Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada "Of Interest To Me" Mar.16 -- Mar.22, 2003
Email: mike -at- mikecampbell dot net
The opinions expressed on this website are those of the author alone, and are not necessarily those of his employer or any organization with which he is affiliated.
News Resources
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
Saturday, March 22, 2003
I just saw Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack interviewed on CNN. He was discussing the strength and numbers of Iraqi forces.
On the Iraqi 51st mechanized division, which may or may not surrender near Basra, he said that this division, although well relatively well armed, is a fairly weak unit and not a very effective fighting force. He said Saddam knows that these guys were not likely to put up much of a fight anyway.
The real task will be at Baghdad, where the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard and Saddam's security forces will be entrenched.
Pollack estimates that about half the Republican Guard will be at Baghdad, so this will make their number 30-35,000; basically 3 big divisions. They are armed with moderate Soviet weaponry, including T-72 tanks; they are relatively well-armed compared to the Special Republican Guard and Saddam's security forces, but these arms proved to be ineffective during the Gulf War and is nothing that coalition weaponry can't slice through.
The Special Republican Guard, numbering perhaps 20-25,000, are armed with lighter stuff, but are fiercely loyal to Saddam. They are brought to Baghdad as young men and brainwashed into believing that Saddam is the true savior of the Middle East. They are not trained soldiers.
Saddam's security forces, numbering approximately 30-40,000, are lightly armed and are not trained soldiers. These guys are the ones who carry out Saddam's brutality against Iraqis, and are, therefore, deeply implicated in Saddam's crimes. They'll fight hard because they know how despised they are by the Iraqi people.
As John Keegan writes, street fighting is the only combat option that favours Saddam. I'm not sure if these groups could ever be drawn out into the desert; if they're not, I would guess that coalition forces would encircle Baghdad and take stock before deciding what to do next. I'm also not sure how the intense bombing campaign might have impacted Pollack's estimates of Saddam's forces in Baghdad.
9:18am AST
Damian Penny and David Janes, who have both revved it up into high war-blogging gear, write on the 'fans' in Montreal who booed the American national anthem at the start of a Habs/New York Islanders game this past week.
David writes: When Quebec separates from Canada, they assume they'll be granted all the rights and privileges of the Canadian relationship because Quebecers loooove Americans (and in their minds, it's reciprocated).
As recent polling shows, Quebeckers DO NOT like Americans, and tend to drag down the Canadian average when questions regarding attitudes toward Americans and the American government are asked. This isn't just a dislike of the current American administration, this is a dislike of Americans themselves.
Compare the results of a recent Global poll: Do you like/trust the current American government? Canada -- 47% 'Like', 53% 'Dislike'; Quebec -- 22% 'Like', 78% 'Dislike'; Atlantic Canada (where I live) -- 63% 'Like', 37% 'Dislike'. When asked about attitudes towards Americans in general: Canada -- 70% 'Like', 30% 'Dislike'; Quebec -- 49% 'Like', 51% 'Dislike'; Atlantic Canada -- 81% 'Like', 19% 'Dislike'.
Of all regions in Canada, attitudes in Atlantic Canada -- the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland & Labrador -- were most favourable toward both the American government and Americans, in general. So, dear American readers ... you know where to go on your summer vacation.
Back to the sports fans, I know this kind of tit-for-tat booing of national anthems happened a year or so ago, with the Americans, I believe, starting things off. I suppose we might see more of it in the days and weeks to come. Hopefully not.
8:45am AST
Friday, March 21, 2003
Churchill's Voice-double Bullshit
The Washington Post blows it. Today, columnist Libby Copeland, trying to draw a parallel to Saddam's body-doubles, brings up the old canard that Churchill used a voice-double. Jeebus.
In World War II, Winston Churchill was said to have employed a voice double for his radio addresses.
This is repeated in the photo caption of an Iraqi who played a body-double in Iraq for 4.5 years.
Dan Myers, Executive Director of the Churchill Center in Washington responds to the Washington Post (printed with permission):
Dear Editor:
I am writing to correct a common misconception repeated by Libby Copeland in her article on March 21, 2003, "Body Double: Both Sides of the Ploy". In speculating on whether Iraqis might have employed a double for Saddam Hussein, Ms. Copeland writes: "In World War II, Winston Churchill was said to have employed a voice double for his radio addresses." This canard continues to be perpetuated but has no basis in fact.
John Colville, long time personal secretary to Mr. Churchill during and after World War II, dispelled this myth many years ago. And, Allen Packwood, currently the Director of the Churchill Archives Center at Cambridge University in England, has researched the official archives and can find no evidence to support it. A detailed refutation appears on our website at www.winstonchurchill.org under the heading "Churchill Facts: Myths about Churchill". We encourage your readers to discover the truth and not repeat a myth that has no basis in fact.
Daniel N. Myers
Executive Director
The Churchill Centre
1150 17th Street, NW, Suite 307
Washington, DC 20036
The refutation of this and many other Churchill canards can also be found here at Robert Courts' Churchill page.
7:06pm AST
The Iraqi ambassador to the UN is on CNN now live, just talking jibberish. Blah blah blah. "... American and Zionist oil market..." He seems very pissed at the UN's inaction. Go for it, pal. Your days are numbered. You're not going to have a home to back to ~ the liberated Iraqis are going to be looking for a new UN ambassador.
6:48pm AST
He's totally losing it. However, I'm sure the French voters are lapping it up. French President Jacques Chirac is balking at the idea of a UN resolution allowing the United States and Great Britain setting up the new administration in Iraq.
The French president said at a European Union summit he would "not accept" a resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention [and] would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq."
"That would justify the war after the event," Chirac told reporters.
The translation being: "No god damn way anyone is going to keep France from getting what's hers ~ I'm talking the oil contracts, the other debts, all of it ~ France will be a part of the new administration in order to ensure that at least some of my old buddy Saddam's Baathist cronies are part of the new administration, which must honor our oil contracts and pay us what's owed."
United States & Britain = "the belligerents". And your old buddy Saddam? What would he be, now? Unbelievable.
6:45pm AST
The British Ministry of Defence has the British Order of Battle.
The Allied/Coalition Order of Battle is here.
6:28pm AST
Ah, the things that make a lowly blogger happy. Thanks for the link, Glenn.
As Martin Prince once said: More friends! More allies! More, I say. Hang those who talk of less.
6:24pm AST
Thursday, March 20, 2003
CNN is having trouble with the conversion of kilometers to miles. Don't worry, Aaron, here's a handy online metric conversion tool.
9:48pm AST
Today, George Bush signed an Executive Order confiscating Saddam Hussein's assets -- $1.4 billion (as per CNN reporter) -- that were frozen during the Gulf War twelve years ago. Bush's Executive Order states
I intend that such vested property should be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, and determine that such use would be in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.
Agreement at the United Nations, however, will be needed to direct toward reconstruction all the other pots of Saddam's money that were frozen at the same time.
Given the amounts owed by Saddam to Russia, France and China, what do you think the chances will be that this bunch directs those funds toward the reconstruction of Iraq?
Hey, the United States is incurring great financial costs in conducting this military action, while incurring still further opportunity costs (the funds used to disarm Saddam could have been used to pay down the debt, for example ~ now, this debt will continue to have to be carried, with the additional costs of the war added to it).
All of the frozen funds once controlled by Saddam Hussein should go directly to the reconstruction of Iraq; the Russians, French and Chinese have No Claim to it.
9:11pm AST
Somewhere in that enormous waste...
As the troops and armour move out into the desert, and war ships and planes wait nearby, I'm reminded of Churchill's words relating to the departure of the Royal Navy fleet in 1914.
THE WORLD CRISIS, Vol 1, p213, English edition:
"We may now picture this great Fleet, with its flotillas and cruisers, steaming slowly out of Portland Harbour, squadron by squadron, scores of gigantic castles of steel wending their way across the misty, shining sea, like giants bowed in anxious thought. We may picture them again as darkness fell, eighteen miles of warships running at high speed and in absolute blackness through the narrow Straits, bearing with them into the broad waters of the North the safeguard of considerable affairs.... If war should come no one would know where to look for the British Fleet. Somewhere in that enormous waste of waters to the north of our islands, cruising now this way, now that, shrouded in storms and mists, dwelt this mighty organization. Yet from the Admiralty building we could speak to them at any moment if need arose. The king's ships were at sea."
8:47pm AST
John Keegan writes on the psyche of the soldier.
Soldiers do not like war. They usually like it a lot less than civilians, since they know its reality, either at first hand or by convincing hearsay. When war confronts the Services, however, it becomes a matter of pride to take part.
What will certainly not disturb or deflect the Gulf warriors is dissent at home. Servicemen take a dismissive view of anti-war protesters. They feel that they do not know what they are shouting about, and exaggerate the horrors while missing the real nastiness.
Ultimately they regard all civilians as outsiders, from whom they prefer to keep the secrets of war as far too unpleasant to be shared with anyone who does not understand in the first place. The Services' sense of being people apart is one of their greatest strengths.
8:38pm AST
If this is true, somebody sure earned their pay for the week.
8:19pm AST
In the long, worldwide history of the English language, has the word 'embedded' ever been uttered more in the course of a single day?
Jeebus.
8:13pm
Stephen Green lists those three countries to whom Saddam is most indebted. (via Glenn Reynolds)
StrategyPage details who really armed Saddam, by tracking how much money he owes to different countries. The top three dealers?
Soviet Union [sic]- Over 25 billion dollars
France and China – at least five billion dollars each.Is it any coincidence that these are three of the loudest voices against us getting into Saddam's filing cabinets?
NOTE: If you're curious, Saddam owes the US less than a quarter million dollars -- and we're usually pretty easy about giving credit.
8:09pm AST
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Saddam's time to depart the country has passed. With the bombing of military targets in Iraq already commenced, there will be no twilight war here.
As Dennis Ross said on CNN two days ago, Saddam is prone to make mistakes, and he'll likely make one in this case. Well, it looks like he's made his last mistake. He could have taken off to Bahrain or wherever and lived very nicely on the millions I'm sure he has squirreled away. It's hard to fathom what's makes this kind of mind tick.
While Churchill referred to Hitler as "a maniac of ferocious genius", I don't think we can apply this to Saddam Hussein. Ferocious maniac, yes. But Churchill went on to describe Hitler as "the repository and expression of the most virulent hatreds that have ever corroded the human breast". Yes, this we can apply.
In a couple of weeks, when his defences have been pulverized, will he pull a Hitler and end it some bunker as the Americans move in? Would he subject himself to arrest and a war crimes trial? I doubt it. I'm not sure what other plan he might have in mind, but I'm sure he doesn't want his own people to get a hold of him.
9:57pm AST
Public Opinion in Britain/French & German Screw-ups
Iain Murray has some great insights regarding British public opinion on the war, clearly showing the effects of Tony Blair's leadership and, perhaps, a realization regarding the UN process. More from Iain on this topic here.
I'd be interested to see how Canadian opinion sits now that war is almost upon us. A few weeks ago, as in Britain, Canadian public opinion showed opposition to the war, with this opposition dissolving once 'UN approval' was granted.
Canadians have seen the UN farce in operation just as clearly as the British ... no Tony Blair over here though.
Iain also blogs on how the French and the Germans may be coming to the realization that they've blown it Big Time.
5:11pm AST
War in Iraq -- Order of Battle
Here's the Order of Battle.
As a Churchillian, I note with pride the presence of DDG-81 in the Theodore Roosevelt battle group. Taken from the moral of Churchill's war memoirs, her motto is:
In War: Resolution In Peace: Good Will
As a Canadian, no comment.
4:47pm AST
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
CNN reports that British PM Tony Blair has won a vote in the House of Commons to lead Britain to war against Iraq (a vote he didn't require).
In a 412 to 149 vote, Blair staved off a major revolt by members of Parliament unhappy about British involvement in Iraq without backing from a second United Nations resolution.
"Staved off"?? He bloody well drop-kicked it into the next county, er, shire!
9:13pm AST
British MP Ann Clwyd, who chairs the organization Indict, writes a powerful piece in the Times on the brutality of the regime that is entering its final weeks -- See Men Shredded, Then Say You Don't Back War. The crimes Ms. Clwyd lists in her article are incredibly gruesome.
All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.
I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.
5:53pm AST
More Than the Fate of the Iraqi Regime at Stake
Tony Blair's passionate speech to the British House of Commons is brilliant and should be read. The Commons vote is less than an hour away.
I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come.
To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the United Nations back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.
Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this House, not just this government or indeed this Prime Minister, but for this House to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing. I beg to move the motion.
5:47pm AST
Monday, March 17, 2003
Britain's House Leader, Robin Cook, has submitted his letter of resignation to Tony Blair (Cook's letter and Blair's response are here).
Cook, who is also president of the Party of European Socialists, has resigned because he's a multilateralist, not because he opposes the use of force. This is typical of the majority of British and Canadian public opinion ~ war without UN approval is wrong while war with UN approval is acceptable. Putting so much faith in how France will vote, when it's clear that France doesn't give a damn about multilateralism or the UN (or how a little thugocracy like Guinea votes) -- I don't get it. (via Damian Penny)
Part of Blair's response:
On your resignation, I have always tried to resolve this crisis through the UN, as you recognise in your letter. But I was always clear that the UN must be the way of dealing with the issue, not avoiding dealing with it.
The Government is staying true to Resolution 1441. Others, in the face of continuing Iraqi non-compliance, are walking away from it.
As I have said to you, the threatened French veto set back hugely the considerable progress we were making in building consensus among UNSC members.
I passionately believe that if the international community had stayed rock solid in its determination and unity around Resolution 1441, Saddam could finally have been disarmed without a shot being fired.
But, just as he has done for the past twelve years, he has divided the international community and used his dictatorship to exploit our democracies and weaken our will. My will is as strong as ever, that he must be disarmed.
Saddam has had twelve years to disarm, and many last chances and final opportunities.
The surprise now is not that action may take place but that the process has been strung out over so long, despite repeated Resolutions, and repeated judgments that Iraq is in material breach of them.
8:07pm AST
Michael Demmons reports that the NBC affiliate in Atlanta has poured out its stock of Dom Perignon today. Idiotarians are one thing; but I can't abide morons!
You already bought the stuff, people! Drinking it is not going to help the French. Why not do something creative like pop them all and toast the end of France's world power delusions.
I'm reminded of a clip from A&E's Biography of Churchill. A British diplomat stationed in Ottawa told of how they received thousands of fine cigars from all over Canada as gifts in advance of one of Churchill's visits. Due to security reasons, Churchill was not allowed to receive any of them and the British staff were ordered to destroy them by fire ... "Which we did," said the diplomat, with a boyish grin.
7:56pm AST
Fox News has learned that Iraqi soldiers in the south of Iraq have been armed with chemical weapons. (via Michael Demmons)
Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions.
"The information is raw … and hard to confirm ... but we are seeing -- using different methods -- that Saddam Hussein has armed troops south of Baghdad with chemical weapons," one official said.
Officials say it's hard to tell how many of these weapons are being distributed, but the intelligence reports indicate that "some chemical shells" have been provided to troops.
Senior Defense officials say they expected the Iraqis to use these weapons, and they predict more movement by Iraqi troops in the South and the West in the next day or so.
7:45pm AST
Well, the diplomacy has ended and it's down to war, assuming Saddam doesn't leave the country. It's D-Day -2, I'd guess, assuming again that Hussein will get some notice.
But, maybe it will all begin overnight, as per David Janes' prediction (via Ron Knowling).
Damien has said it well, from my perspective. I support aggressive action against Saddam. I believe he's a threat, and that this is the world's last opportunity to neutralize that threat. Inspections aren't working and containment is not a workable solution. Not moving now means the invasion threat (without which there would have been no inspections at all) will quickly dissipate, leaving him in power to continue his plans to redraw the map of the Middle East. War with Iraq is inevitable, now in March 2003, or in a wider war in the future.
May it end quickly. May innocent life be spared. May Saddam's generals forcefully disobey their orders.
I watched a CNN interview today with 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta of East Timor. While he felt that more time should be given to inspections, he had no problems with the unilateral use of force to disarm a tyrant. He spoke of the Vietnamese intervention to end genocide in Cambodia in 1979, of Tanzania doing the same thing against Idi Amin's Uganda, and of the West's interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia.
He felt that the unilateral use of force is "fully justified" to deal with such threats, and that the world community was itself being "immoral" in not dealing with Saddam's tyranny; that it's been too long since the Gulf War and too long since 1441. He felt that France undermined the world's chances of using the threat of force to compel Saddam to disarm, and that it no doubt pleased Saddam. He felt France should have worked closer with the United States and the United Kingdom to show that the United Nations Security Council was united in its efforts. By Saddam's threat to wage war 'everywhere', Ramos-Horta said that it was as though Saddam was proving to the world his link to terrorism and his possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Sir John Keegan, probably our finest military historian, thinks that Saddam can be defeated even if Baghdad is not taken.
I see a lot of merit in Keegan's proposed solution. Street fighting in Baghdad with the Republican Guard would be enormously costly. We're not talking about a Stalingrad-esque seige -- food and medicine could be delivered into the city while the rest of Iraq was scoured for WMD. Once the regime had fallen and was just awaiting its end in Baghdad, Iraqi citizens could open up with details regarding the WMD programs.
As Keegan points out, once the war begins, the country will be lost to Saddam, though he may hold out in some cities. Keeping his forces to the roads will provide easy air targets; moving off road will subject his forces to superior technology; besides, the Tigris and Euphrates valleys are waterlogged at this time of year.
The moral of Churchill's war memoirs: In War: Resolution; In Defeat: Defiance; In Victory: Magnanimity; In Peace: Good Will.
7:24pm AST
Sunday, March 16, 2003
For all you navy buffs, the memorial and tribute site for the HMS Hood is a great one. It's as thorough and well-designed as any other site I've seen on the web, regarding any topic.
The Hood, of course, was lost during the famous hunt for the German battleship Bismarck with the cost of its entire complement, save 3 survivors (May 24, 1941). Here's Channel 4's Hunt for the Hood site (the Hood being found by underwater researchers in the summer of 2001).
The site features a page on the Sailor's Memorial at Point Pleasant Park, Halifax, Nova Scotia -- the memorial featuring a tribute to those lost with the Hood -- and links to the Sailor's Memorial page on my historical tour of Halifax.
Three Hood crewmen are listed here. They are Midshipmen Thomas Beard, Francis Jones and Christopher Norman of the RCN. Note- There were also just under 20 men from Newfoundland lost in Hood. However, at the time of their deaths, Newfoundland was not part of Canada. Thus, the Newfoundlanders are not listed on the Halifax Memorial.
5:59pm AST