Title: Mcgowanjm Wire 2012 Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Feb 26, 2012 Author:Various Post Date:2012-02-26 09:15:13 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:1403938 Comments:2390
So is he going to be our new National Wire Service????
Don't know. This is all news to me....8D
The Taliban, who have claimed responsibility for the attack, said 'a hero mujahid Abdul Rahman' killed four advisers over the burning of Korans at a US-run military base.
The killer of a US Colonel and Major (and 'two more'?) has telephoned a progress report to the Taliban, who have already put this story on their 'wire'...
I'd evac the Afghans right now. The entire Op has been compromised.
As the Taliban take credit for shooting down a drone over Waziristan... which would be huge news (like the Taliban control Pakistan air space better than the Pakis themselves) except for the dead US Col and Major.
The killer of a US Colonel and Major (and 'two more'?) has telephoned a progress report to the Taliban, who have already put this story on their 'wire'...
The killer is still at large last I heard. What a mess. US advisers are being evacuated from 'safe and secure' buildings.
That Sound you're hearing coming out of DC is the Eye on every neck of every 'chief' of every Intel Agency being violently pulled away from whatever they thought was pressing....;}
"University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said the potential for a complete unraveling of the U.S. government and economy is “astronomically remote” in the foreseeable future...."
Which translated means the USSA has mere months now before going Non Linear.
"The BBC's Andrew Gilligan in Baghdad, whose activities and reports are monitored by Iraqi authorities, has visited the airport and says there is no sign of increased military activity or any US forces. "
By Sean Loughlin and Jamie McIntyre CNN Washington Bureau | April 4, 2003
Pentagon officials raised the possibility Thursday that coalition forces might try to isolate Baghdad and render the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "irrelevant," avoiding urban warfare within the city to topple the government. Asked at a Pentagon briefing whether coalition forces were gearing up for an urban conflict within Baghdad, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that might not be the case. "The tactical situation could be very different from what we suppose," Myers said.
Few in Baghdad believe these recurrent fires were provoked by the "remnants of Saddam's regime" - as goes the official Washington line. They don't know for sure for whom the arsonists are working. But they are asking themselves three questions. Who profits from the destruction of the whole infrastructure of the Iraqi state? Who profits from the destruction of Iraq's invaluable cultural wealth? And why are Americans soldiers just blank-stared, gum-chewing spectators of all this pyromania?
``What you have is the making of a humanitarian catastrophe,'' said Sid Balman, spokesman for InterAction, an umbrella group of 165 relief organisations.
Baghdad went dark on Thursday for the first time since the war began on March 20, just as spearhead troops of America's 3rd Infantry Division closed in on the international airport on the capital's south-western outskirts.
U.S. officials denied targeting the electric grid. ``We didn't do it. It's as simple as that,''' said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, chief spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Qatar.
Who profits from the destruction of the whole infrastructure of the Iraqi state? Who profits from the destruction of Iraq's invaluable cultural wealth?
We found out that the Baathists profited from setting their own infrastructure on fire. We also found out that the Iraqi citizens believed they had a right to loot given the Baathists kept all the wealth. So they stormed every government facility. Weeks after the looting I saw plumbing "supplies" on sale on the street markets which were ripped out of Saddams' palaces and government buildings. We also saw kids selling Iraqi Army uniforms and equipment. As you went further south in Shia land the same items were being sold. If someone bought the gear and looted supplies in Iraqi dinar, you received change in Iranian currency. There was a lot going on before we even got there.
I too received Iranian currency when I bought sodas and pita bread for the men on a long convoy in Southern Iraq. The kid (a good capitalist) tried to sell me his donkey. I had no use for a donkey but did not want to insult the kid, so told him I really needed a camel. Showing the true business nature of the Arab, he told me to come back in two hours and he would sell me three camels:)
I slapped him on the shoulder and told him (he spoke good English) I would think about it. This was all before the insurgency (April to early June 2003). At that point the Iraqis were happy Saddam and the Baathists were out of power and expected us to have them hold elections immediately. Well leave it to the State Dept and politicians to screw that one up. There was a brief (2 month) period of opportunity we squandered. We should have loaded our equipment up and departed Iraq by the end of June at the latest.
Now addressing your post. No we did not burn and loot Iraq. We did have some bad actors and bad leaders who went after war "booty" like the looters, and most of them were punished. The ones who did not get caught red handed were caught by US Navy customs inspectors when the unit rotated out of Iraq to Kuwait. So American Soldiers did not torch Iraq. Sitting around with blank stares...yep that was a problem and here is the reason why:
Now that the book "Cobra II" has been published many know that the timeline to secure Iraq was to be in the August 2003 timeframe. Since the regime fell 4 months earlier than expected, the Troops operating in Baghdad were under the war time rules of engagement (ROE). The ROE and Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is clear you do not shoot unarmed civilians. When confronted with looters our Soldiers tried to stop them, but the Iraqis knew we would not shoot because of the ROE and LOAC. The LOAC does give provisions for an occupying force to stop looting with deadly force but that edict usually comes from a provisional government. When the provisional government adjusted the ROE there was a two week period where information was distributed via handbills, radio, TV and SAT TV (we may think the Iraqis were poor, but the majority of people there had SAT dishes). Once the word got out we would use deadly force, the looting stopped. However, the damage was already done. Looking back at this, I think the looting by Iraqi citizens could not be stopped. Even if our military leaders had "authority" to use deadly force on looters, I think they and our political leaders would not have enforced it. What is worse to see on CNN, Iraqis looting their own infrastructure or US Soldiers and Marines cutting down some poor Shia dude from Sadr City stealing leather chairs from the Dept of Agriculture? Yeah it was war and war is hell.
