under fire. In addition the Pentagon confirmed that two other soldiers were missing. [/QUOTE]

Three dead soldiers, two missing soldiers, and ten injured soldiers, all in one day. What counts as open revolt, if not this?

---------------------------
As for the second article, which says the failure to defend Bagdad may have been planned, with guerilla war to follow, that may be true, but it seems to include the implication that the Iraqis now resisting are loyal to Saddam Hussein. I prefer, in the absence of any evidence on this point, to think that they are loyal to Iraq, not to Saddam.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 June 2003 04:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree.
Blaming resistance on the remnants of Saddam's party is designed, I think, to cause people to look the other way when brutal methods of repression are employed. It is difficult not to sympathise with a people attempting to force out an occupying army. It is far more difficult to sympathise with Saddam loyalists.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 June 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mohamad Khan:
THE STRANGE SURRENDER OF BAGHDAD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PLANNED ALL ALONG


The wording of these reports reminds me of Vietnam. Soon the U.S. will be 'defending' foreign territory from it's own homegrown resistance...

What seems to have passed unnoticed by many in the media is that the attacks are also beginning to happen in supposedly 'anti-Baathist' Shiia dominated areas in the south.

Just keep reminding yourselves who the aggressor is - there will be considerable pressure to reverse the causality chain in the coming months. Following on the imperial apologetics taken up by Ignatieff, Hitchens and our diode-dearest Markbo, an appeal to centrists, left-liberals, and the 'human rights' crowd will be made; with startling success, if history is any guide. Just think Lebanon, or the West Bank if you don't know about, or can't remember, Vietnam...

For a primer on this age-old white supremacist narrative:

The White Man's Burden


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 June 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And in case that is not enough ...
Special forces soldier killed in Afgahnistan
And almost too funny...
Taliban no longer a threat, says Karzai

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 27 June 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

As for the second article, which says the failure to defend Bagdad may have been planned, with guerilla war to follow, that may be true, but it seems to include the implication that the Iraqis now resisting are loyal to Saddam Hussein. I prefer, in the absence of any evidence on this point, to think that they are loyal to Iraq, not to Saddam.

Was there any more news on if the US paid off Iraqi military commanders in Bagdad and what happened to them? Because it is quite possible that once again the US in its rush to bribe its enemy's enemies has once again ended up financing its opponent.


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 June 2003 07:43 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So now we are told that US troops will be in Iraq "for the foreseeable future".

So we can expect to get a lot more news like this:

quote:
"The soldiers determined the situation was hostile and engaged the individual," said U.S. military spokesman Maj. Sean Gibson. "It was not until after the search was under way that they discovered that it was an 11-year-old boy."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_349
And its response, this:

quote:
The past two days have seen a torrent of guerrilla-style ambushes that have killed at least two U.S. soldiers, with a third dying in a non-combat accident. Two U.S. soldiers remained missing Friday night, three days after their apparent abduction from a guard post north of the capital.


Does anyone remember the Babble thread of about 30 days ago which blamed left-wingers for falsely
predicting a quagmire?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 June 2003 11:41 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dug up this thread and this one over here.

There's also this one over here.

And of course a reminder thread.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 28 June 2003 01:54 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I must say, my pre-war predictions were somewhat off in one respect. I didn't expect to hear American soldiers mouthing the age-old imperial-occupier's complaint -- "You can't tell who's an enemy and who isn't!" -- for a few more months at least.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 June 2003 02:02 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That first one, titled "Left's predictions about war consequences all wrong: conservatives" was the one I was recalling:

quote:
a major post-Iraq war theme in conservative on-line media:
U.S. and other left-liberals called the war and its consequences wrong. Completely:
No quagmire. No invincible Republican Guard. No fierce nationalist resistance. No revolutionary Arab street. No street-fighting Mogadishus in Baghdad. No burning oil wells.

Thanks Doc.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 June 2003 03:11 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I went to the opera last week.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca