Sixty Miles to Baghdad Now....

[Anonymous]

CNN reports that Army gunships have engaged Republican Guard forces 60 miles from Baghdad.

Also, over 50-percent of all bomb sorties are now tasked to support of advancing ground forces. Nothing shot down yet, but a number of planes are coming back with bullet holes.

I imagine the goal will be to destroy the surrounding Republican Guard divisions and then see what happens inside the city.

[Anonymous]

I gotta wonder about these reported "ruses" that the Iraqis are using: posing as civilians, pretending to surrender, and so on, and then opening fire on the American forces that come over to them. It seems like they're trying to sign their own death warrants--I mean, you do that a few times and the marines are liable to institute a "no prisoners" policy.

[Anonymous]

Which might be part of the point of why the Iraqis are trying to do it... if a guy knows he can surrender to the Americans and be taken well care of, he'll think it'd be nice to sit out the rest of the war.

But if he gets the impression that the Americans will kill him, even if he tries to surrender, he'll probably think he might as well fight to the death.

Of course, we're not going to start shooting surrendering troops. What we will do is be a hell of a lot more careful about surrendering troops and make sure that they're actually surrendering and not faking it. What we'll probably do is make sure to bring overwhelming firepower aimed at them. It sounds like the Marine APC that got hit and had the most casualities was caused because they saw surrendering Iraqi troops and drove up to them, at which point the RPG tore a hole into the side of it. Next time, the Marines will probably keep their distance, disembark and aim their rifles at the Iraqis, and order them to approach one-by-one, and if any of them try to pull anything, there's going to be a shitload of firepower unleashed on them before they can pull a pistol out.

The Iraqis pulled this stunt in the last war. The Iraq Army actually launched a small offensive into Saudi Arabia at the town of Khafji on the northern border. They started the offensive by having a bunch of tanks approach the Marines guarding the border, but their turets were aimed at the rear, a clear sign of surrender. But when they got close to the Marines, they swung the turets around and opened fire, killing a Marine LAV or two.

That stunt didn't work again, because we changed our posture and tactics to those kinds of situations.

[Jason Becker]

"But if he gets the impression that the Americans will kill him, even if he tries to surrender, he'll probably think he might as well fight to the death. "


I doubt it as the low end troops stuck out in the dessert from Bagdad wouldn't know of any changes like that. Many of them seem like they have just been stuck out on their own with no support with the crappy condition their in when they surrender.

[Captain Cookiepants]

"But if he gets the impression that the Americans will kill him, even if he tries to surrender, he'll probably think he might as well fight to the death. "


I doubt it as the low end troops stuck out in the dessert from Bagdad wouldn't know of any changes like that. Many of them seem like they have just been stuck out on their own with no support with the crappy condition their in when they surrender.

Read a news story (In the Las Vegas Sun, sorry the stories not online) About a man who came here from Iraq, he won the 'Visa Lottery' they hold every year. One person gets a legal pass to leave the country for a short bit, he left and never went back.

Anyway, in the first Gulf war he was in a bunker, he was the only Christian there, and he told everyone that they should stop firing. They were all political prisoners that were put on the front line 'Win for your country and you go free' (He was there because he was Christian). Well, they got mad at him since Christians are pretty much bottom rung out there (His words, not mine) and he has walked less then 50 yards away when a missile took out the bunker.

He says that most of the army fights the war basically between possible freedom if they win, and certain death if they lose. But there are about 5,000 elite troops who have been brain washed so badly that they 'wouldn't even recognize their own mommy and daddy.'

He says the same things that all the escapees say: Protestors are fools, God bless America, he knows that his friends may die, but even a slim chance at life is better than certain death.

He also told stories about Saddam and his sons: One of his sons keeps four lions in his backyard to throw 'criminals' to, one loves soccer and sometimes demands that teams show up at his house in the middle of the night for games. Those who don't show up are executed, those that lose have their heads shaven in the public square.
I'll try to find the story.

[Anonymous]

The distrust of Christians is a recent phenomena

[Captain Cookiepants]

The distrust of Christians is a recent phenomena

If by 'recent' you mean 'since before the first Gulf war.' Then yes.
I'm just repeating what I'm reading here.

[Anonymous]

Not a critiscm just lending historical perspective.

[ydejin]

He also told stories about Saddam and his sons: One of his sons keeps four lions in his backyard to throw 'criminals' to, one loves soccer and sometimes demands that teams show up at his house in the middle of the night for games. Those who don't show up are executed, those that lose have their heads shaven in the public square.
I'll try to find the story.

I've read some pretty horrible things about Saddam's sons as well. Although the sources I've read only suggest that Saddam's son Uday who is in charge of the national sports teams beats athletes on the national teams when they lose. The same article did have a number of references to people he had killed and women he had raped. Unfortunately I don't have a source either (I think perhaps it was in Newsweek).

Here's an article (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm) by Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk Down). It touches briefly on Uday's interactions with the Iraqi sports teams. Primarily it talks about Saddam himself -- definitely a chilling portrayal.

[Anonymous]

anybody home?

why is it you believe the crap american media tells you, but if the iraqi's say they've shot down a warplane, it's ridiculous.

ever think that the stories about these horrible actions by the iraqis are exagerrated or 100% made up?

oh wait, the gov't and the media never make shit up. my mistake.

[Guido Jones]

Cause the Iraqi Government blatantly control their media? Because when a plane is shot down for real the US Government confirms it?

Iraqi's media is an extension of Saddam - a man who lauded Al-Kafji as a victory for his regime. That's why you don't believe them.

You don't believe everything the US government says - by the same token you don't automatically distrust it either.

Edited to clarify which government i was talking about.

[AIM]

Are Saddam and his sons really that bad? I find it hard to believe that a man throws people to his pet lions!

I doubt that they are that bad and treat their people badly! This is 2003 not the 1940's!

[Anonymous]

Cause the Iraqi Government blatantly control their media?

you don't think that the american government "blatantly" controls their media?

LOL

[Anonymous]

Are Saddam and his sons really that bad? I find it hard to believe that a man throws people to his pet lions!

I doubt that they are that bad and treat their people badly! This is 2003 not the 1940's!

There are many, many documented and eye-witness accounts of the Iraqi security forces doing worse than this. There is (was?) a special prison where children of political suspects are kept so they can be used in the interrogations.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Are Saddam and his sons really that bad? I find it hard to believe that a man throws people to his pet lions!

I doubt that they are that bad and treat their people badly! This is 2003 not the 1940's!

No offence, but you've never been outside the U.S. have you?

As for the 'It's a great big media conspiracy' moron: I'm just repeating eye witness account of ex-Iraqi civilians. Yes I'm sure that some stories may not be true, an exageration of the boogey-man Saddam has become to the country, but when you have 500 stories, all saying the same thing, you tend to believe it. Now go put your tin foil hat back on and hide from the evil C.I.A. sattelites.

[Anonymous]

As for the 'It's a great big media conspiracy' moron: I'm just repeating eye witness account of ex-Iraqi civilians. Yes I'm sure that some stories may not be true, an exageration of the boogey-man Saddam has become to the country, but when you have 500 stories, all saying the same thing, you tend to believe it. Now go put your tin foil hat back on and hide from the evil C.I.A. sattelites.

you really think that what cnn tells you is the 100% truth?

did you also believe your mom when she said you were the handsomest/coolest kid in school?

probably explains a lot if so.

[Bub, Andrew]

you really think that what cnn tells you is the 100% truth?


Hope you don't mind my stepping in. No I don't think what CNN (or any news service) tells me is the 100% truth, but I will almost always give it the benefit of the doubt until it's disproven.

[Anonymous]

Hope you don't mind my stepping in. No I don't think what CNN (or any news service) tells me is the 100% truth, but I will almost always give it the benefit of the doubt until it's disproven.

exactly. but you need to do it for EVERY news service, including whatever whackjob iraqi ones AP or Reuters feels like quoting, and treat it the same way. it's dumbasses who just sit there and unquestioningly absorb whatever the media tells them is the truth that really are my problem.

[Bub, Andrew]

... including whatever whackjob iraqi ones AP or Reuters feels like quoting, and treat it the same way...

I disagree there. Al-Jazeera has been disproven too many times for me to treat their information the same way I do CNN and the Iraqi press is ... um... controlled by Uday. Saddam's not-so-bright eldest son. For example, I don't believe that an Israeli missile landed in Baghdad - as claimed yesterday (why would they? Like that contribution would have an upside for Israel?). I don't believe the US struck a Syrian bus (Syria won't let the press in to verify and Syria is friendly with Saddam - and one of Saddam's goals is to widen the war because he knows that's his best chance to stop it). The latter is certainly possible, as the bus was speeding out of Iraq and could have been a target just because of that... but I need proof to believe it and Syria baring press verification is suspicious to me.

[Lunch of Kong]

did you also believe your mom when she said you were the handsomest/coolest kid in school?


No, but I should have; I actually was. So, nyer, there goes your argument.

[Lunch of Kong]

I don't think what any news service tells me is the 100% truth

What I do is compare USA reports with UK reports with Turkish reports, and that helps me weed out some of the wishful thinking. Everyone has a different side to this story.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Hope you don't mind my stepping in. No I don't think what CNN (or any news service) tells me is the 100% truth, but I will almost always give it the benefit of the doubt until it's disproven.

exactly. but you need to do it for EVERY news service, including whatever whackjob iraqi ones AP or Reuters feels like quoting, and treat it the same way. it's dumbasses who just sit there and unquestioningly absorb whatever the media tells them is the truth that really are my problem.


GEEE Who the holy fuck could this 'guest' POSSIBLY be??? HMMMM??

I'm quoting the Las Vegas Sun on a local boy here. Not a whack job news source. Just an interview with an ex-Iraqi citizen. They quoted what he said, what he saw first hand.
Hey, MAYBE he's just pretending he saw all that stuff, and MAYBE all the other sources are just making up the same story. MAYBE there is no Iraqi defector, maybe the paper made him up, maybe there is no 'Iraq' and this whole 'war' is all a ruse to gain approval ratings!
It's completely within the realm of possiblity. Just like my PT Cruiser sprouting wings while I'm driving so I can float off into the clouds and leave asshole 'disagree with everything just on general principle' losers like you behind.

Edit: No I'm not done. I resent the implication that Reuters is on the same footing as Iraqi papers when it comes to credibilty. That's just the stupidest way to think EVER. You're saying that the Baghdad papers reporting that U.S. missiles are destroying civilian homes and not hitting military targets on purpose, is JUST as trustworthy as Reuters reporting on the discovery of a hidden factory by U.S. troops? You know what? Screw you. This lashing out at anything and everything vaguely authoritative thing is reserved for teenagers.

[Jason McCullough]

My favorite media thing so far:

Doing a splitscreen of video of Iraqi prisoners and that videotape of US prisoners, while the voice-over talks about "how dare the Iraqis televise them, don't they know that's a Geneva violation?"

[Anonymous]

Hope you don't mind my stepping in. No I don't think what CNN (or any news service) tells me is the 100% truth, but I will almost always give it the benefit of the doubt until it's disproven.

exactly. but you need to do it for EVERY news service, including whatever whackjob iraqi ones AP or Reuters feels like quoting, and treat it the same way. it's dumbasses who just sit there and unquestioningly absorb whatever the media tells them is the truth that really are my problem.


GEEE Who the holy fuck could this 'guest' POSSIBLY be??? HMMMM??

...<snip>

you really are a fucking idiot.

and no offense to this 12-year old kid you read about (not saying he's lying or whatever, haven't read the article), but a kid has as much credibility as, oh i dunno, you?

[Bernie_Dy]

Heh, good observation, Jason. I think Rumsfeld was trying to make the point that they're not supposed to be shown humiliated, or I guess he means not shown as tortured and beaten. But you're absolutely right...the actual act of showing the Iraqi prisoners on TV is the same as showing the American ones. Still, this war isn't the first time prisoners have ended up on screen...so why suddenly are folks so upset with the media about it?

[Ben Sones]

This...

you really think that what cnn tells you is the 100% truth?


...does not equal this...

you don't think that the american government "blatantly" controls their media?

I don't think that what CNN tells me is 100% true. It does not follow that there is some sort of government plot to control the media.

[Bub, Andrew]

The mother of one of the POWs saw her son on TV in the Phillipines, before the US could notify her her son was captured. I think that's what the US military wants to avoid. Parents seeing their kids captured, tortured, or mangled on TV.

The same consideration should be applied to Iraqi captives of course, but there's a lot of doubt on whether Iraqis have access to CNN right now. Aaron Brown "burned" the Al-Jazeera bureau chief on that "point" last night.

Personally I want the US POWs on TV as much as possible. When they're on TV they aren't being tortured.

[ydejin]

Cause the Iraqi Government blatantly control their media?

you don't think that the american government "blatantly" controls their media?

The American media may be biased, but it's hardly "controlled" by the government. Observe for example CNN's report (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.apache.attack/index.html) that Apache helicoptor pilots came back from a mission "'somewhat dazed, somewhat stunned' by the level of Iraqi resistance they encountered." Do you think that's what the US government wanted reported?

Sure the American media can be manipulated somewhat by the government (and others), but by and large I think it's one of the most accurate and unbiased sources of information available (I would be interested to hear opinions on other good sources of information).

[Ben Sones]

It depends on the specific news entity. I like NPR and PBS for generally good news coverage. CNN and all its various imitators tend to be too sensationalistic for my tastes. The BBC World News is also quite good.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Hope you don't mind my stepping in. No I don't think what CNN (or any news service) tells me is the 100% truth, but I will almost always give it the benefit of the doubt until it's disproven.

exactly. but you need to do it for EVERY news service, including whatever whackjob iraqi ones AP or Reuters feels like quoting, and treat it the same way. it's dumbasses who just sit there and unquestioningly absorb whatever the media tells them is the truth that really are my problem.


GEEE Who the holy fuck could this 'guest' POSSIBLY be??? HMMMM??

...<snip>

you really are a fucking idiot.

and no offense to this 12-year old kid you read about (not saying he's lying or whatever, haven't read the article), but a kid has as much credibility as, oh i dunno, you?


I'm sorry Johnny Fuckwit, twelve year old kid???
Are you posting in the right thread? Hell, are you posting in the right forum? It's my theory that you're setting up your insanity plea for when you're inevitably judged as a waste of skin and sent off planet so your genes never have even the teeniest chance of being passed on.

[Brian Rucker]

I just heard the most amazing thing. C-SPAN was showing a portion of the BBC broadcast from earlier tonight and they had Gen. Barry McCaffrey on. He's saying that we've deployed insufficient force both for direct combat and to establish rear echelon security zones which is causing real trouble for the advancing troops. He said Marines were being fragged out to hold the supply lines rather than using MP or light mechanized forces which are SOP. When asked if Rumsfeld knew this would be a problem Gen. McCaffrey said hell, yes, that's what all the generals at the Pentagon had been telling him but he was bent on using his own plans and considered the uniformed staff out of touch 'living in W.W. II'. He suggested the fighting would be extremely tough and while he expected us to prevail ('Yeah, it'll work because they're Iraqis') he also said we had to employ a helluva lot of force to make headway in and around Iraq. He also said he expected at least 2,000 or 3,000 casualties and wondered out loud if the political leadership had the will to sustain the fight in the face of that.

This ain't what you see on Fox folks. This is why I watch the BBC.

[Toddy]

Something very similar was run on the CBC the other night, too. But it's certainly not a secret that a lot of soldiers think that Rumsfeld's plan is very risky. Going light on the armor and the number of troops could present serious problems if there is any legitimate Iraqi resistance. And right now, you'd have to say that there is. The Iraqis seem to be rallying against the coalition sort of en masse now, judging by the street fighting that's been going on in Nasiriyah and Umm Qasr the past couple of days and the comments that journalists are getting from civilians. It sure doesn't seem like there are too many people waving US flags and looking for Hershey bars. Operation Iraqi Freedom, huh?

[Chris Floyd]

He also said he expected at least 2,000 or 3,000 casualties and wondered out loud if the political leadership had the will to sustain the fight in the face of that.

This ain't what you see on Fox folks. This is why I watch the BBC.

That's funny. That's exactly the sort of hand-wringing and undercutting that keeps me from watching BBC. If that wasn't the gist of nearly every segment (the rest being about the "profound international opposition" and "massive demonstrations") I wouldn't have a problem with them reporting it. As it is, they're only doing harm to the long-term success of the Prime Minister and the Coalition.

[Mark Asher]

The BBC reporting the news as it sees it is undermining the war effort and the British government? Are you suggesting it would be better if they slanted their coverage? You don't really want that, do you?

[Chris Floyd]

I dunno, Mark. By any objective measure, the war is going unbelievably well, but you wouldn't know that from watching the BBC, from what I've seen. Would I like them to slant their news? No, that's exactly what I what them to stop doing.

[Daniel Morris]

BBC is all I listen to. It's fine reporting. I just wish they'd stop the declaring the invasion a clusterfuck every time a squad of Iraqis shoots back.

[Jason McCullough]

I figure the BBC and US news are about the same distance from "fair and balanced", except in opposite directions.

[Daniel Morris]

BBC is very fair and balanced. There's a reason it's the world standard in news. They just need to hire analysts with a bit more perspective, IMHO.

[Mark Asher]

Well, the coalition won the last war with very little resistence. Any resistence in this one seems like a lot in comparison. Any casualties we incur seem more bitter as a result, especially since we have the Iraqis outclassed and outgunned.

Anyway, if the press is going to make mistakes, I'd prefer they err on the side of presenting an opposing viewpoint. More than ever, they need to be a watchdog.

[Chris Floyd]

I'd be curious to know, Mark, how many casualties you think we've suffered up to this point. Just off the top of your head. Less than one hundred? Or more?

Dan -- Are you saying that the objective reporting is good, but the editorializing is short-sighted? What do you think of their choice of content and the stories they focus on?

[Daniel Morris]

Well, the Brits lost 236 killed in the Falklands campaign, and I never hear that described as anything other than a smashing success.

BBC is a breathtaking news service; top-to-bottom excellence. Its field reporting is knowledgeable, impartial, always skeptical of the official responses, and always refreshingly calm/rational.

(Contrast to that CNN tool roaring around the desert in a tank. He sounds like the Chorus in Henry V.)

I've just been a bit dismayed by the anchors. I would expect the British in particular to be a bit less surprised by the appearance of the enemy on a battlefield.

[Chris Floyd]

Maybe the BBC needs to invite this guy ("this guy" being one of the most respected war analysts out there) to give some commentary. Think they would?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/25/war125.xml

[Bub, Andrew]

(Contrast to that CNN tool roaring around the desert in a tank. He sounds like the Chorus in Henry V.)


You need more wit like this in your reviews Daniel. I assume you mean the guy playing the Chorus in the Branaugh version?

[Captain Cookiepants]

I've just been a bit dismayed by the anchors. I would expect the British in particular to be a bit less surprised by the appearance of the enemy on a battlefield.
I think they're still confused that no one makes war appointments any more. 'What? You mean they're just going to show up and start shooting? Before tea??'

[Chris Floyd]

You need more wit like this in your reviews Daniel. I assume you mean the guy playing the Chorus in the Branaugh version?

You mean "[SimCity] is Will Wright's black joke at the expense of organized humanity" isn't witty enough for you?

Oh, god. Am I becoming a fanboi?

[Desslock]

Well, the Brits lost 236 killed in the Falklands campaign, and I never hear that described as anything other than a smashing success.

No kidding -- and they were losing major warships, including a fully loaded helicopter carrier (aside from the Exocet escapade). The British bumbled their way to victory in that whole campaign.

[Anonymous]

"Well, the coalition won the last war with very little resistence. Any resistence in this one seems like a lot in comparison. Any casualties we incur seem more bitter as a result, especially since we have the Iraqis outclassed and outgunned."

The last war was about something even the average Iraqi soldier could care very little about. This was is about invading them, that is something a citizen of a country would have a hard time stomaching regardless of who's in charge (unless that group of people feel they could use it to their advantage to gain power).

[Daniel Morris]

That must explain why most of the regular army in Iraq deserted before the first bombs fell last week, and why resistance now seems patently limited to irregular Saddamists and Republican Guard units.

[Myth]

That must explain why most of the regular army in Iraq deserted before the first bombs fell last week, and why resistance now seems patently limited to irregular Saddamists and Republican Guard units.


And how many troops is that? All told a pretty sizable force that even now seems highly motivated to engage coalition forces not only in guerilla war, but also capable of launching offensives in the open desert in a limited capacity. I was watching the BBC the other night and one Iraqi civilian was interviewed and said something along the lines of "Saddam is a dictator, but he is OUR dictator". It seems that not all Iraqi citizins think along the lines of the Sunis to the south and think of the coaliton are liberators.

While that may change over time, it seems that confilict in Iraq will not be the cakewalk it was touted as being and there will be significant casualties on both sides.

[ydejin]

That must explain why most of the regular army in Iraq deserted before the first bombs fell last week, and why resistance now seems patently limited to irregular Saddamists and Republican Guard units.

I'm sure some of the regular army has, but according to the reports I've seen, much of it is still fighting. For example, reports first indicated that the the 51st Mechanized Division had surrendered. These reports turned out to be false -- it is still fighting in Basra.

[Toddy]

And apparently there's a big column of Republican Guard going on the offensive to meet the Americans outside of Baghdad. Judging by that, the resistance in other areas, and the distinct absences of flag-waving kiddies even in the Shia south, I'd say that Bush overestimated the Iraqi desire to be liberated.

BTW, the BBC isn't all British. One of their lead people is Lise Doucet -- she's the one with the really odd accent and I think is the main anchor in Iraq/Jordan, though I haven't watched BBC World lately -- is from the Maritimes. Few other Canadians on the BBC World staff as well.

[Aleck]

BBC is very fair and balanced. There's a reason it's the world standard in news. They just need to hire analysts with a bit more perspective, IMHO.

I think the problem being presented is indeed a matter of perspective. What we have a lot of (both in US media what I've seen/heard of BBC and CBC coverage) is a great deal of tactical coverage. We hear about each and every skirmish, casualty, set back, and engagement.

What the media isn't presenting is the big picture. Overall, the war is going pretty well -- casualties are extremely light (2 dozen or so in a week is pretty light by any military standard; Vietnam averaged about 15/day if you figure 55,000 casualties over 10 years) and a great deal of progress has been made. What we're missing is the strategic picture -- how many Iraqis are left, who are they, are we going to fight them, and how much worse is it going to get? The media isn't alone in neglecting this -- the military briefers were asked this morning when they were going to present the big picture and they dodged the question.

As for McCaffrey, well, maybe he knows what the hell he's talking about, maybe he doesn't. Keep in mind that this is the guy who argued strenuously (and with a straight face) that legalizing pot would cause large numbers of kids to use harder drugs, along with a bunch of other obvious misrepresentations (http://www.csdp.org/ads/pinocchio.htm). Now, he could have been doing that simply as a good soldier, but frankly I doubt it. In any case, his lies re: drugs make me doubt his validity in this instance, just as a matter of credibility.