Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is This Hussein's Counterattack?
Washington Post ^ | 11/13/03 | Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks

Posted on 11/12/2003 8:21:22 PM PST by Pokey78

Commander Says Insurgence Has Earmarks of Planning

BAGHDAD, Nov. 12 -- The recent string of high-profile attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Iraq has appeared to be so methodical and well-crafted that some top U.S. commanders now fear this may be the war Saddam Hussein and his generals planned all along.

Knowing from the 1991 Persian Gulf War that they could not take on the U.S. military with conventional forces, these officers believe, the Baathist Party government cached weapons before the Americans invaded last spring and planned to employ guerrilla tactics.

"I believe Saddam Hussein always intended to fight an insurgency should Iraq fall," said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division and the man responsible for combat operations in the lower Sunni Triangle, the most unstable part of Iraq. "That's why you see so many of these arms caches out there in significant numbers all over the country. They were planning to go ahead and fight an insurgency, should Iraq fall."

In an interview Wednesday at his headquarters northwest of the capital, Swannack said the speed of the fall of Baghdad in April probably caught Hussein and his followers by surprise and prevented them from launching the insurgence for a few months. That would explain why anti-U.S. violence dropped off noticeably in July and early August, but then began to trend upward.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqifreedom; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

1 posted on 11/12/2003 8:21:23 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Yeah, this was his plan all along...guess he forgot to tell Uday & Dumber.
2 posted on 11/12/2003 8:25:28 PM PST by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexiesad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It's a pretty sad and pathetic strategy when you really think about it.

I'll lose control of my country and all my wealth, my soldiers will be slaughtered by the thousands, my loyalists will all be killed or imprisoned, my sons will die violent deaths, my other family members will go into exile - but I'll take out a couple of hundred of their soldiers before they find me and slaughter me like a rabid pig.

Despite the Washington Post's apparent awe, Saddam was never much of a strategist.

3 posted on 11/12/2003 8:26:19 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
. . . some top U.S. commanders now fear this may be the war Saddam Hussein and his generals planned all along.

No sh!t.

This is exactly the war that everyone has been planning against the U.S. since it worked so successfully against us in Vietnam.

4 posted on 11/12/2003 8:30:20 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
That would kind of like be burning down your house because you wanted to spit on a fireman.
5 posted on 11/12/2003 8:33:17 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I believe Saddam Hussein always intended to fight an insurgency should Iraq fall," said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr.

It's comical how the term "insurgent" is being used in this war. The U.S., British, or Italian soldier is considered the "the enforcer of the law," while the Iragi Ba'athist who's been living in Tikrit for the last 30 years is somehow considered an "insurgent."

One piece of advice, Maj. Gen. Swannack: You can't have an "insurgent" without first having established civil order. From the looks of it, the Iraqi in Tikrit doesn't think of himself as much of an insurgent at all -- he considers himself the established civil order.

6 posted on 11/12/2003 8:34:50 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
It's comical how the term "insurgent" is being used in this war....

Okay then, what do you call this war and its participants?

7 posted on 11/12/2003 8:39:29 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Really really dubious.

Anything to help the Democrats, I guess.
8 posted on 11/12/2003 8:43:33 PM PST by Sam Cree (democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Wistfully, nostalgically, the Post pines for another Vietnam.

Do you remember? The Ho Chi Minh posters, the protest marches, the feeling of solidarity?

The mass murders throughout Southeast Asia after Saigon fell?

Man, those were the days.

9 posted on 11/12/2003 8:44:15 PM PST by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Okay then, what do you call this war and its participants?

Star Wars meets The Flintstones.

Seriously -- how is it that the Iraqis are the "insurgents" here? Which government are they trying to overthrow?

10 posted on 11/12/2003 8:45:12 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
This is exactly the war that everyone has been planning against the U.S. since it worked so successfully against us in Vietnam.

Don't forget, the most important part of this strategy involves control of the media. Vietnam was won on the ground, and lost between Walter Cronkite's ears.

11 posted on 11/12/2003 8:45:46 PM PST by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Wrong. not vietnam.

more like lebanon 1983.

either way it's a failed strategy.

we will only get defeated by defeatism.
12 posted on 11/12/2003 8:46:25 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Yeah, I prefer the term scum-sucking terrorist b*st*rds myself for those murderers attacking American and Iraqi heros and civilians. Insurgent is so lame.
13 posted on 11/12/2003 8:48:07 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Seriously -- how is it that the Iraqis are the "insurgents" here? Which government are they trying to overthrow?"


The Coalition Authority and the IGC of course. They even assassinated an IGC member.

14 posted on 11/12/2003 8:49:38 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thulldud
Vietnam was not won on the ground, nor was it lost between Walter Cronkite's ears. It was lost in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, which clearly didn't have a clue about what it would take to win a war like that.
15 posted on 11/12/2003 8:51:10 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I don't think it's Saddam, though seems to be active. Speculation is that the hits on important personel indicate a distinct Chechnyan style. That, of course, is pretty much Al Qaida and not Saddam. No question they are the current pros in the field against hi-tech.
16 posted on 11/12/2003 8:51:16 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
No, it's not "another Vietnam" -- but every foreign leader who senses that he might find himself engaged in a military conflict with the United States looks back to Vietnam as a "blueprint" that represents his best chance of success.

If you think things aren't going well in Iraq now, just wait until the start of election season next year.

17 posted on 11/12/2003 8:53:12 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Okay then, what do you call this war and its participants?

Saddam lost and America won.

The rest is just a mop-up situation.

Does anyone remember the name of that Japanese soldier that finally surrendered in the 1970's?

Hiroo Onoda holds the honor of the last Japanese soldier to surrender, finally packing it in in 1974. Attempts were made to persuade Hiroo to surrender, including appeals from relatives. It took his former commanding officer to convince Hiroo the war was over. He had been holding out Lubang Island in the Phillipines. After spending some time in Japan, he retired to a ranch in Brazil.

Same situation...

18 posted on 11/12/2003 8:54:27 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Actually on reflection and reading this, it is IMHO mostly journalistic bunk. If Saddam ever had a 'strategy' to get thoroughly defeated and then live on as a guerilla, it was and is a dumb strategy. He used to run a country. Now he's either 6 feet under, or into hiding. And he will never ever run the country again.

Also, I think they are ignoring the Al Quaeda element of the violence and the fact that most of these attacks are terrorist attacks - indirect attacks on 'soft' targets.

19 posted on 11/12/2003 8:54:41 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
The Coalition Authority and the IGC of course.

That's some government. The Coalition Authority isn't a government -- and it reinforces its status as a "non-government" every time it insists that it will be leaving Iraq "soon." And the IGC hardly qualifies as a government, too -- installed by the U.S. in the aftermath of the war, the IGC doesn't even have any authority to hire a dogcatcher, let alone rule a nation.

20 posted on 11/12/2003 8:56:25 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson