Semi-Daily Journal

Q Mr. President, a posse of small nations -- like the Ukraine and
Poland -- are materializing to help keep the peace in Iraq. But with
the attacks on U.S. forces and the casualty rates rising, what is the
administration doing to get larger powers, like France and Germany and
Russia, to join the American occupation there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we'll put together a force structure
who meets the threats on the ground. And we've got a lot of forces
there, ourselves. And as I said yesterday, anybody who wants to harm
American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some
who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave
prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if
that's the case.

Let me finish. There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are
such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've
got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. Of course
we want other countries to help us -- Great Britain is there, Poland is
there, Ukraine is there, you mentioned. Anybody who wants to help,
we'll welcome the help. But we've got plenty tough force there right
now to make sure the situation is secure. We always welcome help. We're
always glad to include others in. But make no mistake about it -- and
the enemy shouldn't make any mistake about it -- we will deal with them
harshly if they continue to try to bring harm to the Iraqi people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030702-3.html

Ouch.

Ouch.

Being a nineteen-year old boy, I'm just glad I'm not in Iraq now. At the same time, though, there's some other guy who is, who might be assigned to some unit that I would have been assigned to had I been in the military. Maybe he died in that Chinook today.

I'm very glad that I am (relatively) safe, but it makes me sad to think of what could have been, and what is for thousands who are not unlike me, but who are killed while riding in helicopters and shot at in the sweltering streets.

I'm not a maudlin type by nature, but I can't think of any other, more rational way to respond right now. Maybe reason and political thought will return to me tomorrow.

This is not Vietnam. However, as Sen. Max Cleland has pointed out, we can apply lessons we learned as a nation from the experience in Vietnam to the situation in Iraq. In this war we have an all volunteer army. We do not have the sons of the middle, upper and privileged classes in harms way (ie the draft), so we will not have the social disruption on our college campuses and mothers and fathers marching to Washington to protest the war (ie protest that their sons were at risk). Further, the Civil War finally ended in 1964 with the Civil Rights act and voting legislation, so that apparatus of righteous protest has been dismantled. The major problem, in my estimation, is that Bush refuses to ask the country to act like it is at war; he asks for no shared sacrifice and pursues guns and butter without any regard to how those policies hurt the economy (it didn't help Johnson through Carter). It is absolutely anti-compassionate (and downright inhumane and immoral) to freeze or reduce death and disability benefits to families of soldiers killed or severely wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq (as I understand Bush did), so that someone making $50 million last year can make $56 million this year simply by paying less in taxes. Why aren't we seriously debating a policy to give people incentives to turn their houses to solar (deduct the entire amount of the solar heating system for x number years), deduct the cost of a hybrid car over 5 years, etc? No new buildings or houses unless solar powered? Let the auto companies triple expense their investment in fuel cell research. How about: "By the end of this decade, no new car sold in the United States shall be gas powered!!!" Why can't that be a worthy challenge for the country?

OK, let's keep this in perspective. Attacks like these are just more evidence of how despondent the dead-enders are.

French government's expression of sympathy:
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/article.asp?ART=38085
Routine, but they did it

One irony is that the shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapon that shot down the helicopter was developed by the US and may have even been purchased from the US.

Incidents like these tend to inflame the hot heads who then retaliate against innocent civilians. This in tern inflames the civilians and contributes to the rebellion.

Even though it would have gotten a lot of negative press, the US should have left Saddam's army in place and used it to keep the peace. It is easier to reform an existing army, (however corrupt) than to form a new one that is untrained.

We never should have tolerated looting or disrespect for the law. Once a situation goes over the edge into lawlessness and rebellion, it is much harder to regain control than it would have been to prevent the loss of control.

The people who planned Iraq apparently don't study military history. A textbook example of how to conduct a surrender was Sherman's capture of Savannah at the end of his march to the sea. He met with the mayor, insisted he remain on duty, insisted that the local police continue, encamped his men outside the city and allowed only a few to enter at any time. As terms of surrender, all arms and ammuntion and military installations were brought under Sherman's control. As part of the deal Savannah was not bombed or occupied. Today, Savannah has most of its old historic buildings. None were lost to the war. The residents did not suffer economically due to the occupation. The troops provided food and trade of goods was restored. In short, there were very few incentives to fight a partisan war and a lot of incentives not to fight.

In constrast in Baghdad, the US sent large numbers of troops into the urban area, removed the army, removed the police force removed the civilian control of the government, issued dead or alive player cards for the people capable of running the government in Saddam's absence and failed to collect and control the small arms and ammunition critical to waging a rebellion. The key is to use THREAT of force from a secure distance in exchange for a peaceful civilian government. There is little incentive not to engage in partisan attacks and very few incentives not to do so. Just leaving many small arms widely available makes partisan attacks easy.

The key to stability is civilian control. It is going to be a long occupation.

bakho makes a good point. What I want to know is why aren't we hearing about US efforts to stem the flood of weapons and munitions to Iraq or other parts of the world? Where are these people getting these grenade launchers, rocket launchers, or even bullets for that matter? Why isn't the US going after the sources? Is it because we are our own enemy? Are US or Allies companies selling weapons to the very people who attack us? What will it take to make them stop?

bakho writes:
> One irony is that the shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapon that
> shot down the helicopter was developed by the US and may
> have even been purchased from the US.

Are you sure about this? The only story on this point that I've seen is this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/international/middleeast/03MILI.html

Briefly, they point out that Hussein had stockpiled like 5000 shoulder-fired missles (doesn't say how many were surface-to-air) and that we can account for only 1/3 of them. Many were the Russian SA-7. A point they make is that it takes practice and training to fire any of these effectively, which might well be part of the reason that we haven't lost too many aircraft so far.

Another point in the article is that we know of (i.e., have seen and counted) almost 1 million tons of weapons at thousands of sites, but can only guard 100 of these sites around the clock. So many sites have been looted routinely. Words fail me here.

Although it would be sickly ironic if weapons sold by the US were killing our own soldiers, this kind of failure might be understandable given the course of our history in the region over many decades. That we, however, apparently do not have enough forces in the region to neutralize or guard known weapons caches is...beyond absurd.

Critical military leave situation. A president who desperately needs it and won't take it. So many soldiers who desperately need it and will never get it.

I wonder if someone did a poll of soldiers in Iraq right now, how many of them believe that the current administration is handling things well.

Bakho,

I know that it's an unwritten rule here not to mention the Nazis and Communists, but did the US keep in place the Gestapo and the Wehrmacht in 1945 to keep the "peace" in Germany? Was that an error not to? Even if the attacks against the Americans continued for a long while afterwards?

I will agree, though, that if we decide not to keep the thugs in charge, we should probably have half a million soldiers there, not a mere 130,000.

GAJoe writes:
>
> What I want to know is why aren't we hearing about US
> efforts to stem the flood of weapons and munitions to
> Iraq or other parts of the world? Where are these people
> getting these grenade launchers, rocket launchers, or
> even bullets for that matter? Why isn't the US going after
> the sources?

In fairness, smuggling weapons into war zones (and trying to keep them out) is a story that is as old as the hills. Hey, it's a major plot point in the Illiad.

Some weapons do get smuggled in, and everybody in the region is armed to the teeth. Hussein also stockpiled hundreds of thousands of TONS of weapons at various locations in Iraq. The NY Times reports we can only guard the 100 or so most sensitive ammunition depots 24/7.

I'm not sure what the best answer to the problem is, but this situation is consistent with the notion that we don't have nearly enough troops stationed on the ground in Iraq. It is, however, now militarily tricky and politically next-to-impossible to move many more troop into the region.

The real mystery to me is how Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides have managed to retain their jobs. Our errors in planning for the post-conflict were essentially all unforced errors caused by the arrogance of those in the current government who refused to listen to anybody, not even the professional soldiers who would have to implement the plan.

Jonathon, Rumsfield has his job because (1) this administration is always right, and if wrong, always right, and (2) because it'd be admitting that the war was conducted incompetantly. Some people might then realize where the buck should stop.

"Even though it would have gotten a lot of negative press, the US should have left Saddam's army in place and used it to keep the peace. It is easier to reform an existing army, (however corrupt) than to form a new one that is untrained. "

The pre-war forecast by Wolfowitz was for around 30K US troops in Iraq by the end of summer '03. I see only a few ways in which that could have happened, and only way which wouldn't require divine intervention would be to use Saddam's army to run the country.

I expected that the plan was for deacapitation followed by installation of some of Saddam's generals in charge of the country (who would be wearing new uniforms, and therefore would have had *nothing* to do with Saddam's regime). At that point, the Kurds and the Shiites would be told that Baghdad was back in charge. Those who didn't get the message would be killed - not by the US, but by Iraqis. An 'internal matter', just like during the 1980's.

Barry writes:
>
> Jonathan, Rumsfield has his job because (1) this
> administration is always right, and if wrong, always right,
> and (2) because it'd be admitting that the war was
> conducted incompetantly. Some people might then realize
> where the buck should stop.

Yes, they are arrogant. What surprises me is that somebody in the political wing doesn't realize just how badly they could be hurt by the results of this arrogance, and the perception that they aren't "doing something" about the problems we're seeing. The whole initial economic team was shown the door, you know. The Iraq war was basically quite popular, while the Iraq occupation probably couldn't be very popular under the best of circumstances. Even if the occupation ends up being a neutral factor among civilians, I've seen nothing to indicate that people in the military are big fans of the civilians who are now calling the shots. It's pretty much unthinkable that they'd defect in vast numbers from the GOP, but Bush is not in a position where he should be happy about losing any number of military votes for *not* giving them Rumsfeld's head on a platter.

Jonathan King says of people in the military:

"It's pretty much unthinkable that they'd defect in vast numbers from the GOP..."

I'm not sure that it is unthinkable, particularly if Clark gets the Democratic nomination. I'll bet they love that recent pay cut.