The cowardly art of the fake surrender

I think your idea of his strategy is probably about right except that I'm not sure that what we have seen so far has much strategy to it. The indications are that central command and control has pretty much broken down, and that instead, what we are seeing is local guerilla-style resistance. That can be quite effective at inflicting casualties in the short run, but without command and control, and without resupply, there is a limit to how much utility you can get out of that strategically.

Of course, that may not be the case closer to Baghdad. Command and control may be intact there, although allied troops are only about 60 miles from Baghdad right now. If we are going to start seeing organized resistance, it is going to have to be soon.

Two things should be fairly obvious. First, what Saddam's strategy is matters less than whether his troops are willing or able to implement it. It's quite possible that orders to use chemical weapons in the city could be given, and that the troops would be unwilling to carry them out. It would amount to murdering their own population, quite different from using chemical weapons on Kurds. It also wouldn't have much utility against fully prepared and well-equipped US and British troops. And finally, it would be suicide because the second Iraqis start firing chemical shells, they will receive radar-guided counter-battery fire.

Secondly, I think it is quite apparent that the US and its allies are still using enormous restraint. I think that is deliberate, part of a strategy to separate out the real resistance from the troops willing to surrender. I haven't seen any footage or reports of heavy fire at all. In particular, no carpet bombing, and no use of heavy artillery. Instead, the tactic used has been to send in the infantry, almost without cover. That increases US and allied casualties, but decreases the risks to civilians and surrendering Iraqi military. I'm sure you are probably right that Saddam wants to draw US troops into close quarters firefights. But I'm not so sure he is succeeding as a tactical matter, or if it just happens to coincide with the strategy being used by the allies.

.

.

I agree with you in principle, but look where playing the good guy got you last time. Here.

It just isn't as simple as you make it sound, and as we'd all like it to be.



No probs.

I think it was Mark that mentioned it.

General overview:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

It lists Hamas, but I think Hezbollah was sending missiles from Iraq through Syria not too long ago as well.

You know, that story that was in the Times the other day really short-circuits Iraqi history. Saddam wasn't the leader of the Ba'ath party at the time of the 1963 coup, and the Ba'ath party was never particularly friendly to the US. It was and is an Arab nationalist/socialist party allied at that time with Nasserite forces in Egypt and Syria, and loosly allied with the Soviet Union. To imply (as many seem to be doing) that Saddam was ever a US puppet is playing seriously fast and loose with history.

Note what Simey said about this making it harder to surrender. It makes the troops seem less disciplined, but who would benefit from such a situation? Iraqi command. You have a disloyal rank and file, it is in your best interest to make it harder for them to surrender, so they have to stand and fight.

BlackGriffen

Please is america the ONLY country to have experienced a terrorist attack

Hey finboy: what happened to that story the other day about the press release the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (killers of Leon Klinghoffer) put out. They said that one of those commanders was killed in Saddam's bunker at the begining of the war. Andrew Sullivan linked to it, but his archives for last week aren't working. Did you see it anywhere else? If a top terrorist was meeting with Saddam at the time of the strike, that is at least interesting for those who deny any connection.

Also there is the little fact that the Abu Nidal group were sheltered by Iraq for years. Of course, it was probably also Saddam's government who put a bullet in his head. Oh, wait. No. That was just a suicide with two shots.

.

I'm off to bed now, but I wanted to mention this point.

Now that the US has decided to start this war; now that American, English and Australian troops (mostly, apologies about others I've not mentioned) are now engaging Iraqi troops; I know it has to be finished, and I hope the allies emerge victorious, with as few casualties as possible - on both sides.

I'm still against this war and am disgusted by my own countries involvement, as well as the involvement of the US and the UK. I'm also still disgusted by the troops I've seen on television cheering and high-fiving when they make a direct hit, and those who are treating the Iraqi people like sub-human monsters from the depths of hell.

I hope this is all over very soon, as I'm sure everyone does, and as painlessly as possible.

It's too late to hope for anything else, or to protest against the war, or even really whine about it - the event horizon has been breached.

Don't mean to be obtuse about this, but all this link does is regurgitate the "We say so, so it is" stuff that we've already heard. There are no specifics. There is no mention of how we know these things. Do we have records of trasnactions? Why not show them? I think this is what I'm more interested in seeing. I don't tend to believe what I'm told simply because I'm told.

No wonder OBL declined to hook up with Saddam....Not exactly the most stable of hosts.

The only one on that scale, yes. But that isn't the point. We are the clear targets of terrorists who would use WMD if they could. You should be worrying about that too. Just because your terrorists have been happy with small attacks doesn't mean they always will be. I was in Italy at about the time the Red Brigade blew up the Bologna train station in the 1970s. The Red Brigade are no longer viable, but just imagine if a group like that had had access to WMD?

You collectively seem to think that such a nightmare isn't possible, but it is. We woke up on Sept. 11th. I hope that it doesn't take something equally horrific for Europe and other parts of the world to wake up.

well, you're a wonderful person.

(waits to see if boots will believe this)

Did not say he was a puppet. I am saying we were instrumental in that action. Which we were. And please to point to NYT article. I saw other stuff elsewhere.

IIRC, Saddam became vice president of Iraq in 1970, and then staged his coup in 1979. There were a lot of people suprised to learn that Stalin was his personal hero after he had become well entrenched in the mid 70's.

I wasn't saying you were saying that he was a puppet. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying that. I'm reacting to the tenor of a large number of posts over the last few months that seem to imply a much closer connection US and western to the Iraqi Ba'ath regime than ever was the case.

The NYT op ed is here. There was a thread about it the other day. But as I say, I think the history as he presents it is at least debatable.

Yes, several months ago when Congress gave Bush the authority.

No, we could have just carpet bombed them with nukes. We're trying to be more discriminating than that.