The war is not going like the used car salesman in the White House told us it would go. It's beginning to look like our worst nightmare — the Iraqi's are actually fighting back. That wasn't in the script. How dare the Iraqis not surrender? When is the American public going to wake up and see that they've been had? This isn't Gulf War 1. This is a war where our people die too. It brings to mind the arrogance of the Union at the opening of the Civil War. Everyone went out to watch the Battle of Bull Run expecting to see the Rebells routed. Didn't work out that way. One shouldn't underestimate the enemy. The best site for what is happening is, by far, The Agonist.

Avoiding Big Pitched Battles, Iraqis Slow Advance

Iraqi forces apparently operating in small pockets or hit-and-run raids held up the U.S.-led advance into Iraq in at least four places on Sunday and captured their first U.S. prisoners on the fourth day of the war. (...)

In Kuwait, former oil minister Ali al-Baghli, a Shi'ite, said he suspected the time taken to capture Umm Qasr might undermine any faith ordinary Iraqis had that the Americans had the ability to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"We are astonished that there is still resistance in Umm Qasr after all this time. It is a very small place.

"If it takes them this long to capture Umm Qasr, how long will it take to capture Tikrit or Baghdad?
[more]

  thanks to American Samizdat

How a walkover turned into a three-day battle

THE skies over Umm Qasr burned orange last night as the allies brought in tanks, aircraft and heavy artillery in an attempt to bring to an end a three-day siege.

The scale of the resistance met by allied forces in Iraq’s only deep-water port has stunned coalition forces.
[more]

  thanks to The Agonist

Doubts and Questions
Slow Aid and Other Concerns Fuel Iraqi Discontent Toward United States

They were unforgettable images: Residents of this southern Iraqi town openly welcoming coalition forces. They danced in the streets as a picture of Saddam Hussein was torn down.

That was yesterday.

Traveling unescorted into Safwan today, I got a far different picture. Rather than affection and appreciation, I saw a lot of hostility toward the coalition forces, the United States and President Bush.
[more]

  thanks to follow me here...

Bitter Rice
by Uri Avnery

Beware of the Shiites. The troubles of the occupation will start after the fighting is over. Here is a personal story and its lessons:

On the forth day of the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon, I crossed the border at a lone spot near Metulla and looked for the front, which had already reached the outskirts of Sidon. I was driving my private car, accompanied only by a woman photographer. We passed a dozen Shiite villages and were received everywhere with great joy. We extracted ourselves only with great difficulty from hundreds of villagers, each one insisting that we have coffee at their home. On the previous days, they had showered the soldiers with rice.

A few months later I joined an army convoy going in the opposite direction, from Sidon to Metulla. The soldiers were now wearing bulletproof vests and helmets, many were on the verge of panic.

What had happened? The Shiites received the Israeli soldiers as liberators. When they realized that they had come to stay as occupiers, they started to kill them.
[more]

What 'coalition'?

Given how the Unilateral States of America just flushed the United Nations into the East River, it is interesting to see just who has ''got our back.'' When you look at the list, you realize that the actual thing that most of the ''coalition of the willing'' actually said to Bush was, ''You want to assassinate Saddam? Cool, I'm down with that. You got it. Now, I can't exactly be there with you right now, you know what I mean bro, right? You know how it is. My treasury is bankrupt, my people are starving, and I got some rebels to repress. But, hey, you go ahead and take out Saddam. And remember bro, no matter what happens, I got yo' back. Peace.''
[more]

Baghdad Civilians will Fight Invaders
Editor's Note: This is the nightmare scenario.  A city as populous as Baghdad or Tikrit can do terrible damage to an invading army if they engage that army in urban combat.  Likewise, an invading army will be required to obliterate buildings and neighborhoods to root out the attackers.  These are the seeds of Stalingrad. - wrp

  thanks to follow me here...

US braces for urban warfare pains

Since the main goal of the US war on Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein's government, it will be different from the 1991 Gulf War, which was aimed at liberating Kuwait. The whole world is waiting to see how the US will use its high-tech arms and war strategies to complete its invasion.

Judging from the strategic approach of both sides, the most crucial point to winning this war seems to be the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, located in the geographic center of the nation.

Urban warfare will therefore become an important factor in deciding the war. The US is certain to direct its main war effort toward Bagdad, while Iraq will deploy its elite Republican Guard in urban Bagdad and in the areas surrounding the city in the hope of fighting a Stalingrad-like defensive urban war.

The US is fully confident that a direct strike on Bagdad will lead to a quick end to the war, hoping that high-tech precision arms and superior fire power will overcome the nightmare of urban warfare and at the same time set a new standard for urban warfare.
[more]

  thanks to The Agonist