ALL IRAQ topics here.

[Tinman]

I don't think it will be any longer than 4 1/2 weeks

[Chang Style Novice]

Why the F##$% are the honchos over there allowing HOSPITALS and ARSENALS to be looted?!!?

This makes the US look like a) callous b@stards and b) idiots with no sense of self preservation.

We'd better manage the rest of the clean up better than this.

[WinterPalm]

Way to go amerikkka!!
You finished off that evil no-democratic country!
Goood jobbbbbbbbbbb!!!!!!11

[Unstoppable]

WTF???????

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Why the F##$% are the honchos over there allowing HOSPITALS and ARSENALS to be looted?!!?

This makes the US look like a) callous b@stards and b) idiots with no sense of self preservation.

It's not the US doing the looting. There's not enough US there to guard an all of Baghdad. Hospitals are being guarded.

I'm really not sure how you'd prefer they handle the situation. We should try to recognize the difficult position the US is in, rather than taking the popular reflex of 'explaining away' anything tragic that happens as the fault of the US. We have to remember that the people 'looting' are the people the US claims to have 'liberated.' Above all, the US has to avoid coming across as if they have 'conquered' these people, by acting as military occupiers acting as primary nation builders. We have to remember that Bush Jr, contrary to the Project for the New American Century and other Neo-Reaganites, positions himself as not being a primary nation builder. Rather than '****ing them if they do and ****ing them if they don't', we should be clear to understand the intricacies of this situation and determine which solutions we agree with.

Originally posted by BlackJack
Any rimjob who has been following the news for the last week can see this is a day of liberation for the iraqi kurds.

Originally posted by ZIM
A little early to say so, isn't it? Have you been following the Kurd Sellout Watch?

This is a serious concern.

Initially, the situation boded well for the Kurds - with the US entering Iraq on a northern front via Turkey, the Kurds were positioned as the major internal 'cooperatory' force, and thus were well positioned to monitor their own interests and benefit from the war effort.

When the Turkey situation caused that plan to be dropped, the Kurds changed from the major 'cooperatory' force to a point of contention in tense diplomatic relations, and an unknown variable surrounding important oil fields and the Turkey-Iraq variable. People should be pointing a leery eye at Turkey on this point. While it wasn't published as such, analysis seems to indicate that the major point of contention that prevented Turkey and the US from coming to an agreement regarding the northern front was the US's refusal to give Turkey some degree of control over northern (Kurdish) Iraq. Despite their withdrawl from the war effort, Turkey made a unilateral military move to occupy this region as soon as the war began (not as part of the war against Saddam's regime, but simply to pursue their own interests there). The Iraqi Kurds are perfectly positioned now for a major screwing-over.

We should all hope that the US will make some move of beneficent magnanimousness, recognize the cooperation they made with the Kurds, and involve their interests as if there were a major northern front. I don't think it's clear at this point which way this will go, in terms of US involvement.

It's worth noting that Kurdish Iraq has a tragic history of being screwed-over by just about everyone following just about every event in the region.

[Xebsball]

THE BATTLE OF DA MILLENIUM

EVIL EMPIRE vs AXIS OF EVIL

and you wonder why i grin and laugh at yo asses 24/7

[Chang Style Novice]

It's not the US doing the looting.

True

There's not enough US there to guard an all of Baghdad.

Obviously

Hospitals are being guarded.

According to the most recent reports I had heard when I posted this (I haven't heard anything to the contrary since,) false.

I'm really not sure how you'd prefer they handle the situation.

Guard the large, central hospital complex that serves all of Baghdad. Keep looters away from the drugs, make it safe as possible to seek treatment.

We should try to recognize the difficult position the US is in, rather than taking the popular reflex of 'explaining away' anything tragic that happens as the fault of the US.

Yes, but the US' rational for entering Iraq was in part to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein. I'm as pleased as anyone could be that S.H. no longer seems to have any significant power, but I'm more concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people. My objections to this war have always been (in part) about the possible worsening of the situation for the Iraqi citizens. There was inevitably going to be some pandemonium and 'take-what-you-can' in the wake of decades of brutal police state disappearing overnight. The social contract in Iraq has been absent for the entire lifetimes of an huge portion of the populace, and in it's place has been the repression of the Baathists. Now with the Baathists all but gone, there is a void in behavioral restrictions. This is predictable, and has been seen over and over again in history. The role of the US (or better yet, IMO, the UN) in a humanitarian sense (aka Winning the Peace) is to reinstate the social contract. It won't be easy and it won't be fast. But in the meantime we have to keep the country from decending into a smoldering ruin. Not just for humanitarian reasons, but because if it does become a smoldering ruin, the entire muslim world will blame us for it, (with some justification I amy add) and the bloody Jihads will continue if not worsen.

[Black Jack]

From what I gather today the Marines are helping a Iraqi police force get everything more under control and they have a temp re-building field unit set up their now untell the main unit can come down in 2-3 weeks for the serious rebuilding and start of a new Iraq.

Kinda a temp mayor untell a new government can be set up.

[shaolin kungfu]

Not just for humanitarian reasons, but because if it does become a smoldering ruin, the entire muslim world will blame us for it, (with some justification I amy add) and the bloody Jihads will continue if not worsen.

Which brings us back to the reason the mid-east hates us in the first place. We have a long history of screwing them in a very uncomfortable place, and i'm not talking about the back of a volkswagon.

[dezhen2001]

As far as im aware there are only like 100 or so police officers/workers who have decided to go back... there are also "vigilante" groups who are trying to stop the looting, but that may just be as bad as the looters. i really hope that the people will soon have some kind of order and that medical/important facilities will be kept protected.

We have a long history of screwing them in a very uncomfortable place, and i'm not talking about the back of a volkswagon.

depends how tall you are

Blackjack: hope your back feels better soon man

dawood

[Laughing Cow]

I will get some flack for saying this.

The looting was to be expected after the regime goes down, AFAIK, it ahs happened so far in any other conflict.

The Military needed to have gathered for this by assigning troops for that specific type of work.

IMO, it looks like the coalition forces pushed too hard and too fast for certain objectives and forgot other issues like policing and so on.

This can of course bite them in the butt as the good-will of freed Iraqi will be diminished due to concerns for their safety and belongings.

I know it is hard to plan, but a total collapse of the regime and social services should have been anticipated and troops been prepared to do do duties like police, etc.

OTOH, the US forces were never that good at peace-keeping missions

Seeya.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
According to the most recent reports I had heard when I posted this (I haven't heard anything to the contrary since,) false.

"He [Rumsfield] said U.S. forces also were busy guarding hospitals..." 59 minutes ago from Reuters.

"Now the idea is to safeguard whatever has been left and second to ensure security and safety for the medical personnel to come back to the hospitals...But I must say a lot of them have stayed in the hospitals to prevent further looting." 9 hours ago from Reuters.

"U.S. soldiers are guarding..a major hospital in a welcome move to curb looting in the Iraqi capital... There are signs that the U.S. forces are trying to make such contacts and take such action that will go in the direction of what we have been asking, which is securing vital infrastructure... U.S. troops were also protecting a major hospital, she added. 'Medical City Hospital seems for the most part secured so that we're able to go back'" 31 hours ago from Reuters.

Do these citations suffice?

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Yes, but the US' rational for entering Iraq was in part... and the bloody Jihads will continue if not worsen.

I agree with everything you say here; I just don't understand what your complaint is.

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
The Military needed to have gathered for this by assigning troops for that specific type of work.

IMO, it looks like the coalition forces pushed too hard and too fast for certain objectives and forgot other issues like policing and so on.

What they pushed 'too hard and too fast' for was the Karbala Gap. They did this in response to the Republican Guard withdrawing from Baghdad in order to defend this piece of strategic land.

The alternative would have been to fight the Republican Guard within the streets of Baghdad, which would have been indescribably worse.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M

The alternative would have been to fight the Republican Guard within the streets of Baghdad, which would have been indescribably worse.

Worse for whom the Iraqi citizens or the Coalition forces.

Up to now whenever you took a strategic location you placed some troops to defend the place and keep the population from rising up.

This of course meant that you move on with a smaller and smaller force, unless you get re-inforcements.

Liberating a country normally is a slow and painful process.

IMHO, the Troops moved way too fast from the get go by circumnavigating towns with enemy soldiers, etc.

Luckily it worked for them, but it is not a strategy I would recommend against a more worthy opponent.

IMO, I think the Iraqi might have been more willing to uprise if they saw a place being liberated, policed and supplies/care given to the people.
And thus would have known the seriousness of the coalition forces in liberating them and caring for their well-being.

But than what to I know.

[diego]

I'm thinking the us and brits let the iraqi's do they thang thang to show them that they were not there to loot like the japs did in nanking.....things like that type of thinking
Like if the coalittion said stop looting right away the iraqi's may have thunk why do you want us to stop looting, do you yanks want the palace goods etc!?.

then agian i don't got cable, so thats just from what i read........one thing tho, two to three weeks ago all i would read about in iraq is that the coallition was going to have troubles getting into baghdad.......then its just like **** THAT WAS QUIK!

Anyone know how big saddams army was?. us and brit had like 100k of soldiers over there did they not?.

[Black Jack]

I think britian had around 40-50,000. The U.S. was somewhere around 300,000+ I believe. The aussies around 5,000.