Semi-Daily Journal

BBC World is reporting that US/UK authorities admit they are not certain what's going on in Basra. "They have no firm details and no further details." The correspondent in Kuwait City says that they have been "backpedaling."

Scott

Please add link when possible. Thanks.

I will believe this when I get my Al Jazeera back...
http://english.aljazeera.net/

JD - I can't. I'm seeing it on TV. BBC World is BBC's 24hr news channel. http://news.bbc.co.uk is the relevant website, but I don't have a url for that story.

Thanks Scott - Impossible to know what we want to make happen and what is happening. Psychology is important here.

http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/iraq/story/826460p-5834710c.html

"I'm confirming that there are events in Basra," said Maj. Gen. Peter Wall, who is second in command of British troops. "We don't know what has spurred them, we don't know the scale, we don't know the scope of it. We don't know where it will take us."

"Events in Basra?"

"Events"...like Iraqi forces firing out, and British forces firing in? ;-)

Here is a link from a British spokesman in Quatar
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DBT000259.htm

From Reuters, 3/25/03:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DBT000259.htm

British source says unaware of any Basra uprising

KUWAIT, March 25 (Reuters) -

British military officials said on Tuesday they had no information on
any popular uprising in Iraq's second city of Basra, but added that
they would do everything possible to encourage such a revolt.

"We don't know anything about a Basra uprising," said a British
military source in Central Command in Qatar.

British television networks have said there are reports of an armed
uprising in the city.

A British spokesman in Kuwait said British and U.S. forces wanted the
people of Basra to attack soldiers loyal to Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.

It reminds me of Blair saying that he had the proof that there was some links between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda, but that he didn’t know the nature of these links yet.

Similarly, events are taking place in Basra but we don’t know the nature of these events.

The news of an uprising in Basra against the regime is very plausible, but this US administration and this UK government have such a record of disinformation regarding Iraq that it is difficult to believe them.

Iraqi Shiite Leader Calls for Fighting US "Aggression"

A prominent Iraqi Shiite leader on Tuesday signed a fatwa (religious decree), calling for expelling "infidel followers" who invaded Iraq.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/59675.htm

How sad is it to rely on China for "objective" "information"... :-(

"How sad is it to rely on China for "objective" "information"... :-("

What? Have you forgotten that we still have Instapundit? The following is a link he's provided to the New Republic's website:

“Yet I find myself dismissing contemptuously all the e-mails and phone calls I get from antiwar friends who think they are commiserating with me because "their" country is bombing "mine." To be sure, I am worried. Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp. One is not supposed to say such things in the kind of liberal, pacifist, and deeply anti-American circles of academia, in which I normally live and work. The truth is jarring even to my own ears. “

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=iraq&s=diary032403

Source: CNN website

"In Washington, a U.S. official said there were "mixed reports" about a possible civilian uprising in Basra. "It's more like chaos than anything else," the official said."

"The following is a link he's provided to the New Republic's website:..."

Yes, a couple days ago, C-Span had the Kurdish...Press-Attache-or-something-something, for an interview. TREMENDOUSLY well-spoken guy. If Iraq could put 50 such people in power, they'd have their own Founding Fathers.

Afterwards, they had a bunch of call-in listeners who were against "the war." He kept trying to tell them that Saddam Hussein has been at war with the Kurds for the last 20+ years. None of the callers responded as if they had any clue.

Alternative news source (most likely to be taken "with a grain of salt"):
http://www.albawaba.com/main/index.ie.php3?lang=e

Well H-e-dubya-l Bubba!

If all you needed was a li'l ol' riot to set thangs right, why didn't ya just SAY so ;?)

Miami's rent-a-riot

By John Lantigua

Nov. 28, 2000 | MIAMI -- On the surface, it looked like the good people of Miami at their worst again. Last week's melee at the county offices here -- followed by the local canvassing board's abrupt cancellation of a hand recount -- had all the trademarks of Miami's notorious tantrum politics. Screaming, shoving, fist-waving, intimidation, ties to Elián González and even hints of good ol' Cuban-American political corruption.

But the fact is that the fracas at Miami's recount headquarters was engineered and carried out by Republican Party operatives imported from the heartland, far from South Florida....

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/

Even IF there is a popular uprising against Saddam in Basra, it's far from unqualified good news.

These people are Shi'ites, with backing from Iran and no fondness for the US or, especially, Britain (they have long memories in this part of the world). A three-way fight is quite possible.

We could see a Warsaw Uprising situation, where the invading army stays back while the uprising is suppressed and there is a massive humanitarian disaster. This could occur either through unwillingness to incur coalition casualties or because of the post-war implications of an armed pro-Iranian Shi'ite militia (the latter motive would parallel Stalin's).

And when I think of Northen Iraq, Kurds, Turqs, and Islamist rebels similar thoughts come to my mind... Is it why Turkey just received a $8 billion package? That would be a nice thing actually.

Golly.

All of a sudden this war stuff sure seems complicated.

Why, 10 months some White House "experts" were telling anybody who would listen what a cakewalk this Iraq-attack gig was gonna be. I guess those guys (and at least one "girl") WON the bureaucratic war.....

"'They [the military leaders] have been able to defer it, so they've won this round of the bureaucratic battle," said one Republican foreign policy expert who is hawkish on Iraq...'"

Military Bids to Postpone Iraq Invasion

Joint Chiefs See Progress In Swaying Bush, Pentagon

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 24, 2002; Page A01

The uniformed leaders of the U.S. military believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all, according to senior Pentagon officials.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have waged a determined behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider an aggressive posture toward Iraq in which war was regarded as all but inevitable. This included a secret briefing at the White House earlier this month for President Bush by Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as head of the Central Command would oversee any U.S. military campaign against Iraq.

During the meeting, Franks told the president that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would require at least 200,000 troops, far more than some other military experts have calculated. This was in line with views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have repeatedly emphasized the lengthy buildup that would be required, concerns about Hussein's possible use of biological and chemical weapons and the possible casualties, officials said.

The Bush administration still appears dedicated to the goal of removing the Iraqi leader from power, but partly in response to the military's advice, it is focusing more on undermining him through covert intelligence operations, two officials added. "There are many ways in which that [regime change] could come about, only one of which is a military campaign in Iraq," one official familiar with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's thinking said yesterday.

Any final decision would be the president's. Appearing in Berlin yesterday, Bush offered more tough rhetoric about Iraq and other countries he has labeled part of an "axis of evil." But at a news conference in Berlin, he also said that he had told German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: "I have no war plans on my desk, which is the truth, and that we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein."

In addition to skepticism from within his own military, Bush faces concern in Europe about the wisdom of expanding the war to Iraq. Schroeder embraced the effort to pressure Hussein to accept weapons inspectors but would not be drawn into discussion of a military attack.

The debate inside the Pentagon is only part of a larger discussion of Iraq that also involves the White House, the State Department and the CIA, among others. Those deliberations go well beyond discussing the merits of mounting a military operation and lately have focused on the role of international diplomacy and what use to make of unwieldy Iraqi opposition groups abroad.

The disclosure of the efforts by the uniformed leadership to slow the drive toward war suggests that a military confrontation with Iraq may be further away than has been suggested by many administration officials. Some of the chiefs' concerns were first reported in yesterday's editions of USA Today.

However, the situation is still fluid, and Pentagon insiders say intense pressure is being brought by advocates of military action within the administration to get the chiefs on their side.

In a series of meetings this spring, the six members of the Joint Chiefs -- the chairman, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers; the vice chairman, Marine Gen. Peter Pace; and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps -- hammered out a position that emphasizes the difficulties of any Iraq campaign while also quietly questioning the wisdom of a military confrontation with Hussein.

"I think all the chiefs stood shoulder-to-shoulder on this," said one officer tracking the debate, which has been intense at times. In one of the most emphatic summaries of the direction of the debate, one top general said the "Iraq hysteria" he detected last winter in some senior Bush administration officials has been diffused.

But others familiar with the discussions held by the Joint Chiefs in the secure Pentagon facility known as "the Tank" say that it is premature for the uniformed military to declare victory. They note that Rumsfeld has so far mostly stayed out of the debate, leaving that to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Douglas J. Feith, the Pentagon's top policy official, who are seen inside the Pentagon as the Defense Department's leading hawks on Iraq.

In their Tank sessions, the chiefs focused on two specific concerns about the conduct of any offensive. One was that Hussein, if faced with losing power and likely being killed, would no longer feel the constraints that during the Persian Gulf War apparently kept him from using his stores of chemical and biological weapons. The other was the danger of becoming bogged down in bloody block-by-block urban warfare in Baghdad that could kill thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1822-2002May23?language=printer

I'm pretty sure one of the posters here predicted it would be over in 8 hours.

Hmmm.....

Ok, I give in . . . .

. . . . . to start on topic, it appears that the violence inside Basra began when Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of Saddam Hussein's closest aides, who is in charge of the south, ordered the execution of a Shi'ite Ba'ath Party leader. This is the man known as "Chemical" Ali due to his role in the mass murder of Kurds a few years back. The URL on current developments is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/26/war26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/26/ixnewstop.html

Now according to some, this is not good news. Also, the war is complicated and the Republican Party in the US is sponsoring riots in Miami that have some connection to the war in Iraq . . . . or maybe not. Or something. But if it's bad, Bush must be behind it.

At it's best, this board has had interesting debate and regularly good economic insights. At it's worst, which is pretty much all the time now, the board is about how bad Bush is and how badly the war is going.

Which is factually just wrong.

US forces have advanced to the outskirts of Baghdad in one of the most rapid advances in military history. US casualties have been light, and enemy casualties heavy. But it is a real, bloody uncontrollable war which isn't marching precisely to plan, just like every other war ever fought in history.

Now, the US is feeding Iraqi POWs more food than the Iraqi army did - while the Iraqi's are murdering ours with bullets in the head at close range. Iraqi's are pretending to surrender and then firing on our soldiers; and Iraqi soldiers are wearing civilian clothes and using civilians as shields and screens. US pilots are taking extra, unessential risks with their lives to avoid firing on imperfectly identified Iraqi targets. And yet we're the bad guys.

Doesn't anyone here have any sense of morality and proportion? As importantly, does anyone here have friends or family serving in Iraq?

I give in. Later, all.

"US forces have advanced to the outskirts of Baghdad in one of the most rapid advances in military history."

I think this is part of the problem. Going ahead without securing supply lines may be a good idea to give news addicts something to feast on (and boosting short-term popular support) but it makes many nervous from a tactical perspective. And "liberals" aren't the only to be worried about this. Some of us don't consider we're watching a greatest f$ck%ng reality show of the decade, you know.

Most of the liberals that I know were against the war in the first place, but now hope for a quick victory.

One of the reasons that I was against the war, aside from diplomatic debacles and the unanswered question of "Why?" was that I never fully accepted that the Iraqis would just roll over and die, and that those that remained would accept the Americans as liberators. I considered this a faulty premise, and unfortunately the war seems to be based on this premise.

I also question the wisdom of those that presume to rebuild Iraq when nominal control is established (I guess I also assume that there will never be 'full control'.) The only way that this might pan out okay is with a considerable amount of input, both domestically and internationally, and especially from the Arab world. (Though that seems unlikely in the extreme.)

I'm not sure if that's a sense of proportion, but it is a sense of context. Pulling the trigger, celebrating the good, mourning the bad, and crossing ones fingers isn't good enough. Have to keep looking ahead at what opportunities might arise from what was, from the outset, a very bad proposition.

Cheers!
Saam Barrager

How Well Is This Going, Anyway ?

Here are the short version of the salient facts

(1) Unsupported US helicopter strikes and unguarded supply columns get shot up

(2) The Iraqi army is not surrendering en masse

(3) The Iraqi army is still holed up in Basra

(4) The Republican Guard are staying in static positions outside Baghdad

(5) The US and allies are suffering about 20 casualties a day from a combination of enemy action and "industrial accidents" (helo crashes, friendly fire etc)

(6) The US military appears to have advanced rapidly to near Baghdad, leaving significant enemy formations near their LOC

(7) The Iraqi population are not behaving with the enthusiasm for liberation that was hoped for.

Now, the most important ones are #2 and #7. I suspect that the US are going to have to fight their way into Baghdad to win the war.

This is not a worst case, but it's a long way from best case too.

Ian Whitchurch

"And yet we're the bad guys"

I don't think anyone has argued that we are the bad guys in a US/Britain vs. Iraq war. The complaint is that this war does not hold to the high morals and values that our enlightened nations should represent. At best it is a misguided overreaction to 9/11 and at worst using 9/11 as an excuse for Imperialism.

Yes, we are winning the war but at what price? For what goal? If the oppressed majority of Basra does not rebel then really, who are we freeing. Hopefully they are rebelling but even then, why are Americans dying for them?

If Saddam is a threat to the US then there is no need to fight a soft war, but every reason to fight with overwhelming power. We should fight with overwhelming power, for the good of our soldiers and our military integrity, or not fight at all. If the nation is divided enough to prevent an all out war, we should not be fighting.

This nation was united against Afghanistan (please no posts about the twenty protesters in x town somewhere). Our political leaders should trust the full judgment of the American people when it comes to war. A jury trial requires a unanimous verdict. Shouldn't war require at least a wide (maybe 75%) majority?

Dan, at least your GIs know the majority of the home population agree with this war (albeit mainly because you have about the most subservient press in the Western world). The Tommies and our Diggers know that most of their people think they shouldn't be there.

As I told a pro-war friend, I support our troops so much I want to see them back home out of harm's way - now.

I think this woudl be the most important piece of information regarding Basra

"An Iran-based Shiite opposition group also announced the beginning of an uprising inside Basra, which lies close to the Iranian border. "We confirm an uprising is taking place in Basra, but we cannot give more details for the time being," said Mohamed Hadi Asadi, a spokesman for the Iran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq."

Who's side are these guys on?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29100-2003Mar25.html

>Shouldn't war require at least a wide (maybe >75%) majority?

According to a CNN poll President Bush's decision to go to war has 76% support from the American public. That was a few days ago; the number may be higher now.

Saam Barrager writes:

". . . when nominal control is established (I guess I also assume that there will never be 'full control'.) The only way that this might pan out okay is with a considerable amount of input, both domestically and internationally, and especially from the Arab world. (Though that seems unlikely in the extreme.)"

The Iraqis themselves should run the show ASAP. But why should other Arabs have any input? What have they done to help the Iraqis? And consider this: aside from oil, the entire Arab world has a GDP less than that of Finland. The Arab states have flunked Economic Development 101 and gotten an "F" in Government. I think the Iraqis will probably want input from Taiwan or South Korea or Japan or Switzerland or the USA more than from Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

""And consider this: aside from oil, the entire Arab world has a GDP less than that of Finland. The Arab states have flunked Economic Development 101 and gotten an "F" in Government.""

Yeah I guess so. Which makes me wonder: if your view of the outside world had been permanently distorted by terrorist attacks back in the 12th-13th centuries, and by foreign military occupation from the 16th to the early 20th century, if you were stuck with your main religion being run by narrow-minded fundamentalists know-nothings of the Pat Robertson variety, and lastly if you had a tremendous Dutch disease problem caused by massive oil reserves, how well would you do?

It strikes me that people like you in our schools would give autistic or dyslexic children grades of F for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it. Please shove your superiority complex in some dark corner and start thinking of how we can truly help the Iraquis once this nightmare is over. Brad, please feel free to censor this.

It took a lot longer than it should have, I suppose, but finally, at long last, I think I understand why the French think Jerry Lewis is funny.

Anarchus wriots :-)

"...according to some, this is not good news. Also, the war is complicated and the Republican Party in the US is sponsoring riots in Miami that have some connection to the war in Iraq . . . . or maybe not. Or something. But if it's bad, Bush must be behind it.

At it's best, this board has had interesting debate and regularly good economic insights. At it's worst, which is pretty much all the time now, the board is about how bad Bush is and how badly the war is going...."

"According to a CNN poll President Bush's decision to go to war has 76% support from the American public. That was a few days ago; the number may be higher now"

However, leading up to the war support was hovering around 50% for a unilateral strike. Of course, once the war began the polls reflected a surge of unity.

If support for war is so strong, and if Saddam is truly a threat to us, and if they are shooting at us from Basra then there is only one option - Blow the place to kingdom come! But is that politically acceptable? If not, why are we there?

The people who are shooting at us are members of Saddam's terror squads. Those boys will soon be hanging from the lampposts of Basra.

There was stiff fascist resistance in Paris when the allies liberated the City of Light. Does that prove the Germans were right?

Why is it a surprise to any of you here (and the Pentagon too, for that matter) that "the Iraqis have not welcomed us with the enthusiasm that we had hoped for?" The fact is that:

1 - In every city there are Mukhabarat, Fedayeen Saddam and other Iraqi equivalents of the NKVD who have everything to lose should this regime fall, and who have not hesitated to shoot anyone showing the slightest trace of enthusiasm for the Allied invasion. This should come as no surprise to those who know that Saddam has long seen Stalin as a role model to be emulated.

2 - Not only is Saddam still alive, but he is still broadcasting! The decision not to take out the Iraqi TV transmission facilities on the very first day has got to be one of the daftest ever made in military history.

Nevertheless, the fact is that so far the military campaign has been a stunning success. 39 Allied deaths in the course of 6 days with 250,000 troops in the theatre of operations, the Iraqi air force completely suppressed, SAM and Scud-launching sites in western Iraq totally neutralized, American divisions 50 km outside Baghdad, and yet some of you call this some sort of debacle?

All this hyperventilating demonstrates is that most of you know absolutely nothing about military history or the realities of warfare. There have been military mistakes on our side, but they have more to do with Rumsfeld's obssession with a "Revolution in Military Affairs," and a punctilious concern for Iraqi civilian casualties, than with the way that the actual campaign has gone so far.

So, which of these statements is not false or irrelevant?

" . . . the short version of the salient facts

(1) Unsupported US helicopter strikes and unguarded supply columns get shot up

(2) The Iraqi army is not surrendering en masse

(3) The Iraqi army is still holed up in Basra

(4) The Republican Guard are staying in static positions outside Baghdad

(5) The US and allies are suffering about 20 casualties a day from a combination of enemy action and "industrial accidents" (helo crashes, friendly fire etc)

(6) The US military appears to have advanced rapidly to near Baghdad, leaving significant enemy formations near their LOC

(7) The Iraqi population are not behaving with the enthusiasm for liberation that was hoped for.

[1] is irrelevant. it's a war. things get shot up a lot, unfortunately. Have we lost enough helicopters to seriously degrade our force? No. Have we lost enough supply columns to seriously interrupt logistics? No.

[2] irrelevant. the Iraqi army isn't surrendering en masse, but much of the 51st division in the south vanished. the US isn't taking that many prisoners, in part because the conscripts are being allowed to leave and go home. no one should have expected en masse surrenders, and the US Army didn't. they could have sent the staff of Berkeley to go accept en masse surrenders, but they didn't - instead they sent tanks and warplanes.

[3] yes, Iraq still holds Basra. irrelevant. will they hold it forever? no. are they losing ground steadily? yes, just yesterday the British blew up 20/50 Iraqi tanks that tried to "break out" of Basra. without losing a single British soldier or a tank. the other 30 Iraqi tanks slinked back into civilian neighborhoods where they couldn't be attacked, for now. Basra is surrounded and will fall, and is militarily unimportant, anyway.

[4] The Republican Guard aren't in entirely static positions outside Baghdad because they're being bombed 24/7 with precision munitions and being blown up non-stop. Let us pray that they stay in static positions outside Baghdad where they can be blown up 24/7 until they're all gone or surrender (and mean it). If the Republican guard successfully retreats into Baghdad civilian areas, that will not be good news. But that's not where they are, and if they try to move they'll be destroyed on the roads leading into Baghdad, we hope.

[5] yes, the USA and allies are suffering perhaps 20 casualties per day, out of a force of 150,000 to 200,000. no one said there would be no casualties, which is part of why war sucks. Look at it this way: about 3,000 people died on September 11th, and more would die in a successful attack with biological weapons. at this rate, in 100 days, allied forces would lose 2,000 casualties. is that acceptable? depends on whether or not one supported the war in the first place.

[6] is totally false. there are no significant enemy formations south of the US advance. there are lots of aggravating small pockets of resistance behind US lines - but (6) at least raises the precise fundamental issue: are the pockets and isolated groups behind US lines of any military significance? no.

[7] is true. but may not be that significant, or may be. remember "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?" there was huge support for the US in Basra in 1991. it was a huge mistake to let down the Shi'a Muslims in Basra then, and the anti-Saddam population in Basra not murdered by Baath Party thugs still remembers . . . .

Repeat question: do Ian, or Mike or Derrida know a single person in the Iraq theater? Just asking.

Anarchus asks:

"Repeat question: do Ian, or Mike or Derrida know a single person in the Iraq theater? Just asking."

Mike, smiling broadly and speaking only for himself, answered:

Irrelevant!

(And, knowing chicken hawks to be a dime a dozen while GOOD "straight men" are VERY hard to find, (especially when you need one ;-) and knowing Anarchus to be BOTH humor impaired AND irony challenged (an unbeatable combination :-) he added parenthetically:

Anyway Anarchus, what does THAT have to do with the price--in blood or money--of a li'l ol' riot in Miami OR Iraq ;?)

Mike:

Projected guilt actually.

If the U.S. never fought any wars, then those who never served and didn't know anyone who did wouldn't feel so guilty. And project it around indiscriminately.

Anarchus:

Have YOU ever worn a uniform?

Have YOU ever "served"?

Have YOU ever "known anyone who did" (or does)?

Have YOU ever lost a friend or loved one in an unnecessary, ill-conceived, almost universally unwanted and/or illegal war?

ARE you just another chicken hawk?

Do YOU "feel guilty"?

***
"Even IF there is a popular uprising against Saddam in Basra, it's far from unqualified good news.

These people are Shi'ites, with backing from Iran and no fondness for the US or, especially, Britain (they have long memories in this part of the world). A three-way fight is quite possible.

We could see a Warsaw Uprising situation, where the invading army stays back while the uprising is suppressed and there is a massive humanitarian disaster. This could occur either through unwillingness to incur coalition casualties or because of the post-war implications of an armed pro-Iranian Shi'ite militia (the latter motive would parallel Stalin's)."
***

derrida, Iran has been extremely supportive of the U.S. and Britain in the lead up to this action. Obviously they are quite happy to see Saddam go but the effects of promised democracy in a country with a Shi'ite majoirty are not lost on them either. Iran is probably not as problematic as you make it out. That said: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1650002

Even with the centrifigal effects of Iraq's multi-ethnic/religious society leaving Saddam in power so that he can continue to kill Iraqi civilians and develop more deadly WMD is hardly a rational nor better alternative.

As an aside I find it extremely ironic that people opposed to this action call themselves "anti-war." Saddam is not anti-war and would kill everyone opposed to him given the chance. Those opposing action now are therefore more accurately termed "anti-war on our terms."

Whatever your beliefs toward the legitimacy of this action, the criticisms being given on the military strategy don't reflect the magnitude of the success being attained by coalition forces. Up to this point, the results have been strategically remarkable. For the most part, Saddam's people have had to break the Geneva Conventions to be any threat whatsoever.

Yes to all, Mr. Mike. (I seem to have touched a nerve, no?).

Grandad was badly wounded in World War I in US Army, dad was Navy in World War II and I was in the Air Force between wars. I didn't want to be a career service guy, so I left. A very good friend of mine later died flying a fighter jet in training at age 29, you can find his grave here:

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/tx/topic/cemeteries/Wtx/Bailey/Muleshoe.html

And of course I feel guilty. Whatever I can do, I will do to support our guys. For example, in addition to the people I already know who are over there, I've adopted a platoon in the 3ID and send them stuff every week, from magazines to razors to medical masks for dust to whatever they ask for. They're wonderful, wonderful guys, all of them.

***
Anarchus:

Have YOU ever worn a uniform?

Have YOU ever "served"?

Have YOU ever "known anyone who did" (or does)?

Have YOU ever lost a friend or loved one in an unnecessary, ill-conceived, almost universally unwanted and/or illegal war?

ARE you just another chicken hawk?

Do YOU "feel guilty"?"
***

Mike, your basic assumptions are logically false. Service in the military does not necessarily make someone better able to analyze and comment on military actions. Likewise, having family members or friends serving also doesn't make someone more sympathetic. The likelihood may be greater, but if A, then B is not true. A tongue in cheek response: people who have experienced murder are not better able to comment on it :).

You gotta hand it to these guys. THEY aren't the least bit bothered by their habit of making it up as they go along...

Stan says:

"Iran has been extremely supportive of the U.S. and Britain in the lead up to this action."

The BBC said:

(Sunday, 18 August, 2002)

Iran and Bahrain oppose Iraq attack

The king of Bahrain has issued a joint statement with Iranian leaders opposing any "unilateral" military strike against Iraq.
It comes amid growing international disquiet about US President George W Bush's determination to depose Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The statement was released after Bahrain's Sheikh Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa completed talks in Tehran with Iranian leaders, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

King Hamad, whose nation hosts the US Fifth Fleet, was paying his first visit to Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The statement said: "We express our determined opposition to any unilateral military action against Iraq."

It spoke of the two governments' "shared concern" over the "threats which loom over the region" and expressed opposition to any action that would harm the security and stability of the Gulf.

The statement also expressed the two countries' solidarity with the Iraqi people, and call on the Iraqi Government to respect United Nations resolutions.

'Arrogance'

Iraq has so far resisted UN demands for an unconditional invitation to weapons inspectors to resume their work inside the country, which is accused of developing nuclear, biological and chemical armaments

Tehran, which remains the target of US economic sanctions and still has no diplomatic relations with Washington, has expressed strong hostility to American military action against Iraq.

Iran's supreme leader took a harder line than King Hamad during the talks.

"The (US) propaganda campaign about an attack on Iraq is flagrant arrogance," the official IRNA news agency quoted the Iranian supreme leader as saying..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2201390.stm

More recently, The Washington Post (via MSNBC) put Stan's "extreme" Iranian support for "the U.S. and Britain" this way:

U.S. met with Iranians on war

Tehran asked for pledges on aid, non-interference

By Peter Slevin
THE WASHINGTON POST

Feb. 8 — Bush administration officials held a rare private meeting with Iranian envoys in Europe last month to seek a promise of humanitarian help and an assurance that the Tehran government would not interfere in military operations if the United States goes to war against Iraq, U.S. officials said yesterday.

U.S. DIPLOMATS carrying a carefully designed message also asked Iran to join search-and-rescue missions for downed U.S. air crews, officials reported. They further requested that the Iranian government deny haven to fleeing Iraqis who might try to cross into Iran and regroup against a U.S.-supported government in Baghdad.

‘STAY OUT OF THE WAY’

A senior administration official said the White House hopes the Iranians “will stay out of the way” if U.S.-led forces topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favor of a pro-Western government. U.S. and U.N. officials report that signals from Tehran have been encouraging, although the Iranian government opposes military action.

The overture to Iran, a member of what President Bush called an “axis of evil,” demonstrates the extent of the administration’s efforts to line up support in the Persian Gulf for an increasingly likely war against Iraq. Bush has condemned the politics of the Tehran government but is seeking its cooperation as agreements with Iraqi neighbors Turkey and Jordan fall into place.

In London this week, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said a war would have repercussions in Iran. But he said Iran is prepared to settle Iraqi refugees temporarily along its border. During the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan on Iran’s northern border, Iran offered to conduct search-and-rescue missions. “Iran is basically against war and is not going to support either side,” Kharrazi said...."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870199.asp?0sl=-33#BODY

Anarchus writes:

"(I seem to have touched a nerve, no?)"

Yeah Anarchus, you touched a nerve. But not the one you thought you did.

See pal, I voluntarily served this country too. So did MY daddy. And I have known a few people who didn't make it back too.

What got MY goat was your attempt to marginalize those among us who haven't had those honors with you underhanded effort to intimidate and/or shame them into silence:

"Repeat question: do Ian, or Mike or Derrida know a single person in the Iraq theater? Just asking."

AS well as your presumption that no one who believes this particular war is unprovoked, ill-conceived, unnecessary, unwise, immoral AND illegal could possibly have served this country honorably.

That sort of stuff REALLY hacks me off.

Stan writes:

"Mike, your basic assumptions are logically false. Service in the military does not necessarily make someone better able to analyze and comment on military actions. Likewise, having family members or friends serving also doesn't make someone more sympathetic. The likelihood may be greater, but if A, then B is not true...."

You're preaching to the choir, Stan. The problem is: you're in the WRONG church. THAT particular sermon is one YOUR soulmate, Anarchus, needs to hear.....

"39 Allied deaths in the course of 6 days with 250,000 troops in the theatre of operations, the Iraqi air force completely suppressed, SAM and Scud-launching sites in western Iraq totally neutralized, American divisions 50 km outside Baghdad, and yet some of you call this some sort of debacle?"

No, not some kind of debacle. All that's happened is that exactly what our troops will face is becoming clear. The real fighting probably hasn't really started yet--our troops are simply making an approach march to Saddam's chosen battlefield (Baghdad). Most of the troops we've encountered so far, like the 51st Division, are not really very important in Saddam's scheme of things--Saddam can trade the whole division for a handful of casualties and a little delay, and feel pleased with the exchange. Saddam apparently plans to make us fight his best troops house-to-house in Baghdad, while small groups of irregulars pick at our supply lines leading up to the city, and Baghdad's civilian population acts as de facto hostages.

At this point, talk of success or failure is certainly premature--although it's not premature to start worrying.

UPDATE: Al Jazeera denies claims that there is an uprising in Basra. Don't try their website though, the DOD has been succesfully disabling for the last 2 days. I heard this on KPFA:
https://secure.transbay.net/kpfa/forms/0_aud.htm

The Al Jazeera editor made the point that it doesn't make sense, from a historical perspective, to expect an uprising as long as Saddam's regime is expected, by the local population, to possibly survive. What does one say? A wise man does not fall twice on the same rock?

P.S. To Anarchus: Put YOUR "sense of morality and proportion" right along side EVERYBODY else's, bubba.

And as for your "projected guilt"--well--you can put THAT where IT belongs too: Some place where the sun don't shine.

UPDATE: Al Jazeera denies claims that there is an uprising in Basra. Don't try their website though, the DOD has been succesfully disabling for the last 2 days. I heard this on KPFA:
https://secure.transbay.net/kpfa/forms/0_aud.htm

The Al Jazeera editor made the point that it doesn't make sense, from a historical perspective, to expect an uprising as long as Saddam's regime is expected, by the local population, to possibly survive. What does one say? A wise man does not fall twice on the same rock?

A comment about my comment that post-war Iraqi ought to be built with contributions from the Arab community...

The map looks radically different depending on where you are on it. In Buenos Aires, I was surprised to find out that one of the most important US cities was Miami (easily on par with NY), whereas out here (San Jose) Miami is not all the relevant.

My understanding is that Egypt, for many years, has been disproportionately influencial culturally. To have the Egyptians contributing to the process adds prestige that most Americans wouldn't detect. The Saudis are not only intensely wealthy but also right next to Iraq - not caring what they think would be foolish at best. The Iranians will want security on their border, not only from the Iraqis but from the Americans; enlisting them in one way or another will quell their fear, if that's what the US is interested in.

The biggest reason for involving local nations is to promote "Arab/Persian Ownership", which ought to make the whole process significantly easier.

Getting all these guys to agree on anything substantive after what they see as an act of imperial aggression may be nigh impossible, but there has to be some debate and the US is going to have to show some flexibility or they face real problems down the road.

You're right that Iraq would have been better off following Singapore than one of its neighbors. (Once upon a time I should have followed Stephen Covey instead of my girlfriend!) Proximity matters.

Cheers!
Saam Barrager

Mike, I can led you to water...

Many countries in the region are only providing support privately. Why would Iran, particularly IRAN be different? Iran might publically be saying they are opposed to the war but they were privately forcing the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SCIRI) to attend this meeting in London: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/14/sproject.irq.opposition1450/index.html

Furthermore, "Tehran asked for pledges on aid, non-interference" to play up their position. Our NATO ally made the same type of demands! If Turkey was providing the level of support that Iran is I personally would term it minimal, but being a NATO ally I expect a lot more from them. With my expectations for Iran being fairly low (as I assume everyone else's should be), I'm pretty comfortable with my portrayal of their level of support. Of course, you can spin it however you want. You've obviously done your homework...

"The biggest reason for involving local nations is to promote "Arab/Persian Ownership", which ought to make the whole process significantly easier."

It seems like a very bad idea to have a bunch of governments that aren't aren't themselves secular democracies set up a secular democracy. (Which is what I'd think we all want in Iraq.)

> It seems like a very bad idea to have a bunch of governments that aren't aren't themselves secular democracies set up a secular democracy.

"...not a democracy, it's a republic."

(And Britain isn't officially secular, either. Shall we leave the job to the Australians, then?)