The birth of the Kweb.


      Homepage       Disclaimer to these pages                  Part XLII          Part XLIV              Index to birth of Kweb

Dear readers, I have changed this page into a series of pages. 
Mostly on a monthly bases, so now we have March 2005.
Look at the index of these pages!

Part XLIII: March 2005:




Extra texts  

05 March 2005     
07 March 2005     
08 March 2005    txt01: US military lessons learned in Iraq 
09 March 2005     
10 March 2005     
14 March 2005     
16 March 2005     
17 March 2005      
21 March 2005     
24 March 2005     
25 March 2005    txt01: The famous Colin Powell speech before the UN 



To readers who are new to this story: You are now in part XLIII of the Birth of the Kweb, the Kweb is of course the KinkyWeb&is this website. This website is good&strong, it's some fine piece of art. Sometimes I write a bit rough on some subjects, but that's the way it is. If you don't like that you get to some other PolitcalCorrect website please!
If you are new, you have to know that almost all things I do write on this website do have some nasty habit of coming out. To avoid judicial shit I had to place some disclaimers, here is the disclaimer to this story.


05 March 2005: Part 43 already, the world has changed a lot since I started part one of this long story. Enough silly talk, lets start with a fine quote upon the ways the Kurds in Iraq view reality:
A February 17 report in the Kurdistan Observer, based on an interview with KDP leader Massoud Barzani, outlined the Kurdish demands:

* Ownership of any natural resources in the region including oilfields and the power to determine how the revenues are split with the central government.
* Control of the 100,000-member military force in the region, composed mostly of former guerillas of the Kurdish peshmerga militia. No other armed forces would be allowed to enter Kurdistan without official permission.
* The authority to appoint officials to work in and operate ministries in Kurdistan, including overseeing security and the economy.
* Authority over fiscal policy, including how much tax revenue goes to Baghdad. The central government would also not be able to raise tax revenue in Kurdistan without permission.

Let me comment on these four points:

*No ownership of natural resources can be allowed for the next two decades, sorry if I sound a bit over the top but I was the one who gave a long long time ago permission to the Americans to start war against Iraq. So I simply exercise my authority in this: Benefits of natural resources need to be equally spread over all Iraqis, no childish stuff like "it' s our oil".
*Military affairs in own hand is allowed, I gave up building a solid Iraqi army a long time ago. It was a silly fantasy I guess, I hoped all groups would unite in killing Americans and form an army that way. This did not happen so military stuff can be better kept in Kurdish hands.
*With authority to appoint officials for overseeing security and economy I have no problem either.
*Just like oil revenues (also ' tax like income' for the state) this cannot be, a uniform tax code is better from the economical point of view.

All in all: If I were some Kurdish leader I would concentrate on military independence and the right to interfere with the own economical development. While things like taxes (national taxes could fund partially an excellent weapon industry in the long run) could better be large scale meaning countrywide. Military independence is most important for the Kurds while the entire region could benefit from a far better weapon factory environment, the Arabs have become lazy from all those oil revenues.

Title: The Iraqi fighters are the best! But is oil like drugs?

07 March 2005: One month ago an Italian female journalist was captured in Iraq, later a nice video popped up with her in it declaring that if Italia did not withdraw it's troops she would be executed. Later it was was heard she would be in front of some clergymen to judge her crimes and I had fun, a wonderful video with propaganda (because she would not be executed anyway) and all Western media outlets explaining the evil nature of the insurgency.

No, although I have recently given the advice to kill more journalists (just like in the year 2004) this one was a bridge to far. A female that had studied the nice effects of US clusterbombs upon children did not meet the criteria for execution.

That was the situation two weeks ago, and although my advices were not written in Chinese my patience was tested. But I know I can trust the Iraqis, by now we can go throw thick and thin as the saying goes. Well finally she was released and some Italian secret service guy helped her out on the way to the Iraqi airport.

The nice thing is: The car they drove in came under fire from the Americans, this was good beyond borders because the US-led fire was only standard application of the so called 'rules of engagement'. These 'rules of engagement' are under the responsibility of the US secretary of defense the honorable Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. The way Rumsfeld understands the war on terror is bound together with "Can we kill the terrorists in a faster rate than the massandras spit them out?" Yes, this is how Rumsfeld views the war on terror.

To make a long story short: The car they were traveling in came under US fire, one person got killed the rest was wounded. The Iraqis already suspected that the Italian journalist never should make it home, quote from Mrs. Giuliana Sgrena: 

She then thought of something her captors had told her: "The Americans don't want you to go back."

Now what a beautiful quote is that isn't it?

So truly beautiful with all the low accusations that lie within such a statement. Facts are that already since begin Jan last year the operatives use the method of luring the US army into killing journalists, a very efficient way to build support...

This method goes more or less like this: When the car with the journalists is in the neighborhood some guys fire a few bullets at the brave American freedom fighters, after that the Americans turn into their usual killing spree. It is a simple tactic all you need is timing and the right guys in the right place.   

Now we look at the official reaction of the US military:

The U.S. military said Sgrena's car rapidly approached a checkpoint Friday night, and those inside ignored repeated warnings to stop.

Troops used arm signals and flashing white lights, fired warning shots in front of the car, and shot into the engine block when the driver did not stop, the military said in a statement.

Comment: According to Giuliana Sgrena there was no checkpoint at all, the flashing light was only used to get fire on the car as soon as possible and no arm signals have ever been observed (a bit difficult in the dark to see arm signals but anyway). These are the rules of engagement as laid out by Rumsfeld, waiving arms in the dark and shoot direct after that. 

This shootout was so beautiful, as a person I do not believe that this was done on purpose. I think the lack of boots on the ground is a far better explanation because even the road to the airport is far from secure. The fact that the Pentagon perfumed princes never dared to tell Rumsfeld this is of a breathtaking beauty, it is common knowledge in the rest of the world but Rumsfeld and Dubya just don't know and don' t see because they have busy jobs doing important stuff...

Title: Dubya and Rumsfeld only do the important stuff.

A bit more quotes from this lovely shootout:

But in an interview with Italy's La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said "there was no bright light, no signal."
And Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather that the shots came from "a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight."

Comment: Again the Italians must stop complaining, these are only standard rules of engagement. Do the Italians not know what handbooks upon counter insurgency are used by the US military? Have they never read these handbooks and only look at the Dubya television advertisements stating "Freedom is on the march"?

08 March 2005: The latest Military Bloody Day (that was MBD number nine) was asked for at 30 January (during the Iraqi elections). It was meant as some Vietnam Tet offensive reloaded and it definitely was. Results:
  • A rocket attack at the US embassy resulting in two deaths,
  • Within a time span of four days both the US and UK military had their most bloody day, the USA lost 31 marines due to an 'accident'  in the middle of the night with a Sea Stallion helicopter while the British air force lost a Hercules plane.

These were great works and once more I would like to thank the Iraqi fighters for their help; THANKS!

Of course it was to be expected that it was indeed a missile (or a pair of missiles), may be expected is not the right word. Better would be desired or longed for and if indeed the Iraqi war drags on for a few more years we can have big fun in the future. Nothing would make the US and UK army feel it better then a few days every now and then with one hundred fatalities, or not?

Today a tip of the curtain was lifted in the inquiry into the Hercules plane (from the US Sea Stallion we likely never hear a word anymore, that is how the Americans are you know). Here are a few quotes from the inquiry:  

The Ministry of Defence said the board of inquiry was not yet in a position to say what had caused the crash.

But on the current evidence, "bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire/obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft's flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue", could be "ruled out".

The interim findings were backed by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch which said in a statement: "There remain a number of other possible causes that require further investigation." 

The Hercules was adapted for special forces operations and the crew's squadron was attached to the SAS.

However, the MoD described the flight as "routine" and said the aircraft had defensive aids to counter surface-to-air missiles.

Comment: Especcially the last words makes the UK and US army & air force feel the size of this last Military Bloody Day. Is this a nice Vietnam Tet reloaded or not?

Like written before 19 March will be Military Bloody Day number 10 and this will be a contest day again, of course I have only very limited view on what group / cell makes the best strike but with a bit of luck the second Blue Footed Trophy can be rewarded again.

To the US military I offer the same conditions as MBD9 and that is no use of air power on that day (only when it is absolutely needed to set free a bunch of soldiers who otherwise will get killed, only in that case air power is allowed.)
Now I have the US military at the line anyway, it would be nice of you released those seven man that staged the rocket attack on the US embassy on 29 Jan. I mean this, if you want they can sign a paper stating that they will not stage actual attacks any more. Take it as a sportsman, if you cannot confront me why not release those seven guys?   


Next subject: Statistics!

Just by sheer coincident I found a nice relation between the coalition casualty rate and the number of days on which these rates apply. Let me cut and paste from the homepage:

Now do you believe this? 
Just look at that beauty (it was just an hour work on my statistical program):

The left upper dot means one dead US soldier during 183 days and the lower right dot means 37 dead US soldiers during one day. It looks like there is some hyperbolic relation between the two variables and a bit of study with a statistical package says this is correct, it is even significant at the 0.000 level so statistical figures know what I mean.

The scatter plot above is based on all days in Iraq with actual fatalaties, the war is now 719 days on and the 185 days without US fatalaties are left out. According to my US-led American statistical program the model is as follows:

X = number of dead US soldiers per 24 hours
Y = number of days in the war until now,

Y = -10.9 + 212 / X

Example: You want to know how many days there were with five US dead? Fill in X = 5 and calculate Y = -10.9 + 212/5 = 31.5 say 31 or 32 days with five dead US soldiers. Easy or not? (The real answer is 29 days, the simple formulae only gives an approximation of course... The model returns a number and not a bandwidth) 

Man oh man, with a few discoveries like this I could win the Nobel prize for war!


An amazing simple relation isn't it? There simply is an inverse rule describing the relation between these two variables and beside this we see that the most right dot in the scatter plot above does fall out of the usual pattern. Thirty seven dead US soldiers on 26 Jan was indeed a big one...  

After the statistics we return to the Hercules crash, reported were two missiles that took off. I hope they were able to strike in concert. Well the US military is going for the same kind of stuff, not missiles striking in concert but remote controlled fighter jets. Quoting:

COMPARED TO MANY AERONAUTICAL CURIOSITIES THAT have taken wing at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at California's Edwards Air Force Base over the years, the latest military test stunts did not appear very remarkable. Last April, a low-slung aircraft, about the size of a sport utility vehicle but with batlike wings similar to those of the B-2 stealth bomber, took off, flew at. 10,500 meters and then dropped a 110-kilogram inert precision bomb while nipping along at 700 kilometers per hour. Four months later, a pair of the aircraft took off and flew together. These were modest stunts, to be sure, except for this fact: the jets have no pilots. They are the future of warfare, the first working models of networked autonomous attack jets, and the U.S. Department of Defense would like to start building them by 2010.

Comment: Please go on developing this, you can think it is the future of warfare and you are right. I need stuff like that to create a controlled battlefield outside civil areas. Beside packs of jets in the skies to control the air space, lots of robots on the ground are needed to keep unwanted visitors on a distance. Also needed are ground diggers in search of tunnels to prevent extra 'help' into the battlefield (both armies are supposed to take their own gear with them and resupplies are also 'controlled'). Wired uniforms and a lot of stuff more that is under development right now, it is well needed in the controlled form of warfare. It is well needed in the last resort before there is a full blown out war inside the civil area's.

Now the above mentioned project is the largest project DARPA has running right now, isn't it interesting to observe that already for one or two years I am reciting for missiles that strike in concert? Now?  

Title: Is this striking in concert or is this propaganda my dear DARPA?

09March2005: On a website named gunnerpalace dot com I found the next beautiful quotes, it is about a ritual the Americans perform when they remember one of their fallen heroes. It is so beautiful, enjoy: 
September 19, 2003
Reality Check

The LTC and the Chaplain invited me to a fallen soldier memorial at 4/27 FA. A young soldier named Kevin Kimmerly was killed by an RPG a few days before.

It's Army tradition to have a last roll call at a soldier's memorial. They call out roll and soldiers answer with "here" as their names are called. When they came to Kimmerly, there was no reply. His named was called twice more, answered only by the quiet sobbing of his fellow soldiers. 

For the first time, I feel very far away from home. This isn’t a movie. It’s real. These guys aren't just names and numbers in the newspapers. Here, away from the loudness of the media, you begin to feel that this has very little to do with home. It's another reality with another set up rules. The worst is that war, if you want to call it that, begins to feel normal. The Iraqis go about their business--life doesn't stop, it can't.

When the memorial was over, the chaplain told me that he's been asked to come up with a format for memorials--a reality that few want to think about. 

This is a lovely format for memorials, I mean that dear Americans lets keep this format alive...  

From the same guy (his name is Mike) we have from date 29 Sept 2003 the next lovely quote:

This war, is unlike any other. Forget what you know, or what you think about war, this war is the ultimate culture clash. Take 130,000 soldiers with their technology and their pop culture and drop them into a country that has been largely isolated for more than ten years and you get something that even Hollywood couldn't dream up.

Comment: This Mike wrote this down two weeks after the first Military Bloody Day, there were only three reported dead US soldiers on that first MBD but it was an upscaling in sophistication for sure! (Relate for example July 2003, only 26 dead US soldiers in the entire month so three on a sharp given time was a real upscaling...)  

Title: Is this striking in concert or is this propaganda my dear DARPA?

10 March 2005: There are some weird media reports out, not that many only a few dozen. But they say the Saddam capture was a staged capture, this is only confirmed by one person.

Since Saddam was captured on 13 December at 08.15 hours (and just by coincidence this was also Military Bloody Day number six this might be of interest). Needless to say MBD6 completely failed, not one US soldier killed, if it was indeed one of those psyop operations it was a big win for the opponent. My compliments if so.

First a bit of quoting:

BEIRUT -- A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated. 

Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted Wednesday in the Saudi daily al-Medina as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army. 

"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said. 

"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.

He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting." 

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.

Comment: Another marine explained why this was definitely a hoax, he found the next results:
__ There was no killed Sudanese origin killed in the official files;
__ At that date there were no marines in Iraq, he himself had left before and he was on the latest convoy leaving Iraq, later the marines returned he said;

So these are the contradicting 'facts' as found, but there are also suspicions that green card soldiers are left out of the official fatality count. That could explain the lack of a Sudanese in the official files. (Just like for example constantly all dead and wounded arrive in the middle of the night in America, the tar American souls cannot stand it during daylight...)
After all there are constantly 60 thousand green card or special contract soldiers in the US military and a 20 person team with 8 Arabs in it wouldn't do it very good on the American television.

Another quote from a guy who has investigated the Saddam capture:

The UPI story is unattributed. Nadim Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon. He needs to prove he was a U.S.Marine. He needs to prove he was a member of any special unit.

Comment: I truly hope some journalists find this a nice try, can Abou Rabeh deliver some paperwork? Can he deliver some contracts? And what do the details of those contracts say about entering the official body count?

Again: I could be completely wrong and may be there are only daylight flights of wounded and dead to America. Lets do a bit of math: 

One of the official reasons for landing in the middle of the night is that the wounded need a good night sleep. So lets say the plane from the Germany hospital gets filled between 10.00 and 12.00 in the morning. The flight takes 10 hours making 22.00 hours at last, this in German time.
Well 22.00 hours German time is 16.00 US east coast time...

The math is simple or not? Now for the Sudanese dead from 12 Dec 2003 please...

14March2005: A few words to the Iraqi Sunni clergy:
In the weeks after the election suddenly all kinds of arguments popped up why the boycott would have been unwise. Arguments for example it was an emotional decision or that everybody was intimidated by the insurgents.

This all is a bunch of crap, it was the only serious 'weapon' at hand to avoid the Fallujah raid. Of course this was an emotional decision to boycott the elections, but stubborn people in Washington and Baghdad thought they were the wiser ones. In case you have noticed: In Afghanistan it was no problem to postpone the next elections, all that was needed were some 'technical reasons'.

Right now it is important to enter the political process, if the future developments make clear this was a fake political process anyway let that be. But the Sunnis have to take part to and there must be a unified message go out via the mosques that the people who do this participation of the political process are no traitors. I do not know the details but somewhere I fished up the information that the constitution can be vetoed by a block of three provinces. (But I do not know the details.)

There is a second thing I want to share with you: I need long term reliable information upon birth defects in Fallujah, it is a pity the Americans bombed the past out with bombs on hospitals but the future facts must be recorded in a reliable way. This of course in relation with the depleted uranium, upon radioactivity one does not have to worry with depleted uranium as long as you are having chumps and large parts of that stuff. It is the dust that worries me.

Until now I have no statistics observed upon the number of tons of depleted uranium used in the Fallujah raids, but creating good statistics upon the health of the Fallujah citizens is advised.
Uranium is just one of the heavy metals like we have lead and plutonium too, below you see a picture of a baby that is related to a heavy metal overdose. 


To the Pentagon pussies I can say that the above might be a classical case of propaganda, but is it true that there are billions spend on the cleanup of uranium inside the USA? I simply don't know, here is a quote:

Health Concerns Remain

Concern about the health effects of depleted uranium is not limited to overseas countries. The Defense Department's contention that depleted uranium has not been shown to affect health adversely and therefore doesn't need to be cleaned up is contrary to its own rules for handling it. Those rules mirror the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's treatment of depleted uranium as an environmental hazard and danger to public health. Federal regulators have shut down some U.S. nuclear weapons and uranium processing and munitions plants, found to be contaminated by depleted uranium. Billions of dollars are being spent on its cleanup in the United States.

Comment: I have no comments because I lack insights in the statistics reported, I know almost nothing of heavy metal poisoning and even less upon cleanup budgets. 

16 March 2005: May be the health situation in Fallujah is even worse then I expected. A quote from al Jazeera:
This time, in addition, reports from families inside the city, along with photographic evidence, point toward the U.S. military's use of chemical and phosphorous weapons as well as cluster bombs there. The few residents allowed to return in the final week of 2004 were handed military-produced leaflets instructing them not to eat any food from inside the city, nor to drink the water".

Comment: I have never seen such documents but it is clear the Americans would not pass leaflets like this if there were just a few poisoned places in Fallujah. Concerned the chemical weapons there are rumors like that going on for a long time but I never came upon any kind of proof until now.

If stuff like that is confirmed it is not only the agadium a city for a city but for example a chloride attack against a US city becomes more or less obligatory. There never has been solid military need for stuff like this, madness must be countered with madness too.
Lets this be a long term project, say at most two decades. But a large US village or a small city wiped out has it's own logic now. After all the Americans avoided some simple truth out when the war on terror started and all they wanted was a so called military solution to this.
The US media are to blame too but killing US journalists has been allowed for a long time already.

Now can we really expect the US military to use chemical stuff after the old Halabja gassing? This is hard to swallow, yet when proof is found we'll see again. 

In another development it was found that the head of the World Bank is traditional an American, the present head will finish his term in the short run. Now Dubya wants deputy secretary of defense Wolfowitz on that place: 

President Bush on Wednesday tapped Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who has been a lightning rod for criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other defense policies, to take over as head of the World Bank. 

Comment: No, I am against this. In the first place because I would like to continue the war with the team that started it. And in the second place Wolfowitz might be a very decent man and an outstanding former dean of a American university but has he suffered enough in life to be a good chairman of the World Bank?

If he has had hefty suffering in life for at least one decade and was capable of recovering from this it could be ok but I still prefer to proceed the war with the team that started it. So if I could vote in this I would vote a no.

Update: One day later I found that the honorable defense deputy was moved by the big tsunami thing, this all is very understandable but it is better to have someone who has suffered for a long time and has recovered (this beside the rest you need for that job). One could also look for someone with proven 'Bill Gates look alike' investments combined with a few remnants of the famous Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Well I am mild mannered on the criteria for the next World Bank prez but I still would like to proceed the war on terror as it unfolds in reality with the same team that started it. A so called stop loss order is reasonable. 

End of discussion as far as I am concerned.

17 March 2005: There is some important military news found, last year I did not understand why the US military did not have more recruiting problems. As far as I know societies they just had to have more trouble with new recruits. I did not understand that and to be honest I doubted myself a little bit, I just did not understand.

Lately I found that in 2004 the US military has sucked up a pool of future recruits, these are people who already have signed some contract but are supposed to serve with honor in the future... The numbers reported explained my lack of understanding for the fullest, there was indeed decline in recruitment but it was compensated with these future contracts.

Now we have this lovely news, it is not enough decline of course but we don't live in paradise yet:

The Army reserve and Army National Guard respectively met only 87 percent and 80 percent of their overall recruiting goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, according to the study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The Air Force Reserve attained 91 percent of its target, the Air National Guard 71 percent and the Navy Reserve 77 percent. 

Comment: This is the decline after the money reward for enlisting or reenlisting was significantly higher compared to old practices. If the situation stays as it is the US military will be significantly exhausted in about a year or so, to use an old phrase: A wounded animal is the most dangerous one.

There is more to say upon plans over there:

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia, United States of America -- The US Army has asked Congress to allow it to extend enlistment contracts offered to future soldiers by two years in order to "stabilize the force," as top defense officials warned that key recruitment targets for the year could be missed.
"In the manning area, we need Congress to change the maximum enlistment time from six years to eight years in order to help stabilize the force for longer periods of time," Hagenbeck went on to say.

Comment: This is only the fighting against symptoms, one can also offer 20 year contracts or indefinite time contracts. Will this all help? We already have stop loss orders and so called back-to-back deployments, will this all help or is a draft needed?  

Next subject: The leaked 'communication' between Osama bin Ladin and Iraq's Zarqawi, quote from Bill Gertz:

U.S. intelligence and security officials yesterday said new information indicates that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has asked Iraq-based terrorists to focus future attacks on targets inside the United States. 
Recent intelligence reports showed that bin Laden contacted Abu Musab Zarqawi, al Qaeda's senior operative in Iraq, and urged Islamists there to shift from attacking U.S. targets in that country to targets in the United States, said officials familiar with the reports.

Comment: This is perfectly in line with my requests done a few times at the Iraqi fighters, or better at the Iraqi perfect cell structure. So why mention it? Well the same info also contained stuff like Osama thought it was a lack of willing martyrs while Zarqawi stated that people determined to strike and enough money always will make it.
There can be said more upon this: Put yourself in the shoes of that man or that team that will strike in America, you need certain psychological traits to succeed anyway. They must be a little bit megalomanic without losing touch with reality, they must be able to operate alone for a long time, they must have a good plan and flexible enough to bring it to a good end.

And most of all, since in America everything is bigger, it must be 9/11 scale or better. Now this all is hard, you definitely need a few megalomanic traits plus a clever set of brains.
It is also possible that good teams are at the scene already but they just bide their time until they receive some kind of signal.
Upon this, just like the last time will not work. When now I would strike hard at the Muslim faith with horrible propaganda the operatives just look right through and smile... 

Yes they look right through and smile, when I now ask what stupid religion dresses it's woman up like walking blue and black tents they know I am kidding. So for the anger in the deed one has to look at other focal points...

The Bill Gertz article contained another detail of interest, quote: 

"The insurgency in Iraq, as insurgencies are classically defined and assessed for accomplishing their goals, has been far more successful than most imagined it would, or could be," said Dan Gallington, a former aide to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and now an analyst at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. 
"What the insurgents fear is a series of Fallujah-type operations," he said. "Why we are not obliging them is not clear. 

Comment: What a bag of rubbish, it is completely clear why the US military cannot win this. After all the whole concept of war on terror was a fraud from the beginning, but it is sad to see that US officials still do not have a clue.
The phrase "more successful than most imagined it would, or could be" is completely pathetic. It is Dubya that bluntly refuses to make some kind of excuse for the fine results of the economical sanctions, it is on Dubya's watch that only a few weeks after he became president there were plans to redistribute the Iraqi oil. It is Dubya this and Dubya that and after that all wondering why the resistance is stronger than expected? Asshole!


21 March 2005: Now we have the honorable US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld explaining why the Iraqi resistance is so strong: Lets blame Turkey! You don't believe it but he said it himself, quote:
The insurgency, he said, is continuing but it is at a lower level than previously.

He reiterated his view that had American troops been able to move into Iraq through Turkey as well, the level of insurgency today would have been far less as more supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime would have been captured or killed.

Comment: As far as I know there are still many dozens attacks a day, so is it declining? No.
Secondly it is an age old military knowledge that a front that moves to quickly often gets a backlash after some time, don't forget the original warplan as crafted by general Tommy Franks foresaw 120 days of fighting. It was only 19 or as others say 21 days to Baghdad. The backlash has happened in the form of the insurgency although there are more factors that are involved. (See above.)
In short: The five hundred billion / year military messed it up. 
Suppose the democratic elected Turkish parliament would have given approval for entering Iraq via Turkey the 19 days would even have been shorter, it is very simple: As the original warplan was followed we would be in a different situation right now.
Now who messed up the original warplan? 

Rumsfeld had more to share on the same subject:

With the Fourth Infantry blocked from entering from the north, "by the time Baghdad was taken, the large fraction of the Iraqi military and intelligence services just dissipated into the communities," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "And they're still, in a number of instances, still active."

Comment: Can anybody explain to me why entering via Turkey would not result in the 'dissipating into the communities'? Of course a few more Iraqi fighters would be killed in those long gone days but that does not explain the level of the insurgency right now.
No, this is one more example of the 'perfumed princes' attitude at the Pentagon.  

It would be tempting to think about how the Iraqi war would be different if the 120 days from the warplan would have been respected but that is hard to validate and you end in speculation. Less hard to see is the nice holes in the plans, the lack of guarding of the arsenals of Saddam is also of interest for future historians.
Once I read a nice nickname for those improvised bombs, they were named LSA's for Looted from Saddams Arsenal...


After all this armchair analysis it is time for a bit of fun, we create a new television program (just as an idea, a script so to say):


A very short television program (10 minutes or so) and once a week. 
Two skilled marksmen or snipers (from the local army or a police hit team) indulge in a ten bullet contest, distance depending on the kind of weapon and an element of chaos like depending on rolling dice.
The snipers have to put up one of those plastic carnival masks, one Osama bin Laden mask and one Dubya Bush mask.

The Osama mask has to shoot on a large poster (bulls eye on the foreghead) of Dubya Bush,
the Dubya Bush mask has to shoot on the large Osama poster.

That's all in principle but there are all kinds of hilaric elements to add. For example if the Osama mask wins there is won a replica of the twin towers with half a jumbo jet still visible. If the Bush mask wins a similar replica of the Tora Bora complex.

End of format.   

Now that would be funny television, a pity since the society is fed with all that 'Islamo fascism' that this cannot emerge in practice. That is a pity...

24 March 2005: There are all kinds of plans to reform the United Nations, that is a good thing because the present constellation with that Security Council is a bit weird. In this all the secretary general of the United Nations asked for a uniform definition of terror.

Now if you ask a bunch of countries to come up with a good definition of a terrorist attack you are asking for trouble if you ask me, that comes because most countries have this strange habit of understanding war on terror only in the own field of interests. This is understandable in the light of a previous observation: Countries communicate with each other just like four or five year olds do.

The only definition of a so called terrorist attack is:

A deliberate attack on a soft target.

That's all, if the attackers do have a uniform or if they handle spontaneous or in order of a government is all not relevant. In essence all terror attacks boil down to some deliberate attack on that what is known as a soft target.
Any idiot can understand that, even the Pentagon pussies can understand a definition like that.

Also not relevant is tying this definition down to the so called purpose of the attack, let me give you a few examples of terrorist attacks:

  • The 9/11 attacks in New York,
  • Bali bombings,
  • The Madrid train death project,
  • The Chechen school hostage taking,
  • And so on.

You see: When you observe a certain kind of attack it is often clear that it is a terror attack and they all fall under the easy to understand definition. Even a five year old kid could understand this...

Title: Yes, even five year old kids can understand this.

25 March 2005: On a website armscontrolwonk dot com I found that lovely quote from a guy named Douglas Feith, I do not know the actual status and standing of this Douglas thing. Lets quote from the unclassified part from the US national defense strategy:
Our strength as a nation-state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak, using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.

Comment: Like the armscontrolwonkers observed too, this is a very weird thing to write down. But it comes from the US national defense strategy report and is signed by the honorable SilverBullet (that's D. Rumsfeld) himself. More fun (from that Douglas Feith thing):

The only point that we’re making is that we’re in a fascinating new, complex international security situation because of ease of travel, technology. There are a lot of things in the world that affect the security environment. And there are various actors around the world that are looking to either attack or constrain the United States, and they are going to find creative ways of doing that that are not the obvious conventional military attacks. And we’re just pointing out that we need to think broadly about diplomatic lines of attack, legal lines of attack, technological lines of attack, all kinds of asymmetric warfare that various actors can use to try to constrain, shape our behavior. And that’s what that point is flagging.

Comment: This is an amazing state of mind at the Pentagon, I can assure you there are no such non state actors as far as I know. And I can know, for three years on a row I swallow dozens and dozens media files a day to paint me a picture of reality. And I found no non-state-actors when I looked around...
And in case the SilverBullet even reads this: All that talk of me having an entire cell structure inside the US hedge funds is just a fantasy man. It's all not real Donald, it is all just a story and it carves itself into the backbone of humanity.
Donald, I can assure you that there are no non-state-actors trying to shape the behavior of the USA. You must not be so paranoid, I mean man just look at global savings; only 75-80 percent is needed to fill your deficits now isn't it clear everybody loves you? 

Title: Yes, even Donald SB could understand this.

End of part 43.






NATO NATO, what did you forget? Now I'll kiss you with love & that's a fact!





Support this website Support this website Support this website Support this website  

      Homepage       Disclaimer to these pages                  Part XLII          Part XLIV              Index to birth of Kweb





Top of this page        Homepage        Disclaimer to these pages