Saddam's bungled strategy

In what figures to be the biggest hindsight howlfest yet, the NY Times has broken a story this morning about the last days of the Butcher, detailing all the blunders that led to America capturing Baghdad and tearing down the statue.

Reporter Michael Gordon's story drops its share of cluster bombs in describing the run-up to invasion and subsequent actions of the regime, some of them pretty fantastical. Here are the ones that seem to jump out:

1. Saddam knew he didn't have any WMD, and told his top generals in December 2002.

2. Saddam didn't believe the Americans would come all the way to Baghdad.

3. Saddam believed the greatest threat was from an internal uprising, which hamperred the command and control of his conventional military forces.

4. Saddam spun up the Fedayeen as his special protectorate and dispersed them throughout the country as the American divisions rolled north. Their continued fighting after Baghdad fell was their own choice, not a plan.

5. Saddam ordered unfettered access to Hans Blix's UNMOVIC inspectors, but at the same time ordered that all dual-use and remnant WMD equipment be removed. This accounts for the satellite activity Colin Powell presented to the UN Security Council in February.

There you have it. Other than tossing some red meat to the democrats, this report seems designed to address loose ends and conspiracies. Here's how I see it (italics indicate paraphrasing of points):

1. Saddam didn't have WMD. From his own lips. However, he was busy trying to clean up his former activities in that area.. This could explain all the equipment and movement around the known WMD facilities observed on satellite by US intelligence, including the trucks heading across the Syrian border or flights to Damascus. This was similar to findings by the ISG in that Saddam would reconstitute if given the chance.

2. Saddam didn't plan the insurgency, it just happened. Well, that goes against this, and this, and maybe this.

3. Saddam never believed America would push all the way to Baghdad, which explains why our forces were so easily able to push to Baghdad. Due to suspicion of a simultaneous coup amongst his generals and regular army, he kept them in the dark and depended instead on the Fedayeen. This is the most intriguing of them all. EVERYBODY on the planet knew we were going to Baghdad. Little children on remote islands of the south pacific knew. People on the north pole knew. And Saddam didn't?

Sure, he's capable of making a strategic blunder. But it's almost as if he thought we were effectively blackmailed somehow.

Interesting to note that while Stephen Hayes is snooping around looking for documents that Negroponte won't release, the Times article states:

In addition, more than 600 captured Iraqi documents were reviewed.

Surely Mr. Hayes will pose the question of how such a report could be accurately completed without exploiting the other million documents yet to be reviewed.

Meanwhile, Saddam's trial resumed again today. The dictator was reportedly in good spirits:

"The president is in high spirits because he's convinced of his innocence and of the illegitimacy of the tribunal," Dulaimi said.

"He's not worried" by the outcome of the trial, Dulaimi added.

THE GOLDEN SHRINE STRATEGY CONTINUES 3/12/06

Another massive bomb blew up in a Shia area, this time in the Sadr City section of Baghdad. Listen to what a local Shia had to say about the perpetrators:

"We accuse Zarqawi, the occupation and the Baathist Saddamists," Araji said. He was referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni insurgent group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and to die-hard members of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baath political party. "They have a big role in killing the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq."

So, the guy blames three parties--Zarqawi, Ba'athist Saddamists, and us. Let's see, the Anbar tribals recently claimed they chased Z-man into the hills. We didn't set off the bombs. That leaves the Ba'athist Saddamites.

Surely tomorrow we'll hear the Sunnis and US pundits blame Iran. But why would Ahmadinejad attack a Shia slum?

3/13/06

More evidence of Ba'ath party influence on terrorism, this coming from Iraq's President Talabani:

"The terrorists, infidels and Saddam Hussein's followers are seeking to spread the spirit of separation and exploiting gaps left by any delay in the political process," President Jalal Talabani said in a statement.

Iraqi leaders are no longer interested in ignoring the Saddamist threat by blaming everything on Zarqawi.

These attacks heighten the danger of a civil war, echoed by our own US Ambassador:

Officials, including the U.S. ambassador, have warned that another attack like the Samarra mosque bombing could spark all-out sectarian conflict in the bitterly divided country

Several events of note will occur this week. On Wednesday the Saddam trial will resume, in which the man himself is scheduled to testify along with half-wit brother Barzan al-Tikriti.

Meanwhile, President Bush is expected to talk more about Iraq this week, promising an even deeper insight into why it matters.

“Amid the daily news of car bombs and kidnappings and brutal killings, I can understand why many of our fellow citizens are now wondering if the entire mission was worth it,” Mr Bush said on Saturday, in a preview of his remarks. “I strongly believe our country is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power.”

That from his Saturday address. But if that's the 'deeper insight' it ain't gonna work. That message is the same one he's been providing all along.

Iraq is currently at a crossroads. Hopefully the president can provide more substance to help crystalize the enemy and motivate our forces to defeat them. More importantly, he needs to motivate America.

BOMB, BOMB, BOMB…BOMB BOMB IRAN 3/13/06

As promised, President Bush hit the circuit today to talk about Iraq. The president’s “specifics” mentioned earlier amounted to tying Iran to some of the bombs used in IED attacks, presumably from the Shia side. I didn't realize they were still attacking us.

He failed to hammer the Saddamists, who are working alongside AQ to wreak most of the havoc pushing towards civil war. Perhaps his mentioning Iran was not an overt attempt to obfuscate the problem, though. In Yossef Bodansky’s book “the Secret History of the Iraq War” he mentions in detail the numerous meetings and, for a lack of a better term, "Memoranda of Understanding” between Syria, Iraq and Iran prior to the war. Although strange bedfellows, Bodansky claims they were cooperating with each other in the mutual interest of keeping the US out of the ME. Enemy of my enemy stuff. So, it’s quite possible the Syrians agreed to accept some of the WMD or WMD equipment, and it's quite possible Iran agreed to supply some weapons or ammo to help as the war progressed.

On a side note, it’s interesting to observe how the big three news outfits on Brietbart handled the story. Both Reuters and AFP headlined their stories with the Iran connection, however AP completely ignored the mention.

APOLOGIES? 3/15/06

Marie over at Mariestwocents has
an interesting post about Bill O'Reilly. Seems the lovable bloviator had a recent "talking points memo" about the Times' article on the Joint Forces report. His talking point was pretty simple--if we're to believe the report then we also must believe Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD, too. If his own generals thought so, how can we accuse Bush for lying? O'Reilly believes all those who've accused Bush of lying should now apologize.

Personally, I'm yet to be convinced the Saddam generals story is true, but O'Reilly's logic is pretty clever, nonetheless.