It looks like a 250 million dollar training exercise that was to test the effectiveness of newly developed US tactics was rigged, with the possible result that our soldiers will go into battle using substandard tactics...
Thanks for looking LR. Other than Debka, I can't find anything, but I know that if it's out there, you can. You are the King of Internet Research!!!
Posts: 782 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: President Bush - "I have no war plans on my desk".
quote: His statement was in answer to a question about U.S. plans regarding Iraq and heightened concerns voiced throughout the world about the war on terror.
This looks suspiciously like dissembling, ie as long as any war plans were not on his desk at the time of the statement it is literally true, yet gives the impression that President Bush was not considering war plans.
What bugs me is that the quote was reported at face value. The phrasing is so unnatural and qualified that it should have sent off alarm bells to any reporter, politician, or lawyer in the room.
quote: The massive American-British air raid over western Iraq on the evening of Sept. 6 is almost certainly a precursor to an invasion of the country. An estimated 100 warplanes delivered a major blow to Iraq's various command and control systems that could deliver weapons of mass destruction and complicate an invasion by ground forces.
That strike followed a raid on Aug. 5, when allied bombers demolished Saddam Hussein's air-command-and-control center southwest of Baghdad. Key Iraqi air-defense lines have been taken out, and the way is now clear for U.S. special forces.
Israeli intelligence sources report that some 15 percent of Iraqi soil is already under allied control and that a combined U.S.-Turkish force will soon capture Iraq's oil facilities in the north. They also say U.S. special forces numbering near 15,000 troops could move into the area in the next month. A full-scale allied invasion could occur in late November.
It's estimated that we already control 15% of Iraq? How is this not being reported in the "mainstream media?"
if territory were lost, the lack of communication from soldiers in the field would be noticable to Iraq headquarters, and quickly communicated to friendly media in the middle east. From there it would rapidly transit to the US.
I haven't checked foreign newspapers yet.
However, I've still seen nothing at sites known for having reliable intel and that would likely be getting updates on foreign papers on a regular basis,
ie janes and stratfor,
If this is happening, I would expect media in the middle east to pick up on it quickly although it might be possible to do a media black out in the US for a short while (though highly unlikely...).
I suspect that your idea of
quote: I wonder if the 15% they mentioned includes the Kurdish areas in the north.
quote:if territory were lost, the lack of communication from soldiers in the field would be noticable to Iraq headquarters
quote:and quickly communicated to friendly media in the middle east.
Not necessarily. The last thing a dictator who bases his rule on fear wants to do it to admit weakness or losses. In fact as we can see from OSC's latest warwatch column, this is true even for "democracies".
For example, for the first two days of the six days war, Arab radio stations were claiming great victories while Israeli radio was playing solemn classical music and providing little information. My grandfather who spent the war in a bomb shelter in Tel-Aviv was very worried on the first day from listening to the Arab stations. On the second day of the war he figured out the Arab radio reports must be wrong because the were reporting that they had won victories in his back yard and he never heard a shot.
There are also recordings by Israeli intelligence of Nasser telling King Hussein that he was winning in order to convince him to join the war.
Another anecdote is the way regime change used to happen in Syria before Hafez Assad took control. Basically, a successful cue consisted of taking over the radio station in Damascus and broadcasting that you were the new leader. You could (theoretically) have control of half the country but still have the cue collapse because nobody knew about it. On the other hand if you got control of the radio station and claimed that you succeeded, others would rapidly switch loyalty to the new regime out of fear.
Assuming that Arab dictators will quickly communicate any losses to "friendly media" is not a safe bet.
P.S. With all that being said, I am not claiming that the US actually has control of 15% of Iraq. All I am saying is that it is possible for that to happen without the media knowing about it.
I would not be surprised if US Special Forces are already operating in Iraq. They could be collecting information, destroying the communication and mobility of the Iraqi military or even eliminating WMD centers and scud launchers that may draw Israeli retaliation and complicate matters.
US Special Forces were operating in Afghanistan weeks before the media reported anything more than rumors. They may even be preparing for an orderly takeover of the oil fields and installing local tribes in control of key areas. It is in the best interest of the US to accomplish as much of that as possible before the official war gets started.
Let's assume that the goal is to disable and catch Saddam Hussein rather than hurt the Iraqi people, it would be best if the US could take 95% of Iraq out of Saddam's control without actually taking control of it for now. Every time Saddam loses communications with part of the country he needs to either dispatch a loyal team to investigate (he'll eventually run out of those) or he has one less safe place to run and hide when the war actually starts. I expect that our remote sensing capability (satellites, predators, and unmanned observation posts) is good enough that we do not actually need to keep a massive permanent US presence in Iraq to achieve most of our goals. The local population in most cases would be happy to be cut off from Baghdad's reach.
Cutting of communication to different regions of the country and seeing which elicit an immediate response from Saddam can also provide crucial information about where his safe houses, WMD, missiles or loyal terrorist groups are located.
I would not expect to find any of these operations reported in the mainstream media because neither side has an incentive to report it.
One possible indicator for such activities is any news about major policy changes, agreements, treaties, construction or budgets in Turkey and Iran that show a change in the treatment of the Kurdish minority in those countries. The Kurds in that region have been ignoring the international borders for generations so an "invasion" of Turkish Kurds into Iraq may not be noticed as anything out of the ordinary. In maintaining such a cover story, Turkey may tip its hand unintentionally.
The control of territory mentioned in the reports may also allude simply to the withdrawl of Iraqi troops from positions made untenable by US/UK air activity in the No-Fly zones. Or, the Kurdish and Shiite areas that have also seen troop withdrawls to concentration areas in anticipation of invasion. That SOG operatives are active in Iraq, I have no doubt, but their activities by and large are meant to destabilize or eliminate command and control capabilities and identify targets. Not to occupy territory.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |