U.S. Methods Paying Off

[budanski]

U.S. Methods Paying Off
Moscow Times (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/12/29/009.html) Russian defense analyst Pavel Felgenhauer

2003 will primarily be remembered for the war in Iraq, the fall of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led invasion was strongly opposed by millions of Europeans and by former great powers France, Germany and Russia. But they protested in vain.

The U.S. march on Baghdad was a unique event in the history of modern warfare. The swiftness and zeal of the advancing armored columns, supported by relentless air power, is comparable to the best campaigns of the Israeli defense force. But the Israelis never achieved full victory; they did not manage or were not allowed by outside powers to occupy the entire territory of the opposing Arab nation.

Armed conflicts during the Cold War, when Russia and the West balanced each other globally, tended to be very bloody but strategically limited engagements: They were pitched battles on patches of disputed territory where the best possible outcome was to push the enemy back several kilometers and then fortify, awaiting a counteroffensive.

It was a time of frustrating tug-of-war conflicts in which clear and decisive victories were unachievable despite all the carnage. The 2003 campaign in Iraq, on the contrary, was a breath of fresh air for military history buffs -- almost like a return to Napoleonic times with the addition of modern military gear. This was a war that indeed achieved its goal of total enemy defeat and conquest.

Just before Christmas, a high-ranking French delegation of generals, admirals, defense industry officials and analysts came to Moscow. The French amazed their Russian counterparts by breaking to them something that is still news in Moscow today: The United States achieved a major victory in Afghanistan in 2001 and an even greater one in Iraq this year. Russian and French predictions of possible U.S. failure were totally off the mark, and today it would be wrong to expect a U.S. fiasco in suppressing the residual resistance in Iraq.

French and German leaders congratulated President George W. Bush with the capture of Hussein, while President Vladimir Putin remained silent. Die-hard antiwar Democrats like presidential hopeful Howard Dean, together with most Russians, still hope Bush will get a bloody nose in Iraq, but the reality of the situation on the ground does not lend support to this fantasy.

The vast majority of the Iraqi population does not support the resistance. On the contrary, as the guerrilla campaign has developed, the discretion in using force displayed by the Americans and the indiscretion in slaughtering innocent civilians of the jihadist resistance is effectively helping to win over hearts and minds. Today the United States is in a good position to achieve its ultimate goal: the installation of a pro-U.S. Iraqi authority equipped with a military, a police force and a cadre of informers that will keep the opposition down, while the United States will retain strategically important military bases in Iraq.

The Arab and Muslim world, despite many prophesies to the contrary and lots of agitation, did not rise as one to oppose the United States in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis and Arabs are waiting to see whether the United States will manage to make Iraq a better place to live than it was under Hussein. Everyone wants the Americans to hand over control to the locals eventually, but not immediately.

Extreme Islamists from abroad are helping pro-Hussein leftovers to resist in Iraq, but the resources of the jihadists are limited and stretched thin across many fronts: Fighting Israel, different Arab regimes, the Indian forces in Kashmir, the Russians in Chechnya, plotting terrorist attacks worldwide and so on. The jihadists surely cannot carry on a sustained Vietnam-like guerrilla war to chew up the U.S. military in Iraq.

Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has weighed up the odds and decided to make a deal with Washington to surrender his weapons of mass destruction, rather than providing support to the Iraqi resistance. This year has been remarkable with two former rogue nations, Iraq and Libya, cleared of WMD and a third, Iran, signing a protocol that may prevent it going nuclear.

It has been proven that U.S. military force or the threat of force is an effective method of reversing the proliferation of WMD worldwide. Modern precision warfare also seems to be a more humane method of dealing with rogues than traditional decade-long suffocating sanctions. While the U.S. military continues to be effective, it will surely be much in use in the future.

Did I miss something here? Moscow Times?

[Russian Texan]

You have missed the name of the author "Pavel Felgenhauer" ;)

[Falco]

I'm not familiar with this person. Could some one fill me in on his views?

[Russian Texan]

Pavel Felgenhauer - "Russian military analyst" or as he describes himself "an independent military analyst". The guy doesn't have any kind of special education or deep knowledge of the military. Half of his articles are simply rephrasing someone elses thoughts/ideas and the other half are theories sucked out of the finger. To put it simply - he is as much of a military analyst as anyone on this board...
The guy has credibility and moral standards similar to those of Hiraldo Rivera. He doesn't publish in Russia anymore because, well no one wants to discredit their newspaper/magazine with his name. His articles are always full of two things: mistakes and deep hatred for anything Russian.
Hatred can be explained by the treatment he might have gotten as a jew in USSR. Basically he is a disgruntled freelancer journalist/writer.

[budanski]

Well then it just shows how credible the Moscow Times is. Whats more credible? Pravda? :|

[Kitsune]

Yeah but...

Is it only BBC propaganda that Afghansistan is near chaos again right now? That Al Osama bin Laden is still at large? That Al Qaida is alive and kicking? That in Iraq 70 % of the people are unemployed, the medical situation a disaster, that more Iraqis died during the last 9 months than would have during Hussein's reign? That a Sunnit/Shiit civil war can start any time? That the numbers of killed American soldiers is still high, possibly even rising?

Ghadaafi? He wants to better is standing with the west for years! His desire for trade more than the fear of an US attack makes him cooperative. And the mighty WMD program he is giving up...well (he even stated that Libyia would be able to manufacture nuclear bombs but will not do it...the bigmouth.)

True...there were quite a few fears that did not come true about this war. For example that islamists could have gained the upper hand in egypt because of war created turmoil...did not happen. Or that Hussein could mount an effective defense of Baghdad with his Republican Guard and Feehdayin. Did also not happen. But how could one know? Perhaps the US got just lucky, but anyway those were well justified fears.

Perhaps history will prove the Bush government right (personally I do not believe it) but it is still a bit early to sound the victory trumpet ! ;) And thats only for Iraq. I have read in a newspaper today that Bremer is canceling most of the social and nation building projects the US had within Iraq...and if thats true they are planning to get the hell out of there...so possibly there will be no victory trumpet at all. There is no evidence (at least none I can see) that Bushs Iraq Campaign was an effective way to battle terrorism. While terrorists are killed, the campaign at the same time "feeds the troll". All in all...the article seems not to be an exactly brilliant analysis of the situation.

In one respect this second Gulfwar WAS effective. It was a clear display of might...which naturally impresses especially the Russians. But it also alienated the Allies of the US (in French eyes the Germans were infamous for being loyal vassals of the US. The loyal German shepherd. But not anymore. And even the British...you have mainly Blair to thank for it that they were still at your side. He did it against the will of the majority of the British population. And because of it he may not be around much longer...) This may be in fact the biggest mistake of all. The US, once regarded as the big stabilizing factor in this world seem now somewhat...mercurial to many. To many investors for example. And the US badly needs people who invest money in the US economy...

Again: its much to early to judge this matter. Success or Not? We will know more in a year from now...wether Bush is still laughing after the Presidential elections for example.

p-)

[Kitsune]

Well...Russian Texan was faster than I. And his judgement even more crushing.

[Kingpin]

Felhenauer i just successfull bussinessman because he sell his columns to CNN, BBC and other western media which always call him "russian military expert".

Ha ha! He is not respected here among military and other experts (who weren't so successful in dealing with western media. May be because their articles weren't full of "Western countries rules", "Russia sucks" sentences)

[budanski]

Then again, when has any russian analyst (former generals) been right about anything? ;)

[Midav]

Interesting article.

Can't substantiate it as I hear too many variations on what's going on in Afghanistan/Iraq.

Too many figures and misleading stuff coming from each side.

[16 OBr SpN]

I've seen this asshole Felgenhauer some time ago.
That dumbass was trying to participate in our "tournaments" as a PR ADVISOR for the 67 OBr SpN! rofl
He went all the way to Novosibirsk to state that!! :lol:

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[martinexsquaddie]

True there is massive unemployment in iraq but then again the place has been under massive sanction for over ten years and been involved in 3 massive conflicts.
I doubt the last few months have seen more deaths than anywhere likes saddams regin

[Kingpin]

True there is massive unemployment in iraq but then again the place has been under massive sanction for over ten years and been involved in 3 massive conflicts.
I doubt the last few months have seen more deaths than anywhere likes saddams regin

In 2003 in Iraq was much more deaths than in 2002. War, riots, robbers, problems with healths care and life support facilities.
Under Saddam almost wasn't unemployment.

I don't want to say that Saddam was better but now plain people not involved in politics suffer even more then they was under Saddam.

[The Walrus]

In Saddams later years the killing did ease off a little, partly because he already had full control/power, and partly because he was getting old and tired, the main concern would be that what would happen when he dies and one of his sadistic sons were to inherit power...

[The Walrus]

In Saddams later years the killing did ease off a little, partly because he already had full control/power, and partly because he was getting old and tired, the main concern would be that what would have happened when he dies and one of his sadistic sons were to inherit power...

[ogukuo72]

Whatever the credibility of this guy is, he's right. The Iraq campaign is one of the most amazing military campaigns since the Second World War, and with the exception of the Israelis, no one country had achieved such a spectacular military success with the expenditure of so few lives.

Another thing, despite the dramatic media coverage of terrorist attacks, stability is returning to both Afghanistan and Iraq. What most people don't understand is that these things take time. Even for a country that is at "peace" such as Cambodia, the calculations are that it would take ten years for that country to return to some degree of normalcy.

And, yes, I do believe that the BBC has an agenda. It has long since given up on trying to present a balanced picture of an event. In the past few years, it has generally followed a leftist line, emphasising on the Green and Pink issues such as the environment, concern about globalisation, a suspicion of the US, and crusading for human rights. Sometimes, they seem very much to be a propaganda mouthpeace for Green Peas and Amnesty International, reporting faithfully on their reports (as if they are just as important as reports produced by more respected agencies like WHO) without question. The quality of BBC reporting has definitely gone down the hill. Often, their reports are not even accurate or timely.

[WARPIG]

Are we really trying to judge success here? Slow down. I agree that it is too early to call the occupation a success but the taking of Iraq was overwhelmingly a success. Two different things. This "military analyst" may be uncredible but he does make a point. The military might of the US did and still does have a tremendous influence. The future of Iraq is still not clear.. of course. But, are we really surprised at the state of Iraq now with out a government? Did we expect the country to instantly become better? There are guerillas and terrorists operating against Coalition Military, no government, and the country has always been unstable. The fact that the death toll tapered off for a while under Hussein doesn't mean it was becoming stable. It is the wild west in Iraq right now... how long do people expect it will take before the country has a chance to become stable or even prosperous? By that time they will resent us again (like some EU states we know) and choose to forget our part in their liberation.

[Russian Texan]

Whatever the credibility of this guy is, he's right. The Iraq campaign is one of the most amazing military campaigns since the Second World War, and with the exception of the Israelis, no one country had achieved such a spectacular military success with the expenditure of so few lives.

USSR in Afganistan.
There are several similarities between two conflicts but there also some differences: Afganistan terrain is much better suited for the guerilla warfare, USSR suffered most of the casualties durring attacks on convoys that were taking oil and other goos to Afganistan and Soviet losses were 86 KIA in the first year...

[SFontaine]

that more Iraqis died during the last 9 months than would have during Hussein's reign
Holy stupid comment Batman!
Saddam has killed over 3 million people.
And how many Iraqis have died in this war? 15000 (Thats 15000 Soldiers) and maybe a couple thousand civilians?

[Kitsune]

Whose comment is stupid, batgirl?

3 million? From where did you get this number ? The whole death toll of the Iran/Iraq war piled on top of Saddam or what? And how many he may have killed, the man ruled for 23 years.

There are no official statistics in Iraq...not back then when Saddam reigned (believable ones) and certainly not now. But according to the totally biased BBC and the even more biased German media the morgues in Baghdad are now cramped. They asked the operator of one and he said that they were getting many more times the number of corpses than before the war. Typical corpse: male 20 to 40 years old. Typical cause of death: bulletholes.
Iraq is pretty lawless, most people have no job no money...but most people have weapons. So they have criminal gangs and firefights like hell. But perhaps the totally unbiased, neutral and matter-of-fact US media did not report this.

Perhaps Iraq will become a democratic and prosperous state...sometime in the future. Unless no civil war breaks out. But the last 9 months were not so good for most of the people over there. Was it worth it? I guess that depends...if your family lost one or more members probably not. But if you were imprisoned by Saddams reign and regained your freedom because of the US invasion then you will be happy of course.

Same goes for this question wether Iraqis support the Coaltion troops. Sunnits? Depends...most are happy to see Saddam gone. But in the Tikrit area most HATE the Americans...many there are belonging to Saddams clan (I think that was because he hid there...he simply could go nowhere else).
Shiits? They were hating Saddam with a passion...but all in all they are mistrustful of US motives. 65% of Iraqs population are Shiits...many of them want to see a democratic system installed and the US troops leaving as soon as possible, which would give them the power. But the US mistrusts the Shiits, they are close to Iran and connectet with Islamism. But so far they keep quite...If the coalition plans a governmental system in Iraq that gives them not enough power (in their opinion) they may start trouble. But if they get to much power the Sunnits (until now always the rulers of Iraq) may rise...this is the greates danger: civil war. And that may still happen.
The Kurds in the north may be the least problem: on the one hand they hate Saddam on the other hand they mistrust the US working with the Turks. But many of them see the US presence as a kind of protection against these.
But in all cases it depends on the individual person of course. A Sunnit who has lost his brother because of an American retributive strike or mistake may seek revenge...a Shiite who has lost family members through Saddam is overjoyed and thankful for having US troops bringing him and his clique down.

But anyway: Arabs are a proud people. And living in a occupied country and having foreigners (and unbelievers) in uniforms tell you what you have to do on a daily basis IS humiliating. For the time being many except it. But the longer this period takes the more people will change their opinion.

Stupid or not. Thats my view on the situation.

[gaboki]

politics suck imo :P

[Skaman]

I cannot see an Iraq in the foreseeable future adapting to a western way of life based on social, economic, and cultural patterns. Islam has ruled in the Middle East for thousands of years, and this way of life will continue to prevail despite outside influence as there is an extremist avocation to principles in stark contrast to western society. The nations are too dissimilar to create a smooth transition into a fully functioning democracy. Look in the case of Gorbachev's Russia with glasnost and perestroika; while the intentions were sound, the effort ultimately failed, and progress is only slowing taking shape. In the case of Iraq, hundreds of years will be needed before this nation officially stabilizes and modernizes itself to meet western standards as that seems to be our intent. I personally do not believe any one nation has the right to forcefully change another; yet this will likely be the outcome. The coalition is taking a movement in the right direction by instating an Iraqi led government, but ultimately, the shackles of poverty, crime, and anti US sentiment will be difficult to shed. The US has taken on a mission to large and expensive to handle. Iraq will take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars, all at the expense of the American populous. Some things were just not meant to be. I say, get Saddam, restore peace , provide foreign aid to cover the destruction of war, then leave and ensure Iraq rebuilds its nation as it sees fit. US efforts are needed elsewhere. My 2 cents.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Iraq is not a fundamentalist nation - Saddam didn't rule by quoting from the Koran. That being said, it's also far from being a completely secualar nation as well. It's somewhere in the middle - kind of like Turkey.
I believe Iraq has a good chance of making a decent transition to a more western society. Once its citizens see some prosperity & a bright future ahead, the pace will quicken. Get 'em all working 60+ hrs. a week to buy SUVs and 100" plasma TVs - they'll forget about hangin' out at the mosque soon enough....