dialog re: “Puzzling Iraq developments”


Richard Moore

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003
From: F
Subject: Your Theories on Why "Coalition" Force are Bogged Down
To: •••@••.•••

Dear Mr. Moore,

You certainly paint a frightful scenario.

There are several problems with your theories, however.

Rumsfeld went into this conflict fully aware of the
fact that we did not have enough ground forces in
theater.  He told the generals and admirals that Colin
Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force was passe' in
our new age of high tech weaponry and "air delivery
systems."  In other words, air power would be the
deciding element in any battle situation.  Rummy was
convinced that we didn't need to have as many ground
forces as we did in previous wars.  Also, Rummy told us
that each day that passed before we attacked made
Saddam stronger.  And, if we didn't attack now, we'd
have to go either during the summer heat or wait until
Autumn.  And that this waiting would wear down the
fighting spirit of our troops (as if war is a better
alternative to their spirits!).

Powell had a coalition army of 600,000 to attack into
tiny Kuwait with our supplies and support forces
readily available.  Rummy and Wolfy and Perly all
overrode the military men and women in the Pentagon as
to how to conduct this new war and now we've got a
little over 250,000 "coalition"  forces badly
overextended with lines of communication stretching
over 300 miles through harsh and hostile territory,  Of
those 250,000, three out of every four is in "combat
support" not front-line combat trained.  The Marines
being the exception since they train every member to be
a front-line combatant regardless of military
occupational specialty.  Nevertheless, this is new for
the Marine Corps.  Never in history have they served as
an overland invasion force so far from the beaches. Not
a good situation from an American military point of
view. And just as badly, the Army is requiring huge
supply convoys to carry the war forward.

Strangely, just as Armstrong Custer and his 7th Calvary
arrogantly advanced upon the natives around the Little
Big Horn without concern, it may yet prove ironic that
this invasion is being spear-headed by the same 7th
Calvary, whose troops on TV were arrogant and
unconcerned.  Macho, macho man.  I want to be a macho

In other words, I'm sorry, but I don't buy into your
theory that this is a deliberate plot by our leadership
to gain support for the war.  Having our troops getting
their asses kicked by a bunch of irregular guerrillas
would hardly be something Rummy and W would want to
have to answer for.  As for the tank battles, we've
wiped out dozens of Iraqi tanks and vehicles.  For the
last two days, weather and Iraqi attacks on our rear
supply lines have stopped (bogged down) the drive into
Baghdad.  I think it ludicrous to believe that
our troops are sitting obediently quiet in the
desert allowing for the Republican Guard (thank heavens
they're not called the Democratic Guard!) tank
divisions to mass their armor for a "surprise" attack,
much less believe that Marine and Army combat
forces would then standby and permit themselves to be
attacked, overran and slaughtered all for the sake of
generating "sympathy" back home for the war effort.  I
don't think so!

It long has been apparent to me that conspiracy
theories from the "left' can sometimes be just as
strange and fanciful as those from the "right."

As for "Shock and Awe" no one is accusing Rummy of
holding back on the heavy ordnance.  They have
delivered their promised 3,000 cruise missiles and
smart bombs.  And they are still firing and dropping
away!  They are using the heavy bombs south of Baghdad
against Republican Guard positions.  Lockheed-Martin,
GE, and Raytheon are certainly not complaining that
we're using up too little of their munitions (see the
Stock Market upsurge in investments in those
companies).  The problem with Shock and Awe is that it
has failed to produce the expected results, those being
the immediate surrender of Saddam's army and
government.  Mr. Moore you do understand that Shock and
Awe is still an ongoing war strategy?  We're bombing
the hell out of Iraq every hour of every day!

What I'm worried about is that as our troops become
ever more worn down physically and psychologically, and
as this war drags on and on, our leadership may be
prepared to take shortcuts in "liberating" the people
of Iraq, by going all out against the cities and
leveling them despite world opinion.  Desperate times
call for desperate measures.  Either bomb them out or
starve them out.  Yuck...very, very messy in the eyes
of the world.

Or perhaps, we may just decide the hell with it, let
Saddam keep Baghdad, we've already got what we came
for, "our" oil.  As long as we control the oil fields
in the North and South, Baghdad may just become a side
issue, to be dealt with slowly, over time.  Blair is
already promising the Iraqi's a return to "oil for
food." That Limey prick, why not exchange the oil for
money and let the Iraqi's buy their own goddamned food?
 It somehow reminds me of the Dutch traders who gave
the Manhattan tribe $24.00 worth of trinkets for the
property that would eventually become New York
City. Take the bean and rice sacks and be grateful you
flea infested camel jockeys because it's either that or
eat sand!

.Peace, and keep on writing.



Dear F,

Thank you for your thoughtful and sincere reply. I am 
sure that many of our readers find much to agree with 
in your words.  The fact that we are so close in our
sentiments makes it all the more important for us
to better understand the differences in our perspectives.
In that spirit...

You say that big-weapon testing is occurring already,
thus removing that as part of my argument.  That may be
true.  However I have a suspicion that they want to
test those weapons on populations as well, partly as a
a psy-war op against future potential enemies.  That
suspicion is too weak to prop up that part of my
argument however. But if mass-bombing of civilians DOES
end up occurring, then I do believe it will have been
intended from the outset.  I've read Administration
statements more than once that were designed to justify
such action. ("...weapons of mass destruction hidden by
Saddam near civilians...they must be taken
out...collateral deaths will be Sadam's fault...no place
in Baghdad safe...")

You mix in motivations from different levels.  For
example you say, "I think it ludicrous to believe that
our troops are sitting obediently quiet in the
desert allowing for the Republican Guard...".  We must
agree, I think, that the troops in the desert have no
say whatever in how they are deployed.  Their opinion
is not part of Washington's decision making process. 
This applies to the on-site generals almost as much as
to the enlisted men.  If we want to understand
Washinton's overall strategy, we need to focus on the
decision making process in Washington.

You talk about the debate between Powell and Rumsfeld
over strategy.  It is important to keep in mind that
whatever you know about that 'debate' you have learned
from statements that were cleared for publication from
the very top. Such debate cannot be taken as a 'peek
into the elite decision making process'.  Your heard it
because they wanted you to hear it.  The circulation of
such 'debate rumors' serves various propaganda
purposes, but any relation to actual tension around the
White House conference table would be purely

As a result of these things you have heard, and the
model that gave you of how decisions are made, you come
to the conclusion...

    > What I'm worried about is that as our troops become
    ever more worn down physically and psychologically, and
    as this war drags on and on, our leadership may be
    prepared to take shortcuts in 'liberating' the people
    of Iraq, by going all out against the cities and
    leveling them despite world opinion.  Desperate times
    call for desperate measures.

In other words, what you have picked up from the
mainstream media has prepared you to accept 'shortcuts'
as being understandable and reasonable from the elite's
perspective -- rather than being simply brutal
aggression and slaughter.  The propaganda has done its
job.  The propaganda plus the perception of a bogged
down campaign.


The central question we are debating is this:  Why did
the US not follow the same basic tactics it used in the
Gulf War? Why not maximally eliminate all military
opposition prior to any land invasion?  Why invade
while there are still operational Iraqi tank divisions?

Presuming that population centers would be off limits,
they could have easily hit all the other troop and
equipment bunkers with their super bombs.  They might
not have scored 100%, but they could easily have
prepared a much less hostile battlefield.  Easily.

Those tactics worked in the Gulf War, and they are
totally obvious.  Once the decision is made not to
pursue that proven strategy, then the rest of our
current scenario becomes an obvious likely outcome. 
Obvious to anyone in the top command certainly.

From your perspective, the last thing Bush and his crew
would want is US casualties.  And they clearly warned
us all about Shock, Awe, and unavoidable collateral
damage.  So why didn't they follow the obvious, proven,
least-risk strategy?...the strategy they prepared us
for, and which suits their new weaponry?  Do you have
an answer to this question?

I think it calls for an answer.  And I think the answer
is obvious.

It has to do with the global popular uprising against
the war, and with the divisions between American and
European leaders over the war.  In such an opinion
climate, imagine what would have happened if the only
thing on TV was long-distance, no-US-casualty bombing. 
Those same images that hypnotized the world during the
Gulf War would now enflame its anger.  Those black-
suited pilots strutting around, grinning over their
'target rich' sorties would now be seen for what they
are and were -- the literal successors of the Waffen SS.

Instead the media is filled with images of GI's on the
battlefield, like old World War II movies.  Quite
unlike the Gulf War.  We now have a different focus for
our attention.  Instead of remote push-button
destruction, we are seeing what appears to be a
semi-fair fight between well-equipped armies.  The
fight will escalate, but that's what happens, that's to
be expected.  We will end up at whatever stage of
escalation the decision makers have mapped out from the
beginning.  They will get to where they wanted to go in
the first place, but they will have significantly
mitigated the public-relations damage they would have
faced if they had just gone for it.  A few casualties
are of no significance in the overall balance.

I believe this is a plausible and an obvious
scenario.  It matches what has been happening and it
takes into account the full scope of the challenges
facing the Administration.  It is a line of thinking
that cannot have escaped our elite planners.  They may
have some other plan in mind, but they certainly would
have thought of this one, considered it.

Suppose for a second that they did think things through
in this way, and decided on their course of action
based on that.  Can you not see that they could not
possibly have let anyone know who wasn't fully trusted
to keep it secret?  Can you see that they would have
needed to put out all sorts of cover-explanations for
what they were doing at each stage?  The very 'debates'
you noticed in the media?  Not only that, but they
would need to have stories for lower-level people in
the military, diplomatic corps, and intelligence
community -- pieces of the big picture selected to
keep them doing their jobs... except those few who
couldn't take the half-truths and resigned.

What I'm trying to do here is make a point about
conspiracies in general.  We know that our leaders make
decisions on the basis of geopolitics, global
economics, oil, etc.  Right?  We also know that they
talk publicly about freedom, democracy, justice, human
rights, etc.  Every time they want to do something for
geopolitical reasons, which is always, they need to
make up a public reason that makes sense in those other
make-believe terms.  Every time.

This kind of thing has been going on for centuries.  It 
has been a central part of imperialism -- the buffer
between the sensibilities of the Western middle classes
and the realities of conquest and exploitation, rape
and pillage. Modern imperialism is as devastating and
brutal as anything from the annals of Attila the Hun or
Ghengis Khan.  And yet the middle classes live in a
fantasy world of 'human progress'.  This is one of the
Big Reality Disconnects, one of the big inspirations
for The Matrix metaphor,

With such a reality disconnect in effect, EVERYTHING
the government does is a conspiracy.  The role of the
corporate global media is to spin their overall
presentation (fiction and non-fiction material) so as
to support the make-believe story of how and why things
are happening.  They say things like, "No weapons of
mass destruction have been captured YET."  They never
refer to "ALLEGED weapons of mass destruction".  This
doesn't mean news readers are in on any conspiracy, but
it does mean that top media executives have been
briefed on how things need to be spun, and what kind of
images can and cannot be shown.

In such an environment, the only way to figure out what
our leaders are really up to is to begin by dismissing
WHATEVER they say in the media about their motivations.
We must accept that everything they say is calculated
public relations theater.  We can take seriously their
stated intentions to take certain actions, but we must
look elsewhere than in their public statements to find
out what their motivation might be.

In other words, understanding how the world actually
works is primarily a matter of research into
conspiracies.  In every case, there is a hidden agenda
behind why things are happening.  In every case. That's
our starting point for any serious investigation.

Because of this matrix-like reality split, it is easy
to dig up evidence of conspiracies wherever you look. 
Those we call 'conspiracy theorists' get distracted by
the details.  They spend lots of time digging up still
more evidence around some particular event.  They delve
deep into the stories of who did what to whom, who knew
what when, who is linked to whom, etc. etc.  Pretty
soon they are so deep in a private world - even if an
accurate one - that they are out of touch with the rest
of us.

I investigate by a different method. My method is
simply to think of things from the point of view of
ruling elites.  If I were in their shoes, with their
ethics, what would I be doing?  What would my
considerations be?  What are the fundamental obstacles
that stand in my way?  What are my options for dealing
with them?

Some knowledge of history helps with this mode of
investigation, because in that way you have some
familiarity with the range of geopolitical and
propaganda strategies that have been repeatedly followed
through the centuries.  In this sense there is little
new under the sun.  Rome and Britain, and past US
actions, provide a spectrum of experiences that
presages everything going on today, though on smaller

And of course following current events is of central
importance.  Actual events are the only thing we know
are real.  Out of that data one can hypothesize what
elite strategy might be about.  And out of that data
one can prune down and refine ones understanding of
that strategy, game plan, and agenda.  In the same way
Sherlock Holmes systematically homes in on the one consistent
explanation for the crime.

In our current situation, there is really very little
question about what is really going on.  It was all
spelled out in a document which you can read about in
the newslog archives...
    Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002
    Delivered-To: mailing list •••@••.•••
    Subject: secret blueprint for US global domination
    The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the
    creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for
    Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld
    (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's
    deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis
    Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled
    Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And
    Resources For A New Century, was written in September
    2000 by the neo-conservative think- tank Project for
    the New American Century (PNAC)

Along the same lines, focusing on 9/11, we have:
    Delivered-To: mailing list •••@••.•••
    Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002
    Subject: Bush: America needed "a new Pearl Harbor"

Everything that has happened since the Florida election
theft has been within the framework spelled out in
these documents.

The considerations in Iraq go far beyond whether or not
a few troops get killed, or how many days it takes to
capture Baghdad.  Those are opening pawn moves in a
chess game that extends beyond Iraq, beyond the Middle
East.  The public relations aspects of that game are
equally important to the territory and oil gained. 

Elites have always needed the acquiescence of the sheep
in order to maintain control.  They screw us and we let
them.  For ten thousand years.  That is their 'big
secret', their 'big conspiracy' that is the "I got it!"
that happens at the Skull & Crossbones initiation, or
the Illumanti initiation, or whatever such gatherings
might have been called down through the centuries...
"We rule, learn to love it -- and don't mind the
weeping women and children, they will always be with
us.  Be a wolf and not a sheep."  That's their big secret.


cyberjournal home page: 

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page: 

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:

subscribe addresses for cj list: