← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 20012 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2005-09-05
2005-09-05 05:57 | User Profile
September 4, 2005 U.S. the new Saddam By ERIC MARGOLIS
The most important news from Iraq last week was not the much ballyhooed constitutional pact by Shias and Kurds, nor the tragic stampede deaths of nearly 1,000 pilgrims in Baghdad.
The U.S. Air Force's senior officer, Gen. John Jumper, stated U.S. warplanes would remain in Iraq to fight resistance forces and protect the American-installed regime "more or less indefinitely." Jumper's bombshell went largely unnoticed due to Hurricane Katrina.
Gen. Jumper let the cat out of the bag. While President George Bush hints at eventual troop withdrawals, the Pentagon is busy building four major, permanent air bases in Iraq that will require heavy infantry protection.
Jumper's revelation confirms what this column has long said: The Pentagon plans to copy Imperial Britain's method of ruling oil-rich Iraq. In the 1920s, the British cobbled together Iraq from three disparate Ottoman provinces to control newly-found oil fields in Kurdistan and along the Iranian border.
London installed a puppet king and built an army of sepoy (native) troops to keep order and put down minor uprisings. Government minister Winston Churchill authorized use of poisonous mustard gas against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and Pushtuns in Afghanistan (today's Taliban). The RAF crushed all revolts.
It seems this is what Jumper has in mind. Mobile U.S. ground intervention forces will remain at the four major "Fort Apache" bases guarding Iraq's major oil fields. These bases will be "ceded" to the U.S. by a compliant Iraqi regime. The U.S. Air Force will police the Pax Americana with its precision-guided munitions and armed drones.
The USAF has developed an extremely effective new technique of wide area control. Small numbers of strike aircraft are kept in the air around the clock. When U.S. ground forces come under attack or foes are sighted, these aircraft deliver precision-guided bombs. This tactic has led Iraqi resistance fighters to favour roadside bombs over ambushes against U.S. convoys.
The USAF uses the same combat air patrol tactic in Afghanistan, with even more success. The U.S. is also developing three major air bases in Pakistan, and others across Central Asia, to support its plans to dominate the region's oil and gas reserves.
While the USAF is settling into West Asia, the mess in Iraq continues to worsen. Last week's so-called "constitutional deal" was the long-predicted, U.S.-crafted pact between Shias and Kurds, essentially giving them Iraq's oil and virtual independence. The proposed constitution assures American big business access to Iraq's oil riches and markets.
The furious but powerless Sunnis were left in the lurch. Sunnis will at least have the chance to vote on it in a Oct. 15 referendum, but many fear it will be rigged.
The U.S. reportedly offered the 15 Sunni delegates $5 million each to vote for the constitution -- but was turned down. No mention was made that a U.S.-guided constitution for Iraq would violate the Geneva Conventions.
Chinese Taoists say you become what you hate. In a zesty irony, the U.S. now finds itself in a similar position as demonized Saddam Hussein. Saddam had to use his Sunni-dominated army to hold Iraq together by fighting Kurdish and Shia rebels. His brutal police jailed tens of thousands and routinely used torture.
Today, Iraq's new ruler, the U.S., is battling Sunni insurgents, ("al-Qaida terrorists," in the latest Pentagon doublespeak), rebuilding Saddam's dreaded secret police, holding 15,000 prisoners and torturing captives, as the Abu Ghraib outrage showed.
Much of the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama National Guard were in Iraq last week week instead of at home. Meanwhile, the Kurds are de facto independent, the Shia are playing footsie with Iran, and large parts of Iraq resemble the storm-ravaged U.S. Gulf Coast -- or vice versa. [url]http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2005/09/04/1201356.html[/url]
2005-09-08 03:55 | User Profile
Sert: Regarding your interesting link and the article [url="http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2005/09/04/1201356.html"]http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2005/09/04/1201356.html[/url]
It isn't either or. It is both. [QUOTE]Today, Iraq's new ruler, the U.S., is battling Sunni insurgents, ("al-Qaida terrorists," in the latest Pentagon doublespeak[/QUOTE]Mr Margolis is full of crap on that score, though he does make some very good points elsewhere. Multiple factions are present, with their own aims and agendas, of internal fighters and foreigners. The initial trouble in the Iron Triangle, or the Circle of Steel around Baghdad, or the Sunni Triangle (depends on what cute nickname of the week is used) had as part of its root a dispersed and loyal set of Ba'athist operatives. Part of Saddam's campaign plan, at the political level, to keep the fighting going after his army was, as he knew it would be, defeated.
The protestations made by American general officers that "there was no insurgency" in the summer and fall of 2003 was a load of bollocks. Those folks are still around, and the Marines were, a few months ago, trying to cut deals with the native insurgents vis a vis the foreigner insurgents. I read of that in a bunch of different news reports, no real sense of the depth of that engagement.
The leadership of the initial underground went down, one at a time. That Saddam lasted until nearly Christmas speaks volumes for his well established network, his craft, and the size of the "sea in which the fish swim." That sea is still rather large, and other fish swim within it with near impunity, barring an occasional successful raid or air attack. Or a major Op like Samara or Fallujah, or An Najaf.
Zarqawi has his own aims and agenda. He found his "place in the sun" when he chose to "count coup" against Americans/contractors in Fallujah. That gamble paid off for him, and was a fine piece of recruiting advertisement. It also got Washington to throw a punch at the tarbaby.
Recruits flocked to him and other cells by the dozens, by the hundreds. Too bad for them. They often perished by the dozens when they ran into American or other forces (regulars) in force. When I was over there last year, the monthly EKIA, confirmed, tended to run in the hundreds. Weird, how the body count game is not being officially condoned, yet folks are keeping meticulous track of confirmed EKIA. scratches head
There are other factions, to include three within the Shi'ite groups that I was aware of. They have their own aims, and theirs are not necessarily in accord with American aims. These people are taking advantage of American presence, they are not friends, nor allies, and for damned sure not puppets. They are their own people.
Of course, the Kurds are not a monolithic and unified faction, they have their own internecine feuds. Give them credit, they too have taken excellent advantage of American presence.
The Chinese observation is, while holding a ring of truth, less eloquent than Powell's simple sound byte:
If you break it you own it. (The unspoken thought on that is "and all the troubles that come with that ownership.") What dump would you rather own: New Orleans or Iraq? I'll go with New Orleans, but I am biased.
One reason of many that Pres Bush 41 chose not to "take it over."
So, given that "the US" owns it, someone has wittily insisted on "a more cost effective way to patrol it." But they probably said "a more cost effective way to CONTROL it" since they are effette, civilian, card carrying smart guys who know no more of war than they do of fornication. (Thanks, General Patton! :yes: ) Enter the Silver Bullet con men, and the Air Power au outrance crowd.
[QUOTE] The U.S. Air Force's senior officer, Gen. John Jumper, stated U.S. warplanes would remain in Iraq to fight resistance forces and protect the American-installed regime "more or less indefinitely." Jumper's bombshell went largely unnoticed due to Hurricane Katrina.
Gen. Jumper let the cat out of the bag. While President George Bush hints at eventual troop withdrawals, the Pentagon is busy building four major, permanent air bases in Iraq that will require heavy infantry protection.
Margolis is belaboring the obvious. That method, air patrol 24/7 has been in place since Southern Watch and Northern Watch, circa 1991, and has been present over post-June 2003 Iraq in the form Margolis describes. His assertion of added bases, sounds about right. WTF, WE ARE STILL IN GERMANY SIXTY YEARS LATER, WHY CHANGE OUR HABITS? Sorry, :furious: lost it there.
Allegedly, such a web/network allows a significant footprint to be off loaded from Iraq, a very low visual signature to be maintained in most areas, and a lot of troops, regular and otherwise, to be sent home. In theory.
It seems to me an eerie repetion of "fire bases" from where aerial fires are provided. He fails to note that it takes competent FACs to direct that fire. That means either a bunch of Iraqi's are given crypto to talk to American jets (hmmm, riiight) or a bunch of American Infantry will be attached to various units (police? ING? Iraqi "army" units) to call for fire. Does this sound like "advisors" or not, forty years later? It smells real familiar to me, and reeks of Mekong River silt.
I wonder who will be flying the last Huey, or Blackhawk, off the Embassy roof in Baghdad in a few years. I still have friends over there. :wallbash: Sorry, I seem to be getting emotional about this. [QUOTE]Jumper's revelation confirms what this column has long said: The Pentagon plans to copy Imperial Britain's method of ruling oil-rich Iraq. ==snip==The RAF crushed all revolts. [/QUOTE]Sort of. Without good coordination with the forces on the ground, and particularly given today's RoE, all that air power is impotent. Regardless of what deluded fools like Ponce claim, there is no desire to kill anyone we don't absolutely have to. Indeed, the strictures on weapons engagement, particularly from the air, have only gotten tighter since the "turnover" of 28 June 2004. I saw the RoE change. [QUOTE]It seems this is what Jumper has in mind. Mobile U.S. ground intervention forces will remain at the four major "Fort Apache" bases guarding Iraq's major oil fields. These bases will be "ceded" to the U.S. by a compliant Iraqi regime. [/QUOTE]Not unlikely. No question that the Shiite's find American troops at the least an eyesore, and in any case a source of much emotion and antipathy for "the new way things are now in Iraq." [QUOTE] The U.S. Air Force will police the Pax Americana with its precision-guided munitions and armed drones. [/QUOTE]As you and I both know, you can't win a war purely from the air, no matter what deluded fools like Douhet, Mitchell, Worden, Gehring, Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay, and all those others (to include the current American Silver Bullet crowd) believe in their hearts. Viet Nam 1972-1975 is an abject lesson on that score. Given that Jumper is probably an "air power wins all" sort of guy, I'll guess his view is not far from what Mr Margolis projects. [QUOTE]The USAF has developed an extremely effective new technique of wide area control. [/QUOTE]Margolis is now falling for Air Force Silver Bullet BS. You cannot control ground from the air, although you can bomb the crap out of it and make the rubble bounce. Joy. And take pretty pictures. BFD.
You can use air to enhance your efforts to control on the ground. Fallujah, anyone? We have had air supremacy over Iraq since May 2003, but WHO CONTROLS FALLUJAH? Whoever puts the rifles and boots on the ground there. You can run Predators or Eagles or Hornets or Apaches over Fallujah 24/7, but if you don't put rifles and boots in there, it is Haji's town.
The term he should be using is probably 'wide area combat air patrol' or something similar, to include Presence. Guard or Screen, but not Cover, if you like, though the parallel is not exact, doctrinally or semantically. [QUOTE] Small numbers of strike aircraft are kept in the air around the clock. [u]When U.S. ground forces come under attack or foes are sighted, these aircraft deliver precision-guided bombs[/u]. This tactic has led Iraqi resistance fighters to favour roadside bombs over ambushes against U.S. convoys. [/QUOTE]Correct. Last year, it even led some to surrender when the jets zoomed overhead a few thousand feet up, but that was a rare event. [QUOTE]The USAF uses the same combat air patrol tactic in Afghanistan, with even more success. The U.S. is also developing three major air bases in Pakistan, and others across Central Asia, to support its plans to dominate the region's oil and gas reserves.[/QUOTE]He has no clue what is making success in Afghanistan, but it ain't the air power (though the planes certainly help a lot.) It is the guys on the ground establishing relationships with the local leaders and warlords. And being able to use force now and again. SOF heavy. Infantry heavy. It is people power.
Dominate?
What complete and utter fantasy. Without people and eyes on the ground, you can fly all day over Afghanistan perform a presence role, and still not control a single square foot of anything other than what is behind YOUR wire. The air base, for example. A fire base. And the call for fire has to come from someone, someone with eyes on a valid target. Back to RoE; very, very tight RoE. [QUOTE] Last week's so-called "constitutional deal" was the long-predicted, U.S.-crafted pact between Shias and Kurds, essentially giving them Iraq's oil and virtual independence. The proposed constitution assures American big business access to Iraq's oil riches and markets.[/QUOTE]I'd guess he is correct about that, though the world oil market benefits, not just the US market. [QUOTE]The furious but powerless Sunnis were left in the lurch. Sunnis will at least have the chance to vote on it in a Oct. 15 referendum, but many fear it will be rigged[/QUOTE] . Do you blame them for that feeling, whether it is true or not? Their boy and their party, the Ba'athists, were dispossessed by might of arms. Of course they are paranoid, I would be too in their shoes. As for powerless, IED's are a form of power. Combat power. Ask any war widow. [QUOTE]The U.S. reportedly offered the 15 Sunni delegates $5 million each to vote for the constitution -- but was turned down. No mention was made that a U.S.-guided constitution for Iraq would violate the Geneva Conventions[/QUOTE]. He cites the Geneva Conventions, but does not cite the accord or the year. I smell BS, but as to the bribes, it would not surprise me. That is how stuff gets done over there, paying off or trading favors with, the right people.
Margolis misses a few easy free throws by not knowing what the he is talking about, but he scores a few baskets on those areas that he obviously understands: like the non-military stuff.
AE