Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Ramo]

Well, Sadr said that he was the military arm of Sistani if that's what you meant.

I very much doubt that he ever wanted Sistani's acceptance (really, Sadr believes in a far more extreme form of Islamism and has a beef with Sistani's Iranian ethnicity), simply wanted to publicly portray his actions in concert with Sistani's motivations.

[MOBIUS]

I just saw a news report where Sistani warned US troops not to enter Najaf...

Still, things are looking up in that the US has belatedly started to use greater avenues of negotiation at its disposal rather than resorting to violence, and it should be encouraged to continue to do so!

Encouraging signs are using the clerics and working with Iran to mediate with Sadr.

US officials are planning to hold their first direct meeting with city leaders from Falluja - the fragile truce there has held for 5 days now.

Blair has been making overtures to the UN for their help during the planned transistion of power on June 30th.

Finally it seems that the coalition leadership in Iraq is waking up to common sense and making an effort to be more inclusive in its dealings with the Iraqi people.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
And yet they just executed an Iranian hostage. That's a heck of a way to impress a putative ally! Does he belong to some obscure Shiite sect that considers Shiites to be their natural enemies?

We don;t know who shot the Iranian diplomat. It happened in Baghdad and the guy was not part of the negotiating team. It may very well have been Sunni gunmen who remember back to the 8 year war they had.

[MOBIUS]

Signs of discord between U.S., UK

Yep, Bush is sure looking like an uncomfortable weight around Blair's shoulders these days - but now they are stuck with each other!

Interesting to see that 85% of pollsters on a US website would like to see the UN play a bigger role on Iraq?

Isn't it strange how despite being democratically elected (at least in the case of the UK!) govts, both Bush and Blair are hell-bent on ignoring the will of their people.

[Arrian]

a) Webpolling is not particularly representative.

b) They may do so at their peril. It's a gamble that things will improve. If they don't, they're probably both going down.

-Arrian

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


We don;t know who shot the Iranian diplomat. It happened in Baghdad and the guy was not part of the negotiating team. It may very well have been Sunni gunmen who remember back to the 8 year war they had.

Or it may well have been US forces or their proxies.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
a) Webpolling is not particularly representative.

True, just like Homer Simpson being voted Greatest American...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I just saw a news report where Sistani warned US troops not to enter Najaf...

Still, things are looking up in that the US has belatedly started to use greater avenues of negotiation at its disposal rather than resorting to violence, and it should be encouraged to continue to do so!

Encouraging signs are using the clerics and working with Iran to mediate with Sadr.

US officials are planning to hold their first direct meeting with city leaders from Falluja - the fragile truce there has held for 5 days now.

And prior to the US action, the Iraqi and Shiite "leaders" weren't particularly interested in doing anything substantial. Perhaps they just needed a little "motivation." Hooraah!

Finally it seems that the coalition leadership in Iraq is waking up to common sense and making an effort to be more inclusive in its dealings with the Iraqi people.

You can only negotiate if the other guys have an interest in doing so, and it's still pointless unless they're prepared to act meaningfully.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I'm glad to find some Americans who share my point of view, like Arrian and GePap.

Well, they can be just as wrong as Eurolefties.

I'm sure most of the people in this forum have an academic degree or are on their way to get one, and along with it might come some knowledge of project management. Those management methods are generic to any type of activity, like private life, business, military or any other area. When you plan a project of any kind, you set a strategic, long-term goal. The accomplishment of that goal should then be the aim of every single policy, tactic and action.

Warfighting is a bit different. You may apply the same technigues in the most basic form, but there are far more, and more severe, constraints on your available choices, plus the fact that you are dealing with a direct opposing force. In business or government, you usually don't have to plan for the competition bombing your main manufacturing plant or engineering office, or killing your CFO.

In the case of this war, the long-term goal is "Iraqi Freedom", if you believe in the official politics.

That's just the rhetorical selling point, because it sounds more high-minded than "knocking off that ******* Hussein"

But many policies, tactics and actions of the US military are directly opposing the strategic goal. That may be things already pointed out by GePap and Arrian,

Back in the early days, when troops used to walk around amongst the Iraqis, it wasn't too uncommon for someone to just pop out of the crowd and shoot one of our troops in the back of the head just below the helmet from point-blank range. Quite a few early occupation casualties were caused from that sort of attack, when they weren't caused by IED's in the road. That is why we adopted a more aggressive and more distant patrol posture.

Now explain to me how this is supposed to work. You have a couple of US troops, a crowd of a hundred Iraqis, and a couple of them are armed hostiles. So the US troops keep their weapons down, tiptoe through the tulips, ignore the potential threat, and are shot down without warning. But they didn't offend any Iraqis. So this is supposed to convince the Iraqi people that "those are so wonderful foreign occupiers, dieing for our freedom, we have so much more respect for them and the CPA, and we're going to run to the authorities and report those two bad fellow arabs, Muslims and Iraqis who shot the foreign occupiers."

facts reported by Oerdin (like soldiers mounting heavy plates on their vehicles to do more damage on civilian cars that are in their way in traffic jams),

Cars are used as mobile barricades to spring ambushes on US forces. Cars block the humvees, then ambush teams hose them with automatic weapons and RPG fire from both rooftops and ground level. **** 'em if they block our vehicles, they know better by now.

calling airstrikes on mosques (guerillas using it as an ambush hideout does not matter in the eyes of the Iraqis).

We're not asking for their opinion. If they don't want their mosques bombed (or, actually, the perimter wall and an outbuilding in the compound surrounding a mosque ), then they shouldn't allow insurgents to use them as fighting, supply, and command & control positions.

There are several patriotic American war movies where the message is that the mission objective is more important than the life of individual soldiers. The most obvious I can think of is U571 where a sailor drowns himself to achive the goals.

Actually (a) the deal wasn't about his "noble sacrifice" but about the gutless main character officer who wanted to be popular and avoid giving high-risk orders to his subordinates. (b) the guy didn't intend to drown, he got stuck. (c) his playing plumber was essential to the "mission" (despite the cheesiness of the movie) (d) There had to be the obligatory "expendible minor character gets killed" scene to work those emotions, oh yeah baby.

And finally, last but not least, (e) you or anyone else here has yet to explain how allowing themselves to get killed will endear US forces to either Iraqi civilians or the *******s who are fighting us?

While I can't blame soldiers who don't want to die (who would want to?), their urge to save their own asses is not working towards the strategic goal.

It's not the average soldier's job to think of the strategic (i.e. political) goal. It's his job to perform the task immediately in front of him, whether that's civil affairs work, or counterambush.

Trigger happiness in convoys, road blocks and airstrikes could sometimes save the life of the individuals who pull the trigger,

And nobody has yet to present any compelling evidence of any case of "trigger happiness" as opposed to forceful response. Convoy ops wouldn't even involve pulling a trigger unless you were attacked, so sorry, if forceful response in a defensive action offends people, too ****ing bad. Don't attack, or shelter those who do. Same with checkpoints and roadblocks. By now, US forces have processed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqi driven vehicles through checkpoints and roadblocks. How often do these result in shooting incidents? Beirut taught us the hazards of not responding adequately to those who try to force their way past checkpoints, so sorry, if you ignore the checkpoint, ignore warnings, ignore warning shots, or do other stupid stuff at high speed, you might get hurt.

If the first goal was to save American lifes, the troops should stay home.

I never had a problem with that, but it's a bit late now.

And disarm those civilians! There is no legal reason
whatsoever for a civilian to own an AK-47.

What should we do, ask politely?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Well, they can be just as wrong as Eurolefties.

You know I'm conservative. Being against an idiotic war of agression does not make me a lefty. I even supported GW Bush until I found out what a moron he is.

That's just the rhetorical selling point, because it sounds more high-minded than "knocking off that ******* Hussein"

There are several indications that you are correct on this one, unfortunately. Well, mission accomplished, now how do we get our asses out without losing face?

Back in the early days, when troops used to walk around amongst the Iraqis, it wasn't too uncommon for someone to just pop out of the crowd and shoot one of our troops in the back of the head...

They never invited you, so I can't blame them. But why didn't that happen to the Brits?

It's not the average soldier's job to think of the strategic (i.e. political) goal. It's his job to perform the task immediately in front of him, whether that's civil affairs work, or counterambush.

I think we have discussed "winning every battle but losing the war on the polital side" before, haven't we? I think you are wrong here. If the soldiers don't work towards the strategic goal, then who will? The soldiers don't necessarily have to think about politics themselves, but their officers have to, and give orders that fit into the policy.

And nobody has yet to present any compelling evidence of any case of "trigger happiness" as opposed to forceful response...

I have seen plenty of reports in Swedish and British media. And not only "leftist" media.

I never had a problem with that, but it's a bit late now.

I can't remember you complaining before the war started, but perhaps I was too new to the OT forum to recognize you back then?

What should we do, ask politely?

You don't seem to have a problem with using force on other occations, do you? But I think that can be avoided to a large extent. Isn't there a cash award for turning things like RPGs and ordnance in to the occupation forces? Just extend that to AK-47's. And inform the public that they are illegal to own (which probably need a new law) and that anyone found with one will be imprisoned for a year or something. Confiscate every weapon you find. I really don't see how the resistance could end if every family has an assault rifle in their closet. Anyone who gets fed up with the occupation will start to shoot at you sooner or later.


On the issues I have not replied to, we are either too far from each other or the issue is too minor to continue dicussing.

[Alexander's Horse]

KURTZ
" I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement.

Because it's judgement that defeats us. "

[Agathon]

I've been thinking about that exact same scene for a couple of weeks now.

Good work hunting it down AH.

[Alexander's Horse]

In Nha Trang :

WILLARD (v.o.)
"I was going to the worst place in the world, and I didn't even know
it yet. Weeks away and hundreds of miles up a river that snaked
through the war like a main circuit cable and plugged straight into
Kurtz. It was no accident that I got to be the caretaker of Colonel
Walter E. Kurtz's memory, any more than being back in Saigon
was an accident. There is no way to tell his story without telling
my own. And if his story is really a confession, then so is mine."

In the briefing room :

COLONEL LUCAS
"Come on in.. At ease. Want a cigarette ?"

WILLARD
"No, thank you sir."

LUCAS
"Captain, have you ever seen this gentleman before ? Met the
general or myself ?"

WILLARD
"No, sir. Not personally."

LUCAS
"You have worked a lot on your own, haven't you ?"

WILLARD
"Yes, sir. I have."

LUCAS
"Your report specify intelligence, counter-intelligence,
with ComSec I Corps."

WILLARD
"I'm not presently disposed to discuss these operations, sir."

LUCAS
"Did you not work for the CIA in I Corps ?"

WILLARD
"No, sir."

LUCAS
"Did you not assasinate a government tax collector in
Quang Tri province, June 19th, 1968 ? Captain ?"

WILLARD
"Sir, I am unaware of any such activity or operation - nor would
I be disposed to discuss such an operation if it did in
fact exist, sir."

GENERAL CORMAN
"I thought we'd have a bite of lunch while we talk. I hope
you brought a good appetite with you.
You have a bad hand there, are you wounded ?"

WILLARD
"A little fishing accident on R&R, sir."

CORMAN
"Fishing on R&R... But you're feeling fit, ready
for duty ?"

WILLARD
"Yes, general. Very much so sir."

CORMAN
"Let's see what we have here... roast beef and...,
usually is not bad. Try some Jerry, pass it around.
Save a little time when we'll pass both ways. Captain,
I don't know how you feel about this shrimp, but if you'll
eat it, you never have to prove your courage in any
other way... I'll take a piece here ..."

LUCAS
"Captain, you heard of Colonel Walter E. Kurtz ?"

WILLARD
"Yes, sir, I've heard the name."

LUCAS
"Operations officer, 5th Special forces."

CORMAN
"Luke, would you play that tape for captain, please.
Listen carefully."

ON TAPE
"October 9th, 0430 hours, sector PBK."

LUCAS
"This was monitored out of Cambodia. This has been verified
as colonel Kurtz's voice."

COLONEL KURTZ (on tape)
" I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my
dream. That's my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a
straight razor, and surviving. "

ON TAPE
"11th transmission, December 30th, 0500 hours, sector KZK."

KURTZ (on tape)
" We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after
cow, village after village, army after army. And they call me an
assasin. What do you call it when the assasins accuse
the assasin ? They lie.. they lie and we have to be merciful
for those who lie. Those nabobs. I hate them. How I hate them..."

CORMAN
"Walt Kurtz was one of the most outstanding officers this country
has ever produced. He was a brilliant and outstanding in every way
and he was a good man too. Humanitarian man, man of wit, of humor.
He joined the Special forces. After that his ideas, methods have
become unsound... Unsound."

LUCAS
"Now he's crossed to Cambodia with his Montagnard army, who
worship the man, like a god, and follow every order however ridiculous."

CORMAN
"Well, I have some other shocking news to tell you. Colonel
Kurtz was about to be arrested for murder."

WILLARD
"I don't follow sir. Murdered who ?"

LUCAS
"Kurtz had ordered executions of some Vietnamese intelligence
agents. Men he believed were double agents. So he took
matters into his own hands."

CORMAN
"Well, you see Willard... In this war, things get confused
out there, power, ideals, the old morality, and practical
military necessity. Out there with these natives it must be
a temptation to be god. Because there's a conflict in
every human heart between the rational and the irrational,
between good and evil. The good does not always triumph.
Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called
the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a
breaking point. You and I have. Walter Kurtz has reached his.
And very obviously, he has gone insane."

WILLARD
"Yes sir, very much so sir. Obviously insane."

LUCAS
"Your mission is to proceed up to Nung river in a Navy
patrol boat. Pick up colonel Kurtz' path at Nu Mung Ba,
follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find
colonel infiltrate his team by whatever means available and
terminate the colonel's command."

WILLARD
"Terminate ? The colonel ?"

CORMAN
"He's out there operating without any decent restraint.
Totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct.
And he is still in the field commanding his troops."

CIVILIAN
"Terminate with extreme prejudice."

LUCAS
"You understand captain... , that this operation does
not exist, nor will it ever exist."


In helicopter :

WILLARD (v.o.)
"How many people had I already killed? There was those six that I know
about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my
face. But this time it was an American and an officer. That wasn't
supposed to make any difference to me, but it did. ****...charging a
man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding
tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else
was I gonna do? But I didn't know what I'd do when I found him."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Apocalypse Now was such overrated BS.

[Alexander's Horse]

It does verge on parody.