I've heard from an undisclosed source that Baghdad is "Phase-1 Houston" in U.S. military parlance and that it will be getting a visit from the air "very soon." This is all I know, except that it jibes with a March 1 (or slightly later) start to the campaign to oust Saddam.
This is starting to get tricky. I'm starting to get information specific to war plans and which, if published, could conceivably endanger United States forces. Just to be clear: I will not be publishing any information that could get people killed. If I have advanced information of troop movements, you won't see it here. I may oppose the war, but I won't do anything to harm people in the field. I have friends in the military, and they have a tough job. Most them don't want this war any more than peace activists do and they don't have the opportunity to march in the streets saying "no." However, they do make it possible for everyone else to march by nature of their service to their country.
Therefore, what follows is speculation. I have no data that the following is accurate, but I think it makes sense.
The massive buildup in Kuwait and in other Gulf countries such as Qatar is a Calais-style feint. Just as in the first Gulf War, when Marines practiced an amphibious invasion that turned out to be a ruse only to mount a massive "left hook" by armored divisions, the United States is hoping to convince Iraq that the majority of its attack will be from the south. However, two other fronts could be open without the American media being informed.
Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan: Much has been said about the reluctance of Turkey to allow U.S. forces to open up a northern front in order to tie down Iraqi forces from racing to defend Baghdad. Recent article have mentioned further foot-dragging on the part of the Turkish Parliament. This is likely a ruse. I think it's probable there is already a modest build-up of American forces larger than previously admitted but smaller than what the United States is publicly asking for. The situation is probably even more stabilized in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Washington Post reported on Jan. 30 that "small numbers" of American military forces are operating in Iraqi Kurdistan. Jalal Talabani, chairman of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan made a laughable distinction between the"personnel"and"troops." My theory is that the numbers are much greater in Iraqi Kurdistan than anyone is admitting. The northern front, despite its public disarray is probably in pretty good shape.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia: There have been consistent rumors of American troops "training" in Jordan. It's not unreasonable for the one Arab country with a free-trade agreement with the United States and a peace treaty with Israel to have allowed a modest build-up in the eastern desert ready to launch into Iraq's vast western provinces to seize SCUD sites and advance on Baghdad. There are already troops in Saudi Arabia and the desert kingdom's public protests, reluctance to allow the use of its bases and declarations that the Americans will be expelled after the war could very well be a head-fake on Saddam. The government-controlled media could be easily brought to heel, as evidenced by protests that rocked the country months ago and which were never reported in the newspapers.
in each region I've mentioned, the media are either tightly controlled or can quickly be censored. My speculation mirrors a war plan that was leaked to the New York Times in July 2002 but which was quickly disowned by the Americans and the regional powers. Turkey and Jordan, especially, said quickly that their territories would not be used. I'm skeptical of these claims, especially considering the leverage the United States has on Ankara and Amman.
Again, this is speculation, but considering the history of the United States using massive build-ups to distract enemies only to hit them hard from another direction, it makes sense. There are also signs that Iraq may be wise to this tactic. Along an Iraqi army post about 100 yards from the Kuwaiti border, "there is no sign here that Iraq is doing much to prepare itself militarily against an invasion. A stray tank or two can be seen farther north, off the road from Basra to Baghdad, but otherwise there is little evidence of any real military presence near the zone."
In two weeks or so, we'll see how close I was in my predictions. Any takers?
[UPDATE: I swear I didn't read this article in the Boston Globe before I wrote this entry. But the two pieces seem to jibe pretty closely, eh?]
It’s getting ridiculous. Why does the media still talk about a “possible” war? Everything is in place and moving right ahead. Why do they even bother saying it’s merely “possible”?
Also, I’m sorry, but the military doesn’t receive any sympathy from me. They weren’t drafted — they knew what they were getting into.(or they should’ve known….it’s not like the neato video-game-like advertisements for the navy or whatever. there’s actually killing and destruction involved. gasp!)
Dave, unlike you and I military personnel do not have the choice of whether or not they want to fight. They volunteered, so they go where they are told to go. They must trust that the civilian leadership of the US armed forces will not get them into situations that are untenable. They do not have the luxury of saying “no” or protesting in the streets we, as civilians, do.
You are absolutely correct that anyone enlisting in the military should know what they were getting into (I know I did), but that does not mean we should withdraw our support from the troops in the field because we disagree with what they are being told to do.
They do not get a say how they are used or where they are told to fight, and deserve every ounce of support we can muster. But we, as civilians and citizens, should do all we can on the home front to try to make sure the military is not unnecessarily put in harms way. We do that by writing our Congress Critters, and, if necessary, protesting in the streets as we have been doing.
Just because George Bush and his criminal cronies are acting in an irrational matter, does not mean we should blame the men and women in the armed services. They are not responsible for the actions of the civilian leadership.
Michael
I understand that the troops are simply following orders and that we can’t blame them, but what I can’t understand is why someone would want to join the military in the first place. Well, I’m sure there are benign reasons such as gaining discipline or comraderie, but it seems to me that in order to be in the military, you have to support the killing of others and the possible death of yourself, at least on some level. I don’t think pacifists join the army.
Even if you aren’t directly in charge of the death of others, you are a piece in the puzzle that leads to said deaths.
By the way “support for the troops” is really a meaningless thing to say. What entails support, and what entails withdrawing the support? Does support mean sending our troops letters of praise? I don’t understand. That phrase “support our troops” is just a way to get people to agree with the military action in a visceral way. You could say “I don’t support this war, but I support our troops.” It’s essentially a contradiction. You could argue that if the troops were so against this war, they could lay down their guns and get thrown in jail. If their will is strong enough, maybe they should.
But I’m not buying the argument. It doesn’t mean that I hate people in the military — I’m sure there are plenty of really great people in the military, but I can’t agree with their methods.
Hi, Dave—
I guess when michael says “support the troops,” he means don’t hate them, abuse them, call them cocksuckers, that kind of thing. I’ve seen that happen. At the peace rally on Saturday, I saw protestors verbally abuse cops — and all the cops were doing was standing there saying, “move along, stay on the sidewalk, move along …” The cops weren’t doing anything aggressive. One protester allegedly punched a cop’s horse in the face. Why?
Same with troops. I don’t agree with this war, but I sincerely hope that when the troops do come home, they aren’t treated with the same contempt as many of the Vietnam vets were.
As for my friends joining, I wish they hadn’t. I tried to talk one of them out of it, saying he was buying into the machine. But he wanted to serve his country and that was that. So now that he’s there and possibly going to be put in grave danger, I shouldn’t wish him well and a safe return? That’s what I mean by supporting the troops.
Thanks, Christopher. I think I see what you mean now. I don’t have any friends or family in the military right now, but if I did (and I’m sure I would question their reasons and try to get them not to join) I would also wish them well.
I don’t know if I’m contradicting myself. I guess my problem is when people say “support the troops” as a patriotic gesture.(and I see that’s not what you were saying)
If I knew someone in the military, I would hope for their survival, but at the same time I would very much oppose what they were doing. It must be a tough situation to deal with.
Chris, a couple of posts back you raised the question of the taxability of contributions.
This is no problem. Individuals are allowed to receive gifts up to $11,000 per year from other individuals, tax-free.
And even if you were to count them as income, you can legitimately deduct all your travel expenses.
Good luck. Like all wars, this is going to be ugly. Bearing witness is sacred work.
Incidentally, I’m an aspiring photojournalist and would (perhaps stupidly) jump at the chance to report such an important story as this crazy war…
War photography is a field that has the potential of influencing so many people for the benefit of society and hopefully for furthering the cause of peace.
Dave;
Since there are some wars fought for good reasons (stopping the Serbian slaughter, for example, or stopping Hitler, folks may join for altruistic reasons. As well, should a kid join out of a sense of nationalism, he may learn that he made a mistake.
I made mistakes at 18, though few endangered others. Granting these (mostly) young folks the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations (for some, it may be the only way they can see a way to a college education), it seems reasonable to hope they’ll get through it unharmed.
It’s a naive hope,and such support has little to do with patriotism and everything to do with humaneness. Naive, because I worked in social services till the early 90s and more than a few clients were broken veterans from Vietnam. Some who come back will never be whole again.
Chris is right in what he surmises I mean when I say we should “support our troops.” I apparently was not as clear as I thought I was.
We should not hate the tool (the military) for what the carpenter (civilian authorities) is doing with it.
Michael
Well it’s time for my one third lecture. I do it for myself as much as for you clueless assholes. We like to think that the colonials rose up en masse in 1776 and threw off the British yoke. Truth is that about 1/3 of the population was for revolt, 1/3 against, and 1/3 prepared to sit in the middle, and jump onto the winner’s side of the fence at an appropriate moment. After the war most of that Tory third went to Canada or the West Indies to escape their history, but there have always been the disloyal amongst us during our times of peril. Here you are today, and your conduct, like that of your favorite Presidents is in a word, reprehensible.
If you’d like a fucking clue about what war is like, go rent “Mr. Roberts”. It’s more about sacrifice of freedom, and subjugation of one’s will for a greater good. These are distinctly American concepts, if they’re foreign to you, you’ll have to answer for that.
“Disloyal amongst us”? Like a true scoundrel, taking refuge in patriotism are we, Casca? Am I correct in assuming that you believe others, who have a different opinion about how to deal with the threats confronting us, are “disloyal”? treacherous?
Patriotism has never been a refuge for me. It has been my way of life. The anti-war left, and you’d have to scratch around pretty hard to find someone NOT of the left, are politicizing the war. This is disloyal, particularly since Congress has voted on the matter.
One may have a different opinion, and one may express it, and one will be thought, if they are US citizens… DISLOYAL. The time to speak against military action in this country, is before the vote. Afterwards, if you wish to be thought loyal, you should take McCain’s advice to the former democrat presidents who both played a large part of getting us in this mess.
The true scoundrel says, “I’m against the war, but for the troops.”