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: michael97123 who wrote (87208)	3/28/2003 9:05:33 AM
From: JustTradeEm	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The shame is, this all could have been avoided if France, Germany and Russia had stood up and supported regime change in Iraq; if only for the fact of the atrocities committed on its' own citizens. If they had, there would never have been protestors in the streets ... this all could have been done peacefully ... the world missed a chance to speak up in a unified voice against atrocities and for human rights. It would appear now though that the intent of the "old 3" is simply to keep Hussein in power to serve their own financial interests. Now, we have calls for an "aid cease fire", we have Putin calling for a UN solution to the war. Didn't the U.N. have its' chance already ? What Putin really means is, let's stop this so we can buy time to find a way to keep Hussein in power. Does anyone really believe Putin cares about Iraqi citizens ? He had no problem gassing his own terrorist and innocent citizens in a theater; hell, the old 3 apparently have no problem with what Hussein has done to his citizens. The simple fact is there is a simple solution to sparing all lives; Iraqi citizens and coalition military. The old 3, along with other M.E. countries, say it is time for Hussein to leave. If people truly want to protest for what is best for Iraqi innocents, they would protest for this. JB

To: michael97123 who wrote (87208)	3/28/2003 9:18:50 AM
From: JustTradeEm	Respond to of 281500

We hear so much about this being "more difficult" than Bush thought; perhaps so but meaningless at this point. Just more media blabber. Phil Carter has in interesting weblog post today on discussions with "in the field" military like the one you referenced. WP: Generals candidly speak about the war and expectations Rick Atkinson is probably the most overqualified journalist in Iraq right now. He won a Pultizer reporting on the military in the early 1980s, reported on Gulf War I, and wrote one of the best histories of that conflict called Crusade. Now, Rick is back in Iraq (bad alliteration) covering the 101st Airborne Division for the Washington Post. It appears from his Friday dispatch that he's taken a step back from the tactical situation to interview several colonels and generals in that unit and V Corps to get an overall feel for the battlefield. Among other things, Rick senses that the plan is not going well. But surprisingly, the officers he's talking to admit that -- and that itself reveals a great deal about their character. "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," LTG William Wallace Wallace, commander of V Corps, said during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division headquarters here in central Iraq. Wallace, a plain-spoken cavalryman whose command is based in Germany and is operating a few miles north of here, gave public voice to what senior officers in Iraq have been saying privately for several days. Asked whether combat developments in the past week increased the likelihood of a much longer war than some planners had forecast, Wallace said, "It's beginning to look that way." Speaking about the need to pause, resupply, and secure supply lines, Wallace adds: "We knew we'd have to pause at some point to build our logistics power," Wallace said. "This is about where we'd expected." "Everybody's frame of reference is changing," Col. Ben Hodges, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 101st, said shortly after arriving here Wednesday night. "The enemy always gets a vote. You fight the enemy and not the plan. I personally underestimated the willingness of the Fedayeen to fight, or maybe overestimated the willingness of the Shiites to rise up." Analysis: I think we're seeing something important here. First, we have intelligent officers leading our units in Iraq that understand the complexities of military operations. They're not dumb; they know they have to be flexible in the face of enemy contact. For what it's worth, LTG Wallace is a Vietnam veteran who's been around the Army for a long time. Second, these remarks reveal some "big picture" knowledge of the battlefield, even at the lowest levels. Col. Hodges is not a senior commander; he only commands a brigade. Yet, he has a fairly accurate picture of the entire battlefield -- he's able to see himself, see the enemy, and see the terrain. That situational awareness enables him to make informed judgments about how/where/when to employ his forces. I think we'll start to see some really innovative things from V Corps in the coming days and weeks. These commanders are not going to let the Iraqis seize the initiative. They're going to gather intelligence, develop a plan, and take the fight to the enemy. More to follow. Yes, we underestimated Hussein's ability to place women and children in front of military snipers, we underestimated the fact he'd shell his own people just trying to get to safety, we underestimated it all. But, like Phil Carter, I have every confidence our military leaders are not going to rush into anything costing unnecessary coalition or citizen lives. Plans are made to be adapted; they should have a life of their own. We'll adapt ours to the current situation. JB

To: michael97123 who wrote (87208)	3/28/2003 11:58:37 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

These captains believe badgad and then the regime will implode from the inside That's interesting. I still expect the regime to implode - just because it hasn't imploded yet, doesn't mean it won't. Remember in 1998, we spent a few weeks bombing Serbia, and the media were crying "it isn't working, it isn't working" - right up until Milosevic folded. Concentration now should be on killing republican guard formations. Eventually when it becomes clear that the US wont cut and run(somalia) as the regime believes and that the iraqi military cannot inflict enough pain to stop the US, individual ministers, generals, etc will cut deals. The hesitancy perhaps?? to use chem weapons is part of this end game. The silver lining to having to fight the RG is that we will kill a lot of guys who need killing if we hope to rebuild Iraq on a better model.