Comments on: THE BRIAR PATCH? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:56:28 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Steven http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/comment-page-1/#comment-7978 Steven Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3855#comment-7978 This strikes me as too clever by half, not to mention that it is an odd strategy to lose your entire country to a massively superior military, and <i>then</i> hope to drive them out with guerrilla tactics. This strikes me as too clever by half, not to mention that it is an odd strategy to lose your entire country to a massively superior military, and then hope to drive them out with guerrilla tactics.

]]> By: JC http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/comment-page-1/#comment-7979 JC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3855#comment-7979 Perhaps. But then, given the leaked CIA report, your view of what's going on in Iraq is markedly different from the extremely pessimistic view held by the CIA station chief - endorsed by Bremer. We're about to cut loose the leaky ship of the IGC in an environment that we - ourselves - can't control. Not to mention Saddam is still loose. How fast do you think the situation will deteriorate when we leave? Perhaps. But then, given the leaked CIA report, your view of what's going on in Iraq is markedly different from the extremely pessimistic view held by the CIA station chief - endorsed by Bremer.

We're about to cut loose the leaky ship of the IGC in an environment that we - ourselves - can't control. Not to mention Saddam is still loose. How fast do you think the situation will deteriorate when we leave?

]]> By: Kevin Drum http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/comment-page-1/#comment-7980 Kevin Drum Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3855#comment-7980 I don't doubt that there are other factions involved in addition to Saddam's forces. But if the main group involved is several battalions of trained soldiers, that definitely puts a different spin on things. As for why, who knows? This is all speculative, but my guess would be that they knew they'd lose, and Saddam was able to convince some of his loyalists that they could eventually win with a guerrilla war, and once it was over they'd all be back on Easy Street. Like I said, though, just guessing here. I don't doubt that there are other factions involved in addition to Saddam's forces. But if the main group involved is several battalions of trained soldiers, that definitely puts a different spin on things.

As for why, who knows? This is all speculative, but my guess would be that they knew they'd lose, and Saddam was able to convince some of his loyalists that they could eventually win with a guerrilla war, and once it was over they'd all be back on Easy Street.

Like I said, though, just guessing here.

]]> By: IceCold http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/comment-page-1/#comment-7981 IceCold Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3855#comment-7981 The story's far from clear, but there's not much evidence to back up the speculation about Saddam deliberately opting for an insurgency. As Baghdad fell, some Iraqi units attempted to rally, but were overcome by the same things that had caused the regular Army and Republic Guard to melt away: lack of motivation, certainty of defeat and or destruction, bad communications. Of course there's nothing mutually exclusive about collapse and disarray on the one hand and steps to support an insurgency, on the other. Recall that arms and ordnance -- which exist in Iraq in truly astounding quantities -- were stashed in every likely and unlikely place during the "conventional" phase as well; that such caches are now used by "resistance" types doesn't tell us much about earlier planning. As to the partially leaked CIA report, if we assume it was accurately portrayed, what it gives is a bleak picture not of Iraq but of US intelligence analysis. The tired bit about "turning points" and virtual deadlines for major progress is trotted out once more, followed by the extremely dubious forecast that Shiites will join in a campaign against the Coalition. Aside from some marginal mischief by Tehran-linked cells, it's implausible that Shiites would join in attacking the forces that are their shield and sword against the hated Sunnis. Common sense, surveys, and anecdotal reporting all confirm that Shiites fear US premature departure most of all -- this community's going to start risking their lives to attack our troops? Huh? I'm assuming Bremer's endorsement of this silly-sounding "assessment" served his purposes in getting the OK to goose the process. As to the reporting of Tom Ricks, I'm sure it's dandy, but for me his credibility was forever tarnished by the "quagmire" nonsense he started with his dispatch in March, during the sandstorm. I recall reading his original article online in the middle of the night, and laughing out loud, a reaction amply validated by subsequent events. But it would be unfair to deem his military reporting as any worse than the major-media average. The story's far from clear, but there's not much evidence to back up the speculation about Saddam deliberately opting for an insurgency. As Baghdad fell, some Iraqi units attempted to rally, but were overcome by the same things that had caused the regular Army and Republic Guard to melt away: lack of motivation, certainty of defeat and or destruction, bad communications. Of course there's nothing mutually exclusive about collapse and disarray on the one hand and steps to support an insurgency, on the other. Recall that arms and ordnance -- which exist in Iraq in truly astounding quantities -- were stashed in every likely and unlikely place during the "conventional" phase as well; that such caches are now used by "resistance" types doesn't tell us much about earlier planning.

As to the partially leaked CIA report, if we assume it was accurately portrayed, what it gives is a bleak picture not of Iraq but of US intelligence analysis. The tired bit about "turning points" and virtual deadlines for major progress is trotted out once more, followed by the extremely dubious forecast that Shiites will join in a campaign against the Coalition. Aside from some marginal mischief by Tehran-linked cells, it's implausible that Shiites would join in attacking the forces that are their shield and sword against the hated Sunnis. Common sense, surveys, and anecdotal reporting all confirm that Shiites fear US premature departure most of all -- this community's going to start risking their lives to attack our troops? Huh? I'm assuming Bremer's endorsement of this silly-sounding "assessment" served his purposes in getting the OK to goose the process.

As to the reporting of Tom Ricks, I'm sure it's dandy, but for me his credibility was forever tarnished by the "quagmire" nonsense he started with his dispatch in March, during the sandstorm. I recall reading his original article online in the middle of the night, and laughing out loud, a reaction amply validated by subsequent events. But it would be unfair to deem his military reporting as any worse than the major-media average.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/comment-page-1/#comment-7982 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3855#comment-7982 Reporters report what they see. That often leads to poor coverage, as trees are mistaken for forest. I'm not sure how to prevent that, though. Reporters report what they see. That often leads to poor coverage, as trees are mistaken for forest. I'm not sure how to prevent that, though.

]]> By: JC http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/the_briar_patch/comment-page-1/#comment-7983 JC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3855#comment-7983 Well, <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_media_troubles_2">this</a> certainly isn't the way to prevent it. And as to the CIA report, it specifically states that we're losing the hearts n' minds battle for Iraqis. Not just that our intelligence is non-existent. And on that subject I find it rather amusing (funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) that Operation Iron Hammer is being carried out in an environment with a severe intelligence deficit. Meaning that we're getting tough while we don't have a clue as to who we should get tough with. Not a very good sign and probably will continue to deteriorate our efforts in the eyes of the Iraqis who already have questions about our abilities. --- Well, this certainly isn't the way to prevent it.

And as to the CIA report, it specifically states that we're losing the hearts n' minds battle for Iraqis. Not just that our intelligence is non-existent. And on that subject I find it rather amusing (funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) that Operation Iron Hammer is being carried out in an environment with a severe intelligence deficit. Meaning that we're getting tough while we don't have a clue as to who we should get tough with. Not a very good sign and probably will continue to deteriorate our efforts in the eyes of the Iraqis who already have questions about our abilities.

---

]]>