Tuesday, March 18, 2003

 
Combat Report - March 18, 2003

SOURCES:

1615 GMT - British military sources at Persian Gulf headquarters in Qatar told the BBC on March 18 that their forces have been given their instructions and targets for the first hours of battle and are simply awaiting an order from Prime Minister Tony Blair to attack Iraq.

Around 90 percent of all public buildings in Iraq reportedly have been identified as "non targets." Most targeting decisions are being made by Air Marshal Brian Burridge -- the commander of the British forces -- and Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Peter Wall, along with a legal adviser and a political adviser. Ultimately, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon or the Prime Minister might be asked to approve attacks on the most sensitive targets.

1538 GMT - Unassembled U.S. Sikorsky helicopters, still in their crates, have been offloaded at Iskenderun port in southeastern Turkey. The helicopters were unloaded late March 17 and are waiting to be transported the 125 miles to the Iraqi border, CNN-Turk Television reports.

1537 GMT - About 4,000 U.S. Marines moved across the Kuwaiti desert in tanks, armored vehicles and trucks on March 18 to take up battle positions in preparation for an invasion of Iraq. The Marines reportedly are waiting at a secret location to lead a "line of departure" once given the go-ahead from Washington. After stepped-up sorties by warplanes and exercises by Apache attack helicopters and A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank airplanes, trucks, APCs and other vehicles began lining up for the push into southern Iraq, Agence France Presse reported.

Meanwhile, weather conditions in the northern Kuwait are expected to worsen in the next two days. A dust storm is forecast for March 19, with winds expected to reach up to 35 knots per hour, though the weather for March 20 is expected to be calm.

1500 GMT - The Iraqi military is moving into foxholes and bunkers in preparation for an American military strike, U.S. military commanders said March 18. Unnamed U.S. intelligence officials quoted by USA Today also said that there are indicators that Iraq's military has been dumping oil from southern wells, possibly planning to pour it into ditches and set it ablaze as a defensive measure.

0011 GMT - Trucks from the 603rd Aviation Support Battalion of the 4th Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, stationed in Kuwait, reportedly have lined up facing north into Iraq, but remained parked late March 17, an AP photographer reports.

0008 GMT - Senior commanders of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Camp Raider, including brigade commander Col. Will Grimsley, conducted a "map rehearsal" on March 17, AFP reports.

0004 GMT - U.S. soldiers dismantled parts of the headquarters of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, at Camp Raider the night of March 17, AP reports. The tents were stowed in trucks, which departed for an unknown location. Camp Raider is a forward Tactical Assembly Area near the Iraqi border.


posted by Thomas Ball 2:03 PM

 
Strategy Behind the Resolution Withdrawal

Bush, The UK and Spain have withdrawn their proposed resolution from Security Council consideration. They argued that since "one country in particular" had committed to vetoing any resolution, a vote would be "irrelevant".

True, the veto might have been assured, but the vote itself was anything but "irrelevant". In reality, the relevance of such a vote would have been intense and most likely quite destructive to the Bush-Axis' position.

Of course the Administration understands completely that the only thing irrelevant about the vote was France's Veto. If Bush thought they could somehow pull together a majority of the Council, veto or no veto, they would have gained a level of credibility unseen up till that point. Simultaneously, The Administration would have succeeded in isolating France in their staunch opposition. In the end, such an outcome would have offered Bush a global mandate. They would have argued endlessly that the majority of the Council supports their actions and that their axis cannot and should not be cowed by a "lone" opposition working in the minority.

However, such was apparently not the case. The Bush-Axis did not have the votes. They realized this and recognized the damage that would be done if a vote was allowed to take place, boldly illustrating to the world that the Axis is in the isolated minority and working against global opinion. Seriously, this is the same philosophy and strategy that the GOP enacted during the 2000 election. They knew that the outcome of the vote (recount) had the potential to undermine their agenda and therefore decided to prevent it from taking place. Thus, the Axis opted for the less destructive path by withdrawing the resolution.

Indeed, as with the presidential vote in 2000, halting this vote leaves a sense of ambiguity, with no "proof" that Bush lost, only deep speculation.

Nevertheless, the resolution withdrawal presented the Axis with other benefits besides simply saving face.

The Axis made a point of letting Russia, China and the remaining members of the Council off without being forced to cast a vote. They might have supported the resolution, they might have abstained or they might have vetoed. We'll never know. They singled out only one country to take the fall.

If the vote had commenced, the majority of the Council would have voted against the resolution and the Bush-Axis would have lost any remaining credibility. Even so, they would have continued with the invasion plans. Any residual political capital would have been destroyed and American domestic support would have tumbled. The Axis had no choice but to avoid the vote.

By doing so they have stripped France of the ability to grandstand in the final hours of U.N. debate. They relieved the pressure on Russia, China and the smaller members of the Council who were not looking forward to the upcoming vote. And, they have probably saved some money since the "bribes" they had offered these countries for their would-be votes have been rescinded

Bottom line: The last factor standing in the way of a Bush-Axis invasion has been removed. War can begin at any moment.

BREAKING: Regarding when the Invasion might start, a reliable source tells me that "dwelling on the phase of the moon -- which is nearly full anyway -- or even on darkness, might be misleading." In addition, "note that the beginning of attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraqi forces in Kuwait in 1991 preceded presidential announcements to the nation."

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 10:10 AM