Brave Iraqi Freedom Fighters attack New World Order Baghdad HQ

[Edan]

After the attack, CNN and FoxNews both showed footage from inside the building when the attack took place (there had been a press conference inside, and they got it from some affiliate or other, I assume).

It's very... umm.. dramatric.

[Edan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

US troops WERE policemen in Germany and Japan after WW2. Occupation is generally one of the roles of an army. Our army may not be well trained for it, but that doesnt provide an alternative.

Was our army well trained for it for the aftermath of WW2?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The police force was armed and authorized behind schedule. The big problem in standing up the Iraqi police quickly was sorting out the Baathists. Which our guys, obviously, were not equipped to do. The Pentagon plan was, apparently, to use the Iraqi National Congress to do the vetting, since they would have the cultural and political knowledge, and local contacts, to do that.

State and CIA were afraid this would leave the INC (and thus the Pentagon) running things, so they vetoed it.

Since the occupation phase, by definition, comes after the warfighting phase, we had more time to plan for and settle occupation issues like this than we had to plan for the warfighting issues.

More to the point, I was responding to Sloww's troll about this being a failing of the Iraqi police, when we've dictated the pace and manpower they're allocated, and we still directly and indirectly control them.

BTW, one of the main concerns with the INC was that they didn't have the degree of knowledge and contacts claimed, since it was run by a bunch of expats who'd long been removed from the realities of Iraq under Saddam.

[Spiffor]

I still wonder why the UN building was attacked. I suppose it was less defended than most USUK facilities, and the terrorists had an easier time placing the bomb and escaping the blow.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Defiant
"Is it a feature of the two-digit IQ crowd that there are never more than two alternatives, whatever you happen to do, or nothing at all? Or is it just the weather or lack of coffee this morning, or something in the water?"

Nah, I am not going to engage in pissing fight with a skunk, all you are doing here is pissing, moaning and b!tching with no real solution, doesn't even take a double digit IQ to master those responses.

So your "real solution" is to blurt "Yeah, let's do nothing, that worked real well!"

I suppose we could apply the same standard of "do it the way it is, because that's better than doing nothing at all" to things like the Bay of Pigs or to Jimmy "I came, I saw, Iran" Carter's hostage rescue fiasco. Or is it just that Bush jr's policies are subject to that little standard of convenience? Makes it much easier to duck questions of performance, doesn't it?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Spiffor
and the terrorists had an easier time placing the bomb and escaping the blow.

Unless it was a suicide attack. That would signal an increasing role of islamists in the resistance.

[GePap]

The UN complex was not that fortified (I don;t think it was fortified at all), so it made a good high visibility target.

The main UN administrator for Iraq is known to have been injured and supposedly still trapped in the building.

[GePap]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Unless it was a suicide attack. That would signal an increasing role of islamists in the resistance.

It was a suicide truck bombing: truck drove up to the building, then it exploded.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Since the occupation phase, by definition, comes after the warfighting phase, we had more time to plan for and settle occupation issues like this than we had to plan for the warfighting issues.

More to the point, I was responding to Sloww's troll about this being a failing of the Iraqi police, when we've dictated the pace and manpower they're allocated, and we still directly and indirectly control them.

BTW, one of the main concerns with the INC was that they didn't have the degree of knowledge and contacts claimed, since it was run by a bunch of expats who'd long been removed from the realities of Iraq under Saddam.

the expats claim they were in regular contact with allies on the inside. And the claim that the expats didnt have knowledge was made by State and CIA, who seem to be less well placed for knowledge of the inside than the INC.

More time for planning - well yes, but the two different sides of the admin had conflicting plans, and the conflicts were never resolved. The State plan was apparently to give up control to the UN and thus use foreign troops - DoD vetoed. Dod's plan was to use the INC - State and CIA vetoed. In the absence of agreement it was hoped some conventional Iraqi army units would come over intact and act as police - but that didnt happen - then it was time to improvise.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Unless it was a suicide attack. That would signal an increasing role of islamists in the resistance.

It apparently was a suicide attack. Im not sure that proves it was Islamists - there could well be suicidal Baathist deadenders.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I still wonder why the UN building was attacked. I suppose it was less defended than most USUK facilities, and the terrorists had an easier time placing the bomb and escaping the blow.

The UN is the designated authority under international law for recognizing and forming the transitional government, so it makes sense from a Baathist perspective as a target. It doesn't make sense to focus strictly on US and UK facilities, because they're heavily defended already. By expanding the number and type of targets, the US and UK either have to dilute their coverage on the facilities they defend now, or else concede that they can't secure all the major soft targets. Either way, not a bad outcome for the attackers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Unless it was a suicide attack. That would signal an increasing role of islamists in the resistance.

there also seems to be an assumption that the Baathists and the Sunni fundamentalists are completely distinct. In fact senior Sunni clergy where appointed by Saddam and supported him in their sermons. Saddam apparently cooperated with Al Ansar al Islam against common enemies.

Theres something in between "saddam is responsible for 9/11" and the apparent belief that the Baathists have never cooperated with Islamists.

[GePap]

I don;t buy into the notion that only Baathists are attacking the US. I am not saying that there is any sort of popular resistance, but there are many more groups in Iraq looking to influence the situation with violence. Suicide truck bombings are a common Isdlamist tool, and they have the most expertise in that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I don;t buy into the notion that only Baathists are attacking the US. I am not saying that there is any sort of popular resistance, but there are many more groups in Iraq looking to influence the situation with violence. Suicide truck bombings are a common Isdlamist tool, and they have the most expertise in that.

I have seen numerous reports that foreign islamsts have been involved. There may be Iraqi Sunni islamists involved - although its not clear that there is a clear bright line between them and the Baathists, as i discuss above. There still seems to be no violence from the Shiites, even from the followers of Sadr.

[GePap]

The Shia gain little from violence at this point. As far as they can see, they are big winners from all of this, and ca wait the US out. Of course, if at the time a new government is formed and a lot of safeguards are put in to prevent Shia political domination of the country (assuming in the long term the Kurds decide not to break away), then some Shia leaders may see it as the US colluding with the Sunni to keep them from power, and then things get messy.