In my opinion something of a mixed bag. He’s no Winston Churchill as an orator but he seemed to settle down a few minutes into the thing and started to look a little more comfortable getting his message out. Overall:
– Very interesting that the President actually got involved directly in psyops in addressing himself to the Iraqi military leadership and general soldiery advising them of their responsibilities and how they may be judged in the post-Hussain Iraq. Colin Powells hand in the speechwriting process perhaps?
– Interesting also that he specifically referred to an Iraq capable of accountable self-government and making a pledge to initiate the process of self-determination in the country. Essentially he’s just openly precluded the possibility of his installing some kind of “puppet regime” kept on the US leash. Whatever happens, after Saddam is gone, is going to be down, largely, to the Iraqi people – for good or ill!?
on the negative side
– He contradicted himself continuously throughout the speech. I lost track of the number of times that he declared the intention to “disarm Hussain” then in the next breath said “Hussain must go”. The two, whilst both leading to the same ultimate goal, are quite seperate policies and he seemed to try and fudge them together to maintain the WMD-hunt credence. That suprised me as it seems pointless to carry that theme on when he’d already, quite accurately, cited the failiures of 12 years of “peaceful disarmament”. I’d have respected him more if he’d simply stated that Hussain is the cornerstone of the problem – that he needs knocking out – and kept on that tack throughout the speech.
– He stated to the Iraqi people that the forthcoming action was directed at the regime not them but then went on to warn that the “full might” of the US military would be brought to bear in order to minimise the duration of the war. Thats going to be a very fine line someones going to have to follow as unrestricted use of artillery or even fastmover tacair/ heavy pgm’s is going to cause a modest level of collaterol damage in Baghdad even if it were reined in tightly and if a significant civvy deathtoll were to result the consequences are going to be politically intolerable.
I think that a greater amount of subtlety is going to be required during the roadmarch into Baghdad (second-day-of-war) phase and that, far from heavy firepower and the gloves off scenario he’s just painted, intelligent and discrete use of small, highly mobile and heavily armed, ground units supported by cab-ranked Apache, Cobra and Lynx elements carrying lighter pgms like Hellfire and TOW would be more successful in clearing strongpoints, with minimal collaterol damage, coupled to a fast-paced advance into the city. Unfort its going to mean losses to the chopper gunship force but we CAN, reluctantly, afford that…the “coalition” cannot afford, politically, to lose the peace before it has started.
Thoughts?
Regs,
Steve
By: keltic - 18th March 2003 at 21:15
I didn´t want listening to him, it´s not my president. I knew what he was going to say, besides I don´t want horror tales at night (it was at 2.00 am). I heard it on the news…mesianic, tragical, simplistic and quite basic arguments. Nothing new. Clinton would have been much more fun.
By: Geforce - 18th March 2003 at 20:14
I`ve seen the movie, therefor i found it inappropriate here.
By: Jonesy - 18th March 2003 at 20:03
Benjamino,
Are you talking about the line from the book Dune I use as my sign off? If so I take it you’ve never seen the film or, better yet, read the book?
The line is taken in the context that a band of rebels on one small, otherwise insignificant, planet can exert a stranglehold over an entire galaxy by threatening to destroy a resource that all depend on that is found in abundance on that planet.
The parallel to this situation seems quite stark to me. Hence the quote
By: Geforce - 18th March 2003 at 19:10
I don`t want to get personal Jonesy, but seriously man, your quote. Seems like you like the idea of having a war, for the sake of argument. 🙁 You disappoint me.
Anyway, it`s too late now for this conversation. Let`s hope this conflict will be ended without too many bloodsheds. And ofcourse, the rebuilding of Iraq lays totally in the hands of this broad coalition.
By: Simmer - 18th March 2003 at 14:18
I thought Saddam was trying to concentrate his forces in urban environments, afterall he knows he’s outgunned in open spaces.
If this is the case what is the likely tactic of the allied forces? As Glenn says to fight for Baghdad would most probably produce unwanted collateral damage and civillian casualties.
By: Glenn - 18th March 2003 at 12:33
Hopefully they won’t need to fight for Baghdad as I think this could bring about some very undesirable collateral damage and not to mention casualties.
With most of the regular Iraqi army on the run, beaten, or broken and no way out or no escape, maybe, JUST maybe Saddam will try and flee or he will be over-thrown and a cease fire will be called sooner than later. Lets hope it does NOT drag on. 😡
As for the speech? I haven’t seen the whole thing, but I think it matters little, it was a simple declaration of an ultimatum and thats that, plain and simple. What is going to be significant is everything that happens in Iraq from 48 hours onwards and how that will define him as a president and also define his legacy which this will no doubt become. Good or bad? That remains to be seen.
By: Jonesy - 18th March 2003 at 10:50
I quite agree Eric, outside of the urban areas firepower limits are not an issue. On the first-day-of-war C3, IADS and all the usual priority targets are also going to be recipients of everything in the US and UK arsenals (have heard talk that MBDA are racing Storm Shadow missiles out to the RAF GR4 lads).
Its after this first-day-of-war phase when absolute air dominance is achieved and USAF tac recon is pinpointing the strongpoints, arty emplacements, HQ sites, logistics sites and the suchlike around the Baghdad defensive perimeter that a step-change has to take place as, from this point, the method and conduct of attack is going to be as vital as the result. Simply because its guaranteed that a 500lb LGB dropped on an arty battery set up in a Baghdad schoolyard will be reported in the media as an allied attack on a Baghdad school and, further down the intellectual food-chain come with the banner headline “US and UK Child Murderers”.
Total control of the airspace coupled to the high mobility of forces in theatre means that, if fought cleverly, the Baghdad “rings of steel” can be picked apart piecemeal from multiple axes til they are rendered ineffective. Simply blundering in dropping 2000lb’ers is ultimately going to be more self-defeating than anything else. The point I was driving at was that after making the distinction that the war was not one against Iraq rather that it was against the Iraqi government we’re all now in a peculiar situation where we have to treat the noncombattant “enemy” populace as friendlies and treat them accordingly. Full use of the US and UK arsenals in those situations that could endanger those “friendlies” is therefore not too sharp an idea
By: ELP - 18th March 2003 at 05:45
Well, If it is an Iraqi military unit and it isn’t close to a population center, it’s only option is to surrender. There will be no kid gloves on the firepower.
Sign In
March 18, 2003 at 2:23 am