Ambush backfires on Iraq's reluctant conscripts

Guardian Unlimited ^ | Thursday March 27, 2003 | James Meek

[Mclute]

"I have eight children," said one of the injured prisoners. "They [the Iraqi authorities] came to my house and forced me to fight. They took me by force."

Gunnery Sergeant Toby Boyce, who had heard the testimony of the prisoners when they were interrogated, said they were local farmers who had been forced to fight at gunpoint by a group of four officers.

"The officers were actually shooting these guys, making them fight," said Sgt Boyce. The Guardian was not allowed to interview the prisoners.

[Mclute]

Same kind of story different paper. Not sure if I believe them yet.

[Bogey78O]

[AntiGuv]

I wonder how many POWs are likely to go around telling their captors: I fight because America is the Great Satan? Oh, wait, never mind. It's just all the Islamists except for Iraq's that feel that way...

[AntiGuv]

</sarcasm>

[John H K]

If you can interrogate prisoners separately you can see if their stories corroborate.

Always interesting when parts of FR have the misfortune of having their beliefs match that of that extreme left; the extreme left would like to believe that all Iraqis will fight the US fanatically, but that matches the "all Muslims are pure evil" beliefs of parts of FR, as well.

[goody2shooz]

I heard a young man, a former Iraqi who lives in the U.S. now, interviewed on a conservative talk radio program tonight. He was taking phoned in questions from the audience about the present situation in Iraq and the last question was, "Why do you hate Saddam Hussein? What has he ever done to you or your family?"

He said "My father and two uncles were murdered by Saddam's men. My uncles were actually buried alive."

The idea that farmers are being forced to fight at gunpoint doesn't sound so far fetched when you hear that Iraqi citizens have been buried alive.

[AntiGuv]

Here's a heads up: the Iraqis are fighting...fanatically. Once acknowledging the obvious, all the rest - including attempts to rationalize that fact - is just water under the pontoon...

[John H K]

Here's a heads up: the Iraqis are fighting...fanatically

ROFLMAO.

At least my head isn't stuck up my colon, as yours is.

The Saddam Fedayeen is fighting fanatically.

If the Iraqi Army was fighting fanatically, and was supported by the population fighting fanatically, we'd likely have 500-1000 KIA already and would still be south of Nasiriyah.

Saddam's strategy is to fool not-so-bright people into believing the entire population and military of Iraq is fighting fanatically. Looks like it is working.

[AntiGuv]

I think there's been way too much listening to the Iraqi opposition, which is exactly why our own people seem to have misjudged the potential for uprisings & defections. For one thing, the opposition has a vested interest in not saying anything that would discourage our campaign, since it's that same campaign which will eventually put them in the center of Iraqi power. For another, these are exactly the same people who have the deepest grievances with Saddam, which is why they're exiles to begin with.

Think of it this way: there's a reason why Cubans in Miami would fight against Castro and Cubans in Havana would fight for him...

[AntiGuv]

Have you taken a look at the map, bud? What cities do we control in Iraq aside from a couple towns that amount to a few streets? If we're only fighting the Fedayeen, then we're only fighting the Fedayeen. In Vietnam we were only fighting the VietCong - who cares what the rest of them thought? Of course, this could never become another Vietnam simply because they don't have the external base of support. The point being, those we are fighting are fighting fanatically (their destruction is near assured). Who cares what you label them?

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Don't confuse battles with war. Battles are slices of the war that is grinding the Iraqis into the dirt.

The Japanese were great for fantical banzai attacks, that got them all killed.

[WRhine]

Have you taken a look at the map, bud?

Have you taken a look at the time, bud? Our forces have been in Iraq less than a week. You don't see any progress in that short length of time?

[AntiGuv]

My response was directed at this:

If the Iraqi Army was fighting fanatically, and was supported by the population fighting fanatically, we'd likely have 500-1000 KIA already and would still be south of Nasiriyah.

The Iraqi Army is fighting fanatically - thus far - which is why we control none of the cities. There's no reason whatsoever to have expected 500-1000 KIA & a halting of our advance south of Nasariyah. We haven't stormed any of the cities, because of the Iraqi resistance. We hardly control any "population" besides a relative handful of Bedouins. In order to have those KIAs (if their will doesn't break) we need to capture something aside from places that look like this:

[AntiGuv]

I'm not confusing these battles for the war, but reality is what it is. They're fighting us - rather fanatically. Look at their suicidal military thrust south of Basra today. If they didn't want to fight us, they would've been surrendering, not attempting a futile counter-thrust.

I haven't any doubt whatsoever that we'll prevail in this conflict, because our military is so vastly superior to theirs. We probably won't even end up with much in the way of casualties, even if we do storm the cities (and, I don't count casualties according to inflated pre-war expectations, but rather versus other historical conflicts of comparable magnitude).

However, that prospective victory has little relation to their alleged unwillingness to fight. So far, the will is obviously there..

[AntiGuv]

inflated = optimistic, just to be clear

[WRhine]

Well it's early in the game. I think the “Fear Game” Saddam is playing with his people will fade away as we continue to take the fight to his sick regime. Really, Iraq is an extraordinarily rich country in resources and it has an educated populace. I'm sure this is not lost on many a smart Iraqi that knows that without Saddam, life in Iraq can be so much better than it is now.

[supercat]

If they didn't want to fight us, they would've been surrendering, not attempting a futile counter-thrust.

Suppose Saddam's henchman have told someone that if he surrenders to the U.S. his family will be rounded up and fed into a grinding machine. What would you suggest such a person do?

Actually, I have a strategy for dealing with such situations, but it would unfortunately go strongly against the Geneva Convention: let it me known that battle witnesses and Iraqi casualties will be kept strictly under wraps until the war is over. Let the Iraqi soldiers know that Saddam and his minions will have no way of knowing whether they voluntarily surrendered, were involuntarily captured, or died in battle. To be sure, such a policy would be abhorrent to many (myself included) but I know no other way to protect Iraqi soldiers' families from reprisals in case of defection.

[dark_lord]

Controling the cities up front is not the strategy. They could have chosen such a strategy - go slow, take each city one at a time. That is not the strategy. The strategy is decapitation. Take Bagdad, take out the leadership. Then go back and take the smaller cities. So the other cities (except for the port of Uum Qasr) are just "hedged off" until later.

Whether this strategy will work well only time will tell. Clearly it permits harassment of the supply lines. But that just means more opportunity to kill those Saddam Fedayeen.