News – Battle of Baghdad Nears?

It seems that the ‘Moment of truth’ could be near. Though I would also term it the darkest hour, as it will involve the most enemy contact and fighting. According to sources, US troops are about 20 miles from Baghdad to the southwest and 25 miles away to the southeast. The only factor is when the go signal is given. Could be this week or the next. Or they could wait for more reinforcements. Experts, ever a source for speculation, average the time to take Baghdad at four to eight weeks. Personally, I would expect there to always be pockets of resistance in Baghdad.

Reuters points out that many seem to believe that this action will increase terrorism, not reduce it as Bush might think. One interesting note is that there are those from other Arab nations in the area whoa re coming to Iraq to fight against the US invasion. Even if it were just hundreds, rather than so stated thousands, in what past war have citizens of neighboring nations volunteered to come and fight against a liberation force? As far as I know, never. It is significant.

And it will continue to grow as more incidents like this pop up. An Iraqi hospital, witnesses claim, was struck by a US air raid(Second Resource). Also, children killed, supposedly as a result of a land and air raid near the city of Babylon.

The international press watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres is investigating the bombing of Iraqi state TV, which could be a breach of International Law. A spokesman stated the reasoning that a media outlet cannot be a military target under International Law. All equipment and installations are civilian property, subject to protection by the Geneva Conventions. Personally, I’ve been privately wondering if this was the case, though I was tempering that with the idea that perhaps a state run TV station might be different. If this pans out it could be a serious blow as the intent to bomb Iraqi TV is pretty much splashed across most forms of media.

Blair claims a belief that Saddam will seek to destroy holy sites in Iraq with the intent to blame coalition forces for the damage. Personally, I’m hands off on this simply because it’s a matter of he said, she said. Personally, I do think Saddam might do that, with just that intent. But as well, I don’t put it past world leaders using such a declaration for cover from accidents. My trust for most world leaders is pretty low right now. Interestingly, Jack Straw has also made a pretty firm statement that the UK will have no part in military action against Iran or Syria. The article suggests this is to clear things up before an upcoming EU meeting tomorrow and in consideration of Iran’s place in the US made Axis of Evil as well as Rumsfeld’s hard words for Syria on suspected arms dealing with Iraq. Personally, I think it was a good move.

Slate comes through with an informative, yet mildly disturbing look at the fascination with Prisoners of War and how things have changed for them since times long past. Robert Wright delves into an interesting musing. Considering the vast underestimation of Iraqi resistance to be expected, as well as the jubilation level of Iraqis to be liberated, can we trust that the post-war plan made by these same men will work smoothly? A valid argument, considering that it seems these men have little practical knowledge on Arab motivation and disposition. Will their domino theory for the Arab world succeed, fail or go terribly wrong?

Though I don’t agree with everything said in this article by Gideon Rose, there are some very poignant points made about Bush’s all or nothing strategy in politics. the You’re With Us or Against Us statement makes for a valiant looking emotional appeal, but the all or nothing stance leaves you no wiggle room if things go bad and that is a heavy possibility. Unfortunate that Mr. Bush hasn’t seen that.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that American companies are mum on the war largely because in an international marketplace, obvious bias to one nation can hurt sales overseas. When you run an international company, it is only good business sense to remain silent. In public at least.

Harlan Ullman, ‘Mr Shock and Awe”, who more or less write the book on the experimental strategy, says the Pentagon used it wrong. Looking at the article and what he says might have been involved in a real campaign to use it, I’d have to agree. The points of effect listed are some truly impressive gains to make in the first day. That would have been shocking, indeed. So I’d wager that, yes, what the Pentagon is field testing is a poor facsimile. What Harlan notes may well have worked.

Fred Kaplan sets it straight on Iraqi tactics. They aren’t terrorism, but can be considered violations of International Law when it comes to the ‘rules of war’. Then why use an incorrect term. Kaplan has some suggested motivations. 1. The US never ratified the 1977 Protocol that made the mentioned acts a violation of International Law. Citing it now would be.. awkward. 2. Since some military officials have been making statements that note these acts as ‘surprising’, calling them terrorism covers that by making them ‘unforeseeable’. 3. To cozy this all in under the global fight against terrorism. Not too upright and noble, that.

Lastly, the papers. International Papers highlights dissent against US invasion by Indian and Pakistani papers. You see, they can agree on something. Local papers explore the last push to Baghdad and highlight the split in how things are viewed.

But today is not all about bad news. There is a ray of light amid the clouds. Private First Class Jessica Lynch, 19, from Palestine, West Virginia was rescued in a midnight raid after ten days of captivity.