Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (86315)	3/25/2003 9:54:01 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So where is the Iraqi military? It is hiding in the homes of everyday citizens, suppressing any nascent revolt while using their own country's women and children as living sandbags ? a stunningly brutal, but highly effective tactic Yes. That's the conclusion I came to watching the TV coverage of Basra. Be interesting to see how the British deal with it.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (86315)	3/25/2003 10:49:52 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Scott: The war isn't going as planned. Some say it's looking like another Vietnam. Scott Ritter isn't that optimistic: US WILL LOSE THE IRAQ WAR -SAYS SCOTT RITTER gulufuture.com 25th March, 2003 by Fintan Dunne, Editor gulufuture.com Thorn in the side of the American administration, and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, has warned that America will lose the Iraq war and the American military: "will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs." In an interview with Irish radio, Mr. Ritter said that the conflict would become an "absolute quagmire," and the US-UK advance would stall outside Bhagdad and fail to capture the city. "We find ourselves... facing a nation of 23 million, with armed elements numbering around 7 million --who are concentrated at urban areas. We will not win this fight. America will loose this war," said Mr. Ritter. According to Mr. Ritter, too many in the Pentagon have listened to: "the blithering of Iraqi expatriates," whose agenda coincides with neo-conservatives in the White House. "We're in Iraq --carrying out the right-wing neo-conservative motives of a handful of people. The Richard Perle's, Paul Wolfowitz's; the Dick Cheney's. And we've allowed them to hijack our foreign policy," he told Irish broadcaster, Vincent Browne on the RTE1 radio "Tonight Show." He warned that Shia Muslims in the South were not fighting because of intimidation by the Iraqi government, but because of nationalistic and religious reasons. "They're doing it because, the American Crusader Infidel has invaded and violated Holy Iraq, and they will resist us, and they will resist us strongly," said Mr. Ritter. "We are not liberating Iraq, we are destroying Iraq," he added later in the interview. Scott Ritter, is a former U.N. weapons inspector and author of the book "Endgame." Ritter, a ballistic missile technology expert, worked in military intelligence during his 12-year career in the U.S. armed forces. In 1998, Ritter resigned from the U.N. Special Commissions team to protest Clinton Administration policies that he said subverted the weapons inspection process. Full Transcript & Audio follows below. Discussion of situation in Iraq from Tonight Show, on RTE1 24th March, 2003 Listen to Ritter Realplayer 3 mins Listen to full Gulf War Analysis Segment Audio 25 minutes[ Realplayer] Vincent Browne: " Scott Ritter... are you surprised by how the assault in Iraq is going? Scott Ritter: " No actually, I wrote a paper that was published last Fall, that predicted just this. And i'm a little disturbed in listening to some of the analysis going along here. I think that one of the reasons the American find themselves in such difficulties in Iraq, is that so many in the Pentagon have listened to the... blithering of Iraqi expatriots who have spoken out --rightly so-- against Saddam Hussein, and who think that it's a) the role of the United States to liberate Iraq; and b) think that the Iraqi people want us to liberate them from Saddam. And I think that the harsh reality is that in buying off on the expectations of being greeted in the streets of Iraq with song and flowers... we now find we are being greeted with bullets and bombs. And it's the Shia in the south who are fighting us. They're not doing it because Chemical Ali is down there with his death squads threatening to execute 'em. They're doing it because, the American Crusader Infidel has invaded and violated Holy Iraq, and they will resist us, and they will resist us strongly. And no matter how many Iraqi's we kill and slaughter, I predict that America will loose this war and ultimately the American military will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs. Unfortunately, we're going to inflict a tremenduous amount of death and destruction on the people of Iraq; the American soldiers and Marines will also pay a price. And all those who sit outside of Iraq and courageously encourage Americans to go in and slaughter Iraqi's should be ashamed of themselves." Vincent Browne: "...You think the Americans will loose this war? " Scott Ritter: " We lost Vietnam.... Remember we can kill many, many Iraqui's and we will do so. But I am telling you right now, that we do not have sufficient combat power in Iraq --as we speak-- to win this battle. So we will have to reinforce considerably. The current posture, in terms of American deployment, is predicated on a presumption that the Iraqi Army would surrender; that the Iraqi people would welcome; that the internsational community would support. The exact opposite is happening. And now we find ourselves with fewer than 120,000 boots on the ground; facing a nation of 23 million, with armed elements numbering around 7 million --who are concentrated at urban areas. We will not win this fight. America will loose this war. Saddam Hussein may die... But you know what? I'm betting that Saddam's gonna be around a lot longer than anyone can predict. I'm betting that we don't capture Bhagdad. I'm betting that we stall outside Bhagdad. I'm betting that this becomes an absolute quagmire. I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the American lives that are going to be lost. Remember I'm a 12 year veteran of the Marine Corps. I fought in the first Gulf War. I know what war is about. I know what defending my country is about. This is a bad war, because it has nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America. Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration has pulled an enormous lie to the international community; to the American people. And now we're in Iraq --carrying out the right-wing neo-conservative motives of a handful of people; the Richard Perle's, Paul Wolfowitz's; the Dick Cheney's. And we've allowed them to hijack our foreign policy. And they've been cheered on by these Iraqi expatriots, who have zero credibility in my eyes. They're so brave and they want Iraq liberated... Then my goodness man, go to Iraq... fight and die for your country... But don't ask Americans to do it.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (86315)	3/25/2003 10:51:52 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is along the lines of what I have been thinking albeit a little incomplete. I think US strategy is to get rid of Saddam ASAP. This means "capturing" Baghdad is not a primary goal. The primary goal is to have sufficient foothold into the city to be able to sufficiently support special forces to kill Saddam and his government members. The hope is that showing off Saddam's dead body will collapse the resolve of his supporters. Saddam's strategy is of course the opposite. He is going to do everything in his power to accomplish two goals: to stay alive; and to force US troops to cause as much civilian casualties as possible. If the US ends up leaving cities without water and supplies, if we end up causing the deaths of a large number of civilians, if ultimately our actions change the Iraqi resentment into hatred, then we have failed. Saying that Saddam was at fault for those casualties is not an acceptable excuse; of course he is! That is his goal. And so if he achieves it, he has won. In a way this is not an "engagement"; it is more like, you do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll see who comes ahead. ST