veiled4allah: too many unanswered questions veiled4allah: too many unanswered questionsAll comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: iraq aftermath. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: originally posted, republican guard, command structure, iraqi army, bin laden, know, republican, originally, guard, posted, saddam, Saddam, Originally, been, could, people, Chris, chris, iraqi, Iraqi, pentagon, estimates, say, army, high
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with iraq, aftermath
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: iraq, aftermath
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: iraq, aftermath
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: iraq, aftermath
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: iraq, aftermath
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: iraq aftermath
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title too many unanswered questions (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) iraq aftermath (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Regarding the Republican Guard, I'm betting that a lot of them simply took off their uniforms and either buried or burned them along with any insignia and ID cards. There will be a lot of people who, when asked, will say they were just "shopkeepers" "factory workers" or "low level government admin assistants" who just happened to know how to handle a rifle because of their brief service in the Iraqi military.
Saddam is probably having coffee with Osama right about now...
Regarding the Republican Guard, I'm betting that a lot of them simply took off their uniforms and either buried or burned them along with any insignia and ID cards. There will be a lot of people who, when asked, will say they were just "shopkeepers" "factory workers" or "low level government admin assistants" who just happened to know how to handle a rifle because of their brief service in the Iraqi military.
The republican guard has been all but destroyed.Estimates from the pentagon are that our bombing campaign killed a minimum of 107,000 which is considered very conservative.
High end estimates go to 200,000.
Saddam is probably having coffee with Osama right about now...
From the smiley I'm assuming that you meant this as a joke(and I agree)but I'm pretty sure there a significant portion of people that believe that in earnest. The only possible reason they would have to be together is if Saddam felt he had no choice., not due to any ideological similarities
Chris, I'm just guessing but I think that Laura may have been making a point that we've never seen proof that OBL is dead either.
It's this lack of closure that worries me. Assuming that a large number of Iraqi soldiers still are alive, should we really just let them melt back into the population? How do we know that they won't be carrying out guerrilla attacks in the future? Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming in the next weeks.
The republican guard has been all but destroyed.
Estimates from the pentagon are that our bombing campaign killed a minimum of 107,000 which is considered very conservative.
High end estimates go to 200,000.
I didn't realize that figures went that high. I haven't been paying attention to the figures or live coverage of fighting. As far as I know the Pentagon has been refusing to issue casualty counts. Do you have a link for that number ?Chris, I'm just guessing but I think that Laura may have been making a point that we've never seen proof that OBL is dead either.
Geesh, I never assumed he was dead. I missed that completely.It's this lack of closure that worries me. Assuming that a large number of Iraqi soldiers still are alive, should we really just let them melt back into the population? How do we know that they won't be carrying out guerrilla attacks in the future? Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming in the next weeks.
I assumed they were politcal opportunists, bailing out of a clearly lost government and awaiting to support whatever came next. I hadn't thought of the possiblity that they might be 'sleeper' agents. I can't see who they would support. Saddam, his sons and Cabinet are gone. (collect them all on the new Iraq deck of collectible cards!). Simply target US troops in general ? possible I guess, all the more reason to help set up an independent (of everyone including the US) Iraqi government and get the heck out.This may be a silly question, but does anyone know what has happened to the author of Dear_Raed.blogspot.com. His blog hasn't been updated since March 24, I know much of Baghdad doesn't have electricity, but does anyone know if he's alive ?
(Cause like all Molsems know each other personally and keep in contact with each other on a daily basis)
In the meantime, I'll persist in my stupidity. What is the command structure in the Iraqi army? Have we captured or confirmed the deaths of all the key figures in this command structure? It's obvious that the Iraqi army is no match for the U.S. army in a face-to-face battle. It seems logical for them to employ guerrilla tactics or what's called "asymmetrical warfare" instead. And it seems possible that a decision was made at the highest levels to pursue this strategy, and that enough of the command structure remains in place within the Iraqi army to systematically implement it, that is, to convey the orders to the soldiers and possibly direct them towards specific objectives or targets.
I'm not saying this is what's going on, I don't know that. What I am saying is that, given the possibility that this could happen, shouldn't we be a bit more concerned that most of the enemy army is unaccounted for? And that its leadership is unaccounted for?
Or are we just going to let them slip away like we let Bin Laden slip away (that's what I meant to say, I apologize if my comment was poorly worded and unclear) and hope that it doesn't come back to bite us?
I don't know what the command structure is per se. I know that they are looking for at least 55 people and only two of which the public knows the whereabouts of, Chemical Ali (who is dead) and the Science Minister who gave himself up at his house (which was apparently undamaged during any of the bombing). That leaves 53 left. So many of the top officials are still left, but if they show up in public and identify themselves, my feeling is they will be captured or killed. Without government backing to pay or punish they aren't commanding anyone who's not doing it out of personal loyalty. I figure they are hiding or heading out of the country. At the high levels, there is no government.
From a military point of view, your reasoning is sound, if Iraqis can't beat them in a face to face fashion then they should resort to guerilla tactics. But to what end and why ? What is missing is the motive or incentive for troops to carry it out. As I understand it (and I may be the stupid one here), Neither Saddam or his lieutenants will be in power anytime soon. So any short term monetary/politcal reward is out. OBL seems to be a sort of relgious figure and champion for the underdogs in the eyes of some people(rightly or wrongly) and so it is easier to see how people could be fanatically devoted to him and how he could influence people through radical Islam. Saddam however is a secular dictator that far fewer people would risk their lives for simply out of devotion.. With his power to reward and punish severely curtailed, he can't do much. He might have sent people out and said "blend into the population, and slowly cause terror and forment rebellion", but why would that person carry it out, Saddam is not coming back, can't pay him adequately and can't kill him for disobeying. He's not a religious figure and can't invoke promises of heaven or hell or concepts of good deeds or sins.
He could concieveably regroup with some of his top ministers and form his own sort of terrorist group, but he doesn't seem to have the same moral authority. It would be because he's upset that he lost his country and not because he's leading a divine fight against a corrupt oppressor. It's the difference between Oral Roberts and Richard Nixon.
again, I live in the US, never been to Iraq, I could be very wrong in judging the devotion of Iraqis to him.
I DO believe that the longer, foreign troops stay in Iraq, the less people will see them as liberators and the more as a foreign occupation force that simply wants their oil. They will be the target of attacks from both domestic and foreign terrorists. But this is more due to people's belief in Iraq as a nation, radical islam or dislike of the US than out of a devotion to Saddam or a plan orchestrated by Saddam. The non governmental groups that use terror to destabilize a government, (Hezbollah, Al Queda, radical anti-abortionists, Basque separatists, IRA(?) and the Protestants of N. Ireland (?) )seem to be committed(or claim to be committed) more to wider spiritual or political causes rather than to a specific person. If they see the promise of a coup in the next year that would return Saddam or a son or minister to power, that is a very big danger, but otherwise I don't think it's going to happen, but it would be nice to account for them. It could also be that the numbers were huge overstatements and there were never that many troops to begin with.
That brings up another point. How far down the line does responsibility go. In a country with e state controlled economy, everyone from the Head to the file clerk at the state oil company is part of the government. How do you try and for what crimes ? Do you try prison guards? judges? police ? scientists? mid level industrial executives ? Men who were drafted into the military involuntarily ? Do you throw half the male population in jail ? I have no answers for that.
Originally posted by Al-Munaqabah -
I'm afraid that your sense of humor is too subtle for me, Chris. If I'm being unbearably stupid, please tell me so straight out.
In the meantime, I'll persist in my stupidity. What is the command structure in the Iraqi army? Have we captured or confirmed the deaths of all the key figures in this command structure? It's obvious that the Iraqi army is no match for the U.S. army in a face-to-face battle. It seems logical for them to employ guerrilla tactics or what's called "asymmetrical warfare" instead. And it seems possible that a decision was made at the highest levels to pursue this strategy, and that enough of the command structure remains in place within the Iraqi army to systematically implement it, that is, to convey the orders to the soldiers and possibly direct them towards specific objectives or targets.
I'm not saying this is what's going on, I don't know that. What I am saying is that, given the possibility that this could happen, shouldn't we be a bit more concerned that most of the enemy army is unaccounted for? And that its leadership is unaccounted for?
Or are we just going to let them slip away like we let Bin Laden slip away (that's what I meant to say, I apologize if my comment was poorly worded and unclear) and hope that it doesn't come back to bite us?
Originally posted by A. Gould -
The republican guard has been all but destroyed.
Estimates from the pentagon are that our bombing campaign killed a minimum of 107,000 which is considered very conservative.
High end estimates go to 200,000.
I didn't realize that figures went that high. I haven't been paying attention to the figures or live coverage of fighting. As far as I know the Pentagon has been refusing to issue casualty counts. Do you have a link for that number ?
I can not tell you my source but can assure you it is reliable. I was also told we were killing 2,000 to 3,000 at a time. I know, it sounds like a bunch of BS that I can not give sources but it is true... lets just say I got it word of mouth from a reliable source and this source knows having actually seen the pentagon estimates of enemy battle deaths.In our conversation (we are good friends) I mentioned I had read in a news article that the enemy dead could be 107,000 (don't have link but it was published in some paper somewhere) to which he said that was below the low end of the pentagons estimate and would be to conservative of a figure. I jumped to the conclusion that it could be 200,000 and it was just the way he looked I think my guess was pretty close.
The Pentagon continually said they were "softening up" the republican guard. Hell, they weren't "softening up" they were killing them with some units of the republican guard approaching a 100% casualty rate.
With the ordance dropped on them there weren't any wounded... one isn't wounded in a a B-52 strike dropping cluster bombs with shaped charges..
A. Gould, thanks for clarifying. To me that sounds like a horrifying slaughter. I guess I have some naive idea that bombs should be dropped on buildings, not directly on people. I wonder how much we will hear about this in the news.
Kind of futile endevors if you ask me...
How 'bout we insist Israel disarm and THEN attack them if they don't comply? haha! What a world we live in!
Originally posted by Chris -
Originally posted by A. Gould -
The republican guard has been all but destroyed.
Estimates from the pentagon are that our bombing campaign killed a minimum of 107,000 which is considered very conservative.
High end estimates go to 200,000.
I didn't realize that figures went that high. I haven't been paying attention to the figures or live coverage of fighting. As far as I know the Pentagon has been refusing to issue casualty counts. Do you have a link for that number ?
I can not tell you my source but can assure you it is reliable. I was also told we were killing 2,000 to 3,000 at a time. I know, it sounds like a bunch of BS that I can not give sources but it is true... lets just say I got it word of mouth from a reliable source and this source knows having actually seen the pentagon estimates of enemy battle deaths.
In our conversation (we are good friends) I mentioned I had read in a news article that the enemy dead could be 107,000 (don't have link but it was published in some paper somewhere) to which he said that was below the low end of the pentagons estimate and would be to conservative of a figure. I jumped to the conclusion that it could be 200,000 and it was just the way he looked I think my guess was pretty close.
The Pentagon continually said they were "softening up" the republican guard. Hell, they weren't "softening up" they were killing them with some units of the republican guard approaching a 100% casualty rate.
With the ordance dropped on them there weren't any wounded... one isn't wounded in a a B-52 strike dropping cluster bombs with shaped charges..
I will mention this friend has rank above 0-6 so I am not talking about some sergeant somewhere that heard something.Cluster bombs with shaped charges will take out everything they come into contact with. They shred tanks and there isn't any way to hide.
Iraq will be better off without these men who were members of the republican guard. Let us all hope we see a real change.
Al-Munaqabah: You were right on it when you understood I was pointing out that they haven't even found Osama bin Laden, so do we really suppose they will find Saddam?
Kind of futile endevors if you ask me...
How 'bout we insist Israel disarm and THEN attack them if they don't comply? haha! What a world we live in!
Haha indeed. Pure stand-up gold.I can't help wondering, though: what is it with you and Israel? Some Jewish kid you had a row with in middle school? Or do you just resent an island of success, persevering against all odds, amidst a vast sea of abject failure?
I can't help wondering, though: what is it with you and Israel? Some Jewish kid you had a row with in middle school? Or do you just resent an island of success, persevering against all odds, amidst a vast sea of abject failure?
So...was that brilliant deduction directed at me, for some reason?So...was that brilliant deduction directed at me, for some reason?
Yes. For the reason of you dragging Israel into a discussion having nothing to do with it.Yes. For the reason of you dragging Israel into a discussion having nothing to do with it.
No, genius, you don't know what you are talking about. This is only my second post to this thread. Pay attention.Name callling and personally directed sarcasm isn't helpful and doesn't encourage interesting discussion for the rest of us . Al-Muhajabah runs a civil discussion board that rises above the level of "war sucks", "no protesters sucks" "no war sucks", if you want that, please visit the boards at AOL, I can assure you from personal experience, that you will find your fill of that there.
Iraq will be better off without these men who were members of the republican guard. Let us all hope we see a real change.
Very true, although I saw reports later last week that the US was trying to find these guys, to incorporate some of them into the new gov. That struck me as odd, but not at all surprising.Laura and dahlu*
Name callling and personally directed sarcasm isn't helpful and doesn't encourage interesting discussion for the rest of us . Al-Muhajabah runs a civil discussion board that rises above the level of "war sucks", "no protesters sucks" "no war sucks", if you want that, please visit the boards at AOL, I can assure you from personal experience, that you will find your fill of that there.
Chris I am sorry if my posting style troubles you, but nobody likes being accused of saying something they didn't say. If it happens again, I will speak up about it, again. But to avoid confusion in the future, I'll post as "Lauraj" from now on.LauraJ - I've edited your other comments in this thread to also say LauraJ for the author, so that it's clear who's who. The confusion is unfortunate. I tried to clear it up earlier, but I guess that not everyone was paying attention.
Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I hope we'll get some more information soon on exactly what happened to the Republican Guard.
When I mentioned Israel, I did so to point out a double standard in the Middle East. (And that that should be a primary focus of the Bush administration, not the hunting down of individuals.)
It is a double standard which permits Israel to amass WMD with US support and blessing, to use state terrorism against Palestinians, all the while insisting 'enemy' govermnments should disarm. (Enemies who were allies just 'yesterday.')
I have read that Saddam's Republican Guards have broken up into 'tribal' units, and therefore are not one cohesive unit but still may intend to fight in some capacity. I can provide a link for anyone interested.
Not saying this is true. Just one theory out there...
note: comment edited to add hyperlink