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

Skip to comments.

BUSH SAYS IRAQI WAR WAS EXTENDED BECAUSE OF TURKEY
menewsline.com ^ | 04/28/2003 08:59:42 | MENL

Posted on 04/28/2003 8:06:12 AM PDT by Destro

Last Updated: 04/28/2003 08:59:42 Middle East

BUSH SAYS IRAQI WAR WAS EXTENDED BECAUSE OF TURKEY

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has again blamed Turkey for a failure of the Pentagon's "shock and awe" strategy against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

U.S. President George Bush said Turkey's refusal to allow American forces to enter that country to form a second front in northern Iraq was a major blow to the coalition against Saddam. Bush said the result was that Saddam was able to concentrate all of his forces around Baghdad.

Bush said the absence of a northern front reduced the element of surprise against the Saddam regime. The result, he said, was an improvement in Iraqi combat as Saddam moved his forces from north to south.

"Shock and awe said to many people that all we've got to do is unleash some might and people will crumble," Bush said in a television interview on Thursday. "And it turns out the fighters were a lot fiercer than we thought. Because, for example, we didn't come north from Turkey, Saddam Hussein was able to move a lot of special Republican Guard units and fighters from north to south. So the resistance for our troops moving south and north was significant resistance."

NOTE: The above is not the full item.

This service contains only a small portion of the information produced daily by Middle East Newsline. For a subscription to the full service, please contact Middle East Newsline at: editor@menewsline.com for further details.

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqifreedom; nonallyturkey; turkey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
This is the first such statement I have read from the White house regarding the nature of the difficulties encountered in the drive from the south up to Baghdad.

We had enough troops to spearhead the drive to Baghdad but fewer troops available to secure supply lines and to take towns and cities away from the local militias.

Fewer troops available also meant our troops could not patrol the cities to keep order and conduct operations against Saddam's forces.

1 posted on 04/28/2003 8:06:12 AM PDT by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Destro
failure of the Pentagon's "shock and awe" strategy

Odd use of the word "failure".

2 posted on 04/28/2003 8:08:19 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
I imagine the hope was that it would lead to a quick surrender. With the Turks not cooperating, it probably appeared to the Saddamites as if things were worse than they actually were for the Coalition troops.
3 posted on 04/28/2003 8:10:19 AM PDT by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Sounds like this is going to cost Turkey.
4 posted on 04/28/2003 8:11:53 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Did Bush really say such a thing? Doesn't ring true. Is there another source?
5 posted on 04/28/2003 8:11:53 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Don't forget that it also saved the U. S. taxpayer $25 billion in aid to Turkey.
6 posted on 04/28/2003 8:15:30 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Not really. Shock and awe did fail--the man who "invented" the shock and awe concept for the pentagon (at least that's what his bi-line said) said so in a series of NY Post articles on the subject.
7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:15:32 AM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Destro
BUSH SAYS IRAQI WAR WAS EXTENDED BECAUSE OF TURKEY

That should be "turkeys". There were quite a few of them involved in sandbagging us, both foriegn and domestic.

8 posted on 04/28/2003 8:20:19 AM PDT by putupon (I smack Chirac ,and Schroeder too, with my stepped in dog squeeze shoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Well, the "shock and awe" was not what people were let to expect--awesome bombing campaigns. Instead of arising from the first, it popped up its head toward the end of the campaign, when Arabs around the Middle East suddenly realized that the Mighty Saddam had fallen in 3 weeks.

If there had been a northern front, perhaps he might have fallen in 2 weeks or even 1 week.

In any case, the point is well taken. We whipped Saddam with one hand tied behind our back by Turkey, and courtesy of the French a major sandstorm that probably delayed operations by 1 or 2 days.
9 posted on 04/28/2003 8:26:02 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Actually we won with one hand and leg tied behind our back.
10 posted on 04/28/2003 8:28:34 AM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Those Baster'ds
11 posted on 04/28/2003 8:32:22 AM PDT by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Of course, there's a big difference between having France, Belgium and Turkey tie your hand behind your back (where they have just stabbed you) and doing it yourself.

In Vietnam JFK and LBJ tied the military's hands by constantly restraining and micromanaging the fighting and by ruling out hitting the enemy where they were vulnerable. By contrast, in Iraq GWB supported the troops and gave the generals free rein, with only one (admittedly) major limitation--don't kill more civilians than you can help.

I think that was a reasonable limitation, for this campaign. Probably that was what prevented "shock and awe" from operating at the first.
12 posted on 04/28/2003 8:45:40 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Destro
You forgot the quagmire alert.
13 posted on 04/28/2003 8:46:56 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
IIRC, Bush said this in his interview with Tom Brokow that was aired Friday night.
14 posted on 04/28/2003 8:49:50 AM PDT by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Odd use of the word "failure".

Definitely a previously unimagined use or the word failure. I suppose the original plan might have succeeded in one week rather than three, and might have prevented some of the high level officials from escaping.

15 posted on 04/28/2003 8:50:59 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I think Iraq was shocked and awed. They fell in just three weeks inspite of America being hogtied by Turkey in the North, and inspite of France's advance information of our attack given to Saddam. Russia couldn't take Afghanistan in ten years, and Iran couldn't take Iraq in ten years. Defeating a country like Iraq in just three weeks, inspite of the fact they had all the time in the world to build a defense, is truly awesome.
16 posted on 04/28/2003 8:53:37 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Now is the time when the emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties pays off. And I would have to admit that if we'd killed a few thousand more civilians, there would be a great deal more anger and unruliness, and it would probably be costing us more casualties in this phase of the campaign, as well as putting fuel on the Iranian Shi'a fire.

The trouble with calling the campaign S&A was that it is antithetical to the goal of preserving civilian lives and infrastructure. Sure, a few hundred Willy-Pete incendiaries on B-daddy would have ended things quicker,and looked more spectacular, but I don't think we'd like what we'd be dealing with now.
17 posted on 04/28/2003 8:56:56 AM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Time to boycott the Turks!
18 posted on 04/28/2003 9:00:40 AM PDT by HighRoadToChina (Never Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
If this was a "failed" strategy, I'd hate to see a successful one. This "failed" the way Sherman's March to the Sea "failed."
19 posted on 04/28/2003 9:14:45 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
The specific strategy of "Shock and Awe" can be said to have failed not the overall strategy of "liberating" Iraq.

Since Iraq had working telephones and television service till the last week of the war I would say "Shock and Awe" fell short of shocking and awing the Iraqi regime into quitting resistance until we enetred Baghdad (in fact Baghdad fell faster than Basra or Um Qasr-citie we thought would be in coalition hands by day one).

20 posted on 04/28/2003 9:59:31 AM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 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