Sabtu, 30 Oktober 2004

Fallujah


Readers may wish to go to The
Adventures of Chester
, authored by a Marine veteran of Iraq. He believes the
enemy in that town is led by Abu Musab Zarqawi and sketches out the enemy order
of battle, which could be from 1 to 8 thousand men.



What is the troop strength of the insurgents in Fallujah? Estimates range
from 1000-8000. Does Zarqawi remain in Fallujah? I bet that he is there. After
spending months -- actually a year or more -- building a base of support
there, it is unlikely that he could replicate anywhere else the command and
control that he has built for himself in Fallujah. Plus, his departure would
be very demoralizing to those who remain there (though of course, they may not
know his whereabouts themselves). Overall, hard to tell how many bad guys are
in Fallujah, but the good news is that the place has been surrounded and
cordoned off for a couple of weeks now, and it's a good guess that anyone left
inside is only there to fight. A cleaner, less confusing battlefield is good
for us and bad for them. Also, if Zarqawi hasn't left yet, he ain't getting
out now.



Chester points out that while Fallujah is an important objective, it's
seizure must be part of the entire reduction of the Al-Anbar insurgent
strongholds. Therefore Ramadi is likely to be reduced as well. For more on the
possible timings and directions of assault, go to his site.



The upcoming offensive is getting more and more press, more and more
frequently. My initial focus was on Fallujah, but now on second thought I
think it a certainty that Ramadi is going to be hit too. Look for 5th
Marines
to hit Ramadi, 1st
Marines
to assault Fallujah, and 7th
Marines
to continue guarding the Syrian border in the West, and possibly
act as an operational reserve. They've probably shifted a good bit of the
armor that is normally a part of 7th Marines (like 1st Tank Battalion) over to
either 1st or 5th. Bet on it.



1st Marines is a brigade-sized force of about 3 thousand men and the other
units are of the same size, all part of the First Marine Division. Chester's
exposition above reveals a great deal about the nature of the conflict the US is
facing in Iraq. The deployments suggest that Syria is the operational rear of
the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle, which is why 7th Marines has been
positioned to interdict the infiltration flow. The infiltration trickle finds
its way to various sumps, or collection areas, where they are concentrated,
tasked and launched out on attacks. Ramadi and Fallujah are probably typical of
these. As Chester pointed out, they serve as command and control and probably
training bases.


1st Marines will be supported by attachments, such as a logistics group and
both aerial and artillery fires. The Iraqi component may consist of a slightly
smaller force. The possible ground force deployed against Fallujah will be on
the order of 5,000 men of whom about 3 thousand will be American. A glance at a
large scale map
(courtesy of Global Security) will give the reader a feel for the terrain.


The enemy has attempted a spoiling attack on a convoy of Marines, possibly a
support unit, was hit as it made its way to Fallujah's outskirts today.
Eight Marines were killed and the Iraqi troops accompanying them returned fire
which may have killed 14 civilians in vehicles on the highway. The pre-battle
maneuver may have started in earnest.



On Saturday, insurgents fired mortars at Marine positions outside Fallujah.
U.S. troops responded with "the strongest artillery barrage in recent
weeks," according to Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert. Later in the
afternoon, a Marine Harrier jet bombed a guerrilla mortar position inside
Fallujah, then strafed it with machine-gun fire, Gilbert said. He had no
reports of insurgent casualties. Crowds of Iraqis peered skyward as a pair of
warplanes circled over the rebel-held city, where large explosions rumbled
Saturday afternoon. Insurgents fired rockets and mortars toward U.S. Marine
positions.



Fallujah watchers will have noticed that the Marines are closing out a last
round of negotiations for surrender while they have been progressively shutting
down insurgent checkpoints within the city by hitting them with smart munitions.
My own speculation is that the negotiations were launched, not in the
expectation of getting Zarqawi to lay down his arms, but in order to negotiate a
separate peace with the different  factions in town. The impending assault
has been used as a negotiating lever to create gaps in the enemy ranks. This
process is calculated to blind the enemy by shutting down his pickets and poison
his intelligence channels -- not to mention introducing mutual suspicion and
internecine fighting.


The main event next week will doubtless be the Presidential elections but for
Marines in Anbar, their minds may will be on matters closer at hand.

Jumat, 29 Oktober 2004

Osama Bin Laden's Surrender Proposal


Osama Bin Laden released a video whose transcript is given below.



You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another
conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you security
is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of their
security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why
we didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom don't
have dignified souls.like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you because
we are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the
freedom of our Muslim nation as you spill our security, we spill your
security.


I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the
events of Sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you,
and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to
repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses
incidents.


I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to
understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed
up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people
in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really
touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US
permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet.
In these hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but
it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard
determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed
towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and
destroy towers in the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing
our children and women.


We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to
the similarity of his regime and the regimes in our countries. Whish half of
them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents
and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn
and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared
during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were
impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries.
Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was
feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations
finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of
freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight
terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he
didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to
Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.


We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation
in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we
never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand
of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they
most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to
the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying
attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time
to execute the operation thank god.


Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your
security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has
automatically secured their security.



It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has
stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more
mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam
will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the
slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not
talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past
glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone.
Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically
asking for time out.


The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One
response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like
Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle
of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end;
which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can
choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and
Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to
recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his
fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are
but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as
he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.


Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

The 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Bunker


Reader N, who identifies himself as a retired EOD officer, amplifies his
earlier comments on the contents of the bunker filmed by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS.



Yes, it could have been RDX, HMX or any number of 1.1D explosives. It is
difficult to see as they were filming inside the bunker and were dependant on
the light coming through the door. I believe that the number 239 right next to
the 1.1D placard raises serious issues with the position stated by Mr. David
Kay. It could very well be that the Iraqi Army, largely trained in the old
days by the Brit's, utilized the UN system of identifying and storing
ordnance/explosives. The 239 number could have been placed on the drum by the
manufacturer as well. We know the French have supplied them with ordnance and
the French utilize the UN system! The UN number 239 is nitro starch, a rather
slow detonation speed of 16,000 fps. This makes it a good choice for blasting,
a filler for ordnance, or a booster for other slower explosive charges like
ANFO( Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil).


If they had these huge quantities of HMX and RDX, why does this clip from
channel 5 also show boosters and dynamite in the same bunker? These numbers
quoted by the IAEA for the HMX and RDX are so large you would have entire
bunkers filled with nothing but HMX and RDX.


If per the clip, it was dynamite (and not TNT or wrapped nitro starch as I
previously stated); I can't imagine why anyone would place dynamite with any
of your other explosives, especially not an expensive and IAEA monitored
explosive like RDX and HDX. Dynamite needs constant attention, especially in
hot climates. The nitroglycerin will leech out of the stick and form highly
dangerous crystals. Dynamite must be constantly rotated to keep it from
leeching. If I were an IAEA inspector, I wouldn't want to go into a bunker in
Iraq where I knew dynamite was stored with the HMX, if you know what I mean!
Leeching dynamite is a large enough problem in this country, but Iraq with the
heat and questionable maintenance issues?


Boosters, why would boosters be placed in the same bunker with HMX? HMX and
RDX certainly don't need boosters. Every time I wanted a boosting charge for
blasting I would have to violate the IAEA seal to get at the booster charges.
What was described as boosters on the film and what I saw was something that
one would utilize for blasting purposes. Boosters are placed inside something
like Ammonium Nitrate which detonates at 3,300 to 8,200 FPS (See the below
link) and is utilized for blasting. Boosters contain things like Pentolite
which detonates at 24,500fps. I think that what we may be looking at on that
channel 5 clip is a bunker filled with explosives that are most commonly
utilized for boosting other explosives for blasting purposes and/or just
straight explosives more commonly utilized for blasting or fillers for
ordnance.


It's one heck of a coincidence that the number 239 is right next to that
1.1D placard; 239 is the UN symbol for nitro starch; and this 1.1D placard 239
is shown in the clip in a bunker with other obvious booster charges!



His main points then are:



  • the material is visually ambiguous and identifying it as HDX is
    inconsistent with the labeling, at least in his opinion

  • the other material in bunker appears to be non-UN controlled explosives
    and he wonders why these are also behind UN seal


The gist of the argument against is whether an ambiguous substance found
together with ordinary explosive should be identified as HDX. The main arguments
for its identification as HDX is the presence of the UN seal and David Kay's
identification of the material as such. The presence of the UN seal, assuming it
is genuine is two-edged however,  considering the presence of ordinary
explosive behind it.



More from reader N, who was an EOD officer.


Additional information on the Channel 5 clip concerning the IAEA HMX
explosives. The number 239 next to the 1.1 D placard on the drums is very
difficult to explain away. Storing boosters (other explosives) with IAEA
monitored RDX and HMX behind sealed doors doesn't pass the common sense test.
Why would anyone place useable explosives (the boosters) behind a door that they
can't enter. They wouldn't do it. Explosive items like the boosters are highly
valued items in that part of the world. In the U. S. and the Western world one
might say just throw those other explosives in with the IAEA monitored RDX and
HMX, we don't really need them now. I don't see them mingling these explosives
which for all practicable purposes would be written off..


Concerning safety and storage compatibility, I just wonder if the IAEA might
not have dictated to the Iraqis that NO other explosive items be stored with the
RDX and HMX explosives. Compatibility and safety issues were huge problems for
our soldiers in Bosnia who were entering explosive bunkers where various
explosives can't be stored with other explosive items. A worst case example that
occurred in Bosnia was storing blasting caps (primary explosives for initiating
a charges) in the same vicinity as the detonating explosives (secondary
explosives). It is dangerous business entering into an ordnance bunker not
knowing what is contained in that bunker which raises another issue.


The IAEA must have a list of all ordnance contained within a IAEA monitored
explosive bunker! Explosive items have a shelf life and some need to be
destroyed as they become dangerous with age. Why would the IAEA seal off a
bunker that contains other explosive items not monitored by the IAEA and not be
knowledgeable of all the items in the bunker for safety purposes?

Are they RDX or HMX?


The substance in the bunker is
HMX
, at least according to David Kay. In an interview with CNN, Kay analyzes
the material seen in the video. The close up of the white powder stored in
barrels described by David Kay is in this still
from Fox News.



BROWN: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures,
have you explain to me what they are or are not, OK? First, I'll just call it
the seal and tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions
dump.


KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not
physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been
there, that's an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15
years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of
that shape.


BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been
under IAEA seal?


KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.


BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and
you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch
of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.


KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of
this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the
barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered form because you actually use it to shape
a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear
weapons.


And, particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still
photos, as the soldier dips into it that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of
anything else in al Qa Qaa that was in that form.


BROWN: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to
the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is
it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?


KAY: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one
seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others
there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.


There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me
the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken
but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to
provide security.


BROWN: That raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests
that maybe they just didn't know what they had.


KAY: I think quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to
the lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area but they
certainly knew they had explosives.


And to put this in context, I think it's important this loss of 360 tons
but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in
the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took
over the country.



The Belmont Club received an email from reader N, who says he is
a retired EOD officer. It is reproduced below.



As a retired Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer I have some problems
with the Channel 5 story. It appears to me that they are in a bunker filled
with blasting agents (slower detonation rates for moving rock, see link below
on detonation rates) . First we see boosters, (they would commonly be inserted
into a bag of ANFO(ammonium nitrate fuel oil) or nitro starch for blasting.
Then we see what is described as dynamite but is more likely TNT or wrapped
nitro starch (see GI story below) and lastly those big cardboard barrels which
appear to be a white powder. Note the number beside the 1.1D placard on the
barrel, it says 239. Now 239 may very well be the U. N. number system for
ammunition and explosives (see first link below). The U. S. does not utilize
the U. N. system nor does the former USSR or it's satellites. When I was in
Bosnia we put the Bosnians on the UN system to get some organization
established for safety purposes. Please note the first site below from
Australia and we can see they are most probably on the UN system: (239
NITROSTARCH, dry or wetted with less than 20% water, by mass). Common sense to
me would be that HMX, one of the most powerful and expensive explosives WOULD
NOT BE PACKAGED IN CARDBOARD BARRELS!



The much anticipated testimony from 3ID personnel that they moved explosives
from Al Qa Qaa does not clarify matters much. Fox
News
reports that:



WASHINGTON � A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from
his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material
from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's
regime fell in April 2003. Explosives were part of the load taken by the team,
but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for.


The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377
tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search)
said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion. Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita
acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not
yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's
disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.
"We've described what we know, and as we know more we'll describe
that," said DiRita.



The Washington
Post
has more:



Maj. Austin Pearson, speaking at a press conference at the Pentagon, said
his team removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords, and
white phosporous rounds on April 13, 2003 -- 10 days after U.S. forces first
reached the Qaqaa site. "I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the
locations we went into. I was not looking for that," Pearson said.


Di Rita sought to point to Pearson's comments as evidence that some RDX,
one of the high-energy explosives, might have been removed from the site. RDX
is also known as plastic explosive. But Di Rita acknowledged: "I can't
say RDX that was on the list of IAEA is what the major pulled out. ... We
believe that some of the things they were pulling out of there were RDX."



This does not bear directly on what was in the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video,
because we have no way of knowing whether Major Pearson is talking about the
same bunker. Here's the data so far.

























March 17, 2003 DOD overhead showing trucks loading material from the Al
Qa Qaa IAEA site
April 4, 2003 A 3ID searches the area, finds thousands of boxes
containing 3 vials of white powder and chemical warfare instructions.
April 10, 2003 An NBC news team embedded with 101st Airborne tours
through the area. Sees little.
April 13, 2003 Major Austin Pearson removes 250 tons of explosive from
the area. Sees no IAEA seal.
April 18, 2003 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS team shoots video showing a bunker with
what looks like an intact IAEA seal, plus video of carboard barrels with
small bags of material which David Kay identifies as RDX.



The unknowns are:



  1. What were in those cardboard barrels? How much HMX could have been in
    them?

  2. Did Pearson examine the same bunker the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS team videotaped?
    How did the seals get back on if so.

  3. What bunker was being unloaded in the DOD video? Was this the same bunker
    the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS team entered?


 

The Return of the RDX


A report by
ABC's
5 EyeWitness News, KSTP
has images of the Al Qa Qaa site showing bunkers
containing drums of explosive. KSTP says the images were taken on April 18,
2003 while a news unit was touring the area with members of the 101st Airborne. View the images
by following the link.



Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne
Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops
may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the
ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and
drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003. 
During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5
EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled
"explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the
bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords. ...


"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our
crew. There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags
of material men from the 101st couldn't identify,
but box after box was
clearly marked "explosive."


Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were
left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their
base. Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers
were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months together in
Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely. "At one point there was a
group of Iraqis driving around in a pick-up truck,"Staley said. "Three or four
guys we kept an eye on, worried they might come near us."


On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken
at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are
the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts
could not make that determination. The footage is now in the hands of security
experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question.



The images show wooden boxes, one of which is labeled "Contract No. 8702 Al
QaQaa State Establishment Latifiya I.K. Lot No 1 Net Wt 40 kg Case No. 3259". 
Inside each box are about 40 cylinderical packages each with a depression or
marking in the center of the long axis. The actual explosive is not visible
because of the packaging. (RDX in some forms may resemble a powder like
cornstarch) There is also an image of unmarked cardboard cylinders of unknown
size, because there is no object in the image to give it scale, marked "Explosiv
Explosive 1.1 D". However, judging from the downward angle of the photograph, which
looks to be taken with flash, the cardboard cylinders are about 3 feet tall or
smaller. Some of them have their covers prised open, despite testimony that the
bolts were cut by the 101st troopers on arrival, but this may be because they
were stockpiled in an open condition.


For an explanation of the "1.1 D" designation, we turn to the

US Army Corps of Engineers
definitions as they apply to RDX and HMX.



RDX: "Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, wetted, with not less than 15 percent
water by mass , 1.1D, UN0072, PGII


HMX: "Cyclotrimethylenetetranitramine, wetted, with not less than 15
percent water by mass, 1.1D, UN0226, PGII"



The

Captain's Quarters
points out that RDX and HMX would only be labeled 1.1D
if they contained at least 15% water.
Since cardboard cylinders or wooden
crates are hardly the place to store wetted substances, he believes that "1.1D"
designation refers to the plethora of dry munitions which are covered by that
designation -- precisely the kind of stuff the 101st AB troopers thought they
were looking at.



Specifically there are 79 other substances and types of explosive material
and supporting equipment that would get the 1.1 D label, including gunpowder,
flexible detonating cord, photo-flash bombs, mines, nitroglycerin, rocket
warheads, grenades, fuzes, torpedoes and charges. And few of them require any
liquid dilution.



The material in the cardboard cylinders could have been the RDX, but this is
at odds with the label and the lost amounts are inconsistent with the visible
quantity. However, there may have been storage area outside the field of view of
the camera. We should note that the door, according KSTP was still barred by an

IAEA seal
, whose closeups can be
seen
here
. The seal in question bears IAEA number 144322 and has been color-coded
purple.



"A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5
Eyewitness News that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors. "In Iraq
they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call,
dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."



Because a seal was present in the bunker visited by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, it
should have been one
of interest to the IAEA.  From the IAEA seal number, it should be a simple
database lookup to see what the bunker's recorded contents were according to the
UN. But why on earth should the IAEA put ordinary explosives under seal?
Why control ordinary military munitions? The detcord and fuses found in the bunker which the troopers joked about with the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reporters are not exactly the kind of stuff that makes up WMD raw materials. But we should recall that the
IAEA had not actually looked inside the bunkers and seen the actual RDX during its last mission in March, 2003 but had had simply relied upon the existence of the seals for verification.



Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the
International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and
RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another
inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under
seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not
verify that the RDX was still at the compound.



The DOD suggested that Al Qa Qaa may have been emptied of some munitions
prior to the war. It offers as proof

overhead imagery
taken two days after the last IAEA inspectors left Al Qa
Qaa showing a flatbed truck in front of a set of bunkers containing the HMX.



This picture shows two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al
Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex approximately 20 miles south of Baghdad, Iraq,
on March 17, 2003. It is not believed that all 56 bunkers contained High Melting
Explosive also known as HMX. A large, tractor-trailer (yellow arrow) is loaded
with white containers with a smaller truck parked behind it. The International
Atomic Energy Association inspectors identified bunkers in this complex as
containing High Melting Explosive. We believe members of the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited the Al Qa Qaa complex
on March 15, 2003, and withdrew its staff two days later on March 17. The Al Qa
Qaa Explosive Storage Complex was occupied by Iraqi forces, who fired on U.S.
forces when they entered on April 3, 2003.



The reader is invited to click on the

high-resolution version
of the DOD overhead image. The doors appear to be
open and a forklift seems visible at right angles to the flatbed. The upper
right corner of a stack of white boxes is still missing, presumably awaiting
another load from the forklift. The white boxes themselves appear to be about 1
cubic meter in size.  Recalling the

specific gravity of RDX is 1.7
and allowing for packaging, we are looking at
a load of about 20 to 30 tons in the 40 or so packages that would fit on the
flatbed. Recalling that a standard 40 foot container is about 13 meters in
length, it is obvious by scale comparison that the bunkers in question were not
very large -- about 20 x 30 x 5 meters in size. The usable storage volume of
that bunker would be about 600-900 cubic meters. Therefore, while it is possible
for about 350 tons of RDX to be lurking unremarked in the bunker outside the
field of view visited by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, it is not likely. So the
journalist's pictures are it or nothing. If the boxes in the videos are not identified as containers of dual-use or IAEA controlled explosives, and are in fact merely ordinary munitions behind UN seal it will be devastating for Baradei. That would be like discovering your wedding ring is costume jewelry.


The seals themselves are not very impressive and can be visually
counterfeited by any machine shop. Presumably, the IAEA could measure other
secret physical characteristics of the seal to determine whether it had been
tampered with. All that can be said is that 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS and 101st Airborne
soldiers opened a door that was apparently sealed by the IAEA and it contained
some ordinary explosive, visible in the video and described by the soldiers to the
newsmen, although it may have contained other things.


We are left with a some mysteries which may be solved in the next few days.
First, what were those "bags of material men from the 101st couldn't
identify"
? The description is unlikely to refer to the RDX. Three hundred
and fifty tons is a huge amount as already pointed out. The reader may judge for himself,  from these
KSTP images
especially
, how feasible it may have been to transport 350 tons from inside
a 101st Airborne perimeter, however loose it was. There is eyewitness evidence that a
group of Iraqis were driving around in a pickup truck but it would require
hundreds of pickup truck loads to move 350 tons. My own personal opinion is that
it would have been extremely unlikely. We are still not clear on where the 3ID
team concentrated its search of April 3. It seems certain that they did not
enter the bunker in question as they would not have replaced the seals, fake or
not. They would have left it open or secured with another type of lock. But that
is nothing as to the mystery of why, if the DOD imagery shows a forklift loading
from an open bunker, the seals should have replaced themselves by the time the
101st got there.


A variety of scenarios are possible from this data. First, 350 tons of RDX
were in the warehouse when 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS visited but no one recognized it and
it was subsequently stolen, either carried off on foot by looters or loaded into
dozens of flatbeds with no one the wiser. The second is that it was taken in the
time between the departure of the IAEA staff and the arrival of US forces. The
third was that it was already gone behind the flimsy seal even during the last UN
inspection.

Rabu, 27 Oktober 2004

The Noonday Train


Twenty years of European and UN Middle Eastern policy may be lying on the
deathbed with Arafat. That they had to fly in doctors to treat him in a
makeshift clinic underscores how, after 50 years of UN relief and billions in
European investment, there are no Palestinian institutions. Not even decent
hospitals for its supreme leader. The downside of the Arab Way of War -- the
Intifada in this case -- is that the concept of victory through denial is
inherently pyrrhic.  'We burned our village in order to keep it from
falling into enemy hands' is like lighting a match to examine the gas tank; it
works but misses the point.


Palestine was cursed by the example of Algeria, which after evicting the
French, could spend the next three decades cleansing itself of the poisons of
terrorism. Arafat forgot that the Jews, unlike the French in Algeria, were as
much a part of region as themselves. In place of protracted war, which at all
events ends, Arafat embarked upon an eternal war with the eternal Jew. He would
enter Algeria's tunnel of terror with no light at the end of it.


The Intifada may have hurt Israel, but it consumed Palestine, leaving it with
only the counterfeit of a functioning society. Terrorism leaves nothing but ash.
And when Arafat dies, as all men must, his legacy, no less than his corpse will
be contested by a swarm of pretenders -- a power struggle, of possibly
surpassing savagery among men nurtured -- at the European taxpayer's dime -- for
their skill at terror. The

Guardian
has a piece, really an advance obituary, describing how only
America, Israel and England refused to invest in Arafat. They mean it as
reproof, unaware even of its irony.



If Mr Arafat is unable to continue as leader of the Palestinians, that too
will change the politics of the region. The US and Israel, and latterly
Britain, have refused to work with him, claiming he is unreliable and
untrustworthy.


His successor could come from one of the new generation of politicians,
either the younger Palestinians who came to the West Bank and Gaza with him
from exile in Tunis 10 years ago, or the generation that was brought up in the
West Bank and Gaza and led the first intifada in 1987 and participated or led
the second one that began in September 2000.  ... But the succession
might not be that simple. Groups outside Mr Arafat's Fatah organisation might
want a claim on leadership, not least the Islamist organisation Hamas that
dominates life in Gaza.



European policymakers may have realized, in some dim corner of their minds,
that this day would come; but continued to invest in the frail man who now lies
at death's threshold. Now the hour has come and the devil is at the door. Not
just for Arafat, but for a whole failed policy. The

Kansas City Star
reports:



The sudden decline in Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's health Wednesday
night has widened a power vacuum that has already grown into a chasm in the
Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, and opens the real possibility of chaos
and civil war in one of the world's most dangerous regions. ...


Even before the announcement of the Arafat's rapid decline Wednesday
evening, factional fighting had left several cities in the Israeli-occupied
Palestinian territories under the control of warring factions in the last
year. In Jenin, a young firebrand named Zakaria Zubeidi has run the city for
months, and has driven out other Palestinian officials.


In other cities, mayors have been run out of town, while other leaders have
been killed by militants who are forging links with criminal gangs. There are
few functioning municipal authorities and few signs of police authority. ...


While diplomats tend to discuss possible successors among the polished,
urbane Palestinian political class, any realistic effort to understand what's
next will have to take into account the Palestinian street, which is where the
real power resides. And there is little indication thus far that any single
leader can stem the political erosion Arafat and his supporters are already
facing.



Liberal circles have derided the neoconservative idea of bringing democratic
institutions to the Middle East as a pipe dream.

Edward Said
magisterially warned:



I wish I could say that general understanding of the Middle East, the Arabs
and Islam in the United States has improved somewhat, but alas, it really
hasn't. For all kinds of reasons, the situation in Europe seems to be
considerably better. In the US, the hardening of attitudes, the tightening of
the grip of demeaning generalization and triumphalist clich�, the dominance of
crude power allied with simplistic contempt for dissenters and "others" has
found a fitting correlative in the looting and destruction of Iraq's libraries
and museums. What our leaders and their intellectual lackeys seem incapable of
understanding is that history cannot be swept clean like a blackboard, clean
so that "we" might inscribe our own future there and impose our own forms of
life for these lesser people to follow. It is quite common to hear high
officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of changing the map of the Middle
East, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many
peanuts in a jar.



And heeding this advice, the Old Continent handed Arafat all the chalk he
wanted to write what he wist. It would be nice if Europe were forced to live out
the consequences of their policy -- to wed their superior vision to Arafat's
perishable breath. But don't bet on it.

The RDX Problem Resolves Itself


A little more data for the RDX pot. Whatever the MSNBC embeds saw with the
101st, the 3ID which preceded them saw more. It searched Al Qa Qaa and found
suspicious material 
Instapundit
 finds this reference in

CBS
via the

Captain's Quarters
.



April 4, 2003. CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin
reports that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction continues at sites where
the U.S. thought chemicals weapons might be hidden. "And although there are no
reports of actual weapons being found, there are constant finds of suspicious
material," Martin said. "It obviously will take laboratory testing to find out
exactly what that powder is." U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white
powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical
warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official
familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be
explosives. Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry
Division, said the materials were found Friday at the Latifiyah industrial
complex just south of Baghdad.


... The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy
Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N.
inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as
Feb. 18. The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah
Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa.  The senior U.S.
official, based in Washington and speaking on condition of anonymity, said the
material was under further study. The site is enormous and U.S. troops are
still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official
said. "Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but
we're still going through the place," the official said. Peabody said troops
found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder,
together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in
chemical warfare.



The contemporaneous CBS report, written before anyone knew al Qa Qaa would be
a big deal, establishes two important things. The first is that 3ID knew it was
looking through an IAEA inspection site. The second was that the site had shown
unmistakable signs of tampering before the arrival of US troops. "Peabody
said troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of
white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to
engage in chemical warfare." Now presumably those thousands of boxes were not
all packaged and labeled with chemical warfare instructions under IAEA
supervision, so the inescapable conclusion is that a fairly large and organized
type of activity had been under way in Al Qa Qaa for some time. It is important
to reiterate that these are contemporaneous CBS reports which were filed no with
foreknowledge of the political controversy to come.


Michael Totten wonders why "there is no mention of 380 tons of HDX and RDX".
Perhaps the reason the RDX isn't mentioned can be found via a link through

Josh Marshall
, quoting NBC's Jim Miklaszewski. (Hat tip reader

Trebbers
in Comments)



Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC
News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne
entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops
were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in
the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The
troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And
because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops
from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly
contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the
Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed
350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began,
the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was
still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect
the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.



Here we discover the rather important fact that the UN inspectors hadn't
actually seen the RDX in their final inspections. They just assumed it was there
because the seals were intact. So let's put it all together. The UN inspectors
conduct their final inspection before OIF without actually having seen the RDX.
The 3ID reach the site on April 4, 2003, know they are looking at an IAEA site
and find thousands of white boxes which they suspect may be chemical weapons.
The boxes are labeled with chemical warfare instructions. On April 10, the
Second Brigade of 101st Airborne arrives with press embeds. They look around but
press on with their main combat mission. From this the NYT comes to the
conclusion that the RDX was lost after the US assumed custody of the
site. It is worthwhile to reiterate the NYT's key assertions. In their article
of October 25, the

Times said
:



The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American
military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as
recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the
explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge
that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last
year.



It turned out that White House and Pentagon officials had acknowledged no
such thing. The next day, the

NYT
reported:




White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful
explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while
Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not
find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day
after Baghdad fell. But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday
that his troops had not searched the facility and had merely stopped there for
the night on their way to Baghdad. The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the
Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not
learn until this week that the site, known as Al Qaqaa, was considered highly
sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited there shortly before
the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a
decade of monitoring.



In the light of the unearthed contemporaneous CBS report, the NYT's use of an
interview with the Col. Anderson is totally worthless. They interviewed the
wrong unit commander. It was a 3ID outfit that searched the place with the
intent of discovering dangerous materials nearly six days before. The 101st had
no such mission. Moreover, the NYT's innuendo that "the huge facility, called Al
Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's
land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons
inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years ..." suggests a
well-manicured facility that had been run to seed by knuckle-dragging American
incompetence after faithful care by the IAEA. It totally ignores the disorderly
condition in which 3ID found it, where, if the NYT correspondents had been
present, they might have taken home their own boxes "with three vials of white
powder, together with documents in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in
chemical warfare" -- surely a sign it was untampered with, unless the NYT wishes
to assert the contrary and thereby destroy their own case.


Incidentally, the condition of Al Qa Qaa is yet more indirect proof of the
redeployment of war materiel which took place under the cover of UN obstruction,
most notably by barring 4ID from attacking south through Turkey into the Sunni
Triangle, which was the subject of Belmont Club's

War Plan Orange
.

Selasa, 26 Oktober 2004

The RDX Story Develops


It seems fair to say that
MSNBC is
not
saying that the missing RDX was already missing from al Qa Qaa when
their embedded reporters arrived in Baghdad with US troops. So MSNBC cannot
reasonably be used to support the contention the site had already been stripped
of RDX..



Army officials told NBC News on condition of anonymity that troops from the
Army�s 3rd Infantry did not arrive at Al-Qaqaa until April 4, finding "looters
everywhere" carrying what they could out on their backs. The troops searched
bunkers and found conventional weapons but no high explosives, the officials
said. Six days later, the 101st Airborne Division arrived. Neither group was
specifically searching for HMX or RDX, and the complex is so large � with more
than 1,000 buildings � that it is not clear that the troops even saw the
bunkers that might have held the explosives.



What the DOD is willing to say on the record is

this
:



McClellan said the Defense Department ordered an inquiry of the missing
weapons, directing Multinational Force Iraq and the Iraq Survey Group to come
up with a comprehensive assessment about what happened to them.


The Iraqi government reported an estimated 350 tons of missing explosives
Oct. 10 to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. monitoring group
that last inventoried the facility in January 2003.


During that visit, the U.N. inspectors counted the munitions and equipment
and tagged them with IAEA seals that indicate they are "dual use," or have
conventional-weapons applications. These munitions were generally permitted to
remain in Iraq. In contrast, "single use" munitions with nuclear applications
were destroyed or rendered harmless. The IAEA returned to the site two months
later, in March 2003, and confirmed the equipment it had tagged was still
there.


However, coalition forces found no evidence of the weapons in question when
they first arrived at the sprawling Al-Quaqaa facility, 30 miles south of
Baghdad, about April 10, 2003, according to a defense official. The troops
searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings, finding some weapons and explosive
material, but nothing close to the quantity reported missing by the Iraqi
government, and none with IAEA seals, he said.


In an Oct. 10, 2004, letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Mohammed J. Abbas, general director of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and
Technology's Planning and Following Up Directorate, reported that 195 tons of
high-melting explosive, 141 tons of rapid-detonating explosive, and 6 tons of
pentaerythrite tetranitrate, another type of explosive commonly known as PETN,
"registered under the IAEA custody were lost" after April 9, 2003.


Abbas blamed the loss on "the theft and looting of the governmental
installations due to lack of security."


However, the defense official said there's no verification that looting
ever occurred at the site. Citing lack of accountability over the materials
between the March IAEA visit and April 10, he said it's possible that regime
loyalists or other groups emptied the facility before coalition forces arrived
in Baghdad.



The DOD is asserting that it did not find the 350 odd tons of explosive
referred to in the IAEA report in its search of 32 bunkers and 87 buildings. Two
things stand out in this account. First, the search was probably not
comprehensive. If one accepts the estimate of 1,000 buildings on the site, then
a visit to 120 structures does not constitute an exhaustive survey. Second, the
missing material was a dual-use type of explosive whose possession had been
permitted to Saddam. The UN under its terms of inspection, could have destroyed
the RDX in the course of its inspection, but it judged that course of action to
be improper. It may have occurred to Baradei in January 2003 that the impending
war would necessarily break the chain of custody between the Saddam regime and
the arriving US forces. But it was his judgement that the RDX did not, under his
terms of reference, have to be destroyed, since it had potential civilian
applications.


None of this establishes when the material was spirited away. There are three
possibilities. First, the material disappeared before 3ID reached Baghdad;
second, it vanished between the arrival of 3ID and 101st Airborne; third, it
vanished afterward. Since an inquiry is under way, it is reasonable to say that
no one knows for sure. The New York Times strongly implied, however, that it
vanished afterward. In their article of October 25, the

Times said
:



The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American
military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as
recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the
explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge
that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion
last year.



The

New York Times
later allowed that Pentagon officials said, or now said that
the explosives may have gone missing before US troops reached it, but then imply
this assertion is contradicted by the cursory inspection that followed.



White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful
explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while
Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not
find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day
after Baghdad fell. But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday
that his troops had not searched the facility and had merely stopped there for
the night on their way to Baghdad.


The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's
101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site,
known as Al Qaqaa, was considered highly sensitive, or that international
inspectors had visited there shortly before the war began in 2003 to inspect
explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.



But a moment's reflection will show this account is essentially the same as
MSNBC's. For the NYT assertion that the explosives vanished sometime after
US custody to be true, the RDX would necessarily have to be present when 3ID and
101st got there. But if, as MSNBC emphasizes, we don't know what there was 
-- didn't know they were not there -- then necessarily we don't know they were
there. A null value cannot be true or false as one prefers. It is null. Nor
should the menace of the material suddenly transform itself arbitrarily. The
IAEA did not think them particularly dangerous in the hands of Saddam, who is
after all, only going on trial for mass murder. Physically they are what they
have always been but semantically they have been transmogrified.


The jury is still formally out on when the material actually vanished. IEDs
and bombs are the most common cause of death or injury to American soldiers in
Iraq. It is theoretically possible for soldiers and marines not to care about
explosives reaching the hands of the enemy. But is not very probable.Considering
the bulk of the explosive, its value and the natural human tendency to steal
things before, rather than after you lose easy access to it (remember the
currently sainted "resistants" were once the equally sainted Ba'athist high
officials who had the keys to the explosives dump) it seems overwhelmingly
probable the material was taken before, rather than after US custody.

The RDX, Part 2


Michael Totten at Instapundit
notes that the 3ID may have arrived at al Qa Qaa  some time for the 101st
Airborne and the NBC embeds.



J. TREVINO AT RED STATE points out that NBC�s Milkaszewski story doesn�t
quite debunk the New York Times article that says the Iraqi explosives at al
Qa Qaa were lost under American watch. NBC reports that when the 101st
Airborne arrived at the site the explosives were already gone. But the Third
Infantry Division was there a week earlier.


There are still at least two things we don�t know.


Was the Third Infantry Division the first to arrive at the site? If so,
what did they find?



Good questions. However, it is important to understand the RDX issue not as a
single event but in the context of the total forces available to CENTCOM at the
time and what it was trying to achieve. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the
missing RDX was only part of a much larger redeployment of military assets by
the dying Ba'ath regime wrapped in the center of a large conventional war.


When 3ID and 101st Airborne first entered Baghdad they were still in active
combat when maintaining unit integrity and concentration of forces was
important. A review of contemporaneous news articles will show that everyone in
the media, and not a few military analysts, believed Baghdad would be defended
like Stalingrad. It was a shock to see it fall so quickly though not without a
few sharp battles. Very few commanders, I think, would have detached little
penny packets of men to stand guard over installations in that situation. Too
much potential for defeat in detail and friendly fire accidents, not to mention
the fact that it was unclear, at that stage, whether 3ID would have to reduce
the Sunni towns further north.


The balance of probability is that the RDX, if it was not already missing
before the OIF, disappeared in the early days when conditions were in flux. It
was then that the absence of 4ID -- the most modern unit of the day -- must have
been most keenly felt. That was when 18,000 men with the latest comms could have
made a difference. Could have, because there is no guarantee that all the depots
could have been secured even with 4ID available, though its presence could only
have helped.


I have repeatedly emphasized the absence of the 4ID not to
"absolve" the Administration but because it is the clearest effect of
the successful delaying action achieved by the deadlock in the Security Council,
whose most signal manifestation was the denial by Turkey of passage to nearly
half of the US mechanized infantry strength. But it is not the most insidious
aspect of it. Oil-For-Food, the removal of unknown but vast quantities of
material to Syria, the mass release of criminals, etc. were not incidental
events but related phenomena, at least in my opinion, and all of a piece.
Whatever went over the border to Syria, as the Duelfer report confirms, is
unlikely to be Hostess Twinkie Pies. And it did not go over by accident.


Instapundit quoted me as saying that the missing RDX in this context had the
relevance of a toothache in a man suffering from AIDS and Ebola. By that I meant
that the narrow focus of the subject was like seizing upon the tiger's whisker
while ignoring the tiger himself. The point of discovering the whisker is
understanding what that whisker is attached to.


Update


Reader dan
from cos
says in the Comments section:



"While I was not on the ground and it has been 18 months since the
advance, I seem to remember there was a thorough and almost frantic search for
weapons of mass destruction as our foces plowed through the areas. They were
also quickly followed by special teams whose job it was to find WMDs and
secure them. I find it highly improbable that weapons stores with IAEA seals
on them would be allowed to go unsecured."



The NRO
has an email from a soldier who had knowledge of the al Qa Qaa search and
reiterates that the RDX was already gone when the teams first arrived.



I was serving as a [identifying information removed by the Kerry Spot]
staff member during the time in question. The Commander on the site had
complete real time intelligence on what to expect and possibly find at the Al-QaQaa
depot. The ordinance in question was not found when teams were sent in to
inspect and secure the area. When this information was relayed, Operational
plans were adjusted and the unit moved forward. Had the ordinance in question
been discovered, a security team would have been left in place.



The accusation that America failed in its custodial duties has now
been categorically denied, at least by some quarters. What plausibly remains to
the critics is the charge that America "could have done more" to reach
explosives magazines, which brings us right back to the missing 4ID and the
bitter irony that the agency which did the most to prevent this powerful unit
from reaching the scene, namely the UN, should now extend the finger of
accusation for the absence which they caused. Once again: follow the whisker.

Senin, 25 Oktober 2004

That Missing RDX




NBC reporters
embedded with the 101st Airborne are questioning the New York
Times report which suggests that US custodial incompetence was responsible for
the loss of RDX explosive.



NBC News: Miklaszewski: �April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC
News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they
temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But
these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful
conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S.
troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or
RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be
used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim
government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives
were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there
were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles,
weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in
Iraq.� (NBC�s �Nightly News,� 10/25/04)



The withdrawal of enemy resources into safe havens was the subject of Belmont
Club's

War Plan Orange
. In this context, the loss of 380 tons of RDX is similar to
worrying about a toothache after being diagnosed with AIDS and Ebola. Some
600,000 tons of explosive are said to have been dispersed throughout Iraq prior
to the conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The loss of the RDX is serious,
but in the overall scheme of things, one of the least worries. But it provides
indirect confirmation of the preemptive dispersal of war materiel by the Saddam
regime while the US was trying to negotiate UN permission to topple him for six
months, compounded by Turkey's refusal to allow the 4ID to attack south into the
Sunni Triangle.


The account above shows that the RDX explosive was already gone by the
time US forces arrived. Although one may retrospectively find some fault with
OIF order of battle, most of the damage had already been inflicted by the
dilatory tactics of America's allies which allowed Saddam the time and space
-- nearly half a year and undisturbed access to Syria -- necessary to prepare
his resistance, transfer money abroad and disperse explosives (as confirmed
first hand by reporters).  Although it is both desirable and
necessary to criticize the mistakes attendant to OIF, much of the really
"criminal" neglect may be laid on the diplomatic failure which gave the wily
enemy this invaluable opportunity. The price of passing the "Global Test" was
very high; and having been gypped once, there are some who are still eager to be taken
to the cleaners again.

War Plan Orange


In retrospect Saddam's plan to defend Iraq may bear a resemblance to War
Plan Orange's
retreat into Bataan. Since reinforcements could not come to
the aid of US divisions in the Philippine Islands in time to repel an
anticipated Japanese invasion, the plan called for the abandonment of the
capital and a concentration of forces and supplies into the Bataan peninsula,
where MacArthur's forces could hope to hold out until relief eventually arrived.
MacArthur attempted to change the plan at the last moment, attempting to fight
near the beaches and was belatedly forced readopt the strategy of withdrawing
into Bataan, a mistake which cost him thousands of tons in supplies. Still, by
skillful rearguard actions at the Agno and Pampanga Rivers, MacArthur slipped
80,000 men into his defensive redoubt and held out for four months. Three years
later, Tomoyuki Yamashita, facing the same strategic problem against superior
forces, moved his 272,000 troops into the mountainous spine of Luzon where he
held out for a little over eight months.


Faced with an invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam carried out his own sideslip
maneuver into a redoubt. The Duelfer
report
notes that Saddam may have begun moving his WMD materials into Syria
as the US vainly attempted to get UN authorization to topple his regime.



Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq
to Syria before the March 2003 war. "A lot of materials left Iraq and
went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic
across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including
people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related
materials, I cannot say."



At least some of that was the key munition of modern terrorist warfare -- money



Syria has acknowledged that its banks have held funds for Saddam Hussein's
regime in Iraq, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news
service. But the regime of President Bashar Assad disputes U.S. officials who
say Syria was harboring about $3 billion in Saddam funds. Instead, Syria
maintains that its Iraqi assets have not exceeded $300 million.



If MacArthur's delaying actions at the Agno and Pampanga Rivers enabled him
to get his forces into Bataan intact, the successful campaign to prevent the US
from pushing the 4ID down from Turkey gave Saddam the time and space to move
assets into Syria and disperse munitions and men into the Sunni Triangle. About 600,000
tons
of munitions were dispersed throughout the country of which 100,000
tons -- five Hiroshima bombs worth of explosive -- were taken to Anbar province
in the Sunni Triangle alone.



The ammunition is strewn all over Iraq, and provides insurgents with easily
accessible free material to make bombs ... "Approximately 100,000 of the
estimated 600,000 tons of explosives in the country are located in the Al
Anbar Province, I MEF�s area of responsibility," said Army Capt. Elmer
Bruner Jr., the officer in charge of the operation for the battalion.



Nor was there any shortage of men to use these weapons. Former CPA
Administrator Paul
Bremer
noted that 100,000 convicted criminals were released just before US
forces overran the cities, ready to be officered, along with many Sunnis, by
either the cadre of the former Ba'athist dominated armies or international
terrorists flooding in from Iran and Syria. Conceptually, the defense plan was
similar to Lieutenant- General Ushijima's scheme to hold Okinawa. He offered no
resistance either on the beaches or in the northern part of the island,
preferring to withdraw his men behind the Shuri Line, honeycombed with secret
tunnels and caves. All the while American forces battered against prepared
positions, the Kamikaze suicide corps would take its grim toll of the supply
lines and support units offshore until the US population grew weary of war. It
was a campaign where nearly 1,000 men could die in an afternoon as actually occurred
when Kamikazes hit the Essex class carrier Franklin with heavy loss.



The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the
Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000
killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost
another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops
were incinerated where they fought. The Americans also lost 36 ships. 368
ships were also damaged. 763 aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16
ships sunk and over 4,000 aircraft were lost.



These casualties -- compressed into four months -- would be unbelievable by
today's standards. They were barely supportable, even to the hard men of the
Greatest Generation and were a major factor in the subsequent decisions to
incinerate the Japanese cities and use the atomic bomb. But no one knew at the
time that Okinawa was the latest major land engagement of the Pacific War.


The major modern innovation of the Arab Way of War has been its radical new
conception of defense in depth. The concept made its debut in Algeria; it was
subsequently refined in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Checnya and the West Bank. Unlike
Ushijima's Shuri Line with its tunnels in rock, the Arab redoubt was founded on
establishing an underground of terror in the civilian populace. From the
anonymity of crowds, they could emerge to attack the enemy from the rear as the
Imperial Japanese Army once had done from tunnels. Faced with superior United
States forces, this 21st century War Plan Orange was the natural choice of the
Arab strategists. By denying the United States proof of its WMDs and grinding
them down through occupation warfare -- the one mode of combat at which they
excelled, they had a reasonable hope of holding America until a politician
willing to treat with them was elected into office. There was no need for
despair because, as James
Lileks
put it, "hope is on the way" -- a reference to the eventual
actions of the antiwar Left. In Iraq the ultimate blitzkrieg force met the
ultimate protracted war army and the protracted war army awaited events
confidently.


Shortly after declaring major combat operations over, the US must have
realized, like Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner in Okinawa, that it had come up to the
approaches of the Arab Shuri Line. Fortunately, not everything had gone
according to the enemy's plan. Like MacArthur in Luzon, they had underestimated the speed of their opponent's advance. They enemy had probably
not counted on OIF reaching Baghdad in 3 weeks. Their withdrawal into the
redoubt, although substantial was still incomplete. But most importantly, they
had not reckoned on the American ability to generate local forces against them,
something the Israelis had never achieved. This took the shape of an interim
Iraqi government in which Kurds and Shi'ites were major participants. They must
have watched with mounting alarm as Iraqi security forces were raised against
them. They had forgotten, too, that just as they had developed their tactics in
Lebanon, the Americans were able to leverage Israeli tactics that were invented
to counter them.


The battle began to go against them from the start. In essence, Ba'athist-terrorist
coalition was unable to inflict the losses necessary to disrupt the
organizational learning curve of the American forces. Unlike the conscript
Soviet Army, the American Armed Forces were a professional force that retained
its core of officers, NCOs and to a large degree, even their enlisted men.
Forces were rotated out of Iraq largely intact, where they incorporated lessons
learned into the training cycle in CONUS; and relieving forces were improved
accordingly. In 1980s, the Al Qaeda and not the Soviet Army had turned
Afghanistan into a training ground but in 2003-2004, it was the US Armed Forces
and not the terrorists that were coming away with organizational memory. Simply
not enough of the enemy survived to pass on their experience and simply too many
American lieutenants left Iraq to return as captains. The terrible enemy losses
on the battlefield could not be wholly overcome by media plaudits which they
received. At least 15,000 enemy cadres have been killed in the 17 months since
OIF. Recently, the remains of a French jihadi were identified in Fallujah
and his fate is probably a common one. While Afghanistan was once where the
young fundamentalist fighter went to get experience, Iraq was now where the
fundamentalist fighter went to die.


One indication of the unfavorable trend faced by enemy forces face was the
rapid transformation in US operations. It is interesting to compare Marine
preparations to assault Fallujah in April 2004 with those apparently under way
today, just months later. The Marine methods of April would have been instantly
familiar to any military historian: hammer and anvil, seizure of key terrain;
feint and attack. Today, many of the military objectives in the developing siege
of the terrorist stronghold are abstract. They consist of developing a network
of informers in the city; of setting up a functioning wireless network; of
getting close enough for smaller US units to deploy their line-of-sight
controlled UAV and UGV units to create a seamless operational and tactical
environment to wage "swarm" warfare; of getting artillery and mortar
units close enough to play hopscotch over everything the network decides to
engage. To the traditional methods of warfare the Americans were adding a whole
new plane which only they could inhabit.


Faced with a force increasingly familiar with Arabia, with deep combat
experience, nearly unlimited technical resources and growing lethality, the
enemy, like Yamashita in the Cordilleras and Ushijima in Okinawa, can only hope
to be saved by the bell. Objectively, there is little chance of that. But as Lileks
said: "hope is on the way".

Jumat, 22 Oktober 2004

From Whose Bourne No Traveler Returns


A reader sends a link to a

Guardian article
claiming that terror is a figment of the panicky American
imagination. There are really no wolves in the forest, just the sound of the
wind in the trees. BBC documentary producer, Adam Curtis, produced a series
called "The Power of Nightmares" (scheduled on BBC2 at 9pm on Wednesday October
20) which claims that terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and
distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned
through governments around the world, the security services, and the
international media.". The article goes on to say:



Bill Durodie, director of the international centre for security analysis at
King's College London, says: "The reality [of the al-Qaida threat to the west]
has been essentially a one-off. There has been one incident in the developed
world since 9/11 [the Madrid bombings]. There's no real evidence that all
these groups are connected." Crispin Black, a senior government intelligence
analyst until 2002, is more cautious but admits the terrorist threat presented
by politicians and the media is "out of date and too one-dimensional. We think
there is a bit of a gulf between the terrorists' ambition and their ability to
pull it off."



In this view, terrorism is a narrative invented by unscrupulous politicians
to panic people into doing their bidding. Osama Bin Laden is a boogie man who is
not really the threat he is made out to be.



"Almost no one questions this myth about al-Qaida because so many people
have got an interest in keeping it alive," says Curtis. He cites the
suspiciously circular relationship between the security services and much of
the media since September 2001: the way in which official briefings about
terrorism, often unverified or unverifiable by journalists, have become
dramatic press stories which - in a jittery media-driven democracy - have
prompted further briefings and further stories. Few of these ominous
announcements are retracted if they turn out to be baseless: "There is no
fact-checking about al-Qaida."



The most interesting aspect of Curtis' argument is the narrowness of its
cast. By limiting his set of terrorist incidents to the developed world, and to
Europe in particular, he arrives at the conclusion that terrorism does not
exist. He looks around his world and asks, 'where is it?'. Kashmir, Algeria,
Saddamite Iraq, Sudan, the Balkans, Indonesia, Timor and the Philippines -- to
name a few places -- are ommitted from his account. The wonder is not that he
omitted them; the astounding thing would have been if he had included it. The
Left has displayed a magnificent indifference to death in the Third World and
only slightly more sensitivity to deaths in the Balkans.


In places like Basilan in Mindanao, terrorism is not a nightmare. It is the
waking day. The Australian Government, for example, issued a

travel advisory
warning its citizens from visiting Mindanao not because it
feared some Freddy Kreuger intruding upon Aussie dreams as they lay in their
beds in the Lantaka Hotel, but to guard against something more substantial, like
a hand grenade pitched in at the seaside bar. You go to shrink to defend against
nightmares. In places like Jolo a shrink will get you nowhere. But an automatic
rifle will, and I have heard fathers lovingly describe a prospective purchase of
a Browning Automatic Rifle or an M-1919 machinegun in the anticipatory tones of
someone who has bought health insurance for his children. The "Power of
Nightmares" should be shown in both the Muslim and non-Muslim parts of Mindanao.
It should do well, billed as comedy.



Best of the Comments



For a while I've wondered if the blindness of the
left comes from a lack of knowledge of their physical world. ... Spiney
Widgmo


I wish it were that simple. As an engineer in Silicon
Valley, I have observed that a delusional world view has no relationship to
professional skill. I've spoken in depth with a solidly leftist engineer
friend, and his world view diverges from mine at a very deep level. ... Twisted
Knickers


Spiney--I sympathize with the thrust of your comment,
but in fact, having met many, many Physics PhDs (theoretical and
experimental), chemical engineers, and the like, Communists and Socialists
(many of them taxi drivers in NYC originally from the former Soviet Bloc), my
opinion is that in reality the ones capable of resisting and destroying the
cultural legacies of Marxism and the darker elements of the French Revolution
(the Bolshevik Revolution, for example) are those who are CORRECTLY instructed
in history and the arts. ... Dan


Not even the stock market noticed. When 80 people
were blown up in Buenos Aires in 1994, it was a one-day story in U.S. and
those victims are still awaiting justice and their Iranian killers are still
walking free. Why is terrorism not terrorism if it happens in Latin America?
... ArgentinaWatcher


The Hollow Men


Readers with an interest in finding out more about the Organization of
Islamic Conference (OIC) can follow this

link
sent by a reader, TD. I suppose many of their resolutions have to be
taken with a grain of salt as the political statements they are. However, it
does give a sense of where the OIC is coming form and what sort of world it
desires. It is definitely not the value neutral One World that the Western Left
so ardently desires. There are 168 points in the OIC declaration, from a conference held in June, 2004. Here are some of them.



9. The Conference commended with pride the resistance of the valiant
Palestinian people and their legitimate leadership headed by gallant President
Yasser Arafat against Israeli aggression. It called for an immediate end to
the siege imposed on the Palestinian people and President Yasser Arafat so
that they can move freely in and out of the Palestinian territories. It
condemned recent Israeli threats on President Arafat�s life and reaffirmed its
continued political, financial and moral support for the Palestinian people so
that they can regain their inalienable national rights, including the right of
return, self-determination and an independent Palestinian State with
Al-Quds Sharif
as its capital.


27. The Conference expressed firm support for the rightful cause of the
Muslim Turkish Cypriots ...


29. The Conference reaffirmed its support to the people of Jammu and
Kashmir for their legitimate right to self-determination, in accordance with
the relevant UN resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. It
called for respect of the human rights of the Kashmiri people and the ending
of their continuous violations. It urged India to end human rights violations
against the Kashmiri people and allow international human rights organisations
to verify the condition of human rights in Indian-held Kashmir.


54. The Conference urged the Republic of the Philippines to complete Phase
II of the Peace Agreement concluded in 1996 between the Republic of the
Philippines and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), and to continue to
implement the Comprehensive Plan for the Development of the Muslim Autonomous
Region in Southern Philippines in order to restore stability and peace in the
region. It also called on it to cooperate with international and regional
organizations that provide assistance for the development of the region.


62. The Conference expressed deep concern over repeated and erroneous
attempts to associate Islam with human rights violations, and over the use of
television, the radio and the press to propagate such misconceptions. It
called for an end to the unjustified campaigns of some non-governmental
organizations against a number of Member States, which demand the abolition of
Sharia laws and penalties in the name of human rights protection. It affirmed
the right of States to uphold their religious, social and cultural
idiosyncrasies, which are legacies that help enrich common universal concepts
of human rights. It urged that the universality of human rights must not be
used as a pretext to interfere in the internal affairs of States and flout
their national sovereignty. The Conference also condemned the decision of the
European Union to denounce stoning as a penalty and what it calls inhumane
punishments meted out by some Member States in compliance with Islamic Sharia.


107. The Conference reaffirmed the need to boost the Supreme Council for
Education and Culture in the West, which is an Islamic cultural strategy. It
called on OIC Member States to provide financial and moral support to the
Council through ISESCO.



108. The Conference requested the Secretary General to conduct an in-depth
study in coordination with Member States so as to safeguard Islamic culture
and heritage from the adverse effects of globalization.


137. The Conference commended the IRCICA�s efforts to safeguard the
cultural heritage and Islamic identity of Muslim communities in Non-OIC Member
States and called on it to continue such efforts. It requested Member States
and Islamic institutions and personalities to provide it with the support
needed to attain such a noble goal.



Al-Quds Sharif, by the way, is the city once known as Jerusalem. It is also
the name of a

medal
awarded to people who have performed exemplary service to the
Palestinian cause. Although people may choose one point of view over another;
prefer to call a city Al-Quds Sharif or Jerusalem according to their
inclination, it seems self-evident that there are sides to choose from. Not to
put too fine a point on it, the OIC has chosen a side; their side to be exact
and they are perfectly entitled to do it. What is at issue is whether people in
the West are also free to choose their "side" or whether this has been
permanently proscribed as a kind of bigotry or ethnocentrism; a form of hate
speech or forbidden thinking. The Global War on Terror may be not so much about
freeing the Middle East as about liberating ourselves. Allah spoke to his
Prophet and sent forth his flame; but the West has forgotten all, even its very
name.



And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England's mountains green?

And was the holy Lamb of God

On England's pleasant pastures seen?


And did the Countenance Divine

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here

Among these dark Satanic mills?


Bring me my bow of burning gold!

Bring me my arrows of desire!

Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold!

Bring me my chariot of fire!


I will not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land.

--

William Blake





Best of the Comments


"St Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the
affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which
is appropriate to it. Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the
pupil like and dislike what he ought. When the age for reflective thought comes,
the pupil who has been thus trained in 'ordinate affections' or 'just
sentiments' will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt
man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that
science. Plato before him had said the same."

MDBritt