As Baghdad is surrounded

American and British forces have mostly encircled Baghdad now, but the Coalition lacks the manpower to completely seal the city off. For the last few days, American and British aircraft have battered Republican Guard divisions around the city, killing thousands of Iraqis. But under whose control is the situation? Is the Iraqi army dissolving before our eyes, or has the great mass of the elite divisions simply disappeared into Baghdad, a sprawling city of 10 million? John Keegan, defense editor at the London Daily Telegraph, is suspicious the Saddam has withdrawn forces into the city for the terrible final fight. The strongest evidence of this is that there have been far fewer Iraqi surrenders and kills than account for the large divisions, even battered ones. On the other hand, maybe the Iraqi security-military complex is dissolving. But does it really seem that way?

Saddam's tactics in refusing to commit any of his elite Republican Guards and most of his better army divisions to open fighting has indeed allowed U.S. forces to advance at breakneck speed and with remarkably low casualties to the outskirts of Baghdad. And if the city falls fast, then the Mystery of the Vanishing Army may well prove to be nothing more than a historic curio, or it might well be demoralized, paralyzed and disintegrated already as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies clearly expected.
But if Keegan's concerns, and the observations of combat correspondent James Meek, are confirmed, then the more U.S. forces are pulled into the giant magnet and potential killing ground of Baghdad, the greater their peril will be. But it will not be primarily from the "Saddam Fedayeen" and other irregular forces contesting physical control of the great city of 5 million people -- more than 10 times the population of Stalingrad.
Instead, the real threat will be from the main forces of the Iraqi army, currently bedded down in vast underground bunkers -- which Iraqi engineers have long been expert at constructing -- and expertly advised on camouflage tactics by senior retired Russian officers.

And what national security philosophy are we rolling into here? The neoconservative world, love it or hate it. Policy Review has an article 'Rage, Hubris, and Regime Change' claiming that today "Dominance, Pre-emption, and Regime Change" are the key, but our understanding of Iraqi culture is disastrously warped:

The attempt to impose democracy in Iraq and the Middle East has all the unreality of Don Quixote. The truth is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq with the pronounced intent of imposing democracy will more likely be a "poison dart" with a "boomerang effect" than a "magic bullet" with a "democratic domino effect" in the region. For decades, the Iraqi middle classes have been forced to act like supplicants towards those who rule them with arbitrary power. Their servility has undoubtedly produced a psychology and culture that emphasize avoidance and distrust of political life. In no way do the Iraqi middle classes resemble the proto-liberal capitalist classes of seventeenth-century Western Europe with their preferences for, and understanding of, a legally framed market economy and individual autonomy. As for Iraqi society in general, it is fragmented into hostile tribes and clans based on kinship, religion, and ethnicity. In such an environment, creating civility will require Promethean effort. Creating a civil society and democratic government will take a miracle.

Huzzah! The most 'fair and balanced' network on the other side of the world, Al-Jazeera, has started English.aljazeera.net, so you can get a dose of Arab satellite media. A comparison between Al-Jazeera and International Herald Tribune, via NYTimes:

Al-Jazeera: US military to be in charge of Iraq for over six months: Reawakening fears of United States' domination over Iraq, US Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said its military would remain in charge of the country for more than six months after its invasion. The Pentagon established the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), to be headed by retired Army Gen. Jay Garner, a controversial figure in the Arab world.  
He has strong ties with pro-Israeli members in Congress, connections to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and is one of 26 US military officials who recently visited Israel and issued the statement: "A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on."  
US Undersecretary of State Douglas Feith has also been an outspoken advocate of a continuing US presence in Iraq. He has gone on record as saying that Israel has "moral superiority" over the Arabs while his website states that he "represented a leading Israeli armaments manufacturer in establishing joint ventures with leading US aerospace manufacturers for manufacture and sale of missile systems to the US Department of Defence and worldwide."  
The US has called for the construction of extensive road networks, the renovation of electricity grids and the rebuilding of thousands of schools. Contracts would be awarded to five US engineering firms announced earlier, including a subsidiary of Haliburton, the company run by Vice President Dick Cheney until 2000.

International Herald Tribune: New Iraq Government Could Take 6 Months, Wolfowitz Says.
"We're not there to run the country," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "Our goal has got to be transfer of authority and operation of the government as quickly as possible, not to some other external authority but to the Iraqi people themselves."
Decisions would be made by all Iraqis, not just those returning from exile, he said, in a comment that appeared to move the Pentagon nearer the position staked out by the State Department. "You can't decide what the future government of Iraq will be when 20 million or more people can't say what they think," he said.
The Defense Department reportedly has pressed for an interim government, possibly headed by exile leaders, to be set up quickly in southern Iraq. The State Department maintains that these expatriates, some of whom have been out of the country for decades, may lack the public support needed to form a stable, broad-based government....
Mr. Wolfowitz issued new warnings to Syria, which the administration has accused of shipping weapons to Iraq and letting Iraqi fighters cross the border.
"I don't know what game they're playing," he said, "but they need to stop."
Syria, he added, would be "held accountable for" its actions. He said he was not threatening an invasion, but pointing to diplomatic and other consequences Damascus would face.

Ah, there is the story of the "Iraqi fighters" heading into fight the Anglo Coalition. Al-Jazeera's spin: Volunteer fighters continue to flock to the cause:

Nevertheless, there are now signs that the steady trickle of immigrant fighters may be growing in size. Western intelligence sources say that they have detected groups of Saudi fighters trying to get into Iraq to attack US and UK forces there, according to the BBC. Others are trying to cross into Iraq from Iran. Four groups of Saudis are also said to have left their hideouts in Afghanistan to join Iraqi forces as well....
Egypt's highest religious authority, Sheikh Al-Azhar Mohammed Sayed Tantawi said yesterday: "whoever wants to go to Iraq to support the Iraqi people, the door is open, and I say the door for Jihad is open until the day of judgement. Whoever wants to go to support the Iraqi people, I welcome that, I welcome that, I welcome that. I say to him go with peace and I wish you well. We do not prevent anyone from going to help those who are facing injustice." Activists say hundreds of Egyptians have signed up with the country's Lawyers' Union to fight in Iraq.

I just want to know how the White House explains this situation, how they can reconcile it with the 'freedom' and 'liberation' talk. With all the talk of killing Baathists, I think they brushed aside the fact of Baathist rule in Syria. Oh well... we have moral clarity.

Rumor has it that HAMAS has opened a branch in Kuwait. Not sure if it's true, but there have been many terror incidents against U.S. troops in the area, so Hamas might find popular support.

Enjoy the collection of Donald Rumsfeld soundbites on BBC radio. But better is the fascinating collection of Rummy quotes such as "In our system leadership is by consent, not command. To lead a President must persuade. Personal contacts and experiences help shape his thinking. They can be critical to his persuasiveness and thus to his leadership." And read about how Poppa Bush's advisers thought that building a diverse coalition against Saddam would have worked better. Gracias a Sr. Schwartz.

An amazing video, George Bush and Tony Blair singing a love song to each other.

An excellent piece taking apart neoconservatives is in The Washington Monthly: Practice to Deceive by Joshua Micah Marshall:

Invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."
The administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So [hypothetical] events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments--or, failing that, U.S. troops--rule the entire Middle East.

Slavoj Zizek asks if the war on terror is designed to increase social repression at home:

Today, Iraq. Tomorrow ... Democracy? Direct American occupation of a large and key Arab country--how could this not generate a reaction of universal hatred? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombers, and how that will force the U.S. government to impose a permanent high-alert emergency state. At this point, one cannot resist a slightly paranoid temptation: What if the people around Bush know this, what if this "collateral damage" is the true aim of the entire operation? What if the true target of the "war on terror" is American society itself--the disciplining of its emancipatory excesses?

Posted by HongPong at April 6, 2003 09:23 PM
Listed under Iraq .