The references to SecDef Rumsfeld 'ignoring Pentagon advice' that more forces would be needed than were allocated are, on the face of it, troubling. Reading a bit further into the article summary, however, the tone of the source of the allegations sounds more like a disgruntled partisan in the ongoing internecine infighting that occurs within the five sided wind tunnel. And a pretty immature one at that. It is one thing to advocate a certain position during the decision making process, to make your case, and seek your contribution's incorporation, sometimes vehemently - that's what those folks get paid the big extra staff bucks to do. It is quite another to continue the knife fight into the public realm when your pet approach is dismissed or rejected. That's just plain petty, vindictive, and cowardly. So, Mr. 'unidentified senior Pentagon planner' got the satisfaction of dumping his load of sour grapes. Bully for him. Maybe he was just shooting his mouth off. That's ok, right? Sure, until you take that and combine it with 'an unnamed former high-level intelligence official' (translation - out of the loop, uninvolved with current planning or situation, but happy to pontificate to his bud Mr. Hersch about crap he really doesn't have the facts on) saying 'the war was now a stalemate' and..guess what, spin city time. So what have we got? The formula reads out as: disgruntled whiner + clueless loudmouth windbag + journo itching to dish dirt and sell copy. Final product? The steaming POS article going out under the New Yorker banner in it's 7 April edition.
3/29/2003
The references to SecDef Rumsfeld 'ignoring Pentagon advice' that more forces would be needed than were allocated are, on the face of it, troubling. Reading a bit further into the article summary, however, the tone of the source of the allegations sounds more like a disgruntled partisan in the ongoing internecine infighting that occurs within the five sided wind tunnel. And a pretty immature one at that. It is one thing to advocate a certain position during the decision making process, to make your case, and seek your contribution's incorporation, sometimes vehemently - that's what those folks get paid the big extra staff bucks to do. It is quite another to continue the knife fight into the public realm when your pet approach is dismissed or rejected. That's just plain petty, vindictive, and cowardly. So, Mr. 'unidentified senior Pentagon planner' got the satisfaction of dumping his load of sour grapes. Bully for him. Maybe he was just shooting his mouth off. That's ok, right? Sure, until you take that and combine it with 'an unnamed former high-level intelligence official' (translation - out of the loop, uninvolved with current planning or situation, but happy to pontificate to his bud Mr. Hersch about crap he really doesn't have the facts on) saying 'the war was now a stalemate' and..guess what, spin city time. So what have we got? The formula reads out as: disgruntled whiner + clueless loudmouth windbag + journo itching to dish dirt and sell copy. Final product? The steaming POS article going out under the New Yorker banner in it's 7 April edition.
To add fuel to this theory, there's a bit more evidence coming to light that the market explosions were in fact staged by the Saddamites.Just to set the Sayeret Golani record straight. The Sayeret Golani are widely regarded as the best field fighting unit in the IDF. The Matcal are the hide and seek and semi-spook show whereas the Sayeret Golani are the IDF unit that was fashioned on the original SAS and has adapted using the SAS doctrine to meet the threats in their theatre. Some folk think its the Israeli equivalent of the US Rangers but this underestimates its levels of training which allow it an operational flexibility that far exceeds the Rangers. Apart from its recconaissance role, especially LRRP behind enemy lines, it is considered to be best strike unit in the IDF and is used for doing things like taking out terrorist bases and vital enemy positions behind lines, seek and destroy ambushes of targets of opportunity behind enemy lines, spearheading frontal assaults ahead of main assault forces to take out key defensive positions, and anti-terror operations in urban warfare environments. It can operate in patrols of 4 (ala SAS), as pairs (LRRP), as a unit of 12 (ambushes) or in a group of up to 60 (about its full non-reserve operational strength) to spearhead an assualt. A look at its history shows that it is by far and away the most active Sayeret in the IDF and has performed more operations than any other Special Forces unit...including Matcal...by a long shot. Even when the Golani Brigade was considered second rate to the Para's its Sayeret was always considered to be the best kick-arse, hard-driving and devastating unit in the IDF. It has never failed to acheive an objective in combat...even when this has meant taking very high casualties with as many as 1/3 killed and just about everyone else wounded to some degree. And now, back to matters at hand. I see that Rummy has picked up on the threat from Syria. You know that the Iraqis managed to slip out large numbers of WMD and delivery vehicles across the Syrian border before the inspectors got back into Iraq. I guess some of those weapons are being discretely repatriated. If Rummy is looking to draw Syria out into the open (and the Iranians too) he had better be prepared for one hell of a fight. The Israelis will target Damascus and the rest of the Arab world will rip itself apart as the 'street' demands other Arab governments come to Iraq and Syria's assistance. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be in absolute turmoil. But maybe this is Rummy's plan...it would certainly get GW's born-again juices running. In the end we could see regimes deposed in Iraq, Syria, Iran and possibly several other Arab countries. Chaos will reign in the region. If that happens it will be a bloody mess for the US and alliance to sort out. Under those circumstances I don't know if the Alliance could -- or even should attempt to -- sort out the leadership vacuum in those countries...but then again...total defeat may make the population more willing to accept the hand-outs and patronage from America...amazing what the mother of invention (necessity) can do in sorting out people's poor attitudes. BTW: Why doesn't anyone at HQ think that these Baghdad market bombings are -- in fact -- container bombs being exploded by the regime (fedayeen) in market places during the wee hours to engender domestic and international outcry ad sympathy for the regime? The damage I'm seeing on television -- lots of pock-mark sized damage in the walls of buildings that are very low to the ground, shallow craters suggesting a street level blast without predetonation impact, burnt-out cars still largely intact -- does not look at all like the type of damage you'd expect from the explosion of a 1000 - 2000lb cruise-missile or bomb warhead. Damage from ballbearings, metal shavings with collected pieces of cruise-missile shrapnel taken from real missile impact sites and thrown into the shrapnel mix, and incendiary gel to make things burn, is what these market bomings look like to me. I'd say these are flimsy container bombs (which leave very little eveidence of their packaging) of approxmately 500kg and remotely detonated. Also, the bombs appear to be going off in overwhelmingly Shi'ite neighborhoods. Strange that. Could Saddam be trying to prevent a Shi'ite uprising by getting them even more fearful and pissed-off with the infidel Americans? NO! Surely not!
Saddam Hussein has sacked his commander of air defences after a series of surface-to-air missiles malfunctioned and landed on residential areas of Baghdad, Downing Street has claimed. The Prime Minister's official spokesman stopped short of saying that Iraqi missiles were responsible for explosions in two market places in the city this week. But he said that the new intelligence gave reason for "scepticism" over Saddam's claims that the Coalition was to blame for the blasts, which together killed around 65 civilians.
3/28/2003
Posted over at Samizdata. Zips through some of it quite rapidly, but it isn't hard to follow. Oh, but it is in Spanish, though I think even Murray might like it, as you don't have to speak Spanish to get the point. Para mi, no hay ningun dificultades comprenderlo, pues.
It all ended rather badly for the Amalekites in the end. God said "Kill them. Kill them all!", or words to that effect. Once we had our own country, and a monarchy, King Saul was sent to finish the little bastards off. But he didn’t finish the job. He kept some of the loot, and didn't kill the Amalekite King, Agag. The prophet Samuel dropped by, had a little chat, told Saul that God expected his orders to be followed, and as a result of his disobedience, he would lose the Kingship (to David, as it would turn out). The Samuel finished the job himself. 32 Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." And Agag came to him haltingly. Agag said, "Surely this is the bitterness of death." 33 But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so your mother shall be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel. Harsh words and harsher deeds. That was the Bronze Age though. Amalek had broken the unwritten law through its actions in deliberately picking off the stragglers, the wounded, the sick, the women and children. In all ages, there are codes of conduct, even between warriors. Civilians should not be killed. A warrior should not kill an opponent who has surrendered or cannot fight back. Some of these things transcend time. Amalek was deemed worthy of being wiped out to the last man, woman, child, cow and goat because it could not be trusted to behave correctly. It was a danger to everyone while it existed. Rather like the McGregor’s in the Scottish Highlands, they were a menace to everyone and simply had to go. Indeed, showing mercy to those who cannot comprehend the concept is no mercy at all to potential future victims."Remember what Amalek did to you when you came forth out of Egypt...how he met you by the way...and killed the hindmost of you...all that were enfeebled in your rear, when you were faint and weary." Is this not Scriptures all over again? Is this not Amalek we again face, whether we're Americans, British or Israelis? In a word, the Amalekites were not only cruel, they were "sneaky." Throughout the generations, scholars have wondered why Providence singled out the Amalekites as a nation undeserving of forgiveness and to "utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." Now, nine Americans are dead after an Iraqi unit "surrendered" and then opened fire as the unsuspecting Marines approached. In Israel, they sneak up on school buses filled with children before blowing them up. Back in Iraq they sneak into hospitals and hide behind doctors, nurses and patients. They sneak up on the unarmed, the blameless, the young, the very old, yes -- the enfeebled, the weary. These are Amalekite tactics and therefore this must be Amalek.
It's odd, don't you think, that if we've been commanded to "blot out the name of Amalek", we seem to remember it so vividly. Perhaps that's because Amalek is always with us. I can certainly see Amalek alive and well in modern Iraq.Just as the memory of Amalek had to be wiped out for its cowardly and unprovoked act so, too, must the Children of Israel learn to respond appropriately. Indeed, the result of weakening one's resolve on this issue -- as with king Saul, when he refused to kill Agag the descendent of Amalek (Sam.1: 15: 4-35) -- has dire consequences. Martin Buber could never reconcile himself to this response, opining that Samuel had simply misunderstood God's word. Contrariwise, a midrashic tradition states that if you show mercy to the cruel, you will invariably end up being cruel to the kind. (Kohelet Rabba 7:36)
Jack Engelhard is the author of the international bestseller "Indecent Proposal" and is a former radio and newspaper editor covering the Mideast and former American volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces. His columns can be read online at http://www.comteqcom.com/jackcolumn.php and he can be reached at JackEngelhard@ComteQcom.com.
3/27/2003
Argentina Lifts Falklands Embargo, according to this 1999 Reuters story the WaPo still has active from their menu. Guess there hasn't really been anything new since then, and glad to see their right on top of things.
I think in the event of the Syrians doing this, we'll see the Israelis in Damascus within a short period, as full members of the Coalition of the Willing.If I was Bashir al-Assad I'd be thinking about attacking this 300 mile supply line while its western flank is unprotected. Cutting off the 15,000 - 20,000 strong spearhead and then decimating them at the gates to Baghdad. Afterall, if Syria is next on the US hit list surely it is better for them to hit the US and alliance now, on someone else's territory, rather than waiting for them to come knocking on Damascus's door with MOABs and B52s. A defeat of the alliance in Baghdad would make sure the US had nothing strategic to do with the Middle-East for at least another 30 years. It would be the best 'f--k-off yanky imperialists' ever. Besides, the Arab Street will love Assad (win or lose) if he opens up a third front with his 700 modernish jet fighters, 5,000 tanks, 3,000 artillery pieces and over half a million soldiers. The US wasn't counting on having to deal with Syria as well as Iraq. If I was in charge of US and alliance forces I'd be shit worried. And such a scenario would likely draw the Turks in and completely f--k things up in the north. This is not such a far-fetched idea. Assad has been making remarks in recent days indicating that he might have nothing to lose by getting involved now. Frankly, the only thing that could save the Alliance would be Israel massing troops on the Golan and threatening Damascus. That might put Assad back in his cage. Fascinating.
The Sydney Morning Herald has a sideline feature on their war coverage front page that's listed as 'a very clever set of spoof war posters based on 1940s originals.' Follow the link to the thumbnails, and you find that they are all not so subtle rehashing of some of the most pedantic anti-war screeching around. They do show creativity, and some would be hilarious if they were simply sarcasm or parody. While pointing to them at all is neither here nor there, not identifying their bent up front is a pathetic omission, on the level of a cheap spammer's ploy. Very un-professional.
3/26/2003
Not just around here, with Murray claiming to be Spartacus. Bobby Mugabe is also has aspirations...
"If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for."
Looks like the RG is coming out in the open. Be prepared for 'highway of death' footage soon.
There was indeed a definite ethnic slant to the protests, and plenty of anti-Police aggro. No doubt Assistant Commissioner Adams is going to have to issue another statement tomorrow apologising, and promising to attend a meeting with "leaders of the Arabic community" to re-emphasise the long-standing commitment to blah blah blah, I'm sure we're all familiar with the drill by now. Channel Nine news did something indescribably cruel, and in itself this shows how much public opinion has swung against the demonstrators. On A Current Affair, they showed an interview with one of the 13 year old foriegn policy mavens. "Do you know what he did to the Kurds?" "Who?" "You're protesting against the war. So how would you get rid of Saddam Hussein?" "Um. Peace!" "But how would you get rid of him peacefully?" "Um.....maybe ask him to resign?" When Ray Martin turns on the demonstrators, they've lost the battle. And very possibly the war. The other money quote: "We shouldn't invade Iraq! I mean, it's Saddam's country, isn't it? How would you like it if someone came into your house?" In a few years, these people will have the vote. Chilling.A NSW Police officer was struck in the head by an unidentified object as students threw cafe chairs, rocks, bottles, eggs, firecrackers, marbles and golf balls. Hundreds of students ran amok through city streets, taking their protest to the front of Prime Minister John Howard's office shortly before 3pm (AEDT). [ ... ] Other peaceful protesters knelt in front of the Prime Minister's office and chanted prayers while others hoisted Palestinian flags. Some of the younger children were hurled up into the air before being caught by protesters. NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Dick Adams said a large group of young men were largely responsible for the violence. "A large group of Middle Eastern males as the television footage will quite clearly show ... were aggressive towards police," Mr Adams told ABC radio.
The assailant's name? Mohammed Mohammed. Don't mention the bloody war. At what point are we going to wake up?One man is dead, two are seriously injured and another is under arrest after a dispute at the Ovens River abattoir at Yarrawonga in which a slaughterman turned his knife on other workers. The abattoir, about three kilometres outside the town, has been doing a brisk trade supplying Halal meat to the Middle East. But just after 7am yesterday, soon after opening time, one of the two slaughtermen attacked co-workers. At the end of the attack, maintenance worker Peter Murphy, a father of three boys, was dead. Two other workers, Michael True, 24, and Jamie Regan, 47, were flown to Melbourne with serious injuries. The small Yarrawonga community is awash with rumour about what started the attack.Abattoir workers said the attacker and another man had kept largely to themselves. "We never really spoke to them. They would eat lunch together, and not really mix or anything," one said. "They didn't really live in town or anything like that." A worker who was in the room at the time of the attack said: "It just got out of hand. He just went berserk.
3/25/2003
3/24/2003
Now that Murray has so delicately broached the subject... While I wouldn't advocate indiscriminate carpet bombing of the entire country, can think of a good use for the technique. Getting the impression that some of the heavier Iraqi elements are not hiding in villages and towns, per se. Instead of headlong engaging them with ground forces, in spite of firepower and directed fires superiority, use the big sticks, as in sticks of bombs. Simple. Probe forward to find the forward defensive edges of the Iraqi units. Pull back a click or so. Have a three ship of BUFFs or Bones bracket them, front and rear, and maybe some around the sides. Inform them they have one chance to lay down their arms, and come forward empty handed, or the next batch goes right on top of them. And if they don't, it does. Repeat the offer to any survivors (if they can still hear). Should weed out the hard core ones fairly quickly, albeit somewhat Darwinistically. Less that we, or the rest of the Iraqis, have to deal with afterwards as well. Bonus. This kind of carpet bombing is not only all right in my book, but highly encouraged.
No one generates calm, rational discussion with quite the flair that Murray has. That, and he's willing to run the boobies contests. btw, to add my two cents to Tom's, the reaction of the administrator in the country that has the First Amendment, to those 'demanding' that Murray's post be taken down. Let me be as eloquent and thoughtful about this to give you exactly the response that your demand deserves. Hmmm. Oh yes. Here it is. Kiss my ass. For the record, I. like Tom, do not agree with Murray's advocacy of carpet bombing, nor do I take him seriously that he would, if he had the ability to do so, implement such an action, but I also understand his venting. I will however defend to the last his ability to vent such a rant, on this blog, hosted in this country, controlled (in part) by an American citizen. Anyone that doubts that should review exactly how I got involved in this travelling circus in the first place.
Chris Textor at Whacking Day is distinctly unhappy.The thoughts of Murray Hill below do not coincide with mine. I believe we should fight to victory, but the citizens of Iraq are not responsible for the actions of their depraved and cruel leader and his army. Don't take it out on the civilians. If the Iraqi army is using dirty tactics, that just leaves less of them around for tomorrow because surely our soldiers will wallop their lousy asses. Please don't say things like "Just fucking carpet bomb the whole miserable fucking country ". Don't turn into the people that the anti-war loons already think we are.
Although she doesn't refer directly to Murray's post, Meryl Yourish in Richmond VA, publishes a letter from a Captain Steve which in part adresses the issues Murray raises.They are all guilty? The families of murdered dissidents? The brutalised/terrified citizenry? All those sinful children? The women Uday has grabbed off the street, tortured and raped? The Marsh Arabs? The people who greeted coalition soldiers with hugs and kisses? This taxi driver in this story? The citizens of Halabja? Maybe there are some sinful toddlers in Baghdad who are in on it too. Hey they all look alike right? Murray, what the fuck is the matter with you? By associating an entire population with the deeds of a vicious, murdering tyrant, you're saying the entire country should share his fate: you're advocating genocide, you dig? Dr. Joseph Goebbels couldn't have done better.
And to the (anonymous, naturally) critic who is threatening to take me to court for operating a "hate site", free speech means precisely that pal. Sometimes free speech is going to disturb, often people won't agree with it. But it's only by arguing openly and without fear that democracy can operate. We're not here to guard the delicate sensibilities of the politically correct. Do I have problems with what Murray said? Yes. Do I understand where he's coming from? You bet! Will I take his post down? Absolutely not. If you come across an argument you don't like, come up with a better one and convince people. Don't ask for suppression and censorship. That's the act of a coward.Humanity is the principle that prevents us from inflicting unnecessary suffering. We rule out the use of certain weapons and techniques because we regard their purpose as inappropriate. We try to achieve our objectives while harming as few people as possible. Chivalry requires us to honor certain signs and traditions that have long been recognized in war. The white flag as a sign of truce is not to be abused. Prisoners are to be protected against hunger, the elements, and angry civilians. The Red Cross or Red Crescent are to be recognized as signs of noncombatants. Military Necessity demands that we attack only targets that help us achieve military objectives. Our conduct of war is restrained on all sides by these conventions to help us return home with honor, and to protect the reputation of the United States as a land guided by justice. But do these conventions apply when we face an enemy who so openly flouts them? Last night we all wanted retribution. There was talk of leveling An Nasariyah, of making them pay. We know though, that now more than ever the principles that make our country so different from (and so feared by) this part of the world must be adhered to. We will not defile our cause with barbaric actions. We cannot forget that our purpose here is to liberate, not to massacre, though we certainly have the means at our disposal. [ ... ] The rest of the military has everything to gain from honorable conduct. They know they have no chance of winning. They know Americans are merciful and will treat them well. They know this because the American conduct of war is characterized by restraint. It guides everything we do. Even the attack designed to demonstrate overwhelming force, shock, and awe is controlled so as to protect innocent Iraqis.
Morocco has offered...some rather unusual assitance. Are they trying to help with our War effort, or our effort to piss of PETA as much as possible? I'm confused, but offer a conditional 'thanks' in any case.
**CAUTION** Do not stand around abandoned US Military equipment (such as Apache Helicopters that probably set down for mechanical problems). Equipment such as this in jeopardy of falling into enemy hands semi-intact heads for the top of the targetting list, with a bullet. Count yourselves lucky this time to have gotten the happy snaps without getting a close up demo of the effects of a Maverick or JDAM. Consider yourselves warned. This message may be repeated with pre-demolition warning burst of chain gun fire nearby, but most likely not.
So Saddam's boys aired a tape of the shitbag last night. Speculation continues about his situation. Just about all the 'specifics' he mentioned could be chalked up to relaistic guesses from beforehand. Want to prove he's alive? Have him hold up some known current content of something published since it started, and have him make a simple statement, such as 'nyah, nyah, missed me!' Anything short of that is stupid theater, about as relevant as footage of Iraqis shooting into an empty river, and almost setting their own butts on fire while they 'search' the overgrowth on the riverbank.
Bastards. Lord Reith would have the entire staff of today's BBC lightly killed and start again from scratch.Overview at the top of the ahhr: Heaviest fighting of the woh, and the Arab world is rallying to Iraqi cause. (The audio backing up the latter assertion is from the Iraqi foreign minister. Surely I misheard this; surely they said that “Iraqis insist that the Arab world is rallying." I must have suffered Temporary Yank-Centric Deafness, but maybe not; the Beeb runs more Iraqi responses than any other network. While driving around on Saturday, the Beeb ran a clip from a Brit spokesman describing a battle, then ran the Iraqi blabberjaw insisting that Iraqi forces were still engaged in battle, killing the enemy, and that the Loser Zionist Rumsfeld tongue should be accursed and struck with shoes, and we should all hope that monkeys defecate in his moustache, etc. Then came a guest from Warshington, and the presenter said “so who should we believe, then?” A charitable listener would ascribe the brief, stunned pause that followed to the natural lapse in transatlantic communications.)
3/23/2003
NBC news is reporting that Al Jazeerah has footage of American prisoners, approximately 10, captured during the skirmishing near Al Nasariyia. Reports are that the soldiers were pictured being led away alive, and that was followed by footage of about eight of them dead, shot execution style, in an unidentified building. Some of the prisoners apparently are still alive, there were interviews also of some of them alive. They'd better fucking stay that way. ::Update:: To reiterate. Bastards. Fucking bastards.

