Slate's international papers roundup had this unAmerican viewpoint:

On Monday the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal led with a description of Baghdad's fall by Iraqi army officer Maj. Amer Ahmad. He described horrific casualty tolls but also a lack of central control over Iraq's military operations. This led him to believe a "bargain" had been struck "to save the head of Saddam Hussein." He pointed to a story circulating in the army that a Saddam aide, Gen. Sufyan Jgheib, "used an American Apache helicopter to visit units of the Republican Guard in Baghdad and ask them not to fight." The belief in a U.S.-Saddam deal is widely held in the Middle East, serving to explain why Baghdad fell almost without a fight but also bolstering a prevailing conspiracy theory that Saddam was an American agent.

I was wondering if I hadn't seen this "deal" theory because it's inconceivable, or just because it was inconceivable to American papers. If this rumor was about Osama bin Laden I wouldn't believe it at all, but the war went so smoothly I am open to theories that try to explain it.

Did it go that smoothly? I thought it wasn't up until the end.

There were just two hitches in the war the way it went in the papers. We met a little guerrilla resistance instead of a popular uprising, and we seemed not to have enough troops to guard the supply lines and take Baghdad. Both of those turned out all right and we didn't need to wait for the 4th Division.

The things that seem lucky: There was no urban combat, no chemical weapons or human waves, and an even lower casualty rate for us than Gulf War I. (Compared to casualties we inflicted, our casualty ratio was a factor of ten lower than the casualty ratio of other blowouts like the Israeli/Arab Six Day War and British Marines vs Argentine militia in the Falklands. I had a great source in PDF that I can't find, arguing that superior technology won't deliver those kind of ratios apart from big enemy errors.) Some other things went our way that we deserve credit for, like saving most of the oil wells. All in all, it seemed very smooth.

Not arguing for or against the theory yet, though I find it unlikely.

There was no urban combat,

At all? I should probably look that up, but I thought there were some street fights, particularly in N-city-that-I-can't-remember-after-2-drinks.

no chemical weapons or human waves

Perhaps because there were none in the first place. edit- I meant chem weapons. I'm unclear on what human waves are.

and an even lower casualty rate for us than Gulf War I.

Don't know about this.

Heather, trust me, as wars go, this went down by the numbers.

I had no desire to American casualty counts to go up, but there were lots of things that they could have done to make it more difficult for US troops. Heck, in a wargame last year, a US General playing the Iraqis severaly mauled the US troops, sinking an American fleet battlegroup, before he quit in disgust that the judges kept on a) undoing his massacres (they refloated the fleet, for instance) and b) made him reveal his troop locations and plans, despite the US players not being able to do it in game. It was a wargame you see, to prove that Shock and Awe would work. We all saw how well that did...

Right now, a lot of the Arab world can't believe those ratios either. No one was expecting an Iraqi win, but people were expecting the US to work for it. So the conspiracy theory is going around about that.

But an Apache? That doesn't have any troop carrying capacity.

I thought it was just the Iraqi aide that was supposed to have taken it to visit the troops.

I should probably go look stuff up, but like I said, I'm just playing with the story. Also, I'm a little lazy right now.

I see what you're saying. It seems to me that if the rumor were true, perhaps any deal would have been struck after the campaign began, but before the big push to Bagdad?

t Sighs

Could I just ask why, yet again, UnAmerican is being used as a de facto war discussion thread? Couldn't the subject be taken to Natter? Or perhaps we do need a Politics Thread.

If the majority of UnAmericans are happy with the war and its aftermath being discussed here, then no problem, but I'm a bit tired of the subject myself.

Edit: well, not tired of the subject itself, but of it being discussed here, or something. Sorry, I didn't sleep too well last night.

I thought of your perspective a little, Fiona, but I convinced myself I would get an answer from moonlit or someone saying, "Yeah, our newspapers floated that idea too, not just the Arabs," but really I should've known I'd start up a war conversation. Sorry.

Sorry. Really. No more war.

How's things for you Fiona, besides the no sleep.

Sorry. Really.

No need to apologise for talking, it's what Buffistas do. Also, I don't want to be the one who decides what this thread is for. Hence the request for other UnAms to chip in.

How's things for you Fiona, besides the no sleep.

Pretty good, thanks, Heather. It's definitely SPRING here (lovely sunny days), which makes a world of difference.

How about you? Why still up at your late hour?