Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

I don't expect a harsh defeat, only a slow erosion followed by public disaffection. Perhaps it will take longer than Vietnam to reach the same result. But reaching the same result is more and more probable. The kill ratio may have improved over Vietnam but 5 to 1 or 50 to 1, I don't think it will matter in the political end result. The hearts & minds battle is being lost. I don't see how the trend can be reversed. Flattening cities is a tremendous irreversible error in insurgency wars.

Thieu held only under the cover of US military occupation. Allawi is in a similar situation.

I will take a slight risk and predict that there will be no elections in Irak (I doubt the security conditions will ever allow for elections) and the US is stuck there until the Republicans are expelled from the white house by a democratic party vowing withdrawal from the country. Anywhere from 4 to 20 years.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 19, 2004 06:57 pm

A solution against "iraqi" mortars:

"Northrop Grumman has offered the US Army a directed-energy laser weapon - which it says could be available within 18 months of a contract - to counter the mortar threat to US and coalition forces currently operating in Iraq.

The concept, dubbed the High Energy Laser for Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (HELRAM) defence system, has grown out of the company's continuing work on a deuterium-fluoride chemical laser system under the joint US Army-Israeli Ministry of Defence Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) programme.

Patrick Caruana, Northrop Grumman vice president for Missile and Space Defense, said the HELRAM concept stems from the company's desire to offer a nearer-term means of shooting down mortar rounds in flight as well as rockets and artillery shells before MTHEL is available: an MTHEL prototype is expected by the end of the decade for testing.

"We have already demonstrated at our test site the shootdown capability against medium and heavy mortar [rounds]," he told JDW on 26 October, referring to tests on 24 August during which the THEL testbed shot down seven mortar rounds, including three during a salvo attack. "That gave us a good deal of confidence that what we had was the ability to engage these threats and kill them." "

From Jane's Defence

Iama

Yes, but during a test you expect the fire, and you are quite in the area where is fired.

The mortar rounds in Iraq are unpredictable, both as timing and place. Thousands of pieces of this experimental equipment will be needed, with crew staying 24 hours ready to serve them. And each piece of this equipment will cost hundreds of times more than the cost of the mortar shell. Which is against the logic of producing military technology, since the dawn of humanity.

The most predictable development will be the protection only of the "green zone" of Baghdad, where the hyper-chiefs and ultra-generals live. About the rest, who cares.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 07, 2004 12:54 am

Check this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/03/seals.pho...q.ap/index.html

I wouldn't show it, if Mr. Bush wouldn't say that: "This does not represent America", and Mr. Runsfeld wouldn't say that what happened at Abu-Graid was an isolate act of few people, not representative for the rest of the army.

Well, to don't be misunderstood, these facts are not a mirror of the average American, and are not the standard behaviour of the American army, but anyway the educational process in the U.S. and the approach regarding the moral values to follow in life, need a serious correction, starting with pre-school years and ending with the college.

Well, this is what it is needed, but this does not mean it will happen.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 04, 2004 04:59 pm

Florin wrote on Nov. 17:

No, that's not what I said.

Do you feel threatened when you write your anti-Bush posts? I didn't think so...
Actually, one is more likely to be criticized or fired from his job today if he states that he supports the current republican administration. But I guess you don't care about those people. As long as you don't agree with them, it's ok for them to get fired from their jobs because they have a Bush sticker on their cars.

So now you're criticizing the fact that there are going to be elections in Irak?

That's funny, because in the past you kept saying that you get your news from abroad, like the BBC and other European news outlets, not from the American mass media. So please decide, which one is it?
Or maybe the European news companies don't like to talk about anything positive happening in Afghanistan, like the elections...


Florin, you can keep choosing to ignore the facts and to twist everything so that it adapts to your argument, but if you do, you and your friends will.........KEEP LOSING PRESIDENTIAL, CONGRESSIONAL, AND GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS

You talk about an "Advertise-subjugated, cannibalistic and demented society". It sure is. Let me give you some examples:

-if you're black and interviewing for a job, you have a better chance of getting the job than the white candidates
-if you're promoting gay sex with young boys (NAMBLA Association) you are welcomed to participate in a Christmas parade. If you are a priest, you are not allowed.
-if your child reads the Declaration of Independence in school, he will be suspended because the text mentions God. If your 15-year-old daughter wants an abortion, the school nurse will help her get one for free without telling you (the parent).

....plus many other examples.

Do these sound familiar to you? They should, they were all initiatives supported by the Democratic Party which you support.

Mabadesc,

First of all I am glad to see that you are still reading the Forum. I was concerned about how are you in general.

This is interesting. I assume you know certain cases, and you don't need to offer examples to be believed. On my behalf, I was fired from a good job as design engineer for top high-tech military equipment, for not showing enough enthusiasm regarding the military campaign in Afghanistan.

So yes, I care for them, because I lived the experience (the only time in my life when I was laid off). But I imagine the feelings of the readers from Romania when they will read that even in the democratic America you may be fired for your beliefs!

So now you're criticizing the fact that there are going to be elections in Irak?

As mentioned before, I am just afraid that the present Bush administration will be so eager to endorse the results, even if they will not reflect the real aspirations of various groups of population. Anyway, this will be a start, and other elections will be later in the future, with the chance of correcting things. As you can see, I am trying to show some optimism.

When I feel I have time to lose aimlessly, I am searching all kind of sources I can.
I hope this makes me "an open mind".

Assuming you are well informed, generally speaking, you know that:

1. For the sake of their endorsement, the American administration neglected and still neglects the dark past of some Afghan warlords, and how they still behave in their "domains", and the fact that most of these warlords got rich from poppy crops and their sub-products. And this leads us to the fact that...

2. The output from poppy crops in Afghanistan increased with 66% in one year, and the country became the leading supplier of heroine and raw material for heroine. Did you hear any concern for that from Mr. Bush, or even from the 2nd or 3rd grade echelons?

About the rest: Like many other people, I consider the "Democrat" option the lesser of 2 evils. Yes, they will keep losing the elections as long they will blindly support the "affirmative action", the "gay pride", or as long they will not clearly endorse marriage just as link between a man and a woman. By the way, when sometimes I filled application forms before going in person to an interview, I did not mention about my racial background, because I know what I know.

So what should we have? I guess a third party, to borrow some ideas from the Republicans, and some from the Democrats.

And regarding my words: "Advertise-subjugated, cannibalistic and dement society". There is a lot to be added, other than what you wrote, but I have no time now.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 06, 2004 06:13 pm

Sometimes I have second thoughts about democracy. Don't know who said that democracy alone is not enough. Something about the fact that the majority can be dead wrong and you need some sort of mechanism to safeguard your principles.

After all when a majority votes for a bloody dictator, it's democracy too

I ask this after reading a rather depressing news article detailing a new Pentagon report.

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost


Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure
By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor


THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.

The report says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance, opportunism and double standards”.

“We face a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.” More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.” This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

America’s “image problem”, the report authors suggest, is “linked to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent”. The White House “has paid little attention” to the problems.

The report calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies “will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible”.

American rhetoric which equates the war on terror as a cold-war-style battle against “totalitarian evil” is also slapped down by the report. Muslims see what is happening as a “history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a renewal of the Muslim world …(which) has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents – of which radical fighters are only a small part”.

Rather than supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia. “The US finds itself in the strategically awkward – and potentially dangerous – situation of being the long-standing prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these regimes could not survive,” the report says.

“Thus the US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle … US policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself … Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.

“There is no yearning-to- be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies … The perception of intimate US support of tyr-annies in the Muslim world is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.”

The report says that, in terms of the “information war”, “at this moment it is the enemy that has the advantage”. The US propaganda drive has to focus on “separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical- militant Islamist-Jihadist”.

According to the report, “the official take on the target audience [the Muslim world] has been gloriously simple” and divided the Middle East into “good” and “bad Muslims”.

“Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent ‘superpower’ that elevates values emphasising freedom … deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam – by overwhelming majorities at this time – sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening.

“In two years the jihadi message – that strongly attacks American values – is being accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that negative opinion of the US has not yet bottomed out

Equally important, the report says, is “to renew European attitudes towards America” which have also been severely damaged since September 11, 2001. As “al-Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information”, American has to adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim world – including writers, artists and singers – and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US “brand”.

The Pentagon report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the “information war” to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Middle East.

The importance of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, dated May.

It says: “Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”

05 December 2004

[London]

Not only Muslims.

I just couldn't resist ...
http://www.thenausea.com/usa-iraq.html

P.S. Extremely graphic content... The war reality.
I couldn't sleep the night after waching those clips...

I never seen a head shot at, and what details are. This images satisfyed my curiosity - but is hard to accept they are mans. Horrible. And i saw some of the movies...
Advice: dont follow that link - is the most horrible reallity i ever seen. Is not like in Counter Strike, or Desert Storm - the games. So, if you have some heart problems, dont enter in that site.

Iama

PS - Any data about allied loses in this last iraqi "campaign"? In movies are Bradleys destroyed, helicopters...

Source: Voice of America news

"Shortage of Vehicle Armor Becomes Issue for US Soldiers in Iraq

WASHINGTON --- Bush administration officials continue to react to a complaint from an American soldier headed for Iraq that U.S. forces deployed for battle there are not getting the vehicle armor they need to protect themselves from attacks. The issue came up during a visit to the troops in Kuwait by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday and continues to reverberate around Washington.
A U.S. military commander in Kuwait says soldiers headed for Iraq still do not have all the armor they need to protect their vehicles from explosives and mortar shells being fired at them by Iraqi insurgents on a daily basis.
A day after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about the shortages by a soldier who will soon be deployed to Iraq, Army Lieutenant General Steve Whitcomb told reporters about 2,000 more fully armored Humvees are still needed. "Our goal and what we're working towards is that no wheeled vehicle that leaves Kuwait going into Iraq is driven by a solder that does not have some level of armored protection on it," he said.
The Kuwait-based general took questions from reporters at the Pentagon following Wednesday's pointed exchange between Secretary Rumsfeld and Specialist Thomas Wilson, one of several thousand soldiers headed for battle. "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-arm our vehicles and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?"
But critics of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war see the shortage of armored vehicles as an indication that the Pentagon failed to plan adequately for the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein. (ends)
Pentagon Installing Additional Armor on Vehicles in Iraq
In a briefing Thursday, Lieutenant General Steven Whitcomb said the military had enough resources and was installing additional armor on military vehicles already in Iraq and Kuwait.
He acknowledged, however, the increased armor would not protect troops from improvised explosive devices detonated from underneath the vehicles.
General Whitcomb stressed that increasing the armor on vehicles is just one part of the Army's strategy to protect troops. He said a high priority is finding and stopping the insurgents from building the explosive devices.
The briefing comes one day after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, visiting troops in Kuwait, was asked by service members why their vehicles were not adequately protected."

At the link with pictures from irak, were some terrible ones with polish soldiers. They were in a armoured patrol vehicle?

Iama

The vehicle doesn't look like an armored one...

Actually, it's not "war reality", it's war propaganda.
The webpage there speaks of "resistance" and "insurgents" that attack various "legitimate" targets, but never mentions the fact that it's the very same "insurgents" that rutinely use massive terror attacks against civilian population. Instead, the webpage mentions car bombs that "just happen" to go off and kill swathes of civilians, like they'd be some sort of natural phenomena!
So that, as far as I'm concerned, all the civilian casualties depicted in the photos are quite likely to be victims of the "insurgents" themselves. Oh, and also note the high estime that the report about 100.000+ victims is given. A simple mathematical calculus shows that that amounts to more than 200 victims a day, for every day since the beginning of the US operations in Iraq - a figure that never actually occured in the news, not even in those of Al-Jazeera.
So the one-sided and baseless statements of the webmasters are, to me, reasons enough to assess all of their "explanations" with more than a massive dose of skepticism. The pictures are brutal but their explanations are more than dubious.

This post has been edited by valachus on December 11, 2004 04:02 pm

Let me guess, you watch the war reality on CNN.

I think that there is a difference between the so called insurgents and the so called terrorists. Blowing up an American tank is not terrorism, but beheading guys is.

"Note from the webmaster: we called it "killed" when the person is dead in war action. "Murdered" if it is cold blooded assasinated." (you will read a lot of "murder" on this site on both sites - especially regarding the beheadins - so I see no "one sided story").

But you missed the essential point: forget about the text and watch the videos... What you see is what is happening there... Have you seen the photos with the Polish soldiers?
If this is not a war reality (insurgents die, American soldiers die, civilians die, terrorists assasinate people, etc) I don't know what war reality is... These videos are not very different from what we saw about WWII ... And this is war.

This site is about war too... And these images depicts the war very well.

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on December 11, 2004 06:55 pm