 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| No Contest | |
Fox News
reports today:
An estimated 600 to 1,000 Iraqi troops were killed during the operation, said
Col. David Perkins. "We had a lot of suicide attackers today," he said. "These
guys are going to die in droves ... They keep trying to ram the tanks with car
bombs." Earlier in the war, US
forces appeared to be struggling against waves of brave, if misguided, soldiers
attacking their supply lines. As one soldier put it 'this is not the enemy
we war-gamed against'. However at Baghdad, the Republican Guard have taken
on the US forces head to head and this Jihad is making the US soldiers think that
all their Christmases have come at once. Thousands of years ago when enemy clans ran at each other with club or
swords and hacked at each other, bravery was critical. But a culture of bravado is no match
for a modern military
machine. A car bomb will simply not take out a US tank. These people are
throwing away their lives. They would actually do more good for their cause if they lay in front of
the tanks and let themselves be crushed. The military impact would be the same,
and the psychological impact (from being televised around the world) would be a
thousand times of times greater. The strongest image of the 1980s was a picture of a single man standing in
front of a tank on the Avenue of Eternal Peace after the massacre at Tienanmen Square. One
man who was willing to come out in the light of day, to challenge those who had
stolen his right to his liberty - to cut him down for the whole world to
see. He didn't win his liberty, but he kept his life, and won his dignity in a
nation of exploitation and repression. The image of ten men, praying for peace while being crushed by an
American tank, beamed into a billion homes around the world, would stop the
war. The most formidable fighting machines in history cannot roll over 300
kilos of soft, yeilding pacifist flesh. The resulting shock and awe would force
the Americans to stop the advance on Baghdad, and to negotiate a truce. But Saddam's men won't do that. That strategy doesn't feature in a mind-set
obsessed by bravado, force
and repression. They will run into a battle screaming for another's blood, and
the entire world will be thankful for their deaths.
|
|
 |
| When duty calls .. | |
There are few things in life more pleasurable than spending other people's
money. Indeed the average
voter in a social
democracy likes it so much they are even willing to let other people spend
their own money in exchange. Surely a worthy tradeoff for those volunteering
for it, just a little unfair on those of us who would like to opt out of the
scheme. But spending of other people's money is about to happen on a massive
international scale. Billions of dollars are going to be spent on rebuilding Iraq when the current regime
falls (or is ignored), and the bill is going to be sent to Iraqis, and taken
out of future oil sales. Nothing wrong with this in principle - the oil has been stolen from the
Iraqi people by a psychotic dictator for the last 25 years, and there is not
yet a legitimate government in Iraq. The US is going to set up an interim
administration - like the proud guardian of a orphan with a rich estate, which
they can use at their discretion to provide for their charge until they come of
age. There are going to massive rebuilding contracts, administered by the US,
and the one contract given so far is to (you guessed it) a US company. And the
taxes from any profits go to (yup) the US government. Further, your ABC reports that
The US House of Representatives passed a supplementary budget amendment
excluding Russia, France, Germany and Syria from taking part in US-funded
reconstruction bids in Iraq.
Not a very utilitarian way to appropriate other people's money, but a very
effective one. Anxious to do the right thing, Australian officials, have raised questions
about the legitimacy of automatically giving the contracts to US companies.
But they haven't called for open tenders to all and sundry, with the contracts
going to the best-and-cheapest. They have simply demanded a slice of the action
too. Apparently they don't want to compete fairly on an open market - they want
a 'fair' share of the contracts for rebuilding Iraq! Apparently the notion that spending other people's money has obligations
(like getting the best value for that money) hasn't occurred to the US
government in the rush to Baghdad. Buying new Iraqi infrastructure on
international free
market would be more equitable than the hand-in-pocket solution. Giving a
contract to a Frog would
stick in the throat of any reasonable person, but if they are the best bidder,
then does it not become an obligation? Sadly, it seems that all of Iraq's oil is not enough to lubricate the free
market.
|
|
 |
| Killing an Arab | |
The peace protesters have
been at it again, and most Australians feel that (apart
from demonstrating that there really are legitimate uses of Sarin gas) they
have achieved nothing. Taking the day off to throw a few chairs at police,
while knowing that your civil rights are still protected is good fun, and
calling yourself a victim
in the SBS sound-byte afterward
is an added bonus. In terms of changing the world though, the frontline troops
in Iraq are doing that, not
the whining protesters. But criticizing stupid people is a bit like screaming 'Sexist! Sexist!' at any man who
wins an argument with a feminist. It's too easy! In
fairness, maybe the protests have changed something? The protests have been widely publicized all over the world - particularly
in the Middle East, and
while most Australians have looked at the actions of the protesters and just
thought 'those morons are at it again', it would have been perceived
quite differently in Iraq. If anti-government demonstrations on this scale were held in Iraq, it would
be a pretty sure sign that the Iraqi government was about to
collapse. The inability of their own government to quash such demonstrations
would show that they had already lost control. The thought of Saddam sending
most of his active troops to the other side of the world while hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis protested in the streets is unthinkable. It is quite natural, and perhaps even logical, for an Iraqi, who has never
known democracy, to see
the protests as a sign that the will of the coalition is in a state of
collapse, their governments are about to fall, and the troops are about to give
up fighting and go home. The result? More resistance from the Saddam loyalists; more reluctance from
the rest of the population to fight Saddam; a longer war; more suffering; more
death. They saw what happened when Bush Sr and Bill (pants-down) Clinton
checked their popularity polls - they went home, and they think that history
will repeat. So for any psycho with a pathological hatred of Iraqi citizens: kill an
Iraqi today - join a peace
protest.
|
|
 |
| MRE - Meal Ready to Eat | |
'Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics', the
military experts are fond
of telling us, but it sounds as though they didn't spend enough time listening
to their own advice in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recent reports are that the supply line is so stretched that the front line
troops are only getting one MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) per day. Of course if it's
anything like hospital food, that could be an advantage, but it still indicates
severe supply problems for the US forces. And it's not only supplying their own troops that the coalition has trouble
with. The world witnessed the hand-outs of the first supplies to desperate
hungry Iraqis in Umm Qasar,
and many were appalled by what they saw. Soldiers tried to control the Iraqi
crowd, but were overcome and had to let the Iraqis help themselves. Fit young
men boarded the truck and dropped large boxes of supplies to the crowd, who
fought over the boxes like seagulls over bread crumbs. Instead of handing out food in small packets, which even small children could carry, and
no-one could carry too much of (powerful men have the same number of hands as
women and children), it was issued in large boxes ensuring that fewer people
got food, and those who did were the strongest and fittest. An unlikely
humanitarian objective. So what is the optimal way to hand out food in such situations? Markets
work well in most situations, and people who understand markets know that
rewarding need destroys incentives, and causes more hardship in the
long-term. But this is clearly an example of market failure. These people don't
have money to buy the food,
they have little to trade with, and are close to starving. Shocking though it is, the answer is a Soviet-style queuing
system. Telling people in advance when food will arrive, making them queue, and
handing out a small amount to each person in the queue. The cost for each
person is the time waiting in the queue, so the people who get the food are the
most desperate - the ones who are willing to wait the longest. While this won't feed those who are too sick or weak to queue, there is no
system which will solve that problem in the short term. It's the lesser of the
evils. Strange that with all the logistics experts in the US military, they haven't
thought of this. Perhaps because markets, and market failures are not part of
the military mind-set. Large armies do in fact have a lot in common with command economies. The
1.3 million people in the US army do not work within a market system (though
they may trade externally with markets). Everyone in the US military works
strictly for the good of the machine (or for the furthering of their careers
within that system) - just like a command economy. This explains why the
military is so inefficient, and why a hammer can cost $US500.00, and it can
only survive by taking tax
money out of the capitalist economy which supports it. Perhaps it also explains
why market insights are beyond the military planners. Meanwhile, Iraqis scrabbling and fighting for food have lost something more
valuable than the food itself - their dignity. People will remember the loss of
their dignity far longer than the hunger and physical suffering which the war
has brought. The US has just made the peace a little bit harder to win.
|
|
 |
| Entering the gates of hell | |
Saddam has promised the coalition forces that they will enter the gates of
hell when they get to Baghdad. An apt description considering the destruction,
explosions and trenches of burning oil the war-struck city has seen over the
past week. But will the smell which greets the US soldiers be brimstone, the
burning oil, or the juicy-fruit smell of Sarin gas? Few people really doubt the war's eventual outcome. Saddam will go, one way
or another. The major issue for the US is the cost of a human life. They can
kill lots of civilians, save some money, and get Saddam quickly, or it can wait
a while, spend a whole lot more money and kill more US soldiers, but save some
more Iraqi civilians. But if Saddam were to get his old chemistry set out of the closet, things
would change. Suddenly the smoking gun would be there for all to see, and in
the excitement, a few civilian kilo-deaths would barely make page six of
France's Le Monde. Saddam, though, will have to be pushed a bit harder to take that option, and
even then he will only take it if he thinks it can save him. It's in the nature
of the beast to use any means necessary for survival, and Saddam's longevity
suggests that his survival instinct is quite strong. Many people would even say
that using any means for survival is a fundamental human right. But Saddam wants something besides survival - to leave an heroic legacy,
and this presents the US with a dilemma. If they convince Saddam he is going to
die he will go out fighting the hard fight, and try to leave a legacy of
martyrdom. If they doddle around and make him think that his chemistry set will
save his bacon, he will use it. But in that case his use of WMDs will
vindicate their attack on Iraq in the eyes the international community. And in the background the Americans are thinking that the Baghdad issue is
really just a matter of 45 square kilometers of Iraqi real estate. Nothing that
a few dozen Daisy Cutters or MOABs couldn't sort out once and
for all. Meanwhile, the US soldiers are taking a break in the Iraqi desert to find
their bearings. It will require more than the passing of a sand-storm to
provide a clear direction in this dilemma.
|
|
 |
| Reality Check | |
If making a war go to plan
were a measure of success, then the score so far would have to go to
Saddam. Saddam promised the Americans hell, and that's pretty much what they
gotten so far. George promised a speedy decisive win with grateful Iraqis
throwing flowers at US troops,
and so far it's just been rude gestures and hand-grenades. The question on every armchair general's lips of course is 'what will
happen when they get to Baghdad?' 45 square kilometers of urban sprawl
full of people who, in varying degrees, have benefited from Saddam's rule. Democracies tend to
subsidize their
outlying regions to discouraging them from seceding. Dictatorships on the
other hand tend to repress their outer regions, and heavily subsidize their
capitals. Dictatorships are based on a central power-block, and concentric
circles of middle-level agents. Everyone in Baghdad is, to some extent, a middle-level agent. They fear
they will be worse off in a chaotic or democratic Iraq. And they certainly
be much worse off if they show disloyalty to a Saddam who survives. The US started this war with a credibility problem - caused by their
history encouraging Iraqi uprisings and refusing to assist them. And now the
war has bogged down, their credibility problem is even worse. Everyone in Iraq
now believes that either
- The Americans will get body-bag fatigue and go home; or
- The Americans can get the job done without help from the locals.
Either way, they see little point helping the Americans. The Americans desperately need something to convince disgruntled Iraqis to
defect - either convincing them that the US is going to win, or creating a
situation in which self-interest will make the populations turn against their
military masters. To convince people they will win, they can take several strategies:
- Taking Basra. Once Basra falls, both north, and south Iraq will be
lost, and the Regime may crumble. The US originally thought they could contain
Basra, and just march around it. However, it's too big, and it's too close to
their supply lines. They now seem interesting in taking it before they take Baghdad.
- Bring in more guns. In true US-marines style, they are doing
this, but the heavy armor has to come through the Suez and then the Gulf since
the Turks refused land access. [And boy are the Turks going to pay for that
one. They ain't going to be suckling on the US tit anytime soon.]
The other option for the US is to create a situation in which people judge
that it is in their interests to rebel. Saddam has cut off food and water to
Basra out of habit (it always help to quash rebellions before), but in this
case it may provide the impetus for an uprising. In the long-run though, the US has to take out Saddam, and his son Qusay.
Uday (his other son) is a harmless psycho, who is too much into torturing
people and raping underage girls to be a serious leadership contender. But Saddam has been a little rattled too. The Daily Telegraph claims that Saddam
offered to live in exile in Syria as long as Qusay could take over. US
officials laughed that this suggestion. Apparently the thought of dynastic succession without a fair election goes
against the grain for the average American - particularly as sons tend to
follow in the footsteps of their fathers, and perpetuate unresolved causes.
|
|
 |
| POWs through the fog of war | |
US officials have been fuming at the site of American POWs getting the hard
word on Al-jazeera by their Iraqi captors. Footage of injured and apparently
frightened US soldiers answering questions has been shown on the Arab TV
network by captors which weren't overtly threatening, but apparently felt the
need to physically touch their captives as they questioned them. One response was
hilarious: Interrogator: Why are you here?
US Soldier: I'm here because they told me to. I just obey orders.
Interrogator: Did you come here to kill Iraqis?
US Soldier: No, I'm here to fix stuff. My orders are only to shoot if I'm shot at.
They shot first, so I shot back. They shot first.
.. OK, you had to be there. Rank, they say, has its privileges, but clearly this soldier knows how to
take advantages of low rank. All in a night's good clean viewing for Al-jazeera, but something that US
government censors in the US apparently felt the need to protect their citizens
from. The Whitehouse has gone as far as asking US networks not to show the
footage on US TV. They clearly feel that a bit of reality-warfare might weaken
resolve at home. Just as the Iraqi government feels the need to let their
people how resoundingly they are winning the war, to stiffen their resolve. The US decided to make the war a media event, 'embedding' journalists with
troops as they went into Iraq. It gave them greater credibility in the eyes of
their own people, those of other nations, and the Iraqis themselves who are
more likely to surrender if they see how the war is actually going. But like a petulant celebrity who uses the media, and then complains about
invasive paparazzi not leaving them alone, the US has spat the dummy when the
real-time media war has become real-life. And it will get much worse than this. But this is what war is. Let no-one who was pro-war turn away from that. Unfortunately in Iraq, this is also what peace is. Let no-one who was
anti-war turn away from that.
|
|
 |
| Precision Targeting | |
Wars always bring surprises, and operation Iraqi Freedom has brought a few
already. Some people may have thought that the mind-games ended with the
diplomatic failures in the UN, but it seems both the US and Iraq are still
playing. Everyone expected the US to adopt their shock-and-awe strategy immediately, and
drop 3000 smart bombs onto strategic targets in Baghdad. Instead they made some
surgical strikes in an effort to take out Saddam himself. It failed, but it revealed some interesting things. Clearly the US have
intelligence about Saddam's movements. It may be electronic surveillance
(listing into mobile phone conversations comes to mind), but it is more likely
to be someone close to the man himself. The US intelligence forces have been phoning senior Iraqi officials for some
time. Why? Well, they are keeping in touch - discussing footy results, telling a
few dirty jokes and discussing the protocols for surrender. No well-informed Iraqi expects Saddam to remain in power, and they also
know the bombing will continue until Saddam is removed. Regardless of how much
they dislike the Americans, if the Iraqis let the US know where Saddam is, they
will have less of their country destroyed by the bombs. Neither they, nor the
Americans, want to rebuild more of Iraq than they have to. So it looks like Saddam has a rat in the ranks, and now he has a choice:
- he can keep a high profile, and increase the number of people who know
where he is, and can rat to the US;
- he can bunker down, and have people suspect he is already dead, and defect
in droves.
Saddam's main political tools are cheat and retreat, and knowing who to
kill. It's hard to see how those tried-and-true techniques will help him find
his exit-strategy from this mind maze.
|
|
 |
| Nobody's Fool | |
The first causality of war is normally the truth, but in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, this honor might be Simon Crean's. He has said that Australia's
actions are illegal, and that Australia has broken international law. Simon's problem (like most leftists) is an inability to
think ahead. Many leftist policies sound good until the longer term costs are
considered, and Simon suffers the same myopia. If Simon were to win the prime-ministership in the next election, Australia would have a prime
minister who, by his own admission, agrees that Australia has illegally invaded
another country. Australia would be liable for reparations and Australian
soldiers, having signed up for Australia's defense and sent to gulf without
given a choice, would be liable for prosecution as war criminals. Someone clearly pointed out this error today, and he has been repeating the
mantra, but with the repeated clarification "but the decision itself does
not expose Australian troops to legal action as a consequence." He thinks
that this will save his skin. Of course this is nonsense. The point is that he will have admitted the
actions were illegal, regardless of whether (in his opinion) action can be
taken or not. If you admit to a crime, you admit to a crime. How often you insist
'but I can't be prosecuted for it', is irrelevant. At the next election voters may be given the choice of voting for someone who
insists that Australia acted correctly, or someone who admits illegality, and
therefore leaves Australia (and Australians) vulnerable to international legal
actions (regardless of whether he insists that action can be taken or not). On the other hand, Australians may not be given that choice. The
powerbrokers in the ALP may
offer another prime-ministerial contender. Strictly speaking, shooting yourself in the foot can count you as a war
casualty, though self-inflicted injuries get you little sympathy.
|
|
 |
| Just like the real thing, only in Iraq | |
With George (six-gun) Bush's 48 hour ultimatum expiring midday tomorrow, Alex
('the things that batter') Downer predicting an immediate start of the war,
and the Soldiers of the Willing moving in convoys into the de-militarized zone,
Saddam's political career faces an unprecedented challenge. There's still a small chance that the military pressure will eject Saddam
from Iraq like a zit, but the cyst is looking a bit too robust for such a
simple solution. Iraq has to face the US military scalpel, and no anesthetic is
available. This operation - 'Iraqi Freedom' - is going to hurt. And since Saddam has formally rejected Bush's ultimatum, the US is
under no obligation to wait until the deadline. The money's down, the
'play' button has been pressed and the video-game is starting right now. The US Republicans were so disgusted with the French that they took French
Fries and French Toast off their menu, replacing them with Freedom Fries, and
Freedom Toast. Maybe Saddam should have changed the name of 'Russian Roulette'?
But it's too late now - this chamber is loaded, Saddam - and the trigger has
been pulled.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
