Author Topic: From the Moscow Times...  (Read 582 times)

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
From the Moscow Times...
« on: April 04, 2003, 04:22:26 PM »
A thoughtful analysis of the Iraq Strategy
I got this from the Moscow Times.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/04/03/009.html

In his famed book "The Art of War," Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote 2,500 years ago: "War is all deceit. If you can do something, make the enemy believe you cannot; if you are close, pretend you are far away." Last week in Iraq both sides were playing Sun Tzu to the limit: The allies faked weakness and disarray, the Iraqis faked strength and confidence.

It's easy to understand why Hussein and his cohorts were claiming victory was at hand. Their only hope is to coerce Iraq's army and people to continue a senseless resistance and hold out while growing casualties fracture U.S. morale.

The 1993 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia after an unsuccessful encounter in Mogadishu (the story told in the movie "Black Hawk Down") is still very much on everyone's mind. Americans are soft and afraid of close encounters: If more than Mogadishu's 19 soldiers are killed, the American public will press for an end to hostilities. After Sept. 11, this it is not so, but that notion has not yet sunken in.

The U.S. and British allies also had a good reason to cheat. By faking weakness and portraying an inability to make a decisive push for overall victory without weeks of preparation and reinforcement, the U.S. military command apparently hoped to trick the Iraqis into keeping their best units in the field rather than withdrawing immediately to Baghdad, where defeating the Republican Guard would come at a higher cost.

All last week, the authorities deliberately fed the press and pundits with fake stories of the campaign plan gone wrong, of Iraqi resistance having "bogged down" the troops. There were constant reports that the allies had too few solders to win the coming battle for Baghdad and that crucial reinforcements would arrive only in three to four weeks.

The most outrageous piece of strategic disinformation released last week was that U.S. forward units were out of food and that restocking would take more than a week. Perhaps the intelligence officer who invented that yarn was reading some account of the American Civil War, when food rations arrived by mule.

Of course, the disinformation was fed to the public and to the enemy correctly: It all came from "unnamed reliable sources." Toeing the official line, the Pentagon repudiated stories of the war plan gone awry. But their denials were feeble and not convincing. When the allied troops began a concerted advance earlier this week, I heard a Western reporter in Baghdad relay the mood there: This cannot be true. They do not have enough troops.

If one pierces through the many lies both sides have circulated, the true picture looks like this: The allies have never been truly bogged down. The supply crunch and the reported lack of sufficient troops were grossly exaggerated. And the "Iraqi resistance" was more an annoyance than a real strategic problem.

In two weeks of fighting, the Iraqis have not been able to shoot down a single allied warplane. (In 1991, they took down 38 jets and maimed many more.) In two weeks of intense ground fighting, the allies have so far lost less than 100 men, which includes casualties of friendly fire and accidents, not Iraqi action.

In comparison, the German blitzkrieg against Poland in 1939 that is considered a masterpiece, took the lives of 13,799 German solders in 18 days with 30,322 wounded. The losses were considered insignificant. The Polish army of 1939 is comparable in overall strength with Hussein's force. In their Middle East wars, the Israelis have encountered far greater casualties than the allies today in Iraq.

"Iraqi resistance" has been patchy and highly inefficient. Hussein's forces have given up a number of intact bridges to the allies -- over the Euphrates, the Tigris and the Shatt al-Arab, indicating Iraqi forces' lack of discipline and organization.

The several-days pause by advancing U.S. and British forces was needed to pound to bits the Republican Guard lingering outside Baghdad. Attack planes were moved to the front from Kuwait to improvised airstrips in the desert to provide better close air support.

But Iraqi forces were tricked into believing they still had time since the enemy was strategically "far away," when in fact a potent allied force was in Hussein's backyard ready to advance to victory.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst


__________________

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2003, 04:49:16 PM »
plenty of "thoughtful analysis ' are avaible after the fight and many "military experts' will write books on what "really" happened and why.

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2003, 05:13:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
plenty of "thoughtful analysis ' are avaible after the fight and many "military experts' will write books on what "really" happened and why.


Well....  yea..... that's what usually happens, but I found this article very timely and interesting because of how it dealt with disinformation and the use of the News Media as a 'tool of war.'  

What are your feeling on that?

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2003, 05:32:39 PM »
I loved this part:

".....Americans are soft and afraid of close encounters: If more than Mogadishu's 19 soldiers are killed, the American public will press for an end to hostilities. After Sept. 11, this it is not so, but that notion has not yet sunken in."

In other words, the reason that the public hasn't caved and pressed for an end to the hostilities despite there being many more than 19 casualties, is because they haven't yet *realized* that they can't stomache it. :)

Hehe... and an article in the Moscow Times is the basis of a discussion on "disinformation and the use of the News Media as a 'tool of war", as if the article itself can be removed from the equation.

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2003, 05:51:29 PM »
After Sept. 11, this it is not so, but that notion has not yet sunken in."

It's quite clear to me that he means  the Iraqi's who don't understand 'the notion', not the citizens of the USA.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2003, 05:57:52 PM by Otto »

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2003, 06:17:13 PM »
Quite clear?

He says "Americans are soft and afraid of close encounters..."

Not:

"Iraq believes the Americans are soft and afraid of close encounters..."

If you travel further back up the article, he talks about the Iraqi state of mind in their hope that growing casualties fracture U.S. morale. He uses Mogadishu and the U.S's resolve there as a basis for it.

Maybe it's just sloppy writing or a sloppy translation, but whatever it is, the article is as much presumption or wishfull thinking while at the very same time pointing out those qualities in the subjects he's writing about.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2003, 06:29:24 PM »
Nash the writer of the article is saying Iraq is wrong in it's belief that americans will not accept casualties, he points to 911 as the reason for this change...


Read it this way:

The 1993 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia after an unsuccessful encounter in Mogadishu is still very much on everyone's mind.

This is whats on the Iraqis mind:
 
Americans are soft and afraid of close encounters: If more than Mogadishu's 19 soldiers are killed, the American public will press for an end to hostilities.

This is why the Iraqis are wrong:

After Sept. 11, this it is not so, but that notion has not yet sunken in (to the Iraqis).
« Last Edit: April 04, 2003, 06:31:42 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2003, 06:41:16 PM »
sept 11 had nothing to do with it, americans have always liked to kill bad guys. the problem is the americans have to teach this lesson over and over, ...when will they ever learn , when will they ever learn.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2003, 06:42:09 PM »
Ok then the writer sucks. :D

Just read the sentence again:

"Americans are soft and afraid of close encounters: If more than Mogadishu's 19 soldiers are killed, the American public will press for an end to hostilities. After Sept. 11, this it is not so, but that notion has not yet sunken in."

He's not quoting any Iraqi. He's stating it as a conclusion he himself has reached. If he used "Iraqi's believe..." at the beginning, or "...with the Iraqi people" at the end, then it would say what y'all suggest it does.

But fine. :) If it says what you think it says, then I agree with it. The Iraqis are deluding themselves.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2003, 07:42:38 PM by Nash »

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2003, 06:46:14 PM »
Hehe.... Grun, in that case he shoulda put the colon between "mind" and "Americans".... and a period at the end of "encounters". As it is, if we think it says something different than it actually *does* say, then we're just guessing.

I need a beer, right? Yup... yup.... otw :)

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2003, 08:10:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Ok then the writer sucks. :D


Or the translator

-Sik
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2003, 08:13:48 PM »
Well Nash the tone of the article is clearly not anti-american, so with that in mind my interpretation makes sense.

Offline osage

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 411
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2003, 04:06:16 AM »
The "encounter in Mogadishu" was in fact, successful, if Pyhhric.

They accomplished the objective:  to snag some of Aidid's top aides.

The also waxed an ungodly number of "skinnies" in the process.  The K/D ratio was probably over 100:1.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2003, 12:20:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by osage
The also waxed an ungodly number of "skinnies" in the process.  The K/D ratio was probably over 100:1.


...according to the "Blackhawk Down" movie.

Offline Ike 2K#

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
From the Moscow Times...
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2003, 10:10:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
sept 11 had nothing to do with it, americans have always liked to kill bad guys. the problem is the americans have to teach this lesson over and over, ...when will they ever learn , when will they ever learn.


They (americans) will learn by not spliting jerusalem for the arabs and the jews.