|
2004 April 27
I like numbers not statistics
Here are some numbers culled from US government sources. 20,000 extra troops
in Iraq for 90 days costs $700,000,000. $389 per soldier per day. The hired
gunmen in Lord Bremer's personal bodyguard earn between $600 and $1100 per
day. He doesn't trust his life to soldiers. Perhaps he is afraid of being
fragged.
The cost of 115,000 troops in Iraq is $75B per year. At $389 per day 135,000
troops cost $52 million per day or $19B per year. The bill is four time the
cost.
Bush has not made one correct prediction on Iraq
It is a remarkable track record. In December he said the capture of Hussein
would be the end of resistance. It has increased every month since then with
no sign of decreasing. With no evidence at all, he says the resistance is
anyone but ordinary pissed off Iraqis.
It is to difficult to decide which of the daily attacks on Fallujah will be
the one to escalate to the all out massacre. Today's reports suggest this is
the one. As the attack on Najaf is still in preparation it is too early to
predict which will be the rallying cry that ejects the US from Iraq. Before
today the reports had 600 dead and of them 450 women, children and elderly.
That means the relatives of 450 people are in inclined towards revenge
killings of Americans. That number will drastically increase before anyone
can say Fallujah is pacified with a straight face.
No resistance to the occupation is permitted for any reason. The good news
for America is they are standing and fighting. They have yet to learn to
avoid engagement with superior forces guerrilla style.
The new sign makes it unquestionable that US is running Iraq. The governing
council had nothing better to do with its time than design a flag. It is
also an example of how to piss of the most people with the simplest action.
People in general do not like change. There is always a large number against
any change even if for the better. And this is seen as the work of
collaborators who will have to die for being collaborators. Just wait until
someone gets around to publishing who got the franchise to manufacture them.
Already we know it was designed by the brother of chairman of the flag
committee.
2004 April 25
A real rock and a real hard place
After so much cost and effort -- and lives if anyone cares -- the US cannot
permit any government in Iraq which it does not control and do what it
wants. As the same time, Iraqis clearly will not want a government which
does what America tells it. America wants a client government in the region,
perhaps to replace Israel. There is nothing anyone has found in any group of
Iraqis which suggests they are willing to accept such a role. They were in
such a role for the US when fighting a surrogate war with Iran. There is no
way to make such a role desirable.
There is a matter of simple honesty. The US promised a democracy, not a
constitutionally limited republic. In fact it still does promise a democracy
with no intention of permitting it to happen. Iraqis can smell bullshit as
far away as Americans despite the current American head cold when it comes
to Bush.
Iraqis are not free unless they are free to choose a government antagonistic
to the US. That the US cannot and will not permit.
A free Iraq will choose an anti-american government.
How could I possibly know that? What is the one winning issue? No to Saddam!
No to Bush! The most anti-american gets the most votes. It is a
sweetheart issue. It was only stupid, ignorant fools like Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld who said it would be otherwise, regardless of what they really
thought. No one can win an election taking up a pro-American position.
America is not going to leave voluntarily. Now they are talking about
staying ten years whether or not Iraqis like it. Too much has been invested.
Demagogues demand we stay. Just as no Iraqi can win being pro-American, no
American can win promising to end the occupation. We saw the same thing
during Vietnam. We didn't leave until we were kicked out and it is still
improper to say we were.
A spot of good news, a two day extension of the truce in Fallujah. And bad
news to balance it, the invasion of Najaf is ready to start.
2004 April 23
How long in Iraq?
Ten years is a low estimate. Seven bases are being built right now without
any approval from Iraq.
It was just brought to my attention that the US accidentally bombed the
offices of al Jazeera in both Kabul and Baghdad. Truly an amazing
coincidence.
2004 April 22
Correction to yesterday
If it is not costing $50 billion a year. It is costing $56 billion a year at
the present rate which cannot slow down the present rate of increase in
violence. Rational Iraqis, patriots not thugs, would call for a general
uprising all over Iraq now. If not now it will take a decade of fighting to
expel foreign troops. Done now, there is a chance of forcing surrender by
whatever name the foreigners will call it.
In the last week we have seen trial balloons saying maybe 10,000 more troops
are needed in Iraq. That sounds small unless you realize we don't have that
many to spare. But that is not the point.
The point is to sell a public commitment to more troops not to a specific
number of troops. That will be passed into law. When 100,000 more troops are
needed the law which was sold on the idea of 10,000 more will be cited as
the authority and the claim the polls said people agreed to it. This is bait
and switch.
The fact is nearly 300,000 more troops are needed. To control a resisting
population 20 troops per 1000 people are needed. That is 20,000 per million.
Iraq has at least 20 million people which is 400,000 troops needed. They
will be needed for at least ten years. The US reserve system is not geared
to provide that many troops for active duty. Retreat or draft.
Speaking of which "stay the course" whatever the undefined course may be or
"cut and run" is a taunt I thought I had heard the last of in grade school
playground. It appears to still work as a childish taunt when Bush uses it.
Sorry, bushbaby, I grew up. Too bad you did not.
2004 April 21
Everything takes longer and costs more
Troops in Iraq cost $50 billion a year for 115,000 men. The cost has to
increase by at least that fraction to $58.7 billion a year, roughly a 17%
increase. It's only money. We can print all we need.
We are going to be offered a gold watch. Either the additional money is
provided or troops will be left in Iraq without the equipment they need to
stay alive. Cynical but traditional, perfected during Vietnam. The choice of
leaving Iraq because we can't afford it or simply do not want to pay it will
not be presented as an option. As long as it is not a political option,
people can not vote for those who support the option and there will be no
choice in the elections. Americans are not mature enough to handle real
choices.
That is just the cost increase directly related to manpower. Now there is
equipment being damaged and destroyed and munitions being expended that were
(presumably and criminally) unplanned. Another story has it $6 billion in
known costs were simply not included in the last funding request. This
serves two purposes. The first was to make the last request lower and easier
to get funded. The second was to make this $6 billion "urgently needed" to
sell the next funding increase. The total request may be $30 to $50 billion
but all we will hear about is the urgent $6 billion.
Troops will not really be doing without in Iraq. What they need will be
drawn from sources not involved in Iraq. If you read everything and read it
carefully you will find this stated as it always is. But it will never be
publicly discussed. The entire charade will be a choreographed for maximum
election year exposure.
As a reminder this all started with suppression of freedom of the
press in Iraq when a newspaper was shut down about three weeks ago. In that
time things have only gotten worse. Nothing has gotten better. Not one place
or group which protested or took up arms has ceased to do so either
voluntarily or by force. Fact is the situation is getting worse with no end
in sight.
Rational patriots will hold off attacking until the US decides to move on
Fallujah, Najaf or some other place not kowtowing to American troops. This
will cause maximum chaos among the Americans by overwhelming resupply
capability. It will be the perfect time to establish an independent
Kurdistan and then Turkey can invade.
And either I am smarter than the entire Bush Administration or this is
exactly what was intended by invading Iraq because they knew this would
happen.
So Bush spent $700 million getting ready for the war without authorization
from Congress. There is legislation permitting such things to be done.
Congress is not objecting to this clearly impeachable offense because
Congress was made aware of it.
On another note, every Mideast news source is reporting fighting in Fallujah
with numerous civilian casualties. The US still insists the truce is
holding. For weeks Mideast news sources have reported the denying hospital
access to the people of Fallujah. A thousand dead is the running estimate on
the ground -- clearly conditions are not sufficient to get an accurate
count.
These are the reports that help America win the hearts and minds of the
middle east.
2004 April 19
British troops in Iraq for ten years
Blair may be a puppy dog but his government has a touch of honesty not found
in the US. Ten years turns into twenty in no time. A police action in Korea turns into half a
century in no time at all. So lets play with some numbers.
115,000 troops and $1 billion a week were needed for a modestly peaceful
Iraq. In the modestly unpeaceful situation now 135,000 troops are needed. So
far there is no mention of the cost increase but it has to be at least 15%
just to cover the manpower. How many troops needed for an Iraq mobilized to
oust the occupation forces is anyone's guess. At least double of course. The
rule of thumb is 20 per 1000 to maintain peace after it is established. That
is at least 400,000 troops and close to $3 billion per week. We do not know
the cost of establishing the peace nor how long it will take nor if it is
possible.
That many troops requires a draft and a tax increase for the next ten to
fifty years plus years.
Everyone should have known that but politics required a lie. You lie to us
Mr. President, we ill pretend to believe you, and attack anyone who says
otherwise no matter how transparent your lie. We did the wrong thing. We
know we did the wrong thing. And we will stay the course doing the wrong
thing until Iraqis force us to stop.
Bush demands we support our troops all the way to
the grave. The loyal opposition John Kerry demands we support our troops all
the way to the grave. Their graves anyway. And unless we are under
thirty our graves also. We won't live long enough to see the end of the
occupation.
Lord Bremer's humor at times approaches Monty Python. He claims the surge in
fighting proves Iraq's security forces need help from American troops. Seems
to me the US is fighting Iraq's security forces. The unofficial ones of
course; those who are fighting all enemies foreign and domestic; foreign
ones first.
If Americans come as guests they may stay for a thousand years.
If they come as occupiers we will kill them.
2004 April 17
America has united all Iraqis
Unfortunately they are united against the US. Perhaps that is the devious
purpose behind the stalinesque tactics, to give them all a common purpose in
expelling Americans. The Sunni Muslim Clerics Association issued a statement
of support for Shiites calls to end the occupation. Why is this important?
Iraqis trust religious leaders more than politicians.
Speaking of clerics the mutilation of four Americans in Fallujah has been
condemned by all of them. To date not one has condemned killing them. Not
one has condemned killing any foreigners involved in the occupation.
The uprising, call it intifada if you will, does not have to get any greater
than it is. It is frustrating all efforts which might help. Reconstruction
work by foreign, i.e., US, workers has stopped with workers kept inside
military compounds. No reconstruction, no repair, no maintenance. Of course
they are still being paid whether or not they are doing anything
constructive. In other words we are paying for nothing to be done.
Iraqi workers have stopped showing up for work. The average Iraqi does not
want to be seen as a collaborator -- the price of collaboration is death or
soon will be. And if not fear, disgust at what Americans are doing in the
country.
The civilian mood can be summarized, "They
killed my eight year old daughter. I will kill their children."
Americans will certainly deny it is happening. They will say it is all
propaganda. And maybe it is. It does not matter what it is as long as Iraqis
believe it and act on it.
It is reasonable to say at this point the US is no longer in control in
Iraq.
Speaking of not in control, there has not been a problem on the Syria/Iraq
border since the countries came into existence nor for centuries when they
were Ottoman provinces. In fact the border area has been peaceful since the
rise of Islam. Now the US insists Syria must control the border. That means
creating a Border Patrol on its own nickel because of the trouble the US has
caused. One more reason to condemn Syria by Israel and its ally.
2004 April 16
Sadr ready to go down fighting
He refuses to disband his militia which will cause the US to back down or
invade Najaf in force. He denounced the interim government for being the
puppets they are. He reiterated the occupation will last for years in a
clear reference to their crimes from murder down to petty theft will
continue for years.
2004 April 15
Everyone in charge in Iraq
Turns out I was correct a few days ago when I suggested two contradictory
things might both be true. It turns out Bremer the civilian has no authority
over the military. Both are acting according to their own agendas. Certainly
something for us to tsk, tsk about but deadly for Iraqis.
Having been raised on war movies of our troops being noble and virtuous or
of suffering agonizing decisions to deal with a few bad apples a different
picture has emerged from Iraq. Individually they have the moral strictures
of street gangs. Collectively they would fit in well with Attila's Huns.
They are common thieves when searching homes. Their first instinct is to
kill. They are the face of America to Iraq.
Sistani, a Sunni, did not put it bluntly but he put it to America. US troops
are prohibited from entering Najaf. This will protect al-Sadr, a Shiite, in
the city holy to Sunnis. Both the guys in charge of Iraq appear to have
counted on dividing the two groups in order to rule them both as did
Hussein. Rotsa ruck. They just lost that gambit.
2004 April 13
Words have no meaning in Iraq
It is not as though these can be followed that easily. The word on Fallujah
is the US if fighting rebels. Rebel against what? There is no Iraqi
government. So they must be rebelling against the military occupation. What
did they expect? Flowers and cheering? Some bush leaguers did but we can't
give much credit to such bewildered creatures.
Then there are outside agitators. A handful non-Iraqi who are stirring up
trouble for 135,000 outside conquerers. So all the fighting is between
outsiders and Iraqis want them to take their fight to some other country.
During our revolution General Lafayette was an outside agitator and the
British were neither outsiders nor conquerors. The US has sent foreign
advisors to many countries during time of war, including Vietnam. It is not
as though the US objects in principle to outside participation.
Then there are die-hard Baathists or Saddam supporters. It is not clear who
they are supposed to be. Maybe like the royalists after the French or
Russian revolutions. They could be good or bad guys depending on your view
of history.
No matter what they are called their crime is attacking foreigners in Iraq.
That the foreigners happen to be us is not their problem. Our problem is an
uneducated country where the bush league can pretend outrage and not be
laughed at.
If you have had thought about the coming manpower requirements for the next
few decades of fighting in Iraq and Iran and you are of draft age it is time
to start making you plans. When you hear we can only stop the fighting in
Iraq if we stop Iran from supporting the rebels it is probably too late to
find a war neutral country willing to accept Americans. Planning to avoid
the draft is the first step towards planning your retirement.
It seems there is a peace agreement for the city of Najaf or the US is
preparing to attack.
If the former then al-Sadr has won. His militia will provide security for the
city. Seeing this success can other leaders like Sistani fail to act to
establish their own political influence in Iraq's future? Congratulations to
Lord Bremer for going along with this. It is a wise thing. Will he honor
this agreement and continue in the same manner?
But is he going along with it? The other report is of 2500 troops
surrounding the city in preparation to kill or arrest al-Sadr. If that is
the case the intention is to provoke more violence. It is not clear who wins
in this case.
Given US actions so far, perhaps both are true. But just in case, the leader
of the majority of Muslim Iraqis, al-Sistani has said he will turn loose his
militia if Najaf is attacked. So there you have it. Either way it breaks in
Najaf Sistani has to act.
And it all started with closing a newspaper and massacring many of those who
protested it being closed. You will only hear the first reason in the west.
The second reason is the one which requires justice be taken by the families
of the those who were unjustly killed.
Taking all the hostages feels counter productive. Not really. Only if they
are killed does it harm their cause. Merely taking hostages shows the
vulnerability of civilian. It discourages foreigners from being in Iraq.
Already governments are warning their citizens away from Iraq. This hampers
the activities of the carpetbaggers saving some of Iraq for the Iraqis.
Bush address
Opens with the three sources of "evil" I addressed yesterday. So it is
worthless from the getgo. He restates US objectives in Iraq as different
from the WMD crap he used to start it. It all sounds good if it happens as
he says it will happen. Interestingly though, he is giving a schedule of
major events which free Iraq must follow. And if he is not saying that then
it will not be a free Iraq.
Just to demonstrate it will not be free he talks about putting NATO in
charge of its borders and the US military continuing to operate in Iraq. No
mention of putting US forces under Iraq's control after the handover of
something not defined on 30 June.
A question on getting it all wrong including WMDs and he answers another
question. This is hardly worth listening too.
This is the worst month for US deaths since the war began and it is not even
half over. Feel the draft.
2004 April 12
|