Attacks will continue until day the Americans leave, says report

[NNN0LHI]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=465083

As George Bush arrived in London last night, an unprecedented and bleak assessment of the deteriorating military situation in Iraq was circulating among policymakers in Washington.

The report - contradicting many claims by the US administration - is based on briefings by Paul Bremer, the US de facto governor of Iraq; military commanders, unnamed intelligence officers and David Kay, the American who leads the hunt for Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction. It says attacks on Americans by Sunni Iraqis will continue "until the day the US leaves".

US army commanders are also learning how Saddam Hussein forced his officers to read Black Hawk Down - the account of the shooting down of US helicopters in Mogadishu during America's disastrous intervention in Somalia in the early 1990s - to convince them the US would leave if it suffered major casualties. The Iraqi resistance movement is believed to have a war chest of up to $1bn - with a further $3bn hidden in Syria - and it is paying between $25 and $500 for each attack on US forces.

It also says 95 per cent of the threat is from former regime loyalists and that suicide bombings are being carried out largely by foreigners.

more

[E_Zapata]

1. That's right.......the money, the weapons, the terr-aists, incl saddam

are ALWAYS hiding in Syria!

Talk about being a country with a big red bullsye target on it!

[leftchick]

2. Okay.... this part sums it up....

....They Have No Fucking Clue...

<snip>
The report, compiled by the prestigious Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), is all the more devastating because of the unusual level of access provided to its author, Dr Anthony Cordesman, a specialist on Iraq. He concludes that US soldiers are dying because of the ideological approach of the administration,

and "four years into office, the Bush national security team is not a team".

Mr Cordesman accuses the administration of preparing the ground for "a defeat by underplaying the risks, issuing provocative and jingoistic speeches, and minimising real-world costs and risks." Senior US officials were also deeply scornful of claims by administration officials that Saddam and his former aide Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri are orchestrating guerrilla attacks.

Mr Bremer is quoted as saying that Saddam is felt "to be isolated and on the run. Douri felt to be dying".

US military officials said the leadership of the resistance is coming from former generals and colonels from the old Iraqi army, now disbanded, who see no future for themselves. This means that US successes in picking up the remaining 15 senior Baath party officials and military leaders pictured on the 55 playing cards will have no effect on the strength of the resistance

[rustydog]

3. Have you noticed no one broaches the possibility

That Iraqi people...not Saddam loyalists or hard-liners could be responsible for the attacks on troops.
It MUST be insurgents, foreigners otherwise, these people would be llike Americans trying to throw out the Imperialist British in the American Revolution..Hummmm

It couldn't possibly be Iraqi citizens who are fed up with a foreign power that killed tens of thousands of their mothers, fathers sons and daughters.
It couldn't possibly be the people of iraq who may have seen the hypocrisy of the Bush promise to get Saddam yet stopped and declared victory simply because the Iraqi Army quit and Bush promptly started rebuiilding efforts..on the oil production only.

Nah, it must be "insurgents" and "Saddam loyalists"
If it is what bush Co claims, then it is concrete proof that they never even considered this scenario occurring.
So it does not matter WHO is doing it, Bush should have forseen it and had contingency plans for it.(the pentagon did but Rummy and Bush told them to take a flying you-know-what at a rolling donut)

Bush is solely responsible for this fiasco, not poor intelligence (depends on how you intend that to be taken!), not Bill Clinton.
bush is personally responsible for the deaths of 422 American troops.
Blame him and him only.

[legin]

4. I'm a bit unhappy with this bit

The CSIS report 'Iraq: Too Uncertain to Call' is here:
http://www.csis.org/

In it is this (Phase Four is the name given to the Iraqi reconstruction part of the overall conflict) seems to be a "we had better learn these lessons of how to do it for the next country we invade" bit:


Finally, what is now happening in Iraq must be clearly understood to be a warning of things to come. Just as the US military must restructure away from a focus on defeating conventional forces and technical intelligence to a matching focus on low intensity combat and HUMINT, and see the civil-military and security missions as having the same priority as the combat mission, the civil side of the US government must understand that it must prepare for armed nation building in the future.

State and other civil agencies need to be prepared for political and aid activity in a low intensity combat environment and for the fact the UN, most international agencies, and most NGOs will not operate effectively or at all as long as low intensity combat presents a threat. There must be a clear plan for future “Phase Four” operations on an interagency basis and to recruit USAID and other personnel who know they may have to operate in such environments and have the equipment, training, and pay/career incentives to do so.

[legin]

5. On page 12 of report n/t

.

[bemildred]

7. You have to understand.

The real lesson is that they need to stop meddling in
other countries affairs, it won't pay. But that means
that 90% of the entire military industrial complex has
no purpose. So of course, they conclude they just haven't
got the methodology down yet.

It's like the advent of nuclear weapons. Did they say:
"Hey we don't need these tanks anymore, they're obsolete and
not cost efficient?" Nope. They just keep buying tanks and
trying to use them in the more and more restricted venues
where they can be effective. It's down to where anything
more advanced than the Iraqi army after ten years of sanctions
is too dangerous. Gaza is perfect.

So anyway, that's why they don't state the obvious lesson, but
instead come up with this stuff you object to. It's job
security.

[legin]

6. another not nice bit (p. 14)

Seems a bit undemocratic to me (towards end):

In any case, it is clear that the current Governing Council is not fit to be a provisional government, that the leaders of the outside opposition have not been able to catalyze enough Iraqi support to claim a legitimate leadership role, and some form of elections are needed to allow the Iraqis to select their own leaders.

It also seems clear that some mechanism is needed to elect constitutional delegates that both legitimizes the constitutional process and ensures that the drafting process is not dominated by the Shi’ites. A mix of elected delegates and appointed Iraqi respected by the Iraqis in Iraq - supported by a mixed body of international advisors – is one possible solution to quick action.

[legin]

8. This bit I definatly like

--Publicly crucify the first major US contractor foolish enough to non-perform as an international example to the others.
:evilgrin:

it's not a bad report (it's painless to read anyway)

[leetrisck]

9. Bin Laden probably had them read Black Hawk Down

because bush kept talking about it (trying to embarrass Clinton) - now they've used it for "Black Hawk Down" - how many have we lost now? Somalia was bad enough without always saying that was his favorite movie - well, I guess it became Bin Laden's also.