Liberators?

[Dry Rot]

Interesting to hear Bush & Co bang on about being "liberators".

Seems a good line to give us, but not receiving much of a welcome in Iraq.

Even the Shiites aren't swallowing this one.

 

[USFootyFan]

Swallow is about all you can do if you've got guns pointed at the front and back of your head.

 

[Hawkforce]

Saw a guy being interveiwed in Umm Qasr when the Brits started handing out humanitarian aid.

Gormless UK reporter asks "Are you scared?" (of Saddam returning after another Allied betrayal - a la 91)

THis guy looks at him with understated incredulity, pauses then replies "Please don't ask stupid questions". Chilling; saddening, stuff.

Much as the Allies might want to be seen as "Liberators", the scars of the 91 betrayal are very very deep.

There's very little trust left in the world. For very good reasons.

 

[GuruJane]

the Coalition, or so people seem to think was expecting the Shiites/Kurds/Iraqis to rise up at the beginning of the war.

And yet the Coalition dropped millions of leaflets telling them to STAY INSIDE.

Unlike Gulf War 1 no coalition leader has called on the people to rise up and get rid of their government.

They also told the Iraqi opposition government not to call on their people to rise.

Why is this? Here's one surmise, for what its worth.

In war it is best to judge a side's intentions by what they DO and by what they have DONE - not what they say or let the media tell us.

On the basis of that we can deduce.

1. The Coalition's main objective was to get an army to Baghdad ASAP.

2. For this reason they bypassed the towns and the cities on the way, leaving the POMs and smaller US forces to deal with resistance in Basra, Nasiraha etc.

3. The coaliton does not intend to fight inside those cities, but to keep them surrounded, block all exits etc to give the supply convoys and re-inforcements have safe passage.

This is what the Poms seem to be doing now at Basra. Despite the brief flurry of "we must go and help the uprising" - all those expectations have been hosed down and the poms are still just sitting there picking off whoever tries to break out.

So it seems the intention of the Coaliton is to bring on the main battle, Bagdhad, as soon as the B52s have wasted the Republican guard. Once they're on top of that battle, only then will the Iraqis be called on to rise up.

SHOCK AND AWE.

Again we didn't get what they kept saying we'd get - eg 3000 missiles in the first 24 hours, knocking out infrastructure as well as other targets..

So was Shock and Awe just more disinformation?

I'm as perplexed about this as anyone else.

IRAQI RESISTANCE

It's hard to imagine that the Coalition didn't expect strong resistance.

It might be that their western liberal democratic hearts were not prepared for the levels of brutality of Saddam's special forces are using against their regular soldiers to keep them in the field.

However wouldn't the coalition's military been abysmally incompetent had they not factored this scenario into their war games.