Scott Ritter; US defeat in Iraq 'inevitable'
Link
US defeat in Iraq 'inevitable'
26/03/2003 16:03 - (SA)
Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.
"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here on Tuesday evening.
"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable," he said.
War 'already lost'
"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.
Stiffening Iraqi resistance as US-led forces close in on Baghdad have prompted questions about the strategy to use precision air power and a smaller, fast moving ground force to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Some military analysts have said there are not enough allied troops in Iraq to take control of Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein's elite troops are said to be concentrated, and that the planning of the war was overly optimistic.
No plans to send more troops
But British Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament Wednesday the United States and Britain believe they have "sufficient forces" in Iraq and London was not planning to send reinforcements to the country at this stage.
A combination of bad weather and heavy fighting in central Iraq has slowed the advance of coalition troops marching on Baghdad.
Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the United Nations of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.
Since leaving the UN weapons inspectors team he has become an outspoken critic of US policies towards Iraq.
- I don't know what to say. The man has a grudge with the current administration. But what if this is another Vietnam? Will this scenario bring in other countries (Syria, Iran or even Pakistan)? Will we have to stay our ground, restart the draft?
I mean...this is what's waiting for us in the trenches of Baghdad...
My current feelings about the operation are as ambiguous as the current weather over there...a sandstorm...any thoughts?
US defeat in Iraq 'inevitable'
26/03/2003 16:03 - (SA)
Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.
"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here on Tuesday evening.
"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable," he said.
War 'already lost'
"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.
Stiffening Iraqi resistance as US-led forces close in on Baghdad have prompted questions about the strategy to use precision air power and a smaller, fast moving ground force to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Some military analysts have said there are not enough allied troops in Iraq to take control of Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein's elite troops are said to be concentrated, and that the planning of the war was overly optimistic.
No plans to send more troops
But British Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament Wednesday the United States and Britain believe they have "sufficient forces" in Iraq and London was not planning to send reinforcements to the country at this stage.
A combination of bad weather and heavy fighting in central Iraq has slowed the advance of coalition troops marching on Baghdad.
Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the United Nations of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.
Since leaving the UN weapons inspectors team he has become an outspoken critic of US policies towards Iraq.
- I don't know what to say. The man has a grudge with the current administration. But what if this is another Vietnam? Will this scenario bring in other countries (Syria, Iran or even Pakistan)? Will we have to stay our ground, restart the draft?
I mean...this is what's waiting for us in the trenches of Baghdad...
My current feelings about the operation are as ambiguous as the current weather over there...a sandstorm...any thoughts?
Comments
Yes: this war is a terrible mistake, it's going to take a year longer to win than Bush and Rumsfeld said it would, thousands of people are going to die, it's going to provoke all kinds of shit in the Middle East and I hope to God that Bush doesn't listen to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz when they begin to get desperate.
I don't know.
Everyone has their own opinion.
Everyone wants it to be over NOW.
yeah sure, we may win all of the major battles in iraq but as in vietnam we will never win the people, and that is why we lost that war.
billybob
Originally posted by billybobsky
actually he spoke at my college graduation and he is not an idiot. if anything he means that the iraqi people are not the us' to be taken over or pushed around. i mean he has been arguing for the last seven years that the best way to overthrow saddam was to provide the people with enough material ie food and medicine etc that they no longer feel dependant on saddams tactics and saddams handouts. the war was lost before it began. the iraqi people, the smiling people who when the soldiers leave turn contemptous, are not unaware of the failings of the american and un policies over the last two decades.
yeah sure, we may win all of the major battles in iraq but as in vietnam we will never win the people, and that is why we lost that war.
billybob
That is easy to say, give them food and medicine and they will throw off Saddam like an old blanket. What happened when Basra tried to do so after the last Gulf war? Saddam sent in the republican Guard and slaghtered thousands of them and they fell back into line. That was partly the US's failing though. We told them to revolt and then when they did we did not help them to prevail and they fell back into line. There is no wonder there are hard feelings over there. We threw them under the bus once, they are not waiting for us to do it again. The want out form under Saddam, but it is going to take a will to stay and help to get them to trust us like they did the first time. This is not a vietnam, not even close. It is not even really Afghanistan. Unless you compare it to the US's last trip to Afghanistan vs the Taliban. We can win the people if we show them that we are there for the duration and will protect them from the republican Guard and Saddam this time.
actually he spoke at my college graduation and he is not an idiot.
Fristly, what sort of school did you go to that they possibly could not find a better commencement speaker than Scott Ritter?
Secondly, yes, he is indeed an idiot. Or a moron as the case may be.
i mean he has been arguing for the last seven years that the best way to overthrow saddam was to provide the people with enough material ie food and medicine etc that they no longer feel dependant on saddams tactics and saddams handouts.
As for your second suggestion, Saddam's people had plenty of food the first dozen plus years of his reign and they were not able to rise up. They tried, and got smoked. We ****ed up badly by not supporting them in 91. But that ****up also proved that many Iraqis who wanted to do so could not because of his superior military might. Of course, that doesn't prove or disprove the justness of this war, but it certainly disproves your absurd contention that all it would take for the Iraqis to rise up to Saddam is food and water. The Kuwaitis had plenty of food in 90 as well, that didn't save their asses. It's still greatly about military strength if you are going to attack a militarily powerful regime. Saddam still has a powerful armed regime, inferior to the US's and Britain's but still superior to that of some guys with rifles.
and i didnt say i believe that food medicine etc is enough to overpower a dictator i was telling you all what scott ritter has been saying. read my passage carefully.
i also know that as stalin revealed to his best generals, the best way to get a creature to depend on you is to pluck its feathers.
pluck the feathers saddam, pluck them well.
bbs
But since this whole thing is too fluid, it's hard to project...
Originally posted by New
No democracy has ever been built successfully without the propper standard of living-conditions, educational level, Idustrial progress etc. etc.
Iraq is not exactly a 3rd-world country. Not very long ago, it was a haven for many educated folk...the literacy rate there at one time was well over 90%. Granted, this has changed significantly, but the people there are still generally literate and educated, spare many of the younger people.
Originally posted by progmac
Iraq is not exactly a 3rd-world country. Not very long ago, it was a haven for many educated folk...the literacy rate there at one time was well over 90%. Granted, this has changed significantly, but the people there are still generally literate and educated, spare many of the younger people.
Iraq is still stuck in a tribal society structure, where if given a free vote, most iraqis would vote for their tribes-leader anyway.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
I am concerned about the chance of this becoming an urban battle within Baghdad. The Iraqi soldiers can just fall back into the city and hole up inside civilian homes and other buildings. Even the civilians may join in. This can change the whole outlook of this operation.
But since this whole thing is too fluid, it's hard to project...
It's even worse that that. If we're forced to come into the city, this will be like the army trying to take over Houston in order to locate a few thousand people. Door to door fighting in a city of 5 million is not the kind of thing you want to be engaged in.
And Ritter's not an idiot at all. He's just one pissed off dude. During the first gulf war, he was marine captain working as a military intelligence analyst there. He was the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq for YEARS, and he saw, firsthand, the failures of US policy (under Clinton) in Iraq. he was eventually so angry about it all that he resigned in 1998. Don't mistake his criticism of current policy for mere dislike of Bush. He has been opposed to UN and US foreign policy toward Iraq under two MARKEDLY different approaches to the country, and he's criticized both.
Here. Read this.
Originally posted by groverat
What tribes would those be? I'm curious.
Go do the research yourself. Here's a hint Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti.
Originally posted by groverat
What tribes would those be? I'm curious.
just off hand I can name a few:
The Lurs
The Kurds
the Bakhtiyaris
teh Buhamdan
The Bani Khalid
The Tikritis (Saddam's tribe)
the Oguz
Beduins
etc
I used to work with tribal rugs
many stretch accross into other countries, they are descendants of nomadic tribes, many of them have only reccently been forced to settle
there are suposed to be up to 150 distinct tribes in Iraq and 35-40 which have real political influence . . .
He was apparently let off with/not charged for both crimes but someone in the police leaked the details to the press.
Oh, forgot one weird detail. Both the underage girls where actually police officers posing as young girls in order to entrap perverts.
Did I just dream this or did anyone else read it too?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
What happened to the story where Scott Ritter had twice within a three month span arranged to meet underage girls he met on the internet for sex.
He was apparently let off with/not charged for both crimes but someone in the police leaked the details to the press.
Oh, forgot one weird detail. Both the underage girls where actually police officers posing as young girls in order to entrap perverts.
Did I just dream this or did anyone else read it too?
It seems like I read somewhere that all of that was a trumped up character assassination attempt in response to his criticisms of the administration. At any rate, the story didn't get any traction.
Cheers
Scott
Edit: Oops. Looks like he was arrested and had to do some counseling. It's curious, though, that the only news outlets that covered the story seem to have been right-leaning. One would think that this would have been a massive story. Wonder why it got no traction?
Edit Edit: Oops. Oops. Turns out it might have been a blackmail/entrapment/politically motivated sting designed to get him to shut up. (This last link is to a conservative web journalist).