-Caveat Lector- Asked why there could be such military errors on the part of the allies, he responded: ``This war is not being planned by the military, but by civilians, the Rumsfelds, the Perles and Wolfowitzes. And there is a President who snuck out of going to VietNam, he defended Texas from the Vietnamese.'' >>>And this is ANOTHER thing he was not very succesful at. I recall that once Saigon fell, the Americans imported some VietNamese who made a pists stop on Guam (while the maintenance people HOSED out the aircrafts). The civilian 707s were loaded beyond the maximum for military equivalents. They'd take off of Piti Point and drop down off the cliff before they could be seen rising into the sky some miles later. The imported people wound up on the Gulf Coast ... so much for thwarting the invasion! A<:>E<:>R <<<
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=30387 Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum BRITISH ADMIRAL ON IRAQI "RESISTANCE FORCES." Posted By: Rosalinda Date: Wednesday, 26 March 2003, 12:38 p.m. In Response To: DAT SIX OF THE WAR: THE FOG THICKENS (Rosalinda) source: {Yomiuri Shimbun} On-Line; {Guardian}; March 25, 2003]] BRITISH ADMIRAL ON IRAQI "RESISTANCE FORCES." Rear Adm. Richard Cobbold, director of the Royal United Services Institute, told a Japanese interviewer that "outside the big cities there is not a great deal of communication from Baghdad. The soldiers are acting on their own initiative.... [T]hey are not opposing the Americans as they come through, but they are coming up from behind and attacking the far weaker supply lines.... "n one-to-one combat, an Iraqi tank against a coalition tank is no match.... "[A]fter attacking the supply line the Iraqis have to vanish quickly.... [U]nless the Iraqis withdraw very quickly they will come under fire.... This `quick in, quick out' strategy is typical guerrilla warfare and has limitations. "The objective of these soldiers is twofold. One is to harass the allies who are trying to prepare Umm Qasr Port. This type of sabotage is typical of how RESISTANCE FORCES HAVE WORKED HISTORICALLY. [emphasis added] "The second objective is to try and draw the coalition forces into the town and to provoke them into urban warfare. In this situation .... you start forcing coalition casualties. Significantly, the allies do not take casualties as well as the Iraqis. "Even if a small number of soldiers are killed, it will be all over the media that night. There is a certain squeamishness about death. In fact these are ordinary human feelings about the tragedy of young lives cut short. But, importantly, it causes a negative reaction...." This viewpoint was corroborated by members of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards battle group, quoted in the Guardian: "...the difficulties British troops were facing were caused by Iraqi renegades out of uniform who were `not playing by the rules.'" Another Dragoon leader said: "It's not the Iraqi army we have to worry about, it's the person with the Kalashnikov in the back garden." Another added, that it had been assumed that the Shiite population of Basra hated Saddam Hussein, and that the central Iraqi government would not "concern itself with the fall of Basra.... We always had the idea that everyone in this area hated Saddam. Clearly there are a number who don't." (Source: ntv, germany 25.3.03) U.S. MISASSESSMENT ``ASTONISHING,'' SAID IRAQ EXPERT PETER SCHOLL-LATOUR, on NTV television. Even he was ``surprised'' at the depth of resistance in Southern Iraq, he said, noting, ``Basra has become the bulwark of the resistance.'' He mentioned the IHT article that predicted people would be dancing in the streets with US flags. Those who expected an uprising of Shiites against Baghdad, have forgotten the last war, he said, when the Shiites did heed the US call for rebellion against Baghdad. And, after rising up in Kerbala, Naseriya and Najaf, they were suddenly presented with the news of a ceasefire, and were then mowed down by the Iraqis. Scholl-Latour, who knows Iraq intimately, said he had heard the US troops are now marching near Najaf and heading for Kerbala. He said, this is ``astonishing. I hope they are not so stupid to go in. These are holy Shiite cities, with the tomb of Ali, more sacred to the Shiites than Mecca or Medina. All the Shiites will move against the Americans, if they do.'' Asked how the US could underestimate so badly, given 1991, he said, ``The stupidity of man knows no bounds,'' to applause. It was possible, that if the regime were overthrown, some would welcome this, he said. But, ``now I don't think so. there has been a shift. The unwoundable colossus has been wounded.'' On Umm Qasr, he said it's incredible that after ten years of surveillance and monitoring, of Nasiriyeh, the allies couldn't take it easily. ``Umm Qasr is small, naked in the desert....'' Asked why there could be such military errors on the part of the allies, he responded: ``This war is not being planned by the military, but by civilians, the Rumsfelds, the Perles and Wolfowitzes. And there is a President who snuck out of going to VietNam, he defended Texas from the Vietnamese.'' Had the US/UK delivered a massive shock initially, it would have consolidated control over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all dependent on the US. Syria would have been so frightened, as to play it safe, and Iran, too. Now, that is not the case. He went so far as to predict that, even if or when Saddam Hussein is killed, the battle will continue. It is partisan warfare, and the popualtion is fighting. He said Saddam Hussein knows he will die, and that gives him freedom. He expressed his astonishment at the lack of knowledge and the many illusions, that the allies have shown. On Turkey, he said he thought there was a secret deal, whereby the US got overflight rights in exchange for de facto allowing Turkish troops into northern Iraq. [Source: Le Figaro, March 25] SADDAM HUSSEIN CHANGES STRATEGY AND GOES FOR GUERRILLA WARFARE. "Drawing the lessons of the first Gulf War, the Iraqi regime seems to have abandoned the idea of a tactical war, in favor of guerrilla warfare fought by autonomous and mobile units," states Isabelle Lasserre in an article in {Le Figaro} today. "On the eve of the war, Saddam Hussein divided the country into four military zones, each having large powers. This military division of the country allows the regime today to face up more efficiently to the breakdown of the lines of command with Baghdad which will follow the encirclement of cities by the coalition armies. Just before the beginning of the war, members of Saddam's Feddayin, of the paramilitary organization of the Ba'ath Party, of the Republican Guard, and of the security special forces, groups loyal to the regime, were integrated in the units of the regular army, as was the case in Oum Qasr, in order to stop them from capitulating." Those small mobile groups, often mixed in with the civilian population, carry out ambushes in urban areas, launch attacks against the American forces, in the same way that the Chechens have been doing for years against the Russians in Grozny." [Source: Le Figaro, oped, March 25] ANGLO-AMERICAN TACTICS ARE HELPING THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. In an op-ed for {Le Figaro}, Col. Jean Claude Dufour analyzes some of the errors of the Anglo-American allies which the Iraqis are using to their own advantage. The fact that the Anglo-Americans opted in the beginning for a strategy aimed at "decapitating" the Iraqi regime, gave room to the regular army, which was able to deploy itself according to its new strategy in the different cities. Also, since the Americans don't want to have to reconstruct infrastructure after the war, they decided not to destroy that infrastructure. Thus telephones, electricity, bridges, and roads have not been destroyed, something which the Iraqis are also using to their advantage. The Americans will also pay a penalty because they didn't deploy enough troops, and have therefore not been able to take and secure cities such as Nasiriyah and Basra. Dufour mentions the deployment of small, camouflaged Iraqi units, against the 507 logistical company, in a flanking rear attack aimed at cutting off the supplies of the invaders. [Source: Liberation, March 25] "THE WARRING OFFENSIVE OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS ... HAS PROVOKED A PATRIOTIC REFLEX" IN IRAQ, is the title of a striking Liberation editorial today, listing the numerous errors of the Anglo-American coalition as it went to war. The U.S., they say, decided to wage this war without an international mandate, in a totally hostile isolation. Even "the pillars of their alliance, such as Turkey" defected, creating grave military problems for the warring coalition. Then, the general evaluation of the war was wrong. "It was supposed to be like a very large police operation aimed at stopping a small number of people linked to the dictatorship and not a war of destruction of the large Iraqi cities." Unlike the 1991 war, this war is based on a "political hypothesis" which is turning out to be wrong, the idea that political and military pressure would be enough to make the regime collapse. The first five days of this war has shown all this to be false. "One does not see refugees fleeing the combat zone, as in 1991. The camps built at the borders are empty. It is even a contrary movement that one sees: More than 5,000 Iraqis living in Jordan have gone back to Iraq since the beginning of hostilities." "Small numbers of people have surrendered," only 3,000, according to General Franks, while in 1991, after four days of war, it had been tens of thousands. Finally, there is not one media image "showing the Iraqis receiving the Anglo-American troops as liberators, as there were in 1991." Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutra <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
