TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Saddam Hussein Told His Army Not to Fight (4 posts)

1. EndlessSender
   Member

   Here is a link to an article that is very important. I know it is long and tedious, but it contains very important information that has not, as far as I know, been widely disseminated. The article is entitled "The Second Death of the Iraqi Air Force" and it is found on the Air Combat Information Group site.

   http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_375.sht...

   If you read the article carefully, it strongly implies that Saddam Hussein ordered the Iraqi military not to fight the American invasion, which is not surprising if you believe, as I do, that Saddam Hussein was an American puppet.

   Here is an excerpt from the article--a section entitled "No Orders to Fight."

   "When the US/British attack finally came – the final operations against the IrAF and the IrADF started already on 19 March – the Iraqi air defence was not only severely hit by US and British from the air, but also practically sabotaged from within. Both, its commander, Gen. Yaseen ad-Douri, and his deputy, Maj.Gen. Khaled Ahmad Othman, had ordered the whole early warning radar net to shut down just in the moments the US and British aircraft were approaching their targets. Within minutes, the whole Iraqi air defence system collapsed into a complete chaos. Worse yet – at least for Saddam’s regime – the commander of the Republican Guards units stationed in the Baghdad area and the air defences of the Iraqi capital, Gen. Maher Safwan al-Tikriti, turned his back to Saddam and ordered most of the subordinated IrADF units to cease their operations: in fact, he reportedly ordered a better part of the Iraqi radar net to stand down in order to demonstrate his power to the Americans. There are also reports that al-Tikriti even attempted to capture Saddam by using his own bodyguard unit as the dictator was leaving one of secure sites in Baghdad."

   The authors obviously are not attempting to argue that Saddam worked for the U.S.A.--they go out of their way to avoid saying that. But you should read the article and draw your own conclusion. Iraq was very strong militarily. It should have been impossible for the U.S. military to defeat them so quickly unless they had help from "inside."

   Posted 14 years ago #
2. mark
   Member

   They also waited until the US military had taken over the country to fight a guerrilla war. There's no way the Iraqi military could have withstood a direct conflict with the invading forces, they chose to fight a different way. Redcoats vs. colonists.

   Posted 14 years ago #
3. EndlessSender
   Member

   I agree that the Iraqi leadership chose an alternative method for fighting the war. But I find it very difficult to believe that the decision was reached purely on the basis of logic and strategic planning. I have to believe that the Iraqi leadership had some kind of hidden agenda. What that was, I don't know, but the historical facts lead me to believe that the relationship between Hussein and the U.S. was quite different than the one portrayed on CNN or Fox News. I think it's likely that Hussein was either taking orders directly from Washington or, at least, thought he was.

   Let's look at the first Gulf War to gain some insight into the second. The first Gulf War was very, very peculiar. For six months--an eternity--Hussein let the U.S. and allies build up a huge invasion force, slowly shipping troops and supplies around the world by sea. Hussein made no attempt to stop this. He didn't launch any attacks on port facilities. He just waited. He didn't take hostages. He actually ordered all Americans out of the country. He didn't invade Saudi Arabia when he had the chance. He waited until the enemy was ready to fight, then he "fought." Surely, this was the weirdest war-fighting strategy in history. Of course, the U.S. propaganda machine relied on the bigotry of the average American to reinforce that "those people" couldn't fight and so all this made sense.

   Then came the "ground war" and the Iraqi Army ran away at top speed. Their "delaying action" (attack) was so weak the the U.S. commander didn't know he was under attack.

   Unfortunately for the Iraqi troops, there was only one highway north out of Kuwait, and so there was a traffic jam, and U.S. air power slaughtered the Iraqis on the highway as they sat, stuck in traffic. But they were running away as fast as possible.

   By the end of the war, U.S./allied casualties were so low that they were similar to the casualties that had been incurred during the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940--a few dozen. In both operations, The Gulf War and the Louisiana Maneuvers, about half a million troops were deployed in the field and engaged in movement across unfamiliar terrain. The difference is that the Louisiana Maneuvers were an exercise--a war game.

   Posted 14 years ago #
4. truthmover
   Administrator

   I think it's reasonable to assume, after all the time and money we spent in Iraq over the years, that we would have deep connections within the government and military. That would facilitate what you are suggesting might have been as much a military coup as it was an invasion. While I didn't read the whole article, it doesn't sound from your synopsis like it was necessarily Saddam himself who was playing along. I always took him to to be the fall guy, undermined from all sides by Western infiltration.

   Here's one clue suggesting he's a fall guy. There is reason to believe that Saddam didn't think that we would invade if he went into Kuwait.

   "Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Saddam Meeting with U.S. Envoy April Glaspie"

   http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie...

   I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

   I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

   I generally tend to think that people up front like Saddam, Bush, Ahmadinejad, etc... are puppets who are used to maintain the appearance of popular leadership while well established lines of secret power operate in the shadows. Even Cheney is just management and not owner. And no, I'm not in any way referring to the Illuminati, Bilderberg group, or any other NWO paranoia. All that AJ claptrap is not instructive. But it seems like a healthy bet that the face man is not pulling the strings.

   Posted 14 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.