Topic awaiting preservation: Iraq : Aftermath (Page 1 of 1)

Well, the conflict is drawing to an end...but which end? And where are those WMD? It would seem, that the search for the suspected WMD is causing confusion...see Iraqi weapons general arrested as concern grows over inspection chaos.

Ummm...here is something that concerns me greatly

quote:

---

"Everybody realises that it's gotten off to a rocky start," one official closely involved in the weapons search told the Los Angeles Times. "Frankly, the whole situation is very confusing at the moment."

So fractious are interagency relationships that a national security council staff member has been given the job of mediating between the CIA, the defence intelligence agency, the defence threat reduction agency, and others involved.

Only two "mobile exploitation teams" are hunting for weapons, instead of the planned 20, the paper reported, and delays meant that many sites had been stripped of documents and equipment before inspectors arrived.

Saddam's science adviser, Gen Amir Saadi, apparently waited at his home in Baghdad for a week after US forces reached the capital, and eventually decided to surrender when nobody came for him.

President Bush last week raised for the first time the possibility that Saddam might have destroyed his weapons, a theory which his officials underlined.

"There may be weapons and there may not be. But it will be clear that they were pursuing WMD actively," one unnamed administration official told the New York Times.

--The Guardian

---

Say what? Mr. Bush is now raising the possibility that Saddam destroyed all the WMD?? So...he's then what, admitting that he was wrong?

I'm flabbergasted...

And later in the article, the concern is raised that WMD (if they still exist) pose a greater danger now, then before...because of the total lack of control...or planning...or just about anything, depending on how one wants to look at it (assuming anyone wants to look at it...I imagine it's becoming a real 'thorn' in Mr. Bushs side). But then, I think I raised this point before, in other threads...

Anyone see a worrisome tread here? No planning, whatsoever.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-28-2003).]

Um, saying that Saddam destroyed all his WMDs doesn't necessarily mean Bush was wrong, does it? Isn't he saying that Saddam may have destroyed all his WMDs so that coalition troops would not find them? I'm not commenting on the likelihood of that actually being what happened, I'm just trying to understand the supposed contradiction here...

The supposed...??

Heh...remember, Mr. Bush said Saddam had them...and that the UN inspections were not working...and that Saddam was not disarming...do you not remember this? Do you perhaps not remember Mr. Powell before the UN?

Maybe the proposed second resolution rings a bell?

So...if Saddam really did destroy them...doesn't that then really undermine the 'reason' for invading Iraq? It also officially makes it an invasion...should it be true. What I really mean here is, why would Mr. Bush say something like this? It makes no sense...unless he knew from the start! Because otherwise, WMD might be found by 'inspection teams' anytime now...right? So why go on the record saying something like this?

Or...maybe it's about oil, after all? Get those sanctions out of the way...and start pumping oil...

Hmmm...you see, it just doesn't make all that much sense, does it?

Unless, of course, he just doesn't give a damn about how it looks...

I think he's suggesting that Saddam destroyed them *after* the invasion began. Which would mean that the invasion was justified at the time that it happened.

Hmmm...interesting point.

But why would he do that?

Now that doesn't make much sense, either...

Unless he expected to be captured...

Yes Webshaman I agree with you on that point... The inspectors did not find anything even with an access granted everywhere in the country, so it is clear Saddam destroyed everything about it. Waging a war with this excuse was really pitiful. The selfishness depicted here is really disgusting...

Another similar issue : before the war the Iraqi army was said on every American media to be the fourth army in the world, fearsome, with a very powerful imperial guard... And look at what happened. Don't tell me it wasn't misinformation.

Actually, I am really thinking all this mess has been planned long ago...

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

quote:

---

Unless, of course, he just doesn't give a damn about how it looks...

---

I´m afraid that could be the case... The US media already make it look like a great victory to his (potential) supporters anyway, and he doesn´t care about the rest (and why should he...).

Who will remember what it was all supposed to be about in the first place, once they´ve got their confetti parades, some new jobs in the oil industry, and the conviction that good has prevailed over evil once again.

Well MW, because a lot of the 'peace' activists, and fence-sitters, are now...how would one say it...taking stock of the situation?

That's normally what happens after something like this...the 'post-analysis' part of the 'game'...

It has the effect, of opening doors, to voices that were silenced before...and we all know that elections are going to be starting next year...and probably even now, some are gathering their support, testing the waters, ect.

If one want to be a two-term President, one should take this into consideration...

You know, everytime I think I get an 'angle' on this President and his administration, something like this raises its ugly head...and removes any certainty that I have, indeed, understood it...

It just doesn't make any sense to me...that's about all I get out of it.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-28-2003).]

Suho1004: You suggested this possibility:

quote:

---

Isn't he saying that Saddam may have destroyed all his WMDs so that coalition troops would not find them?

---

It seems highly unlikely for the following reasons:

1. You can't just throw these things in an incinerator - there would be evidence from the sites they used to destroy them.

2. This kind of activity would have been obvious from satelittes.

3. Why would Saddam bother? He had nothing to lose and little to gain other than potentially embarassing the US.

4. Coalition forces ran across vast stockpiles of weapons wherever they went - the army faded away so rapidly that they never carried out orders to destroy arms dumps (or the oil wells which were wired up for demolition). The whole regime's power structure fell apart rapidly and if they were ever deployed they'd have just been left lying around.

This doesn't mean they won't be found but I would have thought that some would have started showing up by now. The chaos of the US inspectors really shows that they should back off and let the UN inspectors back in - even if the US inspectors find something the rest of the world won't believe if it hasn't been properly inspected my experts on the Iraqi WMD.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Thanks, Slime. Yes, that was what I was wondering about. Like I said, I'm not going to speculate on how possible something like that would be, but it is a possibility, no? I mean, if he had the means and the time necessary to destroy the weapons, wouldn't it make more sense for him to do that rather than have them fall into the hands of the coalition troops?

I'm just trying to understand why Bush would have said something like that, and I'm considering all the possibilities. I will admit that I haven't been following things too closely, so I'm really just tossing ideas out there.

[Edit: Dang, Emps, you're quick on the draw. Like I said, I wasn't speculating on the likelihood of such an event, I was just trying to think of reasons why Bush may have said that. Saying that Saddam had "already destroyed the weapons" is somewhat ambiguous, and could mean a number of things.

Also like I said, I haven't been following things too closely, and I really don't have enough information to argue any sort of point. I just wanted to toss out an idea, and now that I've done that, I'll just be returning to the basement...]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-28-2003).]

It's is pretty obvious that if there were ever any WMD, they were disposed of prior to/ during the inspections. I just can't picture Sadam not using all of his resources to protect his rule.

If one isn't going to use WMD, why have them in the first place? And if the presence of WMD is denied, they have no value as a deterent. Who would expect someone to be afraid of what you deny having?

I always fall back to the analogy of kids in the playground (probably because I got beat-up a lot in school)......... So, little Johnny, who has a reputation of being mean as a snake, is being threatened by Bubba, who happens to be the biggest kid in school.

"Johnny, I know you have brass knuckles in your pocket" says Bubba, "so hand 'em over or I'm gonna beat you to a pulp."

Johnny will do one of two things, he will deny having the brass knuckles-"I don't know what you've been smoking Bubba, but I don't have anything in my pocket except my lunch money" or he is going to say -"Damn right I've got brass knuckles, you big butt-head, and you're gonna get hurt if you mess with me".

Well, Bubba figures that since everyone heard him issue his ultimatum, if he doesn't follow through his reputation as a bad-ass will suffer. So Bubba lumbers over, grabs little Johnny by the throat and begins to squeeze.

At this point if Johnny has brass knuckles in his pocket, he is damn sure going to use them. I mean why not at this point? He knows that with out them he is doomed. Let's return to our little scene....

After Johnny's legs cease to kick, and his arms no longer flail, Bubba removes his hands. Johnny falls to the ground and Bubba begins to search him.

"No brass knuckles here" says Bubba, as he pockets Johnny's lunch money. "The little bastard must have gotten rid of them."

One potential here is (and I'm not sure I buy this, yet...just hang with me as I work through my thoughts) that Bush/Administration wants Iraq to fall off the public radar. It was a 'success', but the 'rebuild' is going to be long and slow and full of dirty deeds -- not good for 24 hr news.

Once the war started, the whole rhetoric changed from 'WMD' to 'liberty, whiskey, sexy'...or something like that.

Well, maybe Bush thinks that now most Americans are high on the success of this, the white man's burden, they've 'forgotten' or pushed to the back of their mind the whole idea of WMD.
Maybe he knows there aren't significant WMD in Iraq (very likely) and planting them is dangerous. If they get caught, as my grandpa used to say, "there be some 'splanin to do." (translation: You had better have a good explanation, or else...)
Even if ones were found, the rest of the world will think they'd been planted anyway.

UN inspectors are being kept out because they'd do press conferences and such. US Army 'inspectors' won't. Sure, the rest of the world will ask questions, but 'mericans don't care about the rest of the world.

So, this whole rebuilding, searching, clean-up, post-war 'thing' is going to be messy and ugly and long and drawn out and full of politics and dirt. Bad, bad,bad. Best to leave the public with the lingering half-memory of a 'won war' and rescued POWs and let WMD, Halliburton deals, oil and the actual state of the Iraqi people fall down the 'memory hole'.

Next step is the domestic front. To avoid the trap into which his father fell, he must now get shit straight at home. Notice that the weekend news shows here in the states did not feature any of the military/pentagon/defense people to whom we have become accustomed lately. Iraq became yesterday's news' -- 'a win' in the fleeting short-term memories of us 'mericans -- and the extraordinary success of Bush's new fiscal plan is next up on the news cycle.

Just a theory.

I actually agree with quite a bit of that, mobrul. Just take Afghanistan as a recent example. How much news are we getting about that? Next to nothing in the popular media. It's being reported, but you have to dig for it.

I was listening to a joint panel of the American Enterprise Institute last week with Charles Krauthammer and Newt Gingrich speaking. They took questions after their prepared statements and the point came up about the US wanting to take over the world. Krauthammer made a very astute point, IMO. He said that America's failing has never been about taking over but rather abandonment. We want to get in, kick some ass, and then get the hell out. I think I've been pretty consistent on this, the real test is going to be how we rebuild.

Concerning WMD. I have made the point that I personally will be glad we toppled this regime whether they find them or not. I agree that this will be a serious black eye to Bush's credibility in the eyes of the world. But when have we ever had any credibility with the rest of the world? Here's what is bothering me the most right now. All of the Congressional members I've heard speak on this issue say that they were presented "extremely convincing" evidence that they existed and they are "confident" they will turn up. So exactly what was the nature of the evidence?

Jestah and I went back and forth about this evidence before the war and *we* assumed we knew exactly where these sites were located so we could just march in and get them. This, to my knowledge, was never claimed by the administration. They just said they *knew* they were there. The hunt continues and I can't wait to see what does or does not turn up.

I will admit at this point that this affair could have been handled much better by our PR people, read State Department. I think Newt may be on to something about the entrenched civil service obstructionism coming from that department. Maybe they really need a shake up over there so they stop making Powell look so foolish. I bet if Powell had his way, he would be using some "overwhelming force" on the elements of his department that are not supporting him.

Concerning the Al Qaeda link. WebShaman, will you now relent on your saying there is zero evidence of a link? You know I consider this to be *more* evidence but for many this is the *first* evidence. What say you?

Here is the link from Telegraph: The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Even the Guardian seems to admit the links, they just aren't considered big enough I suppose: Al Qaida links still dubious

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-28-2003).]

Thanks for posting that Bugs...that is the first I have heard of such...interesting.

However, I don't find it surprising...I would have found it surprising, had there been nothing found like this...that would alarm me...

Just about all countries have such 'documents'...either direct, or indirect. I'm sure the US also has such 'documents', somewhere...probably to 'intermediaries', attempting (and achieving) contact with Al Qaida...

Proof? Hmmm...of contact, yes...of actual co-operation, no. On that, more than half the world would then be 'guilty'...including ourselves. How does one contact a terrorist group otherwise? A direct invitation to the UN? I think this was more along the lines of 'feeling out' if Al Qaida was maybe an ally...or a tool, to be used against the US...I think it produced no real co-operation between the two...probably both sides wanted to use one another for their own purposes, and got too suspicious of one another...

Here is what I would like to see presented as evidence - actual proof, of training for 9/11, monetary and/or other support, also for 9/11...and plans for (or evidence of) direct transfer of WMD. At such a time, that such evidence comes forth, then I'll conceed the point, and grant acceptance for the invasion of Iraq based on 9/11. Granted, this then puts Saudi Arabia on the 'hit list', for it directly funded Al Qaida.

This document is from '98...before Al Qaida really got 'started' as a force for terrorism...it wasn't even on our list of 'dangerous' organizations, at that time...

Also, finding some documents listing contact after 9/11...now that would also perk my ears up...for Al Qaida had then proved it was capable of directly hitting the US...and transfer of WMD (if any) would probably occur after this time...one doesn't just 'give' such weapons away, to any old organisation...it needs to be established first (IMHO).

Personally, I think that 9/11 probably struck the fear of God into Saddams heart...Al Qaida was a force to be reckoned with...and he, too, must then suspect that he could be on the 'hit-list' of Al Qaida...

So, we will see.

quote:

---

The inspectors did not find anything even with an access granted everywhere in the country, so it is clear Saddam destroyed everything about it. Waging a war with this excuse was really pitiful. The selfishness depicted here is really disgusting...

---

something to consider is that (according to everything i've read/heard) that was NOT the actual inspectors' jobs. there were not there to search for weapons, there were there to verify that documents concerning weapons destruction were accurate and that those weapons in those locations were in fact destroyed. blix himself said that iraq did not provide much new information (i.e. documents detailing destruction) during the inspections and that only after millitary pressure built up int he region did they start to provide new documents (which also contained little new info). the inspectors did not just go around searching for weapons, nor did they check sites (to my knowledge) that the US had proposed did contain WMDs.

do i know if there's anything there or not? i'd hope there is, but no idea. just clarifying...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Yes, the inspecters did investigate sites indicated by the US...there was nothing found at any of them...the US insisted at the time, that the WMD had been removed before the inspecters arrived...after a couple of these 'red herrings', I think the inspecters gave US intelligence an F in reliablility...and stopped investigating such information...

Fig is absolutely correct. Iraq should have done what South Africa did when it disarmed. It brought out everything it had and presented it to the inspectors and they were able to verify the process. They were actively involved in the disarmament. Iraq, time after time and this is well documented, did everything it could to obstruct the inspectors and their charter. This is not even in question.

What we should be mentioning with respect to WMD is *if* they were not there, why couldn't Hussein demonstrate it? Attempting to hide nonexistent WMD from the inpectors at the risk of invasion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It only supports the view they had something to hide.

Actually Bugs, it does kinda make sense...in a sick kind of way...remember, Saddam held power through fear and a heavy hand...not having WMD might be seen as a weakness...

Also, Saddam had very good reason not to like the US...and had a history of 'enraging' the US, from time to time...firing rockets at the planes in the No-Fly zone, etc. He just liked playing such games, apparently...and it might have been a deciding factor in the invasion and his downfall...

Other than that, you're right, it doesn't make much sense...but we only have to look to NK to see this type of behavior being repeated...seems to go hand-in-hand with repressive-type regimes...

I think it is a very good parallel, I agree. But tell me, how confident are you that NK has WMD? And why?

Confident that NK has WMD? Should that be a criteria?

Ok...I'll bite. Well, apparently they have admitted themselves that they have them...depends on who one believes, however.

That they have the material to make Nuclear weapons, I think, is well-established. Whether or not they actually have, is to an extent irrelevant...they could. And rather quickly, actually. And they have voiced that they would be willing to sell them...irregardless of whther this is just rhetoric or not...it is something even Saddam didn't dare suggest...

And we are still at war with NK.

Other evidence points to contacts with Pakistan...which definitely has WMD...

The biggest amount of 'evidence', however, is Chinas reaction...I don't think they would be concerned, if NK didn't have WMD...and would just ignore the whole thing...which they are obviously not doing.

That's enough evidence for me.

This just in about the situation in Iraq After a month, U.S. losing credibility in Iraq

Well...that does not look very promising...especially the remarks from Mr. Jay

quote:

---

U.S. officials are trying to regroup. Former State Department official L. Paul Bremer III was appointed Wednesday to outrank Ret. Gen. Jay Garner, who has been heading up the reconstruction effort. Bremer's appointment was apparently meant to smooth over conflicts between the State Department and the Pentagon over the country's political and physical reconstruction.

Garner acknowledged this week that American planners were taken by surprise by the scale of the looting.

Military officials say electric service has been restored to pre-war levels in only nine of 27 main cities. The military also said that water is back to pre-war levels in 14 of 27 cities but as the heat increases, people have been seen cutting open underground water pipes for easy access -- essentially looting water.

Reconstruction planners have acknowledged they came shorthanded and under-equipped. A senior official in Garner's office was not aware that U.S. troops had killed about 13 Iraqis in the town of Fallujah -- front-page news in most of America -- until almost two days later when informed by reporters.

Getting news out is also a problem. Garner has openly lamented his inability to get information to the Iraqi people amid what he said were insufficient American attempts to start up radio and television broadcasts.

"We haven't done a good job," he said. "I want TV going to the people ... programs they want to see."

--AJC.com

---

So, things are worse now, then they were before the war...hooboy. And the lack of planning...sure smells of Mr. Bush and his administration...

I wonder how long it will take, before the Iraqis really start showing their dislike and disgruntlement against our soldiers there in mass numbers? We have already started to see this...I wonder if it is going to snowball?

WS, now that we have begun this process and you have made it abundantly clear that you are not pleased with how it has gone thus far, what would *you* like to see happen in post-war Iraq? What kind of government? What kind of humanitarian efforts? Who would you like to see accomplish this? Who is best suited for the job? Those kinds of questions. I would like to get a better understanding of the goals you would like to see achieved.

This is very easy, and I have already answered this, Bugs - let the UN do it. They have the best track record with such things. Through the UN, there are huge aid and help organisations that can relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, start rebuilding Iraq, and re-installing order all at the same time. They are also much better organized for this type of work, and more experience at it.

This is just one of the reasons it was critical to get the UN support for the war...and why Mr. Bush blew a hand of 4 aces...just take a look at the mess that is slowly starting to form...

Already Mr. Jay has been 'de-moted', and a new civilian commander has been installed...why? No realistic plans for rebuilding Iraq. Why? Where is the aid, and support, after a month, for the Iraqi people? The questions just keep piling up...and the solutions are a long way off.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-08-2003).]

I was afraid you were going to say that. I believe handing the job over to the UN would be the worst possible thing we could do. They have a *terrible* record in these matters. Just look at how much the French and Russians are interested in the Iraqi people for instance. How can we leave it to the UN if we really care about the future of Iraq?

I will agree with you on the humanitarian part though. I have no problem with letting the UN come in with as much humanitarian aid as they can muster at this point.

But the question I was hoping you would address more directly is the ultimate result. What sort of government do you want to see prevail there? Just relieving suffering people and restoring order could be done by another dictator. So that can't be our only criteria.

Heh. Bugs, the UN has a much better record than anyone else...including the US, at doing this kind of thing. Ireegardless of how you see it, it's better. Better for the people of the land in question.

Isn't that the only criteria? That the people themselves have it better? After all, they are the ones suffering.

I agree, the UN is not perfect...never was, probably never will be. But at least they are not trying to force a particular dogma down a peoples throat...whether they like it or not.

I think this article Time for some realpolitik outlines some very interesting points in post-conflict Iraq.

I get the sneaking suspicion, that the US doesn't want that oil in any 'hands' other than our own...nor does it seem that the US is really interested in establishing a government that is best for Iraqis...one that is also internationally acknowledged as legitimate, both by the UN and its neighbors.

Before, the US ignored the UN, criticized it, and undermined it. Now, we are back pounding on the doors...??

Anyone really understand all this? It's like the behavior of a spoiled little child.

This just in Iraqis laud return of Shi'ite clericHooboy. That, which was one major concern in the first Gulf War (and one of the main reasons we didn't remove Saddam Hussein) is now threatening to become reality -

quote:

---

The influential leader of Iraq's largest Shi'ite Muslim group received a king's welcome yesterday when he returned from 23 years of exile in Iran. His arrival immediately transformed the nation's political dynamics, as US officials set a deadline of June 15 to begin ceding governing power back to Iraqis.



Speaking before tens of thousands in the southern city of Basra, the cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim, called for a democratically elected ''modern Islamic regime'' that would be free of foreign interference. He also thanked Iran's Shi'ite leaders for hosting him -- including his first patron, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who instituted Islamic rule after the fall of the shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, in 1979.

--Boston Globe

---

That just sends chills up my spine...and the warnings of the Saudis seem very real, now...a Shi'ite country on its direct border...(Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni). Iran must be cackling in glee.

Well, looks like Mr. Jay is on the way out...along with much of his 'staff' - U.S. overhauls team in Iraq as lawlessness continues. That doesn't abode well...I thought Mr. Jay was considered the 'right choice' by Mr. Bush and his administration? Apparently not. It would appear that things are not moving quickly enough for Mr. Bush

quote:

---

Officials said the impetus for the overhaul stems in part from urgent warnings that escalating violence and a breakdown of civil order are paralyzing the effort to rebuild Iraq.

"Unless we do something in the near future, it is likely to blow up in our face," one official said.

In Washington, an administration official said Garner will leave in the next week or two after a transition with Bremer.

Startribune

---

Well...we will see if the new guy accomplishes anything...

I hate to say it, but things do not look like they are going well...in fact, they appear to be rather...unorganized, IMHO.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-12-2003).]

Ok...maybe the real reason behind the 'shake-up' in Iraq - Disorder deepens in liberated Baghdad. Looks like things are bad, and getting worse...

quote:

---

BAGHDAD – Fearful of going out after dark, waiting up to 10 hours to fill their cars with gas, spreading rumors in the absence of reliable media, watching landmark buildings set on fire and wondering who is in charge, the residents of this capital are growing increasingly impatient with the deepening disorder that is plaguing their lives more than a month after US troops took over the city.
"My worst fear is chaos, of all hell breaking loose, and it seems like that is happening," says the Jenan Khadimi, an American-Iraqi who teaches architecture at Baghdad University. "You don't know who is running things."


Amid concerns about Baghdad's stability, the US has launched a major shake-up of its postwar administration. The official in charge of civilian reconstruction efforts in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, is being replaced by L. Paul Bremer, a former State Department counterterrorism chief. Baghdad's de facto mayor, Barbara Bodine, was also scheduled to leave her post as US coordinator for central Iraq Sunday

--Christian Science Monitor

---

I would say that this situation is...explosive. If it is not brought under control soon...it's going to be a thorn in Mr. Bush's side, in the coming elections. Should the situation deteriorate, and get totally out of control, Mr. Bush can kiss the elections good-bye.

Wow. This situation is even worse than what the Christian Science Monitor is willing to admint - Baghdad Security Crisis. This part is especially brutal -

quote:

---

Crime in Baghdad may even be getting worse since the end of the fighting. The papers are now reporting increasingly horrific incidents of rape, kidnapping and murder in the city streets. After reporting a particularly appalling incident of the rape of two teenage girls, the Washington Post reports that their doctor, OB-GYN Enas Hamdani "reserves a special contempt for American forces who conquered Baghdad more than a month ago":
"She and others have heard repeated promises that reconstituted Iraqi police patrols, accompanied by military units, will be here soon. But in many neighborhoods, military commanders say their troops are stretched thinly and have no training in police work.
...
Reports of rapes, holdups and murders are multiplying citywide, in both poor and upscale districts. In this city of 5 million, the dearth of police is a fundamental problem, but certainly not the only one: Electrical power, gasoline, clean water and medical supplies remain unavailable or out of reach for many residents. The looting that broke out after the fall of Baghdad was a harbinger of a slow devolution into fear and despair, especially after dark, especially for women.
...
"Security, security, security -- that's our mantra too. That's our number one priority," says Nales, 46, a reservist with the 422nd Civil Affairs Battalion ... His men patrol constantly in tanks and other vehicles equipped with heavy weapons. But security for the general public was never meant to be the mission here. The priority was security for U.S. troops, who still face random attacks.
...
"I'm sorry," he says he tells Iraqis, but it's just too early to expect reliable utilities or supplies of food and water. "I'm sorry the police agencies and judicial system isn't here. I'm sorry we don't have enough soldiers to help you.
"I'm sorry."

In the hallway, Sgt. 1st Class Keith Hudson, the enlisted man in charge of security for the neighborhood, has moved beyond frustration to anger. He blames top U.S. officials in charge of the reconstruction effort for failing to plan for the chaos."

--MotherJones

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-13-2003).]

quote:

---

it's going to be a thorn in Mr. Bush's side, in the coming elections. Should the situation deteriorate, and get totally out of control, Mr. Bush can kiss the elections good-bye.

---

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be an issue come election time.

Enough of his supporters won't care about the aftermath...he rid the world of big villain - he's a hero

Well...if it gets totally out of control, I think it will sabotage his election chances...you can't pump oil out of a raging civil warzone...let alone rebuild it...think of all those 'fat' contracts...

The oil companies won't stand for it. And that is a hell of a lot of campaign money we are talking about...

Otherwise, you are probably correct *sigh*

Hmmm...don't give up hope too soon, DL...this just in Osama's Offspring. It would seem that the tide is 'turning', so to speak, in the media, against Mr. Bush...as this shows [quote]Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They're not a problem anymore."

Members of the U.S. intelligence community bragged to reporters that the terrorist band was crippled, noting that it hadn't attacked during the assault on Iraq.

"This was the big game for them — you put up or shut up, and they have failed," Cofer Black, who heads the State Department's counterterrorism office, told The Washington Post last week.

Of course, the other way of looking at it is that Al Qaeda works at its own pace and knows how to conduct operations on the run.

Al Qaeda has been weakened by the arrest of leaders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But Osama, in recent taped messages, has exhorted his followers to launch suicide attacks against the invaders of Iraq. And as one ambassador from an Arab country noted, the pictures of American-made tanks in both Iraq and the West Bank of Israel certainly attracted new recruits to Osama.

The administration's lulling triumphalism about Al Qaeda exploded on Monday in Riyadh, when well-planned and coordinated suicide strikes with car bombs and small-arms fire killed dozens in three housing complexes favored by Westerners, including seven Americans.

--New York Times[/url]If you remember, the New York Times was a very staunch supporter of Mr. Bush...this is the first critic I've seen of Mr. Bush and his administration in the paper...

That doesn't abode well...

It also goes to show, that the conflict in Iraq could (and should) have waited, until Al-Qaida was really finished...Mr. Bush, as usual, has his priorities screwed up...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-14-2003).]

...and remember that internal policies caused Pres. GHW Bush trouble, BUT it took a Ross Perot to split the Republican vote and give C*****n the 40% victory. Besides that, he ran a crappy campaign.

Pres. GW Bush doesn't seem likely to run a crappy campaign and there has, to date, not appeared any Ross Perot character into the story to split the conservative vote. That's not to say he won't have his own set of issues and challenges come election time, but I think any half-decent campaign and a sound PR/media policy can easily overcome those problems.

The turmoil and crime in Iraq will be blamed on 'terrorists' and 'hold-outs' from the Hussein regime, regardless the actual cause or people involved. This will serve as an excuse not to demilitarize and to further the 'need' for combat troops and a 'strong' Commander-in-Chief. You can bet you'll be hearing this line coming from the White House starting soon and lasting for a long time.

[edit: wrong post - sorry *sheepish grin*]



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-14-2003).]

And the situation in Iraq is getting worse...with senor senators on both sides stepping up criticism of Mr. Bush and his administration - Iraq Disorder Worries Senators - Rumsfeld Acknowledges Problems, Defends U.S. Military .

As for the 'pull-out' of American forces, that, too, has been 'delayed' -

quote:

---

Rumsfeld said steps were underway to beef up the American military presence in Iraq by "plus or minus 15,000 additional U.S. forces" in the next seven to 20 days. According to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who accompanied Rumsfeld yesterday, about 49,000 troops are in the Baghdad area and another 20,000 are about to arrive in Iraq. But Rumsfeld said it would be up to Franks to decide what portion of this force to assign to the Baghdad area.

Rumsfeld said U.S. forces in Iraq consist of about 140,000 troops, with allies contributing another 20,000. Pentagon officials have indicated in recent days that the planned departure from the Baghdad area of one brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division could be delayed until late May or June because of Baghdad's security situation.

Disagreements over the size of the force needed to stabilize Iraq in the postwar period have simmered for some time in the Pentagon. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, Army chief of staff, estimated in February that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be needed to secure postwar Iraq. But Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz quickly called that "way off the mark." He said the more likely figure was around 100,000.

The disorder in Iraq has forced the administration to bring in more U.S. troops and to seek troops from other coalition countries. "We have had donors conferences and force-generation conferences in England and elsewhere to get coalition countries to come in and provide additional forces," Rumsfeld told the committee.

--WashingtonPost

---

It would seem, that there are...problems. And that's a lot of troops there...one must ask the question, who is lying here? Rumsfeld says there is 160, 000 altogether, and Wolfowitz says around 100,000. That's a difference of 60,000...huh? I mean, one would hope that the Secretary of Defense would know how many troops are there...and one would demand that the Pentagon know.

What if there are more? In fact, details on Iraq are starting to get hard to get...exact figures, what is really happening...does anyone else see a problem here?

This quote echoes my concerns -

quote:

---

I remain genuinely concerned that we are in a situation where we have won the war and we lose the battle," Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) said. Unless order is restored, he warned later, "[t]here is a real chance that the victory we claim is not a victory at all."

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-15-2003).]

the mixed numbers reminds me of the vietnam war, when the newspapers would headline: 63 killed! greatest number killed in a single day. the following day: 61 killed! greatest number killed in a single day. then, the following day: 63 killed! greatest number killed in a single day. the numbers varied from 59 to 65, but the headline was the same - greatest number killed in a single day! you had to wonder who they thought they were fooling...

[edit] didn't mean to hijack the thread, back to iraqi discussion

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 05-15-2003).]