Vorkosigan

...was justified. Indeed, at least the combat phase of this disaster seems to be going well. Civilian casualties are low by the Iraqi government count, and the troops, after the initial plan failed, recovered. Baghdad looks like it will fall with small loss. The Iraqis are not, thankfully, rising in full-scale revolt, and the Kurds are quiscient. Maybe I should revise my opinion.....

Vorkosgian

Zar

I want to respond, but first, which comments of mine are you referring to? Can you quote them?

Loren Pechtel

Who says Bush is competent? The army functions despite him, not because of him.

Ion

Zar,

it's about your recent thread, in which your opening post was claiming that Bush no matter how wrong he was to overrule U.N. and declare a U.S. solo war, was still going to pull it.

I can look for the thread, if you need a reminder.

As for what the thread said, yes, according to today's newspaper it looks like U.N. will mend fences with U.S., in spite of the U.S. breach of the U.N. chart, and take the newly created situation in stride.

Powell was saying that U.N. should supervise the rebuilding of Iraq, after U.S. leads the way;
read, after U.S. pockets most contracts and directs who follows U.S..

Europeans are disputing Powell's wish, and want U.N. including Iraqis in the rebuilding of Iraq, right from the beginning of the phase of rebuilding.

Zar

Ion,

Okay, now I know what you guys mean. And yes, it does look like some of my pessimistic "predictions" are coming true, so far.

But what still remains is:

1) Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not finding any significant amounts will be a big problem.
2) How the cities are taken. Lots of blood is bad, and still not out of the question.

In a situation like this, you hope that things go well for the sake of the Iraqis, even if you deplore what is happening and why it is happening. In this sense, it is a good thing if the neocon plan actually comes to fruition and they don't have to wage bloody war for months and months to win. Still, this doesn't make it "okay" in principle or in particulars for America and the world, nor should it be taken as a lesson for the future on this basis.

After all, if Soviet Russia, in its righteous might, attacked and successfully dominated a country, would anyone in America cheer them on the basis of their success? Unfortunately, many in the West may do just that. Success breeds a following, even sometimes if it is into hell.

Ion

For a few days in the newspapers now, Bush shifted to liberation of Iraq.

Never mind that Iraqis don't like Saddam, and don't like Bush.

So, on the Bush's side, gone is "Saddam must disarm." that I was reading in newspapers as being the Bush's ultimatum, even as close as 48 hours before the war, otherwise Bush was to attack Iraq, which he did anyway on this false pretext.
I still believe that a well funded U.N.-led coalition, imposing surveillance of Saddam first (in the style of inspections, 'Food for Oil', spying, freezing of assets and travel), before having a direct confrontation with Saddam, would have had chances to be less bloody than Bush's attack on Iraq.

ex-idaho

The real challenge in this adventure is going to be post collapse. The only way for Bush and Rummy mantain control of the cities will be to declare martial law. This will play horribly in the ME and will only inspire more hatred of the US.

By the way the one pessimistic prediction that seems to have come true is the increase in anti-American venom spewing from the people on the streets of the ME.

Zar

I have to add here that besides problems with the war that are far from resolved, the U.S. ecomony is in sorry shape. It may experience such difficulties that it will make further adventures like Iraq impossible, and soon. It may even make the Iraq "peace" very difficult.

Also, I have to say that I am really just not sure what is actually happening with this war. The reporting from various sources in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East are becoming increasingly divergent and fragmented. One day an airport is taken, the next day, maybe not. One day the Americans are in Baghdad, the next maybe not. One day the Iraqi Shiite Ayatollah says "fight the infidels", the next day Centcom (of all people) claims he took it back, and then the next day representatives of the Ayatollah deny there was any change in the message and its "fight the infidels" again. The U.S. still seems to put their claims far ahead of accomplishment, just like at the beginning of the war...they haven't learned their lesson. The Iraqis seem at times to be making wild, unsubstantiated claims, while other times they seem to be able to give specific accounts of battle results in their favor. Sometimes the same fact is interpreted by the U.S. as "winning" when the Iraqis seem to suggest that the Americans are simply falling for decoys and calling an Iraqi retreat to Baghdad a "destruction" of their forces because it sounds good when the Iraqis probably see it as part of their plan. Still other times it seems as if the U.S. forces are nowhere near where they say they are and the Iraqis derisively say they are "wagging the dog" and lying to the world.

I think were are going from a was "fog" to a war "blackout."

I think the U.S. leadership is so sensitive to negtive press because their war plans rely so heavily on misinformation and political games. They can't control the message if people keep exposing that things are not as they seem.

I keep watching, wondering if anything said by anyone is true. We could be in this same position a month or two from now.

I mean, take a look at this depressing commentary by the Asia Times: The war that may end the age of superpower.

Also, notice this part:

See the thread below I started on this topic earlier. It looks like the Asia Times stole my idea!

'Right' on 'Right' Antagonism

Zar

Update: It seems that reports are trickling in from Reuters and the BBC that indeed, there was no sign of the U.S. forces in Baghdad. Also, Saddam airport remains clouded in mystery, with the U.S. saying it still has troops "in the area" while the Iraqi Information ministrer defiantly says the Iraqis routed the Americans there in a battle and ejected them from the airport.

This just gets crazier by the hour.

Krieger

Yep, I heard the Iraqis retook Saddam International Airport.