Topic awaiting preservation: Gulf War 2: The Revenge of the Son (Page 2 of 4)

I know this is supposed to be a serious thread, but oh well...
http://richstevens.com/flash/time2.swf

{edit} Also, this is real cool, it's 3-D models of all the aircraft we are using. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/weapons/3d.models/index.117.html {edit}

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 03-21-2003).]

Theb52s took off from the UK 5 or 6 hours ago and the 'shock and awe' attack has started on Iraq and I'd recommend you get to the TV as it is shocking and awe inspiring

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

haven't the US and britain already agreed that the iraqi oil proceeds will go into a fund for iraq's rebuilding? it doesn't seem that the US would just get to walk away with that...

chris

Just wanted to add a few things...

American governement justified this war to the eyes of the American people saying that it would be a clean war and very quick.

First, NO war is clean. For god's sake, no one can justify a war by saying that it will be clean...

And, the first thing said the American governement after the beginning of the war was that it may last longer than it was thought...

I really have the feeling to be fooled and treaten like a dumb. Do you also share this feeling ?

Edit : Ah and watching those bombs explode in Bagdad is too much for me... How can humans want to do THAT to other humans ?



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 03-21-2003).]

quote:

---

haven't the US and britain already agreed that the iraqi oil proceeds will go into a fund for iraq's rebuilding?

---

AFAIK the US have agreed with themselves that the first xx billions will be used to pay for the costs of war on the US side.

live bagdad video feed

article dated 1/23/03 on cnn:

quote:

---

Iraq's oil "belongs to the Iraqi people" and the United States would hold Iraqi reserves in trust if it occupied Iraq after a war, Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

In an interview with regional newspaper reporters, the transcripts of which were released Wednesday by the State Department, Powell said Iraqi oil "will be held for and used for the people of Iraq."

"It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose," he said. "We will follow religiously international law, which gives clear guidance with respect to the responsibilities of an occupying power, if it comes to that."

Both domestic and international critics of the Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq say oil -- not a professed desire that Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction -- is the U.S. motivation. The Iraqi government has said the United States wants a war in order to assert control over Middle Eastern oil production.

Powell said the United States is "studying different models" of how Iraq's oil fields would be operated under a U.S.-led occupation, "but the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have."

---

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.powell/index.html

Moon Shadow,

quote:

---

How can humans want to do THAT to other humans ?

---

We do NOT want to do that and that is why we tried every other possible way to avoid it. The difference here is that we believe that sometimes it is *necessary* even though it is unpleasant.

I seriously wonder about why you don't see the need. Is it because you feel very secure and unthreatened where you live? Does it not bother you that other people suffer? How much were you complaining about the horrible things happening to the Iraqi people before we went in? Why does taking down a brutal regime upset you more than the regime itself? Can't you see the relief of the people in the areas we have already secured? Did you see the pictures of Iraqis tearing down pictures of Hussein? Why would they do that? Can you even relate to what it is like to live in that constant state of unrest? There was no peace in Iraq. Perhaps now there is a chance for it.

I am not convinced this will result in a worse situation or there is no way I would support this war. I have serious disagreement about what will result and I intend to explore this more in other threads. But can you please explain to me why you are so opposed to this war? You seem like a very reasonable person and I would very much like to know *your* thoughts on why taking down Hussein is wrong.

. . : slicePuzzle

This is a worying development - a Moslem US soldier has rolled grenades into 3 tents belonging to senior commanders of the 101st US Airborne Division i Kuwiat. After considerable confusion they shot him and took him into custody - no one died but 13 soldiers have been injured:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2877087.stm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

well now, here's an unexpected start to a sunday:

quote:

---

RAF Tornado downed by US missile

BBC News

---

So how the hell can we believe that they'll keep civilian casualties to a minimun, when the 'allied forces' can't even avoid each other? Haven't they ever heard of a transponder signal?

Damned ugly mess if you ask me.

War is *always* an ugly mess. Friendly fire was expected but it *really* hurts. From what I can tell, it is much less frequent than previous wars. But I really have to wonder why it has to happen as frequently as it still does

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-23-2003).]

Well, things have taken a turn for the worst...and what should have been a relatively fast war, has now slowly started turning into a longer war...and may threaten to turn into a quagmire. That Turkey (Full article here) has sent troops into the region, is just 'icing on the cake'...and could potentially lead to disaster

quote:

---

The Kurds of Zakho are preparing to resist. "We don't want to be liberated from Saddam only to be oppressed by Turkey," said Ahmed Barmani, a car mechanic. "I hate Turkey more than I do Saddam."

He joined his childhood friend Massoud to dig themselves into a defensive position overlooking the river.

"Wherever they try to cross, we'll be ready for them," he said.

The two friends were not alone. Several hundred peshmerga fighters from the villages around Zakho could be seen taking up positions in the hills.

--Guardian Unlimited

---

Hoboy. Turkey has skillfully out manouvered Mr. Bush, it seems. And now it may come, that the Kurds will not join the US forces in helping free the north, which was the 'contingency' plan, after it became obvious that Turkey wouldn't allow US ground troops to attack from Turkish soil. Or, even worse, the Kurds start attacking the Turks, and the American troops are forced to chose sides...and thus the north becomes a boiling pot.

Also, the old 'women in the military' thing has finally taken a realistic 'step'...as one of the POWs captured was an American woman. I find that somewhat disheartening, myself. I'm sure she finds that disheartening. I just hope they haven't used any 'torture' on her...

Also, casualties are starting to rise...that's always a bad sign. I personally hold Mr. Bush responsible, for every body bag. Sleep well, Mr. Bush. I hope, that by the time it is over, that it was worth it. I also hope that the next couple of days will bring an end to the 'seige' of Baghdad, and the end of Saddam...and as few casualties as possible. I think that Mr. Bush (and the military commanders) have been 'blindsided' by the Iraqi resistence...surely not an indication of a quick end, IMHO. They also don't seem to be welcoming the American and British troops, either.

And no massive surrendering, as in the first Gulf War...that is troubling.

As of now, the latest developements are indeed that, troubling...

I'm wondering if anyone has the feeling that Bush, as 'arrogant cowboy' as he's been :P isn't being a bit of a PC war fighter here. I don't understand the tactics from what I've seen (admittedly not much without television). It appears to me we're sending lots of high dollar missiles into buildings in Baghdad that were most likely evacuated before the first explosion ever took place. That's kinda cool on the low loss of life front but it seems to encourage what WS mentioned, there's no surrender going on like there was in the first war. Seems to be 'shock and giggle'. They've even used surrender as an ambush to catch unsupecting marines who apparently think they're in Iraq for a stroll in the park (absolutely no offense intended to military personel with this comment).

I just wonder why we're not hitting more military targets heavily from the air as we have Baghdad, and why are we sending in ground troops so early.

I also wonder if anyone's heard anything about the Russians selling Iraq jamming devices to throw off our satellite guided missiles? If those are indeed in their hands, and working as advertised, that could maybe be a reason for the lack of aerial assault on other military targets? Does anyone know what types of missiles are being used in the successful (on target) strikes?

I may have said many things a little screwey here as my information comes from spotty jumping around on the internet, I don't have a television so I'm not getting the constant play by play. I would just hate to see this much resolve from a President turn to crap because of some kind of politics of war, there should be no politics in war, only victory. I'm afraid if this is happening, it could have awful consequences.

Somebody fill me in on *how* we're appraoching/carrying out this war if you have any idea, I don't like my ideas.

War sucks.

Jason

Well, JKMabry, the situation is really hard to analyse, actually. Despite the information overload, there are some major problems : who is telling the truth? Time and again, I've seen information that both contradicts itself, and what other sources are saying. Also, there is a lot of information that is apparently not making its way into the American media. And a lot of the information available from other non-american sources, are full of 'biased' information...as well as the American media. In fact, the coverage is mostly so biased, that it is making it extremely difficult to extract any worthwhile information at all. In other words, it's a nice 'show', with little real content.

As for the war itself, I think there has been some major mistakes and confusion, especially from both intelligence, and the top brass. However, it is hard to tell, really, without reliable information. Why are they 'selectively' bombing Baghdad? Good question, we don't really know. Why did they send in Apache helicopters to weaken the Republican guard, instead of just bombing it to smithereens (and therefore placing the pilots at heavy risk)? We don't really know. Why didn't they just mow Baghdad down, and erase it from existence? Again, we don't really know. In fact, we have no real reliable informaiton on just about anything...how many causualties have the coalition forces really taken? Depends on who you believe.

Also, this 'lightning strike' of ground troops, by-passing pockets of resistance and cities...could become a very difficult position to hold - if the war drags on (meaning that Baghdad doesn't fall within a couple of days). Hit-and-run tactics could result in not only more casualties for coalition forces (against lightly armed support personal), but also runs the danger of having the front forces being cut-off from support. This in turn, could result in a quagmire, of isolated coalition 'pockets', which would be a very dangerous situation to be in.

Some things to consider - the coalition forces could of ended the war relatively quickly...if they would have erased Baghdad from existence at the start of the war. That many civilians would have died in the operation, is perhaps the only consideration...but war is war(and I personally believe that overwhelming force should be used wherever possible - it saves lives, especially among ones own forces). In light of the fact that Iraqis are not wildly praising and receiving their 'liberation', and that Iraqi troops are not surrendering en masse, I personally feel that reducing Baghdad to rubble would have been a better choice...esp. considering the out-manuovering that Turkey did to the Bush administration...a quick end to the war would have foiled Turkish plans to invade from the North (which is now a little to late - according to Russian sources, they are already in Northern Iraq, and have been for 2 days now). However, American military officials deny this, and Turkey is now denying it, as well (before they said they were, now they say they are not).

Also, the longer this war continues, the more casualties, both on the military front, and among the civilians. In the case of street fighting in Baghdad, expect the casualties to rise sharply. I personally am very surprised that no chemical/biological weapons have been used...could it be, that Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? It makes absolutely no sense not to use them now (esp. considering that Baghdad is directly under attack by ground forces). The only thing I could perhaps see, in not using them (providing that Saddam has them) are either that the troops refuse to use them (possible, but unlikely), or that Saddam himself won't let them be used (also unlikely). Maybe he actually expects to be captured? It just makes no sense, actually, not to use them at this point. Soon the coalition forces will be to close to Baghdad to use them effectively, without becoming a serious danger to his own troops, civilians, and possibly himself.

To make a long post short, I think that you, like just about everybody else, is feeling the same fustration as I...that there is no real, reliable information forthcoming...instead, it's a propaganda whirlwind of huge proportions. At least, that's the way it looks to me.

I think the issue is that the war is Rumsfeld's plan for a smaller, faster army conducting a rapid operation stretched across a very wide area. This is against the general's prefered warfare which is deploying overwhelming force and rolling the enemy up as you progress. The problem is that this has been heavily flagged and if I was Saddam I'd have told my troops that if they kept fighting and nibbling away at supply lines then they actually stood a chance of really slowing the Americans down and doing them harm. Things could end up severly overstretched and that could turn nasty:

quote:

---

Fears were expressed yesterday that Washington had underestimated the number of troops needed , and that an attacking force could sustain as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad. Retired US army general Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, told BBC Newsnight that the US-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" .

"If they (the Iraqis) actually fight, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said Gen McCaffrey

---

from:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921355,00.html

Although I am sure they are bombing military targets (I've seen a lot of footage from northern Iraq for example) but this is from the article above:

quote:

---

An extensive Iraqi air defence system - known as a Super Missile Engagement Zone - is still in place across central Iraq to defend the Republican Guard.

---

I think one thing that might not have been taken into account is that ordinary people while hating Saddam might not be overly happy about Western troops occupying their land and accidental killing them:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921356,00.html

and this could cause long term problems.

quote:

---

A surgical assistant at the Saddam hospital in Nassiriya, interviewed at a marine check point outside the city, said that on Sunday, half an hour after two dead marines were brought into the hospital, US aircraft dropped what he described as three or four cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing 10 and wounding 200.

Mustafa Mohammed Ali said he understood US forces going straight to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but was outraged that they had attacked his city and killed civilians. "I don't want forces to come into the city. They have an objective, they go straight to the target," he said. "There's no room in the Saddam hospital because of the wounded. It's the only hospital in town. When I saw the dead Americans I cheered in my heart.

"They started bombing Nassiriya on Friday but they didn't bomb civilian areas until yesterday, when these American dead bodies were brought in.

---

[edit: It appears expat Iraqis are flooding home to fight the Coalition:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921351,00.html

and this is a more personal view which highlights my main concern that Iraq will explode in war between various factions (which will drag in various countries like Turkey and Iran):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921189,00.html

And the find of a chemical weapons factoy seems to have been untrue:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921234,00.html

Just on the news: it appears an F16 has had to fire on a Patriot missile battery because it had locked on to it. now that is scary.]

and on the subject of Russia selling Iraq military equipment:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921453,00.html

Intersting article on the reporing of 'facts' in the war:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,921647,00.html

-------
On a side note support for war in the UK has rocketed and for the first time there is a majority in favour:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,921394,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And on the issue of war crimes - this is the starkest discussion of our own infriging of the Geneva Convention:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Heh. And When are facts not facts? is exactly what I was talking about...

Thanks for posting that link, Emps.

At least Al-jassere (or whatever they are called) are posting more pictures...and have been more acurate up to this point...shame on you, western media...

Just have to 'screen-out' the bias...

On another note....casualties are rising, irregardless of who one chooses to believe (the exact count will not be released, at least not until the conflict is either over, or someone puts a hell of a lot of pressure on those who do know). However, we can go with a number of 30+...that's relatively conservative.

Now, let's consider the Vietnam Conflict, which went 7 years - total of KIAs : 58,169
Divide by 7 = ~839 per year
Divide by 12 = ~70 per month
Divide by 30 = ~2 per day

Gulf conflict - ~30 so far
Divide by 6 = ~5 per day

Doesn't look so rosy, does it?


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-25-2003).]

interesting stuff...tho emps, the chem facility was only called a chem weapons facility by some media, the military has said from the beginning that they didn't think it was active. then again, i've never been to a chemical plant that had a general in charge of it

there were two former gulf war POWs on the news last night, and their stories were nothing short of shocking. they were literally tortured and beaten before being released. there have also been some stories of the iraqi's treatment of olympic and other athletes that is frightening.

ws, tho the info on the US geneva convention breachs is enlightening and somewhat disturbing, i personally can't place that anywhere near what looks like executions of US troops (as photos have clearly showed some of the bodies with bullet wounds to the forehead). can't say i'd agree that al-jazeera has been more accurate either, if they were we'd have already lost half our air force from farmers throwing pitchforks at F-117s

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.

---

This is a very interesting article from a former "human shield".

I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam
By Daniel Pepper

I am thinking that most of the anti-war protests are far more about keeping the US in check than they are about concern for the Iraqi people. I know that isn't the case with all but as a general rule I don't see it otherwise.

quote:

---

Now, let's consider the Vietnam Conflict, which went 7 years - total of KIAs : 58,169
Divide by 7 = ~839 per year
Divide by 12 = ~70 per month
Divide by 30 = ~2 per day

Gulf conflict - ~30 so far
Divide by 6 = ~5 per day

---

Either your math is off or your KIA number is wrong.


Now, let's consider the Vietnam Conflict, which went 7 years - total of KIAs : 58,169
Divide by 7 = ~8310 per year
Divide by 12 = ~700 per month
Divide by 30 = ~23 per day

Gulf conflict - ~30 so far
Divide by 6 = ~5 per day

That's what I get when i crunch the numbers....

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Here is an interesting article, really worth reading.
I start to believe that this war is all about Baghdad's move to Euro. Who is next, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea . . .?

Breaking news suggests that the Coalition have bombed the TV station and have pos. used ther e-bomb (which supplies an electromagnetic pulse to knock out electronics - and also might be fairly unpleasant to anyone too close too).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Found this regarding the number of casualties in various wars. Seems to me that any way you crunch the numbers this war is going quite well (so far) in comparison to all the others, with the possible exception to the first Gulf War. I'd even suggest that it may be one of the most bloodless ground invasions in history.. at least for our troops (again, so far). I haven't heard much about Iraqi casualties, military or otherwise.

E-bomb? I gotta search that one out, sounds cool.

edit: in case anybody else is interested in e-bombs

[This message has been edited by cyoung (edited 03-26-2003).]

The war is only four days old and we are sitting around wondering why we haven't finished yet. The best estimates I heard were 2 weeks from anyone credible. I predicted 2-4 weeks. We'll have to just wait and see how it goes. But if you had to rate the progress thus far, it is nothing short of extraordinary and most definitely historically unprecedented.

Whoops! Thanks, GD, for correcting that...you are right, my math was off (dropped a 0 there...*sheepish grin*). However, as I said, 30+ was conservative...who knows how high it really is...and in the last couple of days, I haven't seen any KIA counts....CNN says that there are now over 40+ KIAs...unfortunately, there are other KIAs that are not being reported...just that there were casualties. So 40+ KIAs in 6 days = ~7 per day. KIAs per day are increasing...

And Bugs...the conflict is older than 4 days...think back...it started on Thursday...meaning it is going on the 6th day now...

As for 'bloodless' conflict...well, that's really hard to tell, at this point...full casualty figures have not been released. I myself find the figure high, especially when considering that no real 'classical' battles have been fought yet. That is yet to come.

I don't know how many on this board are truly aware of what 'classical' battle means...or of what city fighting entails.

A classical battle is exactly that - ground troops engaging ground troops, head-to-head. Expect casualties to rise sharply. It is a true measure of 'mettle', if you will...and will be decisive. The upcoming battle between coalition forces and the Medina Republican guard, will be a showing battle...with an advantage to the defenders (that is normal). Troops attacking defenders, normally take high casualties.

As for city fighting...just check out Stalingrad, for what that can be like...it's nasty. No amount of high-tech will make a real difference. It's house-for-house, man-to-man fighting...and US forces haven't engaged in this sort of fighting since WWII. I personally hope that the defenders give up...and we can avoid this type of conflict...but that doesn't seem likely. Also, city fighting tends to drag on, and on, and on...if coalition forces are dragged into a city fight, expect the war to stretch into weeks...or months.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-26-2003).]

I reckon weeks. I totally agree that Baghdad will be the most difficult part. I was counting from Saturday because I thought that was when the ground troops crossed the border. Either way the war is very young.

I was listening to a war veteran who fought house to house in Vietnam. He thinks we will definitely win this thing, but he is very concerned about the house to house in Baghdad.

Oh, and about the Apache battle with the RepGuard... it seemed to me that was a bold and intentional move in order to draw fire and clearly identify the location of the opposing forces. Do you think that was the reason?

Urban warfare is inevitable. Coalition troops are within 50 miles of the capitol and without spreading to the skirting cities to clear resistance troops, they'll soon enough get cut off from all sides. With any luck, Baghdad will fall, and the rest of the villages will lose hope and surrender, or it's going to take a loooong time to clear out every building



[This message has been edited by The Crawling Chaos (edited 03-26-2003).]

Welcome, The Crawling Chaos There is a plan and we will see if it works in the coming days.

WS, I was just reading your words above more carefully as today I could only skim. You said,

quote:

---

I personally feel that reducing Baghdad to rubble would have been a better choice...

---

Did I read that correctly? I just can't figure you out sometimes! I really thought your opposition to this thing was partly based in wanting minimize civilian casualties. But I'm just flabbergasted at reading that. Is this what you have in mind for the DPRK and Iran too? Am I missing something?

Bugs, when it comes to war, real war, I am mainly interested in two things : that it is done quickly, and at the least amount of loss of life to our troops. Actually, both of these hang together. And a quick way to have ended this conflict, was to reduce Baghdad to rubble, especially considering that this conflict is not about protecting American freedoms...any type of classic battles, or house-to-house fighting I deem as risky, reckless and un-necessary, considering the fact that on day one, they could have just reduced Baghdad to rubble. And I do mean rubble.

That's why I am generally against war, and definitely against conflicts of this nature : I believe in total domination war. That means that it is the last resort - and the enemy is to be decimated with all means available, to spare lives amongst our troops. Since it seems that Saddam and his regime is the target, and that they are centered in Baghdad, that's the main target - obliterate it, and them. For as you can now see, this conflict is stretching into weeks, now...with almost one week up. If it becomes a conflict of months, then casualties on all sides (both military and civilian) will increase...to who knows how much. This conflict at the moment, has all the 'elements' of Vietnam...what with rules of engagement leading to deaths among our troops, zones of non-engagement, the enemy hiding within the citizens, 'dirty' tactics, and rising body counts. And the expected 'jubilation of being liberated' doesn't seem to be there...at least, not in force. And if the conflict drags out, expect to see any type of gratefulness replaced by something else...namely, hardship, suffering and resentment.

In other words, I'm very concerned about the turn of events...this is not what they said, at the beginning...now, they are 'changing' their words...as the conflict becomes bloodier and harder as expected. Also, our troops are taking more casualties as was predicted, which is never good. To be blunt : Mr. Bush got us into this, thinking that it would be a cakewalk, aparently. As he has no previous combat experience, he's now learning a bitter lesson - war is hell, and a bullet doesn't care what you believe in, or what side you are on, or if you are a civilian or military personal.

It doesn't seem to be bothering him all that much, though, from what I've seen of him...

Let's get a few things straight, Bugs. I'm a veteran of war. I'm not a liberal, as some have suggested. I'm only against war, because I know what it is - it should always be the last option, because I believe in total domination. I believe one should fight to win. Also, consider this : what happens to our troops, the Iraqi troops, and the civilians of Baghdad, should Saddam really start using WMD in and around Baghdad? The death toll will rise immensely. And it would be counter-productive to the reason for sending our troops into a city-fight situation - that is, to get Saddam, and end the conflict. With that in mind, wouldn't it of been better, to just have reduce Baghdad to rubble? It is the same thing, really (in the event of WMD use by the Iraqi's within the city or near surroundings)...so why sacrifice our troops to do the same thing?

Now, I am aware that this would take a terrible toll on the civilians of Baghdad. However, this is war that we are talking about. Are you then suggesting, that our troops should take casualties, just so the civilians can be spared? You are willing to sacrifice US lives, for Iraqis? And what if, despite this, you get the same result? That Iraqis die, despite casualties within our troops? That, IMHO, is senseless, and reckless. You are aware, that had Baghdad been reduced to rubble (and I mean rubble), that this conflict would now be over, if the Iraqis really are fighting because of Saddam and his regime, that is. If not, this conflict will be a disaster. Since I believe you support the idea that the Iraqis are indeed only fighting because of Saddam and his regime (and I believe Mr. Bush and his administration believes this, as well), then the flattening of Baghdad would in that sense, be logical (if somewhat...cold-blooded).

What did you think this conflict would be like? A dainty parade to Baghdad? You do realize, I hope, that men and women in uniform have been killed Bugs. They are dead. They are not coming back home alive. They will not be raising children, or enjoying the American dream, eating-out, going shopping, and other things. I am bitterly disappointed that the first wave of bombings did not reduce Baghdad to rubble. It sends me the signal, that the decision makers have totally underestimated the reality of the situation in Iraq, and men and women are dying because of this, needlessly. A classic battle with the Medina Republican Guard? For christ's sake, why? Just keep pounding them...eventually, in a siege situation, they'll have nothing left...don't send ground troops against them...one does this only if it is the last resort, because it results in large casualties, especially when one is the attacker. One also runs the risk of losing...yes, that's right, losing. We are talking about a classical battle...and an offensive launched at a defensive position, where the defenders have dug-in, and are on their own ground, with little hope of rescue or escape, you can bet that they will fight to the last man. And these are not just conscripts we are talking about here...we are talking about a unit, that is used to war...and used to American tactics. Just hearing the American General on TV casually discussing this, made me both sick, and outraged 'We're going to engage them in a classical battle'. Well, he seems pretty confident, now doesn't he? Of course, it's not his ass on the front line, is it? Yes, if the Medina is crushed, then it would be a big victory for the American troops...but what if they lose? Think about it...better to avoid this type of situation, where possible. I don't see, that this is needed...the top brass is rushing this, much too fast. Much better just to keep pounding away, making sure that targets are destroyed, and that equiptment is unusable. Also, get rid of the means for the Iraqis to launch WMD. This is, IMHO, very important.

Other things to consider - we are being lied to. At least, the American public is. I have seen news reports here, in Germany, from the embedded reporters on this front...and pictures of screaming, wounded US soldiers, also dead. When the news says 'bloody' battle, they don't mean just among the enemy...that would be named something different. Alos, the use of the word destroyed. When they say that two M1s were destroyed, that means totally, and immediately, in my mind. Therefore, that means the crew, as well. But they say the crew was not harmed. So why say destroyed? Should be put out of action...that is an accurate description of a tank that has been damaged, so that it no longer can effectively be used (which would allow the crew to then escape).

As for the Apaches...I don't know what they were thinking. You don't use a delicate, attack craft for recon. Never. That just invites casualties. Also, the terrain is not conducive for this type of 'recon' activity, with helicopters. I think that the top brass made a big mistake here, and drastically underestimated the enemy. I heard that those Apaches came back, badly shot up. I'm not sure how reliable that information is, and certainly there have been no pictures to support this. We do know that at least one went down, and that the crew was captured. I also heard that a rescue attempt (several, actually) were tried, but that our troops were horribly out-numbered, and every rescue attempt failed. No casualty figures mentioned here, either. There are other ways of determining the postitions of armor in a desert...and troops. I think they used these methods (no, I won't tell you, that's classified) to direct the Apaches, and ran into very stiff resistance. In other words, it was a flawed, failed mission. Things like this only happen when one has a top brass that is overconfident and green. Or under extreme pressure, to produce results. Or is uncaring. Not the types of things that General Stormin' Norman was known for...bless the man. I enjoyed serving under him, and as I reacll, he was very critical of this conflict...and has now been 'blacklisted' by the Bush Administration...and basically, his carreer is over. A great General, now useless...sad.

As you can see, I'm really disgusted with the American media right now...and with the Administration and top brass running the 'show'. For that is how they are portaying this...as a show. Well, it's not. It's combat, and people are dying. It is very important to show this, so that all the armchair Generals out there, who supported this, get a good face-full, of what war is. Namely, American troops are being killed. And they are being killed, for what? It's time, for those who supported this, to accept the responsibility for these lives lost. Not a pretty picture, is it? That screaming, wounded soldier...that captured, tortured woman, that dead soldier...look at it in the face, and tell me that you still are gunning to support this war. Tell me, that this is justified. Tell me, that running a classical ground campaign is the right strategy here. War leaves no room for ideals, fantasies, or fools. I hear top brass, and administration officials 'complaining' about sneaky tactics being used by the Iraqis...give me a break. It's war, for cying out loud...do you think they will just walk out, and allow themselves to be shot? They are using tactics...and they have been effective. There are no rules in war, complaining about 'cheating' is not only stupid, but a dangerous mentality to have. Mr. Rumsfeld just disgusts me, as well...'These are terrorists, because they don't wear a uniform'...oh good grief, man, get a grip. Don't you remember how the Americans fought the British for Independance? We were also called 'terrorists' because we didn't wear proper uniforms, or marched in straight lines, because we used hit-and-run tactics...that's what one does, when one is overpowered. A stand-up fight would be silly, and deadly.

All signs, that the Bush administration and the top brass were totally idealistic about war. I can't believe that these type of tactics come as a surprise, or, quite frankly, that our troops were not prepared for them. They should have been prepared. This points to poor leadership. What exactly, did they expect the Iraqis to do, lay down and die? Seems like it...now they are getting a sobering dose of reality. And that is causing casualties among our troops...I'm ashamed, enraged, and shocked by this lack of leadership. You should be too, if you are interested in the lives of our troops.

Also, why the hell are you shocked by my words, Bugs? I can't get over that...this is war, dammit! What did you think it was going to be? A party? People are dying...that's war. This is what you wanted. Why are you then shocked at the suggestion of leveling Baghdad? Do you think that war should have rules, and no-engagement zones? Well, if you do, think again. Because the enemy will use tactics that are effective against such 'rules'. We learned in Vietnam, that this just doesn't work. Either it's all out, hell bent for destruction, kill the enemy now, or leave it. Did you think that our troops should get shot, wounded, killed, and captured, just to 'spare' a few Iraqi civilians? Well I don't. This is like the guy that goes into a bar, picks a fight, and then complains about getting sucker-kicked in the balls as being unfair...and then gets the living shit beat out of him. If you are going to fight, fight to win. This is not a sport. It's not a show. It's war. You'd understand this, if you had gone through it yourself. Now, you are having to deal with deaths among our soldiers, deaths that you supported. Still think that war is rosy? That it is fun? That it makes sense? Still think that this is justified? If so, then wake up.

What good is it, to wage a war that is 'just', with rules and all that, when our troops are dying? If the objective can be reached by other means, then use them, especially if it means less loss of life among our troops. IMHO, the first concern must be the safety and lives of our troops. And if they must be sent in Harm's way, then by god, do it in a manner that is not risky or reckless, if possible.

I hear people lightly discussing classical battle and house-to-house city battle, as if it were the next show in town. I can only shake my head at this...and wonder at how the human brain can be so deluding. By not showing us the true battle (and cost) of the war, this type of mentality is being sponsered. Also, when I hear things like 'well, these losses are less than in other wars'...good god, we are talking about the lives of Americans here...does that mean that these losses are then acceptable, just because they are 'less'? And are they really less? How does anyone know that? Quite frankly, my experience tells me that the casualty rates are always higher than reported.

And if you, too, are interested in a quick end to the war, then what do you propose, in place of leveling Baghdad? Yes, let's turn the tables for a minute...before, I was asked the same question regarding war in Iraq...of what alternatives there were. So, what alternatives are there, to end the war quickly? I'm open to suggestions. As I see it, it's not too late, to level Baghdad. Just pull the troops back, and hammer away. Destroy the Rebublican Guard first, around the city...and then go after Saddam and his regime, until there is nothing left. With the Republican guard gone, the civilians would then have at least the chance to escape the city. Case closed.

A little off topic, I received this article in an e-mail.

BTW, nice post WS. Thank you.

WS: Intersting point of view. Harlan Ullman (who was one of the people who developed 'shock and awe') is interviewed here where he discusses how sock and aw has been misinterpreted. He is in favour of nuclear strikes too if there rapidly deployment (as against the Japanese in WWII) destroys the enemies will to carry on and in the long run means their use leads to the least possible casualties:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,921228,00.html

and an extract from his book:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,921229,00.html

mobrul: Nice link

Point 6 made me wonder who the 'Coalition of the Willing' (CoW) are?

There are largely US and UL troops in Iraq with some Australians thrown into the mix (although I hear there is much more coverage on them in Oz). There are some Polish and other central/eastern European special forces (much to the suprise of most people from their countries) who seem to be experts in chemical and biological weapons just in case. I believe Spain (the third big ally) hasn't really sent many troops although its willing to help in sme capacity.

The US administration claim the CoW numbers as many as 47 countries. If point 6 is righ then quite a few of them don't want to be named. According to a report on the radio most of the rest include those countires allowing us to use their airspace (which I assume takes in most NATO countries) and Croatia is allowing the CoW to use their airports for civilian flights to land (which is sort of what they were doing in the first place).

Anyone got any more details?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-9.html

Jason

I do apologize, WS, for not reading your long post but I have a question. Is a classical war really going to be that likely? From what I've seen we've under-estimated the resistence offered by the Iraqi's and also their tactics. We're on their ground and they know all of the tricks for fighting on their land. Guerilla warfare seems like the most likely infantry combat to me. And the most likely to bump the body count, excepting a city battle of course. They might not be overwhelmed by numbers but they are still outmatched as far as technology goes. In any combat where my only advantage was knowledge of the land and the fanatacism of my soldiers.... I would encourage independant guerilla warfare. Put my trusted commanders into the field at the head of battalions and let them go on their own. Random incursions and strikes at random targets. It's hard to win when you can't shoot the ghost.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

I did read your entire post, WS. I was following you very carefully through it and was preparing a response and had some good points, I think. Then I read this,

quote:

---

You'd understand this, if you had gone through it yourself. Now, you are having to deal with deaths among our soldiers, deaths that you supported. Still think that war is rosy? That it is fun? That it makes sense? Still think that this is justified? If so, then wake up.

---

This is a completely misdirected emotional attack. Do you have some need to bash me? If that is what you need, I'm willing to take a little more of it again for the sake of friendship, but it seems your words keep going back to something personal I'm beginning to think I've severely misjudged you. This makes it very difficult to carry on a real discussion

All you get from me are my honest opinions and thoughts.

You assume far too much. You assume that every supporter of this war doesn't know anything about war. Many don't that's true, but you cross the line when you lump me in that category and I am sick to death of it. Save that crap for people who hold those views. I have never claimed this was going to be walk in the park or that we were not going to lose American lives. I do know that war sucks and is hell on earth. You don't have to be a self proclaimed murderer to know that.

I have said war is neither rosy nor fun. You insult me. I have said this war makes sense and that it is justified. I am still very much awake and I still very much stand behind those words. For you to even suggest that I thought this would not cost any lives boggles my mind.

I believe you have read things into my words that were never there. I have done this to others and when I have realized my mistake, I have apologized.

Look, I simply don't share your views about levelling Baghdad. In fact, I find them to be everything the true liberals around here are complaining about. You put *all* the value on American life and *zero* on Iraqi life. I don't agree with that approach and I'm sure most of this stems from your views on life and how they differ from mine.

You mentioned Vietnam and I agree we learned a valuable lesson there, that is to not run a war from Washington. You provide the military with the objectives and then let them do what they do best. But if you are suggesting that our military should be a bunch of barbarians, then we disagree once again. Obviously, they are not because this is their plan. I cannot speak to the divisions within the military and I'm sure they exist, but I do know that the majority of our troops realize they are not there to wipe out the Iraqi people but to wipe out a viscious regime. While that makes the objective harder it does not make it impossible, and I think I have a lot more faith in the military that says they can achieve this because I believe they know what they're doing better than me, and yes, even you.

I have not spoken lightly about house-to-house combat. I have mentioned it because it will happen and I have been listening to a war veteran who *has* done that kind of fighting for some of my information. Not all veterans are against this war.

I actually share some of your approach in that we need to go in with overwhelming force to achieve victory, but we part company when you say we have to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians to do it right.

Well...that was interesting. If I struck a nerve, then I apologize. But apparently, you don't know enough about war...I said, eliminate the repulican guard ring around Baghdad first...you did read that, right? The reason? So that the civilians can actually leave the city, without being shot by the guard (which is probably the only thing holding them in the city, at this point...what kind of casualties do you think the civilian population is going to take in a house-to-house war?)

I am not directly attacking you...I am pointing out, what every American that supports Mr. Bush in this episode of his insanity is responsible for. You have often stated that you support Mr. Bush...and this war. Therefore, you share the responsibility of the deaths of our boys and girls. That's as honest as it gets.

The point being, there is no real need, as I see it at the moment, to kill and punish the civilians...providing that they really do want to be liberated. So leave them a way out, hell, provide them with a way out. They will not stay in a place that is promising death, unless they are faced with certain death by leaving. Then there is no need for the house-to-house fighting...

As for the barbarian term...huh? I think you have forgotten WWII...and the huge amount of civilian casualties among the Germans, especially in Dresden. But maybe that is besides the point. Let's look at this tactically, shall we?

Fazit : we know, that Saddam and his regime has, is, and will be using any and all means, to make this fight as difficult as possible. That means his command posts are not in well-marked military installations, but spead out and hidden among the civilian buildings...we have seen this in Basra, so we know what to expect. I think this concept is termed 'human shields'. He will use this tactic in Baghdad, and has used it...which is probably why the command structure is still functioning, despite 'shock and awe'...which turned out to be 'shock and giggle', really (at least, it would seem so...hard to tell, at this point). To defeat troops stationed in a hospital, our troops better be prepared to be 'barbarians'...otherwise, they will get slaughtered. I don't think you are really thinking this through. Talk to your veteran friend...ask him about that. You say he was involved in village fighting in the Nam...so at least he knows about the nastiness of that. But this is not Nam, this is Baghdad. A huge city, much more 'modern' than a village in Nam. If you can, talk with those who were involved in house-to-house fighting in either WWII, or Lebenon.

I'm still waiting for your alternative plan. I still think that maybe you are not getting enough information, on what is happening on the front line...here in Germany, it seems, there is more (at least, that's the impression that I'm getting...especially when compared to what's being presented on CNN here...). Since the Germans are not involved, the information is pretty unbaised...as far as that is possible, anyway.

And in war, there is no 'barbarianism'...there is win, and there is lose. You survive (live), or die. But I guess you could call it barbarianism if the American troops were to fall on the civilians, and to engage in rape and plunder...though that has nothing to do with war. And as for this conflict, well, there are huge divisions among the theorists that make policy, on what is the correct path of action...and cracks are also showing between the hard-liners, and the Neo-Americans...the hard-liners want a quick war, and then the troops out, the Neo-Americans want a longer war, with a prolonged stay, to launch the next war from.

If I left you feeling personally attacked, then I apologize. That is namely not my intent. More, it is my intent, to get you thinking. To get you thinking, that maybe there are other alternatives, than to just throw our troops into a classical battle situation needlessly. To find an alternative to house-to-house fighting, to realize that there are alternatives. If you really care about our men and women in uniform, then you will do this. In short, I'm asking you to question, as is your right, as an American citizen. And if an intelligable arguement will not reach your ears, then I had hoped that maybe an emotional one would. I do not condemn you for your beliefs...you are entitled to them, just as we all are. In fact, I hold your presence on this board to be a great enrichment, and I have often listened hard and well to your words here. Especially when it comes to the Bible, I have sought out your advice, and listened, because you have much more knowledge than I do. Well, in this situation, it is the opposite.

And yes, I do care about the Iraqi citizens. But I care more for the men and women that are putting their lives on the line here. For me, it's our boys and girls first, the Iraqis second. Any good leader, feels the same. And I have lead troops. They were always my first concern. Where then, lie your priorities?

We both know (or should) that there is a very real danger of WMD being used here. I would like you to think that over. What kind of alternatives could be found, to avoid subjecting our troops to exposure? Because quite frankly, I think that it is Saddams 'ace', so to speak...and it may well get used, if he thinks that there is no way out...and that the end is inevitable. So we need a strategy, a tactic, if you will, to avoid this. Not only for our troops, but to spare the civilian population. Our troops may have gas masks, and protective suits (and let's hope they really do work, if it comes down to it), but the civilians do not. It is a real danger, and not to be taken lightly. Saddam has used them before, against Iran...we would do well to learn from this.

And one last thing, what if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? How do you then justify the conflict in Iraq, if that is true? Because he killed hundreds of thousands? Well, there are many dictators that have been far worse, and we never did anything about it. And there are dictators, that we are not going to do anything about, that have done far worse, and are continuing to do so. Are you then saying 'well, we did something about this one', and turn a blind eye to the rest? Isn't that hypocritical?

Lastly, as I said, I am not against removing Saddam. I'm against how it is being done, and under what type of conditions it is being done. I thought it might be like this, but had hoped it would have been different (see my first post). I have absolutely no confidence, that Mr. Bush will prove equal to a task of ridding the world of other, more dangerous foes. So he chose a weak bully...and even here, has not proved equal to the task. Remember, the Bush administration chose the General to lead this war...not the Pentagon. Our best Generals are not leading it. Why is that? Remember Carter, and the disaster of the hostages? The longer this conflict drags out, the worse it will get, and become. Our interests then, lie in a quick, decisive victory, which we not only owe to our troops, but to those that we are 'liberating'. To avoid unneeded suffering among the civilians, end the war quickly. Because history shows, in every way, shape, and form, that the big losers of a war, or conflict, are always the civilians, and this is proportional to the length of the war, or conflict. Also, I offer my apology if I have misunderstood you. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, and mis-judgements. I, too, am only human.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

GD to answer your questions, and address your points...I'll make it short, because there is already tons of text...

First of all, General whatever his name is said that not only would there be a classical battle, against the Medina Republican Guard, but he also gave me the impression that he is looking forward to it. That somewhat nauseated me, but there it is. So, yes, if one can believe that, there will be a classical battle.

As for hit-and-run tactics, well, that is first of all, hard to do in the desert against the American military (which can see you coming, and see you going). Second, Saddam is trapped in Baghdad...so dispersing his forces would only weaken his own position...and remember, the Americans showed in the first Gulf War just how fast and flexible their military is...very hard to pinpoint where the American forces really are. Better to get them to come to a specified point, and draw them into classical battle situations, and house-to-house fights, where the technology advantage is largely useless. Also, I think that Saddams strategy involves a play for time...he knows that the end is inevitable, if the Americans stick it out to the end. But, I think he is gambling, that with enough casualties, and time, he hopes that the Americans might give up. He knows, that with each passing day, international pressure is building against the Americans, but I think he is more concerned with the homefront in America...the longer the war lasts, the higher the casualties, the more likely it is, that the anti-war movement will gain momentum.

Of course, the American military could just lay siege to Baghdad...but I don't think either side is relying on that...or have even considered it as an option.

Last, so far, no-one is really sure if the Iraqi people want to be liberated, or not. If they do, hit-and-run tactics will fail, in the long run. If they don't, then a long war would then support the tactic, if the people of Iraq were willing to engage in it. Frankly, that big question mark is for me a bit too risky...I've already offered up my suggestions on a quick war...and then pull out the troops, and go home. In end effect, avoiding the question altogether. Never rely on a strategy or tactic with a question mark...unless one has to. Since we are the aggressors, we don't have to.

This is an interesting piece on the new lighter, faster way of making war we are seeing (and the problems it could get into):
www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,921970,00.html

We know the Coalition will win but as I read elsewhere its not really about winning the war it is about winning the battle for hearts and minds both at home and around the world. The small numbers of troops and the rapid advance has left things awfully stretched and if I was Saddam I'd certainly be ordering my men to make hit and run attacks on the supply lines, etc. and the longer this goes on the more it seems t be crystallising anti-US (and UK) sentiment in the Arab world which could have some very nasty long term reprecussions.

But why is it being done this way? This article on the fact the the US is now finding itself in need of a lot international treaties and laws it had really wanted to ignore or get rid of:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921971,00.html

might provide an explanation:

quote:

---

In the months before war a debate raged in the Pentagon between, crudely put, the uniforms and the suits. The soldiers wanted more time, so they could build up to the 250,000 troops that would constitute the "overwhelming force" believed since the first Gulf war to be the best way to deploy US power. They wanted another month. But the Pentagon civilians, led by Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, insisted on going earlier, with many fewer men.

Why would a hawk like Rumsfeld prefer less to more? My Washington source offers an astonishing explanation: "So they can do it again." The logic is simple. Rumsfeld and co know that amassing an army of quarter of a million is a once-a-decade affair: 1991 and 2003. But if they can prove that victory is possible with a lighter, more nimble force, assembled rapidly - then why not repeat the trick? "This is just the beginning," an administration official told the New York Times this week. "I would not rule out the same sequence of events for Iran and North Korea as for Iraq."

---

And more on the UN this is Richard Perle's (one of the chief architects of the current US administrations policies) take on things (an edited version of what appeared in the Spectator):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,918764,00.html

quote:

---

As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.

---

I would ask - if they are planning on tearing up all the rules what are they planning on replacing them with. The policy of 'Might is Right'?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yes, and as Bugs has mentioned before

quote:

---

Might does make Right as a practical matter of world governance. This is why I get so confused when we discuss this. How can it be any other way?


--Bugs

---

that seems to be the case...Might makes Right.

I'm curious to see which faction in the Bush administration will win out...the hard-liners, or the Neo-Americans. As for Mr. Bush, I feel that he is hopelessly overwhelmed by these two forces within his Administration...and seems to be going back and forth between the two...maybe that is why we haven't seen any plans on the aftermath of Iraq yet...because it hasn't yet been decided.

Things that also make one curious - why hasn't Mr. Bush and his administration blasted Turkey, for prohibiting launching ground troops from Turkey (and wavering on the airspace)? I mean, where the French and Germans were concerned, they got blasted, sure enough. But not Turkey...apparently, Mr. Bush feels that it was not necessary to have French and German support...in fact, maybe that was all a smoke-screen, designed to cause a failure of a resolution. Piss off Germany, piss off France...'old Europe', trash those old friends, and destroy old commitments, to make way for the 'brave new world', maybe?

Let's look at this closer...Turkey's support was far, far more important, that must be obvious by now. So why aren't they getting lambasted in the Media? Where is Mr. Rumsfelds mouth now? Why isn't Mr. Bush trashing them like he trashed 'old Europe'? Due to Turkey's failure, to allow the ground troops, and their reticence, to free their airspace, many troops have been endangered, and plans have been changed. It has made the task all the much harder, not to mention the very real threat of Turkey sending it's own troops over the border.

I find this suspect.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

Well, now we know what they plan to do with post Iraq...read all about it here. Here an interesting part

quote:

---

Tony Blair lined up staunchly behind George Bush last night in agreeing that the United States military should administer a post-Saddam Iraq before handing the country over to the United Nations.

At a working dinner at the US President's Camp David retreat, the British Prime Minister backed Washington's plans to install General Jay Garner as civil governor for the country in the short term.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush agreed that a new UN Security Council resolution would be needed to authorise an interim UN administration and release funds for reconstruction – but only after the military situation stabilised. The talks came amid growing controversy over the extent to which the UN should be involved in Iraq even during the conflict and, more importantly, once the fighting is over.

--Independent.Co.Uk.

---

So...General Jay Garner is the civil governor for the country...sounds strangely like how the Romans used to do things. No democracy, no self-rule...at least, not until the UN gets a resolution (and that could take years)...I thought the UN security council was 'defunct', 'impotent', and many other derogatory terms? I would very much like to hear Bugs view on this developement...

I thought there was a coalition of the willing...why don't they pay for the rebuilding and order in post-conflict Iraq? I thought the UN Security council wasn't needed, that the UN wasn't needed, that a coalition of the willing was more than enough...apparently not. First, bash on the UN, then crawl back to it begging for help...heh. Hooboy.

Or is this just another smoke screen, designed to further push the UN and UN security council over? A smoke screen designed to allow an indefinite stay of the US military in Iraq (especially if the UN and UN Security Council wash their hands of it).

Also, this just in US Casualties. Especially this

quote:

---

As the war in Iraq continues, officials with Dover's 436th Airlift Wing are calling in more than 100 reservists from as far away as California to assist the mortuary staff.

--Kansas City Star

---

Hmmm...looks like the amount of casualties are much higher than that being hinted at...otherwise, why would they need the aid of more than 100 reservists?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

Jay Garner...interesting.
He is a retired General and , until recently, the CEO of L-3 Communications, a defense contractor specializing in missle guidance systems.
He's also very close to Arial Sharon.

Nothing at all like installing an Israeli puppet into Iraq to convince the Arabs this is in their best interest...[sarcasm]brilliant move, if you ask me.[/sarcasm]