Media round-up/updates on Iraq

national | miscellaneous | news report Tuesday March 25, 2003 00:57 by hunter hunterthompsonmachinegun at yahoo dot co dot uk

a round-up of some of the media i have been reading/seeing/hearing today about the 'war'

Ok I have been ill for the last few days, and have managed to keep up to date with coverage of the war (esp via RTE and Euronews). So here's something approcahing analysis and updates, i'm not sure exactly how it will turn out.

First off, Pat Kenny this morning. He had on the show, this Admiral guy from some ship in the Gulf. Pat was completey uncritical of the blatant propaganda he was being fed, refusing to ask any difficult questions - whether through a pro-war ideology or through fear of losing this valuable 'source' I'm not sure. Probably a mixture of the two. One fact that I found surprising was that the average age of people serving on this ship was only 20 and half! This kinda shocked me. Anyway, the only 'postive' point that the admiral could raise that the US had captured oil fields, and rigs in the Gulf - thus preventing an "environmental disaster" - oh how kind of you. And he made reference to the still unconfirmed "chemical weapons" factory.

Then he had the military expert Dr. Tom something or other, and unlike the moustacheod muppits on rte (rte got a new one in today from the irish 'air' force), he actually seems to know what he is talking about viz. military tactics and strategy. This was indeed an intersting report, as he made some important points about Urban Warfare Situations.

Dr Tom stated that according to standard military theory, to take an urban area from guerrillas, you need a ratio of at least 6:1 in your favour. And of those, you will expect to lose one soldier for every two dead enemies. He drew the only real recent comparison, the Russians efforts in Grozny (Chechnya) to defeat the rebels there. The Russians had up to date equpiment (albeit not as advanced as the US/UK have), and had a ratio of 5:1 - and even then they FAILED to take Grozny from the rebels by 'conventional' means, but were instead forced to level the city. And we all know how that little ditty played out - and the repercussions (remember the moscow siege for example). So if, as the good Dr said, we asssume that Baghdad has about 40,000 troops willing to defend it (a minimum) that would mean that by conventional military teaching, the US/UK would need a force of about 240,000, of which somewhere in the region of 20,000 could be considered 'expendable'. This also doesn't take into account the fact that suicide bombing or similar kamikaze missions are an extreme likleyhood. These numbers only apply to Baghdad, and doesnt take into account the prospect of sieges of other cities. The boys in the White House didn't go around shouting these figures out did they?

So we can only assume that US imperialism is not willing to suffer these kinds of losses in the 'media war' - and that leaves open only the option the Russians had to take in Grozny - bombing the holy shit out of the place. This will obviously not be a problem to the invaders, given the large armoury available to them, however it does have grave implications (obviously for the iraqi people) but also for the image of this as a 'war of liberation'. They can thus hope for two things, that Iraqi people and military units suddenly decide to welcome them, or that they find significant amounts of WMDs to 'justify' such an attack. And lets be clear about this, they'll have no problem planting or manufacturing this evidence if it doesn't present itself.

Anyway, next up on Pat Kenny (a good source this morning actually) was an English woman, an un-'embedded' journalist for the Times on Sunday (or sunday times, the london one anyway). It seemed to me that she just reported what see saw and experienced. She was highly critical of the news reoprts eminating from the Pentagon and No. 10 - describing them as "mostly lies". She described how that on nine occassions the press had been told that 'coalition' forces had taken Umm Qazr, and all times had been lies. She claimed that in reality, nowhere in the region was 'secure' least of all Basra which was simply sourrounded - and is now according to the Red Cross and others, facing a potential humanitarian crisis due to lack of food and water. Bush's assurances of humanitarian aid she said were useless because the port at Umm Qazr was still being fought over, and that was the main supply route. So also told how 50 or so so-called 'unilaterals' (ie unembedded journalists) were told to leave one city, i forget which but it might have been Zubayr, because "death threats had been issued on western journalists" by Iraqi forces. She seemed highly skeptical of this, and rightly so seeing as such a move would totally undermine Iraqi credibility, and objective reporting. The Iraqis aren't stupid. More likely the US is planning something in this city, or doesnt like the reception it has recieved from the locals and only wants embedded reports coming out.

Also of interst on the Pat Kenny Show was that most of the 'callers comments' seemed to be of an anti-war vien, and one caller even came up with a novel possible outcome of this 'war'. Namely that US/UK protectorate zones are set up in the north and south of the country, thus securing the real objectives, ie the oil fields of these areas. I'm sure if the war drags on, bushy will be considering such an option.

Also in the news in general - a US Apache chopper has been downed, and its crew shown on Iraqi TV earlier. They seem legit. Iraqi TV said a 'small number of peasants' downed two Apaches, Tommy Franks denies a second chopper was downed and i think said that the one that was came down due to 'technical difficulties'. Given that a 'Black Hawk' chopper also came down in Afghanistan last night - if all these reports of faulty machinery are to be taken serioulsy (which i don't) then they are knowingly putting troops in danger in faulty machines. Maybe its all part of Bush's military spending program - "The killing machines we have arent good enough, they are costing american lives" - and on that note, Bush is proposing that $80 billion US tax dollars be the minimum amount pumped into this campaign.

According to Euronews last night, two Tomahawk Cruise missiles hit areas in Turkey last night. How this happened is a mystery to me. Also a bus in Syria was hit by a US missile, killing five and injuring dozens, and Euronews reported that Jordan was possibly allowing the US to use a military base there, and one truckdriver claimed that he say US choppers flying into this base after attacking Iraqi villages. Jordan has also sealed its bordere to Iraqi refugees, but on the other hand Euronews reported that bus loads of Iraqis were actually coming from Jordan into Iraqi tro 'defend the country'.

Newstalk 106 was saying that the Shai's don't seem to be welcoming US troops, due to 'mistrust' and a renewed 'assertation of Iraqi nationalism' in the face of invasion. Lets not forget their religious ties to Iran, which looks like being next on the US shit list - also latent resentment from the 1991 uprising. Also the US bombed Ansar-al Islam fundamentalists, but it is believed that most of their fighters took to the mountains some weeks ago. In the process they also killed 34 in a neighbouring village of an anti-ansaar and anti-saddam resistance group. The quote in today's Guardian was "This makes us love Saddam, not America". Some think it was the PUK settling old scores. Claims that the Turks had crossed into the Kurdiah area have been dismissed by the Kurds themselves, but seem to think that such a move is on the way, and these reports were 'testers'.

Also a little on Saddam's speech - he personally thanked individual commanders for their efforts, and said to the people of Iraq "The more they [US/UK] lose, they more they will bombard you" and "God has ordered you to cut their throats." Obvioulsy meant to inspire the fighters, and given that TV etc may soon be knocked out, maybe his last message to the people of Iraq.

Michael Moore won an oscar for best documentary, and made an anti-war speech, and was booed and cheered, and the orchestra struck up to drown him out.: "We live in fictitious times," he said "We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!," he said to loud boos from an audience of 3,500 including most of Hollywood's top stars. "

ITN reporter Terry Lloyd was killed by UK forces, and two ITNers remain missing. The cameraman survived and stated that even after fleeing the scene (after being rescued by a fellow journalist) was still being fired on by 'coalition' forces. Reports also of UK military assuring unilaterals that a particular road was safe, when in fact it was heavily mined. Is this the new way to stop objective reporting?

Finally (at last says whoever has bothered to read this) - the wire is reporting that coalition forces are 50 miles from baghdad, and bombing has continued. Bur it was pointed out somewhere today, perhaps on the joe duffy show, that the US have no secure supply lines, and risk 'doing a napolean' and not consolodating what they have, esp given the upcoming iraqi searing heat. And iraqbodycount.org is giving the civillian death toll at min 135 max 209.

Sorry if this is too much info or whatever, but like i said i'm ill and have time on my hands, so i thought i'd contribute something substantial.