What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq (1 Viewer)

Spiderman

Footballguy
Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq

WASHINGTON - The Russian government had sources inside the American military command as it planned and executed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to Iraqi documents released as part of a Pentagon report.

The Russians passed information to Saddam Hussein on U.S. troop movements and plans during the opening days of the war, according to the report Friday.

The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing two captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

A classified version of the Pentagon report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project," is not being made public.

In Moscow, a duty officer with Russia's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report late Friday evening. No one answered the phones at the Defense Ministry.

****

So, should we add Russia to our #### list ?

 
So, should we add Russia to our #### list ?
What?! Russia has spies?? Who do they think they are, anyhow? I'm sure we'd never flip anyone in the Kremlin, or otherwise engage someone in Russia to spy on them for us. That's just playing dirty pool. :rolleyes:
 
well, I don't think they were ever on our good list. And weren't they one of the countries that was skimming off the food-for-oil program?

btw, where did this article come from?

 
So, should we add Russia to our #### list ?
What?! Russia has spies?? Who do they think they are, anyhow? I'm sure we'd never flip anyone in the Kremlin, or otherwise engage someone in Russia to spy on them for us. That's just playing dirty pool. :rolleyes:
IMO ... there is a CANYON of a difference between spying on a government and feeding information to an enemy command. Information that could cause major casualties among US and Allied troops.

BIG difference.

 
So, should we add Russia to our #### list ?
What?! Russia has spies?? Who do they think they are, anyhow? I'm sure we'd never flip anyone in the Kremlin, or otherwise engage someone in Russia to spy on them for us. That's just playing dirty pool. :rolleyes:
So, you are ok with a government, supposedly supporting us in the War on Terror, giving our enemy positions of our troops, and battle plans ?It's one thing to not actively support the US going into Iraq, which they clearly did not, but it's another to actively support our enemy - and, no, I'm not suggesting that we to war with Russia.

 
well, I don't think they were ever on our good list. And weren't they one of the countries that was skimming off the food-for-oil program?

btw, where did this article come from?
It was on yahoo.com home page.Yes, they were one of the countries skimming off the oil for food program...

 
So, should we add Russia to our #### list ?
What?! Russia has spies?? Who do they think they are, anyhow? I'm sure we'd never flip anyone in the Kremlin, or otherwise engage someone in Russia to spy on them for us. That's just playing dirty pool. :rolleyes:
So, you are ok with a government, supposedly supporting us in the War on Terror, giving our enemy positions of our troops, and battle plans ?It's one thing to not actively support the US going into Iraq, which they clearly did not, but it's another to actively support our enemy - and, no, I'm not suggesting that we to war with Russia.
Maybe the Russians knew all along that we were getting smoke blown up our arses and that Iraq really was better off with Saddam in power.
 
I'm with you Coop, BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm having 80's flashbacks......

ETA Russia was one of the countries saying that SH had WMD's too.

lousy **********s

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They provided Iraq with nightvision equipment too during the build up. Some of the info that Russia passed along was completely wrong though perhaps indicating that we knew about the leak or strongly suspected the possibility of it.

 
TOP SECRET TOP SECRET TOP SECRET

To: Saddam Hussein

From: Boris ########

Re: Invasion plans

U.S. plans to attack at dawn. 500 cruise missiles coming your way, including one aimed directly at your house. 2000 planes to follow one week later with daily bombing runs. Many, many bombs. 150,000 troops to follow, arriving from the south and west, with tanks and humvees.

Best wishes stopping them, comrade. We hope with this information you will be alerted to their intentions.

 
I doubt they have any plants in CENTCOM. I am sure they got the info through electronic surveillance which means one of two things. Someone was way sloppy or we wanted someone to get it. Don't be to quick to discount the last choice. Wouldn't be the first time by a long shot.

 
As I recall events, we gave them a deadline and a countdown. The only mystery was about what time during the night we'd attack. England didn't even know what time as we jumped all over a SH compound/palace a little early.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New Report Provides Insights into Saddam Hussein Regime

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 24, 2006 – Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was so convinced that the United States was unwilling to accept casualties that he never believed the country would invade Iraq, and was far more worried about an internal revolt, a new, unclassified version of a Defense Department report issued today reveals.

The "Iraqi Perspective Project" views military operations in Iraq from March through May 1, 2003, through the eyes of senior Iraqi civilian and media leaders.

It depicts a country ruled by fear, deception and in some cases, delusion, where information was so compartmentalized that neither Saddam nor anyone within his regime had a clear understanding of their true military capabilities or the threats they faced, Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, director of U. S. Joint Forces Command's Joint Center for Operational Analysis, told Pentagon reporters today.

The two-year research effort, conducted by Cucolo's directorate, provides insights into what the enemy was thinking in the run-up to and early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Through dozens of interviews with senior officials and an extensive review of captured documents, the research team pieced together a study of the mindset of the Saddam regime, Cucolo explained.

Their product - the results of which are already being incorporated into professional military education programs - provides "a substantive examination of Saddam Hussein's leadership and its effects on the Iraqi military decision-making process," Cucolo said.

It also goes a long way toward revealing the inner workings of a closed regime from the insider's point of view, something that will prove highly valuable in developing lessons learned of the Iraqi conflict, he said.

The report reveals that Saddam never believed such a conflict would ever occur, Cucolo said. "Saddam believed that the United States was casualty-averse to an absolutely incredible degree," Cucolo said.

Saddam based that on several factors: the fact that he received only a diplomatic note after Iraqi Mirage fighters fired on the USS Stark in 1987, that the United States left Somalia after losing 19 troops, and its failure to commit ground troops early on in Kosovo, the team's research revealed.

In addition, Saddam believed that Russia and France would protect their own economic interests by blocking any United Nations Security Council authorization of an invasion, the report notes. "He was counting on other members of the international community to assist him in any way that he saw fit," Cucolo said.

In reality, Saddam was far more concerned about an internal revolt than a coalition invasion, Cucolo said. "That was the No. 1 security threat to this regime," he said. "In Saddam's mind, the uprising of 1991 was the closest thing to almost ending his regime. It was much more important to him than the Iran-Iraq War, Desert Storm and all the sanction periods, . . . because according to his own calculations, he lost control of all but one province, Al Anbar. "

Meanwhile, Saddam had a distorted view of his military capabilities, the report shows. Following an after-action review of Operation Desert Storm, Saddam corrected his senior military leaders' assessments, declaring Desert Storm a victory, project leader Kevin Woods told reporters. "Standing up to 33 nations, not backing down in the face of the world and the world's superpowers was seen as a great victory," Woods said.

Despite this assessment, the regime experienced serious weaknesses following that war, the report shows. Years of UN sanctions and coalition bombing had reduced the Iraqi military forces' effectiveness and usefulness. Other decisions further eroded this capability, from irrelevant guidance from political leaders to the appointment of Saddam's relatives and cronies into key leadership positions.

Despite these concerns, military and ministry leaders lied to Saddam about the true state of their capabilities, and he and his inner circle began to believe their own propaganda, the report reveals. Even Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddam's cousin who became known as Chemical Ali after ordering the 1988 chemical attack on Kurds, was convinced Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. Yet many of his colleagues never stopped believing in them, the report shows.

Cucolo acknowledged that some of the viewpoints and decisions revealed in the report seem unbelievable. "Some of Saddam Hussein's decisions may seem incredibly absurd to a Western military thinker, but if you take in the context of this closed regime, they make eminent sense to the Iraqis," he said. "And that is the value of this. "

The report's findings provide something a standard after-action report from the "blue," or friendly, view simply can't: the "red," or enemy, perspective of the situation, he said.

Navy Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who originated the Iraqi Perspective Project when he served as commander of JFCOM, explained the benefit of that insight to Pentagon reporters during yesterday's news briefing.

"The goal of this effort was to determine how our own coalition operations were viewed and understood by the opposing side, and what insights such analysis offers for future operations," Giambastiani said. "This report provides insights into the nature of Saddam's regime, the regime's strategic calculus, operational planning, military effectiveness and execution of the Iraqi defense. "

These insights weren't always what the researchers expected. "We learned things we didn't expect," he said. "There were some surprises there. "

Results of the Iraqi Perspective Project are helping DoD develop important lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom that provide what Giambastiani called "a balanced, holistic view of the battlefield cause and effect. "

The report represents the most extensive project of its kind to understand the views of an enemy military force since a similar project conducted just after World War II, Giambastiani noted. That effort involved a comprehensive review of recovered German and Japanese documents, along with interviews of key military and civilian leaders during the war.

 
As I recall events, we gave them a deadline and a countdown. The only mystery was about what time during the night we'd attack. England didn't even know what time as we jumped all over a SH compound/palace a little early.
Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, has a lot on this. It seems probable that we had SH spotted entering a building owned by his family, and lobbed a cruise missile in early, and the best info is that he was there, but survived miraculously and was dragged out of the rubble. Our key witness on the ground was killed in the missile attack, though.
 
As I recall events, we gave them a deadline and a countdown.  The only mystery was about what time during the night we'd attack.  England didn't even know what time as we jumped all over a SH compound/palace a little early.
Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, has a lot on this. It seems probable that we had SH spotted entering a building owned by his family, and lobbed a cruise missile in early, and the best info is that he was there, but survived miraculously and was dragged out of the rubble. Our key witness on the ground was killed in the missile attack, though.
Is PLan of Attack worth reading?
 
Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq

WASHINGTON - The Russian government had sources inside the American military command as it planned and executed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to Iraqi documents released as part of a Pentagon report.

The Russians passed information to Saddam Hussein on U.S. troop movements and plans during the opening days of the war, according to the report Friday.

The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing two captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

A classified version of the Pentagon report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project," is not being made public.

In Moscow, a duty officer with Russia's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report late Friday evening. No one answered the phones at the Defense Ministry.

****

So, should we add Russia to our #### list ?
I wonder how many of these 'shoulda seen it coming' moments there have been.

And oh yeah, as to the question: yes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I recall events, we gave them a deadline and a countdown. The only mystery was about what time during the night we'd attack. England didn't even know what time as we jumped all over a SH compound/palace a little early.
Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, has a lot on this. It seems probable that we had SH spotted entering a building owned by his family, and lobbed a cruise missile in early, and the best info is that he was there, but survived miraculously and was dragged out of the rubble. Our key witness on the ground was killed in the missile attack, though.
Well that's a fine how do you do.

 
As I recall events, we gave them a deadline and a countdown. The only mystery was about what time during the night we'd attack. England didn't even know what time as we jumped all over a SH compound/palace a little early.
Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, has a lot on this. It seems probable that we had SH spotted entering a building owned by his family, and lobbed a cruise missile in early, and the best info is that he was there, but survived miraculously and was dragged out of the rubble. Our key witness on the ground was killed in the missile attack, though.
Well that's a fine how do you do.
:wavesarms:

Bomb here, bomb here! :oldunsure: ####!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top