Moral Courage

[Occhidiangela]

Forwarded from a friend, with some cut and paste for brevity's sake.

Terrible Unswift Shields

Attributed to one 2dLT Lance Frizzell, a Tennessee National Guardsman serving in Iraq:

Background: In January ‘03, a group of Western liberals volunteered to go to Iraq as human shields in case the US enforced UN resolutions that Saddam violated. (Occhinote: "Enforced" as in bombing/attacking Iraq.)

The 2dLT's recent blog comments, excerpted below, strike me as spot on.

He quotes an older article about the Human Shields . . .

“. . . they are willing to put themselves in the firing line should US and British forces bomb Iraq. They plan to identify potential bombing targets such as power stations and bridges and act as human shields to protect them.”

and then observes:

Well, I think I have just the job for these globe-travelers: Iraq Election Poll Worker.  They are familiar with the terrain and people, they have a self-professed desire to help and they seem very articulate.  However, their biggest asset is bravery.  If they are willing to hunker down between Coalition Forces and a bridge, standing between a foreign terrorist and a polling precinct should be no big deal.  Any takers?

Fair weather friends of Iraq, anyone?

Occhi

[Munkay]

Call me crazy but wouldn't switching to support the US in its actions in Iraq nullify their initial cause?

Granted I'm going off a fragment of information, it seems that they're initial interest in Iraq was more to make a stand against US policy than to defend Saddam or the Iraqi people. Now don't get me wrong, I think these people are a bunch of loonies that shouldn't even deserve the 15 seconds of fame for volunteering to be meat shields, but I don't see their actions as being 'fair weather friends to Iraq.'

I don't think they were friends in the first place. Just enemies of the US actions.

Cheers,

Munk

[Minionman]

Munkay's sounds right, although the only way to find out either way is to see if there is some other issue they have opinions on and see if they do something dangerous for that issue as well.

[Occhidiangela]

Call me crazy but wouldn't switching to support the US in its actions in Iraq nullify their initial cause?

Granted I'm going off a fragment of information, it seems that they're initial interest in Iraq was more to make a stand against US policy than to defend Saddam or the Iraqi people.  Now don't get me wrong, I think these people are a bunch of loonies that shouldn't even deserve the 15 seconds of fame for volunteering to be meat shields, but I don't see their actions as being 'fair weather friends to Iraq.'

I don't think they were friends in the first place.  Just enemies of the US actions.

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]65981[/snapback][/right]

I'd say that the point is that their professed intent, initially, was to stop the war in Iraq under the fig leaf of "shielding" the Iraqi people, hence the "human shield" self endowed title, whereas you both easily divined their true intent: negative.

Furthermore, "supporting US intent" is hardly what helping support open elections in Iraq is all about, in the end. That political process is ostensibly what the UN has been advocating for its entire existence, with mixed success at best.

Occhi

[rocdog]

The idea to hold elections now, before any semblance of stability has been restored in Iraq, like the rest of the Iraqi adventure, has more to do with US domestic politics and the desire to secure a reliable source of oil than with doing Iraqis any favours.

I don't think those "human shield" folks would be willing to play stooges in such an effort.

[jahcs]

The idea to hold elections now, before any semblance of stability has been restored in Iraq, like the rest of the Iraqi adventure, has more to do with US domestic politics and the desire to secure a reliable source of oil than with doing Iraqis any favours.

I don't think those "human shield" folks would be willing to play stooges in such an effort.
[right][snapback]65991[/snapback][/right]

"...to secure a reliable source of oil.." Don't you mean "another reliable source?" A large portion of our oil comes from Venezuela and other sources.

The rhetoric these human shields were spouting when this initally started was the "war is bad, don't hurt the innocent people of Iraq." The anti US sentiment was an addendum to the message. Many of those people who jump on this bandwagon are nowhere to be found once the lead actually starts to fly.

[Occhidiangela]

The idea to hold elections now, before any semblance of stability has been restored in Iraq, like the rest of the Iraqi adventure, has more to do with US domestic politics and the desire to secure a reliable source of oil than with doing Iraqis any favours.

I don't think those "human shield" folks would be willing to play stooges in such an effort.
[right][snapback]65991[/snapback][/right]

The baseline intent to spread the "democratic model" throughout the world, and in praticular to the Middle East, is one of the few consistent policy statements that you can trace to the Iraq Operation. The "neocons" who back this idea, whatever its practicality, are reasonably well known and have been harping on that theme since the mid 1990's, at the least. I think the "movement" is referred to as the American Century project, or some such. The link I once had to the site is no longer in my Favorites.

Whether or not that aim is achievable, "spreading democracy at the point of a bayonet" as I like to call it, is yet to be proven. Democracy cannot exist without certain baseline conditions. Whether or not those conditions can be set, maintained, and sustained is exactly what the fight is about as you and I post these bits on the Lounge.

"More to do with domestic politics" is a vague statement, would you please amplify that comment? We may have a few other thoughts to share, given my own suspicions, but your brevity leaves me at a loss. Or are you slavishly throwing a sound byte into the conversation? I hope not. :)

Occhi

[whyBish]

once the lead actually starts to fly.

Are you talking about the bullets or the aircraft? :P

[jahcs]

Are you talking about the bullets or the aircraft?  :P
[right][snapback]66012[/snapback][/right]

the lead in my $%^ :w00t:

[Fragbait]

"The baseline intent to spread the "democratic model" throughout the world, and in praticular to the Middle East, is one of the few consistent policy statements that you can trace to the Iraq Operation."

Hi,

I wonder why the 'spreading' of the communist model throughout the world was rather unsuccessful. Perhaps because the word 'spread' should rather read 'impose'? :unsure:


Greetings, Fragbait

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I wonder why the 'spreading' of the communist model throughout the world was rather unsuccessful. Perhaps because the word 'spread' should rather read 'impose'?

I don't want to enter a philosophical discussion about whether democracy works for every type of culture, or if it can be "imposed upon" or "spread", but comparing the attempt to "spread" democracy with the attempt to "spread" communism is rather silly, don't you think? There are a lot of democracies in the world that work (as in, the majority of the population is quite happy with the system), but I cannot see the same for communism - that might be a stronger reason for the failing of the communist model than the way it was spread.

And while I was against the war in Iraq, and am against the way the situation is handled there at the moment (only based upon the news I receive via media of course, and unfortunately lacking a good proposal as how to do it otherwise), I find your comparison of the way some states have been forced into communism in the past with the way the coalition tries to "impose" democracy on Iraq quite ridiculous.

-Kylearan

[Fragbait]

comparing the attempt to "spread" democracy with the attempt to "spread" communism is rather silly, don't you think?

No.

There are a lot of democracies in the world that work [...] but I cannot see the same for communism - that might be a stronger reason for the failing of the communist model than the way it was spread.

Rather a consequence than a reason. If a new form of government is imposed upon a nation without convincing the majority of its citizens of its advantages, it is most likely that the new system is going to be rejected by the people sooner or later.

I find your comparison of the way some states have been forced into communism in the past with the way the coalition tries to "impose" democracy on Iraq quite ridiculous.

You are, of course, entitled to form an opinion of your own.


Greetings, Fragbait

[eppie]

Well I think those "meatshields" were on the safe side. Seeing that most of the allied bombs, don't hit their targets. :D

Sorry for my liberal and Iraq-war-crictical comments. I think it is due to the fact that I watched too much spongebob....and he is evil!!

[Occhidiangela]

Well I think those "meatshields" were on the safe side. Seeing that most of the allied bombs, don't hit their targets. :D


[right][snapback]66040[/snapback][/right]

Eppie, you would do well to avoid talking out of your backside, my friend. The bombs do indeed hit their targets. The last numbers I checked showed beween 80% and 90% hit rate, (PGM's tend to be good that way). For some classes of weapons, it was in excess of 90%. Within that percentage are a number that hit and did not go off due to a fusing or arming glitch. Big piece of metal hits earth/target and goes "thump" not "boom."

However, all accuracy numbers being what they are, if 1000 bombs are dropped and 10% do not hit within X meters of the target, AND if the target is in a built up area, the impression of sloppiness is understandable, particularly when seen by NOVICES such as yourself and the vast majority of the public. You will also note that the international media like to focus on mistakes rather than successes, for a variety of reasons and motives.

You don't have to be anti-Iraq war to be deeply concerned with bombs blowing things up that were not the targets.

I will let you in on a little secret:

The pilots don't like it at all. They don't want to blow up things, nor people, who they did not intend to hit.

Occhi

[Zingydex]

Well, in all fairness, the anti-Iraq-war people often tend to miss out on some very important details in their complaints, especially referring to civilian casualties. First of all, the fact is that there will always be "innocent bystanders" hurt/killied when fighting breaks out. But how is that different from what Saddam was doing to his own people when he was in power? The "Wacky Iraqi", as some called him, did more damage to his own nation in terms of human lives lost or ruined than Gee-Dubya and co. ever did.

Beyond that, compare the accuracy of these bombs with WW2, and other conflicts. Who hit the mark more? Versus Hitler's "Fortress Europe", the Allies often used saturation bombing tactics, leveling an entire area to get at one or two targets. In their invasion of Iraq, the US did everything it could to only hit military targets. But when you're fighting in and around a city, people will get caught in the middle of it - especially since IIRC, Saddam did everything short of forcing his people not to evacuate.

The only reason civilian casualties get more hype now is because the media has much greater access to the field - and no journalism agency I've ever had experience with is immune to the sensationalism bug. One person dying gets more attention in today's press than hundreds did in earlier wars, and it's not just because of the sheer size of the campaign.

[eppie]

Eppie, you would do well to avoid talking out of your backside, my friend.  The bombs do indeed hit their targets.  The last numbers I checked showed beween 80% and 90% hit rate, (PGM's tend to be good that way).  For some classes of weapons, it was in excess of 90%. Within that percentage are a number that  hit and did not go off due to a fusing or arming glitch.  Big piece of metal hits earth/target and goes "thump"  not "boom."

[right][snapback]66050[/snapback][/right]

I thought it was not neccesarry to put an ironic smiley next to my post.

Next time I know better. :D

Seriously I know what you are talking about, although I think your numbers are a tad on the positive side.

[Armin]

The last numbers I checked showed beween 80% and 90% hit rate, (PGM's tend to be good that way).  For some classes of weapons, it was in excess of 90%.
[right][snapback]66050[/snapback][/right]

Believe it or not, Occhi, I don't doubt the pilots' accuracy to hit their targets...
(and, sometimes, everything else in the vicinity)

But seeing how incredibly sensible, precise and, most of all, SUCCESSFUL, the people who PICK their targets in the past have been, some scepticism is well called for.

Chinese embassies in Serbia anyone? :P

And how much was the success rate for those "high priority targets" during the Iraq campaign? ZERO out of 50 prime targets hit?

One would assume that such targets are *especially* well chosen, carefully picked and timed. So probably success rate with "everyday targets" is even worse :mellow:

The pilots may hit the house they are aiming for. What that house actually IS is anyone's guess...

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

The "neocons" who back this idea, whatever its practicality, are reasonably well known and have been harping on that theme since the mid 1990's, at the least.  I think the "movement" is referred to as the American Century project, or some such.  The link I once had to the site is no longer in my Favorites.

New American Century

Check out the heavy hitters signing the Statement of Principles! Rumsfeld! Cheney! Bush the Jeb! Wolfowitz (who wrote this crap back in 41's era and was subsequently hush-hushed) and .... Quayle?

Every court needs its jester, I suppose. :wacko:

[Minionman]

Are you talking about the bullets or the aircraft?  :P
[right][snapback]66012[/snapback][/right]

The aircraft. In case a nuclear war starts, we'll have radiation proof planes ready to at a moments notice. :P

[Occhidiangela]

[quote=Armin,Jan 21 2005, 11:28 AM]

[QUOTE]Believe it or not, Occhi, I don't doubt the pilots' accuracy to hit their targets...
(and, sometimes, everything else in the vicinity[/QUOTE])

Aye on that last bit: one of the problems with using an area weapons for a point target. :(

[QUOTE]But seeing how incredibly sensible, precise and, most of all, SUCCESSFUL, the people who PICK their targets in the past have been, some scepticism is well called for.

Chinese embassies in Serbia anyone? :P [/QUOTE]

How do you decide what is and what is not a target? Been there, done that, and I can only say that

It ain't like a video game.

It is one of the more byzantine and arcane processes I have ever run across or been involved with.

As for the Chinese Embassy, a NATO target in 1999, that apparently was a location apparently not known to the intelligence services of 19 NATO nations. Interesting. Or, maybe, was it that some nations chose not to share their intelligence? (Of course, one wonders if the Belgrade phone bookand a Michelin Road map would be considered a valid open source . . . :P )

[QUOTE]And how much was the success rate for those "high priority targets" during the Iraq campaign? ZERO out of 50 prime targets hit?

One would assume that such targets are *especially* well chosen, carefully picked and timed. So probably success rate with "everyday targets" is even worse :mellow: [/QUOTE]

By worse you appear to mean "less than perfect / zero defects?' Yes, no one can afford a zero defects weapons system. Not even rich old USA.

In any case, you raise an interesting point, Armin. Those high priority targets you mention are not now, and were not then, static. They were not "a factory located here" but rather "a place where XXX will be at YYYY time . . . we think."

What is the trigger that determines when XXXX is indeed there, but at ZZZZ time? Do you still have weapons release criterion? With what degree of confidence?

The timing part, no matter how carefully predicted, I can assure you from personal experience is exactly the most difficult part to get right when you are tying to use a "X hundred" pound bomb against a person. A weapons cache, when discovered in a building, is a trivial target by comparison. A person is, to my thinking, a target better suited for a rifle round: from a sniper. Can't always get a sniper where you want him to be, when you want him to be, either. :P

Can't say more than that.

[QUOTE]The pilots may hit the house they are aiming for. What that house actually IS is anyone's guess...[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Sometimes, a house gets hit and it turns out to have been a weapons cache. Secondary explosions are a real giveaway on that one, yet the media reports them often as a "re attack" by aircraft. Interesting, no?


As to the numbers being optimistic, I think in in terms of the percentages, not really. Not within the past two years.

The problem is one of perception, as well as "what criterion constitutes a successful attack and what does not." If you do not clearly define what metric you are trying to use, and what it means, the number is rendered meaningless.

Example: Hit within X meters of Y target with 3 500# bombs.

Pretty high success rate with LGB and GPS bombs. Caveat: when those puppies go bang, the radius of damage is measured in tens and hundreds of meters, depending on fusing and other factors. And a bit of luck, good bad and otherwise.

Example:

Weapon dropped and no one hit/dead except persons A, B, C, D and J. Not sure that can have much success in any urban environment. Out in the desert, sure. In the middle of a town or city? Not likely. Batting even 5/10 on a shot like that would be excellent targeting and execution.

Example:

Building or bridge destroyed: if you put at least as many munitions on the target at it takes to turn in into rubble, trivial in detail. The deciding factors then become

Weapons reliability
Sensor reliability
Crew training and proficiency
Weather
Simple mechanical failure
and of course
Intelligence and target acquisition

to include

Are your maps and charts up to date? Do the photos match the target you think you are going to hit? Is the FAC looking at the same building you are, he from 0 feet and you at 7000 feet?

Is there ever an error free attack? Yes. Can one expect Every attack to be error free? No.

Occhi