View Full Version : Not what everyone expected...
Irat Hussien is a bus driver in Baghdad. He still reports to work and is still working as normal. His definition of 'shock and awe' is more like 'snore and bore'. The collapse of the civilian morale is not yet evident and life in Baghdad seems to be totally normal.
Umm Qassr - Pentagon, Friday stated town was totally in coalition hands. Today - just secured the town after fierce firefight.
Just watched a special report on one of the not so desirable effects of 'shock and awe' - Iraqi women giving birth, prematurely. Due to the coalition bobming. Not a pretty sight.
Deltapooh
23 Mar 03, 13:37
Irat Hussien is a bus driver in Baghdad. He still reports to work and is still working as normal. His definition of 'shock and awe' is more like 'snore and bore'. The collapse of the civilian morale is not yet evident and life in Baghdad seems to be totally normal.
The campaign was designed avoid civilian casualties. While I'm glad Mr. Irat Hussien is doing well admist all this. However, if he called that Friday's raid "snore and bore" he must believe shock and awe will involve nuclear weapons!
Umm Qassr - Pentagon, Friday stated town was totally in coalition hands. Today - just secured the town after fierce firefight.
People need to remember there is a difference between secure and clear. The Pentagon, who is probably getting a tad bit jumpy now need to make sure people understand how battles are fought.
Just watched a special report on one of the not so desirable effects of 'shock and awe' - Iraqi women giving birth, prematurely. Due to the coalition bobming. Not a pretty sight.
I'm certain it isn't. However, this is war. Innocent people, whether intentionally or not, will get hurt or be effected by it. We can only hope that the peace to come will offer somekind of compensation.
Eric Weider
25 Mar 03, 01:15
Originally posted by Marko
Irat Hussien is a bus driver in Baghdad. He still reports to work and is still working as normal. His definition of 'shock and awe' is more like 'snore and bore'. The collapse of the civilian morale is not yet evident and life in Baghdad seems to be totally normal.
Umm Qassr - Pentagon, Friday stated town was totally in coalition hands. Today - just secured the town after fierce firefight.
Just watched a special report on one of the not so desirable effects of 'shock and awe' - Iraqi women giving birth, prematurely. Due to the coalition bobming. Not a pretty sight.
PUTZ...nuff said.
Originally posted by Keef
PUTZ...nuff said.
I admire your stance and your political input into the discussion. I am glad you realise that the Iraqi's are labelling 'shock and awe' - 'snore and bore'. I also am thankful for the great in-depth ananlysis you give and will recommend you for 'Poster of the month', thanks and keep up the great work.
A BBC corresspondent in Jordan is reporting that Iraqi refugees are returning to Iraq, so far up to 6,000. Returning to take part in the 'resistance'.
I heard on the BBC yesterday that we were hopelessly bogged down in the south.
Originally posted by Tex
I heard on the BBC yesterday that we were hopelessly bogged down in the south.
We are. Almost two divisions bogged down. But that is a media interpretation - it is correct, but the media do not fully understand the 'Operational Art of War'. :p
No worries.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=716&e=13&u=/nm/20030322/ts_nm/iraq_nassiriya_dc
US Says Takes Nassiriya, Euphrates Bridge in Iraq
Sat Mar 22, 8:01 AM ET
"Nassiriya has fallen," said a U.S. military spokesman at U.S. Central Comand headquarters in Qatar.
Note the date.
This is just a big ruse by the coalition planners to give their troops a chance to capture these towns multiple times, adding to their glory :).
Originally posted by Marko
Just watched a special report on one of the not so desirable effects of 'shock and awe' - Iraqi women giving birth, prematurely. Due to the coalition bobming. Not a pretty sight.
You say that like this is new and solely an American byproduct. What about pictures of the thousands+ killed by Saddam and his henchmen? What about the women than gave birth prematurely in Berlin/Dresden etc.., or all the children that died in Germany? Are they also, "not a pretty sight?"
My mother was 12 years old living in Berlin in '45. She lost many friends to the night bombings by the English and Russians and has horrific stories of the temporary (thankfully) occupation by Soviet troops. Do you feel sorry for these people to? Or is it just your hatred of anything American rearing its butt-ugly head again?
To be against all war is one thing, to just point out the deaths caused by the U.S. in war is quite another.
Eric Weider
25 Mar 03, 11:22
Originally posted by Marko
I admire your stance and your political input into the discussion. I am glad you realise that the Iraqi's are labelling 'shock and awe' - 'snore and bore'. I also am thankful for the great in-depth ananlysis you give and will recommend you for 'Poster of the month', thanks and keep up the great work.
PUTZ
Originally posted by Marko
I am glad you realise that the Iraqi's are labelling 'shock and awe' - 'snore and bore'.
Who cares? If the USAF leveled the city of Baghdad the US would be blamed for killing tens of thousands of civilians. Instead the USAF carefully avoids killing civilians and the US is mocked for running a 'snore and bore' campaign.
Originally posted by SkyVon
You say that like this is new and solely an American byproduct. What about pictures of the thousands+ killed by Saddam and his henchmen? What about the women than gave birth prematurely in Berlin/Dresden etc.., or all the children that died in Germany? Are they also, "not a pretty sight?"
My mother was 12 years old living in Berlin in '45. She lost many friends to the night bombings by the English and Russians and has horrific stories of the temporary (thankfully) occupation by Soviet troops. Do you feel sorry for these people to? Or is it just your hatred of anything American rearing its butt-ugly head again?
To be against all war is one thing, to just point out the deaths caused by the U.S. in war is quite another.
...and....
Originally posted by Chuck
Who cares? If the USAF leveled the city of Baghdad the US would be blamed for killing tens of thousands of civilians. Instead the USAF carefully avoids killing civilians and the US is mocked for running a 'snore and bore' campaign.
Just because the British are carrying you in this war do not take it out on me. Shock and awe would never have worked. Just think of it the other way around. If the US was being bombed would you capitulate ? I doubt it - we are constantly reminded of how tough the US are, so who said the Iraqi's were not tough. Tell me the point in bombing empty buildings ?
Originally posted by SkyVon
To be against all war is one thing, to just point out the deaths caused by the U.S. in war is quite another.
...paranoia.....
Originally posted by SkyVon
You say that like this is new and solely an American byproduct. What about pictures of the thousands+ killed by Saddam and his henchmen? What about the women than gave birth prematurely in Berlin/Dresden etc.., or all the children that died in Germany? Are they also, "not a pretty sight?"
My mother was 12 years old living in Berlin in '45. She lost many friends to the night bombings by the English and Russians and has horrific stories of the temporary (thankfully) occupation by Soviet troops. Do you feel sorry for these people to? Or is it just your hatred of anything American rearing its butt-ugly head again?
To be against all war is one thing, to just point out the deaths caused by the U.S. in war is quite another.
..oh yes I have a hanky if you need to cry....
Pointing out the facts of how horrid war is does not mean I am anti-american. Go get a life instead of constantly labelling people.
Deltapooh
26 Mar 03, 07:17
Originally posted by Marko
Just because the British are carrying you in this war do not take it out on me. Shock and awe would never have worked. Just think of it the other way around. If the US was being bombed would you capitulate ? I doubt it - we are constantly reminded of how tough the US are, so who said the Iraqi's were not tough. Tell me the point in bombing empty buildings ?
Marko, the British military is not carrying anyone. They have an important role in this conflict. I believe the American media has neglected it.
It is a known rule that troops are only as good as their commander. In this commander, that would be the commander in-charge of 3 Commando. The Marines didn't perform well primarily because their commanders failed to employ them properly.
The Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) do not focus on guerilla warfare in an urban setting. They are a shock force meant to kick open doors for others to follow. Once follow-on forces arrive the MEU should become a support force for the main element providing rapid armor, and close air support.
It's also a known fact that US and British forces don't work well together. American commanders tend not to listen to any ideal not stamped with an "made in the USA" trademark. British commanders believe they know how to fight better than anyone, which is not true. Both sides fail because of their egos and ignorance of the capabilities and skill of the other.
The ideal that the British is carrying the war is completely outrageous and frankly offensive to the forces serving there. This is a team effort. If the British military, who have made similarly offensive comments in the past few days, think they can do a better job, they should leave the Coalition. The United Kingdom lacks the firepower, or resources to go it alone. I believe the British military is a world class fighting force who are very skilled at urban combat at all levels. I wish the US would adopt their division to corps level urban combat training system. I also believe they are a professional force. Tragically, human nature, nationalism, and pride sometimes lead members of it's force to forget that.
Originally posted by Deltapooh
Marko, the British military is not carrying anyone. They have an important role in this conflict. I believe the American media has neglected it.
It is a known rule that troops are only as good as their commander. In this commander, that would be the commander in-charge of 3 Commando. The Marines didn't perform well primarily because their commanders failed to employ them properly.
The Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) do not focus on guerilla warfare in an urban setting. They are a shock force meant to kick open doors for others to follow. Once follow-on forces arrive the MEU should become a support force for the main element providing rapid armor, and close air support.
It's also a known fact that US and British forces don't work well together. American commanders tend not to listen to any ideal not stamped with an "made in the USA" trademark. British commanders believe they know how to fight better than anyone, which is not true. Both sides fail because of their egos and ignorance of the capabilities and skill of the other.
The ideal that the British is carrying the war is completely outrageous and frankly offensive to the forces serving there. This is a team effort. If the British military, who have made similarly offensive comments in the past few days, think they can do a better job, they should leave the Coalition. The United Kingdom lacks the firepower, or resources to go it alone. I believe the British military is a world class fighting force who are very skilled at urban combat at all levels. I wish the US would adopt their division to corps level urban combat training system. I also believe they are a professional force. Tragically, human nature, nationalism, and pride sometimes lead members of it's force to forget that.
Why not send the US troops home and let the Brits deal with it, we do after all have a much better track record.
Also the US marines could not clear Um Qasr because they are crap - nothing to do with the commander on the ground. US marines do 12 weeks basic training, the British regulars do at least 10 weeks. So how does that qualify them as special forces ? By the way the Royal Marine Commandoes do 26 weeks basic training - the toughest training of its kind in the world. I know just how good the British forces are, you do not need to try to justify the Americans being good - they are not that good - too reliant on techno gadgets instead of getting in there and doing the enemy in. So stop blaming the Brits for your slowness and incompetence in ALL things military.
Besides at this time we all should be allies in the war against Iraq, well invasion of Iraq anyway. I don't care who fights alongside the British liberators of Iraq, as long as they are not Canadian or Uzbek. :p
Deltapooh
26 Mar 03, 16:21
Originally posted by Marko
Why not send the US troops home and let the Brits deal with it, we do after all have a much better track record.
Also the US marines could not clear Um Qasr because they are crap - nothing to do with the commander on the ground. US marines do 12 weeks basic training, the British regulars do at least 10 weeks. So how does that qualify them as special forces ? By the way the Royal Marine Commandoes do 26 weeks basic training - the toughest training of its kind in the world. I know just how good the British forces are, you do not need to try to justify the Americans being good - they are not that good - too reliant on techno gadgets instead of getting in there and doing the enemy in. So stop blaming the Brits for your slowness and incompetence in ALL things military.
Besides at this time we all should be allies in the war against Iraq, well invasion of Iraq anyway. I don't care who fights alongside the British liberators of Iraq, as long as they are not Canadian or Uzbek. :p
There's the problem. The MEU (SOC) is like a beefed-up Marine battalion. They undergo a 9 month training cycle before deployment. Unlike the Royal Marine Commandos, the MEU is designed as a quick strike force to address rapidly developing problems. They were assigned to 3 Commando to beef up the British element and provide coordinated close in fire support. The British commander decided to deploy them on a security mission. That was a mistake.
British military suffers from a manpower issue and thus trains all it's troops equally. The US has a much larger pool to and can afford training some units at very specific tasks. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages.
Marko, I won't offend other British and American soldiers by rebuffing your offensive comments with keen knowledge. I'll just ignore it. We are a team. If any side thought it could go in alone, they would have.
Originally posted by Marko
I don't care who fights alongside the British liberators of Iraq, as long as they are not Canadian or Uzbek. :p
How am I suppose to take that snippet about Canadians?:devious:
Tim McBride
26 Mar 03, 22:05
Originally posted by Tzar
How am I suppose to take that snippet about Canadians?:devious:
The Brits just don't want to be shown up by the Canadain army...
:D
Cheetah772
26 Mar 03, 22:26
Hello,
To be truthful, I think having the Brits as our ally is great, but I have to wonder are we handling this properly?
I have to ask this one, what are the Brits waiting for in encircling Basra? I know they do worry about Feyadeen and the other paramilitary units in addition to a possible uprising taking place inside the city. But, I do know the Brits do have plenty of experience in the urban warfare, as much I hate to admit it, they may be one of the best suited to the urban warfare than the American troops.
The more I think about it, the more I become disgusted with the way the politicians have been handling this war.
Look, I know the Brits may be uneasy about participating in the urban warfare due to the widespread opposition to the war in Great Britain, but I am upset that the Brits are waiting this out, there's very little time for us to finish this war soon. The more time we are waiting this out, the more chances the Iraqis will take in counterattacking or attacking our supply lines.
I just hope we can wrap this up in Basra and move these British armored units toward Baghdad, patching up the supply lines along the routes.
Otherwise, we will bog down indefinitely, while wait for 4th ID and ABDs to reinforce the current units on the frontline.
The last thing...
Can we really take on Baghdad with just one heavy armored division, one mechanized division, and a couple of infantry divisions? That's a total of two or four divisions taking on an estimated seven, eight, or even up to ten Republican Guard divisions plus a single elite Special Republican Guard division within Baghdad itself.
Somehow, I think we should have a second heavy armored division in place before starting this war IMHO.
Dan
Tim McBride
26 Mar 03, 22:42
Originally posted by Cheetah772
But, I do know the Brits do have plenty of experience in the urban warfare, as much I hate to admit it, they may be one of the best suited to the urban warfare than the American troops.
I don't know how good they are at it.They've been in Belfast for how many years and havn't been able to stop the IRA or other groups.
_Tim
Cheetah772
26 Mar 03, 22:50
Originally posted by Tim McBride
I don't know how good they are at it.They've been in Belfast for how many years and havn't been able to stop the IRA or other groups.
_Tim
Hello,
I'm not so sure about that one, remember, the US Army had a tough time fighting it out during the Tet Offensive in 1968. Though eventually the US Army did win the fights in the urban settings, yet, they proved to be just miserable when it came down to fighting street-to-street.
It's one of the reasons why the US Marines established MOUTs.
While, I look back on my post, the more I think about it, one of the keys to acquiring the advantages in the urban warfare is flexibility, the Russians may be one of the MOST experienced in city warfare than anybody on this world, but they sucked badly, and still is quite evident even today.
So, how can we really measure the effectiveness of any unit conducting the urban warfare? It's really based on case-by-case basis?
One way we could look at this is, the Brits are more skilled in conducting tactical combat in the buildings, while the US is more skilled at conducting city-wide combat, after all, we only suffered 42 deaths and 430 wounded at the Battle of Hue during Tet Offensive at the cost of 5,000 NVA and Viet Cong troops dead.
Dan
Tim McBride
26 Mar 03, 23:11
I was half kidding Dan.
Actually the British experiance againt the IRA will probally make them the best troops to police the cities after they are taken.
_Tim
Originally posted by Tim McBride
I was half kidding Dan.
Actually the British experiance againt the IRA will probally make them the best troops to police the cities after they are taken.
_Tim
Eng-o-land swings like a pendulum do.
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two.
From Tigris to Euphrates, it's ours again,
and tears wash the cheeks of Iraqi children.
Originally posted by Cheetah772
The more I think about it, the more I become disgusted with the way the politicians have been handling this war.
These politicians you are referring to have painted themselves in a corner by saying they were coming to liberate the Iraqi people, and that they were not there to slaughter the Iraqis, only the regime. It obviously imposes necessary constraints on operations. This is why they are proceeding cautiously. It will make the war longer, for sure, but that is the path that has been chosen, and that the Coalition will have to go through to the end.
Can we really take on Baghdad with just one heavy armored division, one mechanized division, and a couple of infantry divisions? That's a total of two or four divisions taking on an estimated seven, eight, or even up to ten Republican Guard divisions plus a single elite Special Republican Guard division within Baghdad itself.
This is certainly a concern. If I would be at Central Command, I would be worried about how long the Republican Guard will continue fighting. As I mentioned in another post, the worst scenario would be to see the RG retreat INSIDE Baghdad and then just say to the Coalition, "come and get us, if you can stomach it"...
Then it's either the Coalition lay a long siege to Baghdad, with all the catastrophic consequences it may have on the civilian population - diseases, lack of food and medicine, etc. This would be a PR disaster and have negative consequences on the rebuilding of a future democratic Iraq.
Or the Coalition may choose to go for it and assault Baghdad, with everything that this involves: important casualties on both sides, thousands of civilians dead, and massive destruction of parts of the capital.
Cheetah772
27 Mar 03, 00:11
Originally posted by Tzar
These politicians you are referring to have painted themselves in a corner by saying they were coming to liberate the Iraqi people, and that they were not there to slaughter the Iraqis, only the regime. It obviously imposes necessary constraints on operations. This is why they are proceeding cautiously. It will make the war longer, for sure, but that is the path that has been chosen, and that the Coalition will have to go through to the end.
This is certainly a concern. If I would be at Central Command, I would be worried about how long the Republican Guard will continue fighting. As I mentioned in another post, the worst scenario would be to see the RG retreat INSIDE Baghdad and then just say to the Coalition, "come and get us, if you can stomach it"...
Then it's either the Coalition lay a long siege to Baghdad, with all the catastrophic consequences it may have on the civilian population - diseases, lack of food and medicine, etc. This would be a PR disaster and have negative consequences on the rebuilding of a future democratic Iraq.
Or the Coalition may choose to go for it and assault Baghdad, with everything that this involves: important casualties on both sides, thousands of civilians dead, and massive destruction of parts of the capital.
Yes Tzar,
BUT....in some ways I wonder what's the difference in the liberation of France in 1944 and today's modern "liberation of Iraq"? I'm not just talking about the PR wars, but what about militarily and politically?
It seemed that the French were willing to tear up and suffer huge casualties in order to liberate their own country from the German military machine, but today, it's almost like everybody believes in some kind of non-lethal war, which is really foolish anyway.
Dan
Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,
Can we really take on Baghdad with just one heavy armored division, one mechanized division, and a couple of infantry divisions? That's a total of two or four divisions taking on an estimated seven, eight, or even up to ten Republican Guard divisions plus a single elite Special Republican Guard division within Baghdad itself.
Somehow, I think we should have a second heavy armored division in place before starting this war IMHO.
Dan
I wouldn't worry too much about the disparity in the number of divisions of each side in the battle. 4 US Divisions should be able to handle 6-8 RG divisions with minimal problem.
As was mentioned in another post, Iraqi RG Divs are much smaller (8000-10000) than their American counterparts (although their teeth to tail ratio may be higher). Also, the American divisions can bring much more combat power to bear in the attack zone (air superiority could be worth 1-2 divisions in combat power alone, although that aspect is diminished in built-up areas). Remember, as the attacking force, the US has the initiative to choose where, when and with what, to attack. They can conceivably achieve an overwhelming local superiority in the attacking zone while still being outnumbered in the field.
Cheetah772
27 Mar 03, 00:44
Originally posted by tigersqn
I wouldn't worry too much about the disparity in the number of divisions of each side in the battle. 4 US Divisions should be able to handle 6-8 RG divisions with minimal problem.
As was mentioned in another post, Iraqi RG Divs are much smaller (8000-10000) than their American counterparts (although their teeth to tail ratio may be higher). Also, the American divisions can bring much more combat power to bear in the attack zone (air superiority could be worth 1-2 divisions in combat power alone, although that aspect is diminished in built-up areas). Remember, as the attacking force, the US has the initiative to choose where, when and with what, to attack. They can conceivably achieve an overwhelming local superiority in the attacking zone while still being outnumbered in the field.
Tigersqn,
On the other hand, had we waited for the 4th ID to arrive in Kuwait, and started the war with two speedy divisions, one racing northwest to Baghdad, while the other going up northeast, with 1st Marine Expetidionary Division driving up center, then it would likely squeeze Baghdad more easily.
But because of delayed arrival of 4th ID, Baghdad has ample opportunites to shift the resources behind the frontline to harrass the supply lines and preventing the people from surrendering peacefully. This forced 101st Airborne Division to protect the supply lines, a waste of division IMHO.
Moreover, if we had 4th ID, we could have taken Basra easily, and humanitarian aid would have come in much faster than what is right now.
Therefore, IMHO, the delayed arrival of 4th ID is a SIGNIFICANT, I mean SIGNIFICANT, problem. There is SO much we could do with two heavy mechanized divisions, and all because of Turkey's balking, our pre-war plan is shredded like nobody has ever seen!
Dan
Originally posted by Deltapooh
There's the problem. The MEU (SOC) is like a beefed-up Marine battalion. They undergo a 9 month training cycle before deployment. Unlike the Royal Marine Commandos, the MEU is designed as a quick strike force to address rapidly developing problems. They were assigned to 3 Commando to beef up the British element and provide coordinated close in fire support. The British commander decided to deploy them on a security mission. That was a mistake.
British military suffers from a manpower issue and thus trains all it's troops equally. The US has a much larger pool to and can afford training some units at very specific tasks. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages.
Marko, I won't offend other British and American soldiers by rebuffing your offensive comments with keen knowledge. I'll just ignore it. We are a team. If any side thought it could go in alone, they would have.
Granted...but I was only winding you up. :p
Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,
To be truthful, I think having the Brits as our ally is great, but I have to wonder are we handling this properly?
I have to ask this one, what are the Brits waiting for in encircling Basra? I know they do worry about Feyadeen and the other paramilitary units in addition to a possible uprising taking place inside the city. But, I do know the Brits do have plenty of experience in the urban warfare, as much I hate to admit it, they may be one of the best suited to the urban warfare than the American troops.
The more I think about it, the more I become disgusted with the way the politicians have been handling this war.
Look, I know the Brits may be uneasy about participating in the urban warfare due to the widespread opposition to the war in Great Britain, but I am upset that the Brits are waiting this out, there's very little time for us to finish this war soon. The more time we are waiting this out, the more chances the Iraqis will take in counterattacking or attacking our supply lines.
I just hope we can wrap this up in Basra and move these British armored units toward Baghdad, patching up the supply lines along the routes.
Otherwise, we will bog down indefinitely, while wait for 4th ID and ABDs to reinforce the current units on the frontline.
The last thing...
Can we really take on Baghdad with just one heavy armored division, one mechanized division, and a couple of infantry divisions? That's a total of two or four divisions taking on an estimated seven, eight, or even up to ten Republican Guard divisions plus a single elite Special Republican Guard division within Baghdad itself.
Somehow, I think we should have a second heavy armored division in place before starting this war IMHO.
Dan
I agree...politicians should REALLY stay out of the military planning stage. Should leave the boys alone to do it their way.
Originally posted by Cheetah772
This forced 101st Airborne Division to protect the supply lines, a waste of division IMHO.
Therefore, IMHO, the delayed arrival of 4th ID is a SIGNIFICANT, I mean SIGNIFICANT, problem. There is SO much we could do with two heavy mechanized divisions, and all because of Turkey's balking, our pre-war plan is shredded like nobody has ever seen!
Dan
First point- totally agree, maybe the British and US should have mobilised Terratorials and NG for supply line duty. The 101st protecing rear areas is a total waste.
Second, I agree again. At the moment the coalition is stretched, no matter what way you look at it, when you are dealing with a country the size of Iraq, you need numbers - period.
John Paul
27 Mar 03, 04:47
Originally posted by Marko
I agree...politicians should REALLY stay out of the military planning stage. Should leave the boys alone to do it their way.
But war is just a continuation of politics by other means.You cannot seperate the two.I highly doubt if there has been a war in history in which politics did not play a role in the planning and execution of it.
Cheetah772
27 Mar 03, 05:14
Originally posted by John Paul
But war is just a continuation of politics by other means.You cannot seperate the two.I highly doubt if there has been a war in history in which politics did not play a role in the planning and execution of it.
John Paul,
Just how much are the politicians allowed to meddle in the war affairs?
For example, LBJ often meddled in the Vietnam affairs, trying to micromanage the war to the best of his ability. Obviously this failed miserably just as Hitler failed in his micromanagement of the German military machine.
In my view, the politicians are responsible for the domestic front only. They should focus on gathering public support and increasing the industrial capacity in the times of war. They should discuss with the army officers on how to improve the training or recruiting programs in order to prepare the green soldiers better for the combat.
Naturally, there are always political objectives to be won in any war, but they should be clearly outlined before any war erupts, and provide the military flexibility in how best to reach the objectives without any political damage.
I believe the best example is Abraham Lincoln, he did meddle in the war affairs, but only because the Union leaders were incompetent or ineffective, once he had the right person in place, he mainly left the war affairs to him. Truthfully, many presidents since that time have tried to follow in his steps, and unfortunately for America, most of them failed miserably. Not even FDR came close to in the style.
Dan
John Paul
27 Mar 03, 05:27
There is not anything being said to show that the politicians are at this point meddeling in operational matters.The coalition is being hamstrung,if you wish to look at it that way,by decisions made before the first shot was fired.Its a no win really,restrictive ROEs mean that it will take the coalition more time,and casualties,to accomplish their goals.More liberal ones would mean that many more Iraqis would be killed,including civilians,and all the bad press that would go along with it.Part of the political desicion making going into this war was to show the Iraqi people that the war was not against them,and part of that is by trying to limit the amount of damage and losses that they incur.Was this the right decision?I don't know,but thems is the rules we have to play by until this is over,or until the current rules prove to be too cumbersome to allow effective execution of the war.
Originally posted by John Paul
But war is just a continuation of politics by other means.You cannot seperate the two.I highly doubt if there has been a war in history in which politics did not play a role in the planning and execution of it.
Obviously...I was merely expressing a wish. But it would still be unthinkable in reality. The military doing what they wanted - Iraq would be a smouldering mess right about now. With radioactive fallout slowly moving across the middle east.
John Paul
27 Mar 03, 06:07
Originally posted by Marko
Obviously...I was merely expressing a wish. But it would still be unthinkable in reality. The military doing what they wanted - Iraq would be a smouldering mess right about now. With radioactive fallout slowly moving across the middle east.
I'll agree.Sometimes having a restricting hand is not a bad thing.This is not total war.
However, had Iraq actually declared war on the Uk and attacked our people or soldiers then I could not care about the humanitarian cost. But, in reality we are the Invaders with the whole world watching on as referee.
P.S.
I would like to France involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. They could be charged with showing the new Iraqi regime how not to run a country.
John Paul
27 Mar 03, 06:18
Originally posted by Marko
I would like to France involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. They could be charged with showing the new Iraqi regime how not to run a country.
Is this the real Marko or is this an evil,or good depending upon your views,twin?
Actually i'm joking,often our views and outlooks are more complicated than simple right and left.I know that i often hold views that contradict each other.
Dan Neely
27 Mar 03, 08:16
*sound of pig wings flapping*
I agree completely with Marko, infact I think that the French should be allowed to do ALL of the rebuilding. With the caveat that they also play for every cent of it. :D
Ivan Rapkinov
27 Mar 03, 08:23
Leave the froggies alone Dan, I mean how can you expect them to care about Iraq's WMDs while they're busy blowing up South-Pacific atolls?
Originally posted by Cheetah772
Tigersqn,
On the other hand, had we waited for the 4th ID to arrive in Kuwait, and started the war with two speedy divisions, one racing northwest to Baghdad, while the other going up northeast, with 1st Marine Expetidionary Division driving up center, then it would likely squeeze Baghdad more easily.
But because of delayed arrival of 4th ID, Baghdad has ample opportunites to shift the resources behind the frontline to harrass the supply lines and preventing the people from surrendering peacefully. This forced 101st Airborne Division to protect the supply lines, a waste of division IMHO.
Moreover, if we had 4th ID, we could have taken Basra easily, and humanitarian aid would have come in much faster than what is right now.
Therefore, IMHO, the delayed arrival of 4th ID is a SIGNIFICANT, I mean SIGNIFICANT, problem. There is SO much we could do with two heavy mechanized divisions, and all because of Turkey's balking, our pre-war plan is shredded like nobody has ever seen!
Dan
I agree. In fact in a previous post, I said much the same thing. The post you quoted is dependent upon the swift arrival of 4th Div to the combat area
Originally posted by Cheetah772
Yes Tzar,
BUT....in some ways I wonder what's the difference in the liberation of France in 1944 and today's modern "liberation of Iraq"? I'm not just talking about the PR wars, but what about militarily and politically?
It seemed that the French were willing to tear up and suffer huge casualties in order to liberate their own country from the German military machine, but today, it's almost like everybody believes in some kind of non-lethal war, which is really foolish anyway.
Dan
Hi Dan,
I just look to my data, about 440.000 french civilian died in the 2nd world war in which 180.000 in Concetration and Extermination camp and 70.000 under allies bombing.
The town where I live, was greatly damaged as the Renault plant was there. 2 bomb run in 1942, 1943 destroyed 1/3 of the town with more than 3000 victims
Der Wanderer
Originally posted by Marko
However, had Iraq actually declared war on the Uk and attacked our people or soldiers then I could not care about the humanitarian cost. But, in reality we are the Invaders with the whole world watching on as referee.
P.S.
I would like to France involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. They could be charged with showing the new Iraqi regime how not to run a country.
I ask myself why so many godoms come in France buying houses food, spending holidays as Great Tony Blair, if our fu... country is so bad. Dear UK citizens stay on the other side of the Chunel you will feel more confrortable. And let us eat frogs snail with plenty of Garlic:thumup: and with our so frenchy wine.
and let our best tourist friends "Germans"coming in peace :D
:cool:
Der Wanderer:D
Deltapooh
27 Mar 03, 17:23
Politicians have a role in conflict. The level of that role is debatable, but not it's existence. The political branch decides what political objectives are required, and provide the military with a clear intent. The military must then translate those instructions into military objectives. The two then meet to ensure the military plan is in accordance with the stated political objectives and parameters.
The politician has the responsibility of monitoring the developing conflict to ensure the political objectives and parameters are being met. Furthermore, they must retain the power to issue new objectives or parameters based on their assessment of the political and diplomatic situation.
The military is not capable, nor is designed, to make political decisions concerning war. They are too involved to develop the kind of detached decision-making process vital to the conduct of the war effort.
When Gen. Schwarzkopf held the ceasefire talks with the Iraqis in 1991, he did not seek, or receive political guidance. He walked in as a military man. Thus, his priority was not the driven by political concerns, which was the ideal of the ceasefire, but his military concerns. These had been settled in the conflict. Basically the first words out of Schwarzkopf's mouth were "I want all our POWs and MIA accounted for." The second were. "I'll be withdrawing my forces from Iraq just as soon as possible." Beyond, that the man did not think about the political aspects of the ceasefire, like helicopter overflight rights, Iraqi military movements, the polticial situation in Iraq. Everyone foolishly allowed left everything to an undecided UN engulped in the euphoria of victory. It was one the greatest political blunders in modern times.
The level of political involvement in the war effort is debatable. Alot depends on the political risks incurred by the nation. The more you want to limit that risk, the more linvolved politicians will be. Vietnam and the current Gulf War have enormous political concerns.
Unlike in Vietnam, Bush is not heavily involved. Instead he's tacked on very strict parameters for the military to operate within. I agree these might be too extensive. Bush is trying to legitimize what is already considered wrong, and appease those whom have made their decision.
This is war. You should be mindful of the political concerns. Yet, act in a logical manner.
I do not believe Bush has gone off the deep end. None of the military commanders are eager to fight for Baghdad. Franks might have been convinced this would be easy, but his planners weren't. The kind of follow-on force being sent didn't have peacekeeping in mind. They were going in to fight. It was a case of hoping for the best while preparing for the worst. Getting to Baghdad rapidly was indeed important. The sandstorms will not be so much a problem once we get into the cities. The greatest threat they posed was indeed in open terrain where the enemy could easily flank us.
I would like to see the "Shock and Awe phase" expanded. This is a war, and we need to achieve victory. Fewer people wil die if we end the war now. The Iraqis won't hold out indefinately. One of my thoughts before the war was to encircle the city, pound political areas, and supply, and wait. The need for survival would likely drive the Iraqis out of the Baghdad and into the open. Once that occurs, we can then enter Baghdad.
I don't believe anyone wanted to really see a disorganized rebellion against the Iraqi regime. Once that kind of thing starts, you can't stop it. And it's more risky for our soldiers.
As for the 4 ID. I don't think we should have waited for their arrival. However, now that we at the city, we do have time. Let's bring in the 2nd ACR-L to the north, and if possible maybe the 3rd ACR (that will be an airlift challenge). Then slowly erode the Iraqi positions around Baghdad. Meantime, our forces work at securing the rest of the country. Not the best plan, but would keep our casualties down and get aid to people without waiting for the outcome of the big battle.
Originally posted by jlbetin
I ask myself why so many godoms come in France buying houses food, spending holidays as Great Tony Blair, if our fu... country is so bad. Dear UK citizens stay on the other side of the Chunel you will feel more confrortable. And let us eat frogs snail with plenty of Garlic:thumup: and with our so frenchy wine.
and let our best tourist friends "Germans"coming in peace :D
:cool:
Der Wanderer:D
The only reason France were going to veto the UN resolution is due to the fact they will lose valuable oil contracts as a result of US led dominance in the country. The two main opposers to war (France, Russia) are the two with the most to lose and the two with the most recent involvement with Iraqi businessmen. Dirty hypocritical French. The French who let Mugabe visit Europe despite a EU ban on him travelling. What is it with France supporting dictators ? Do the words Vichy and collaboration mean anything to you ?
Originally posted by Marko
The only reason France were going to veto the UN resolution is due to the fact they will lose valuable oil contracts as a result of US led dominance in the country. The two main opposers to war (France, Russia) are the two with the most to lose and the two with the most recent involvement with Iraqi businessmen. Dirty hypocritical French. The French who let Mugabe visit Europe despite a EU ban on him travelling. What is it with France supporting dictators ? Do the words Vichy and collaboration mean anything to you ?
Mugabe wasn’t the only dictator in Paris in February. Except one or two, all the heads of state in Africa are Dictators. I don’t hear many things from you about them. Well, unfortunately for the Nigerians, the Congolese or other Africans, there are not white farmers in their countries.
Dirty hypocritical French ? No, you the hypocrite. I don’t see any Royal Marine in Zimbabwe. Is it because Mugabe has no WMD, or is it because he has no oil ?
La Palice.
Originally posted by LaPalice
Mugabe wasn’t the only dictator in Paris in February. Except one or two, all the heads of state in Africa are Dictators. I don’t hear many things from you about them. Well, unfortunately for the Nigerians, the Congolese or other Africans, there are not white farmers in their countries.
Dirty hypocritical French ? No, you the hypocrite. I don’t see any Royal Marine in Zimbabwe. Is it because Mugabe has no WMD, or is it because he has no oil ?
La Palice.
Joli coup Monsieur:D
Cheetah772
28 Mar 03, 14:56
Originally posted by jlbetin
Joli coup Monsieur:D
I'll pretend to think you said you love MacDonald's! And American football, not one of these kooky soccer players with stupid socks making them look like transexualites....
Dan :D
Originally posted by Marko
The only reason France were going to veto the UN resolution is due to the fact they will lose valuable oil contracts as a result of US led dominance in the country. The two main opposers to war (France, Russia) are the two with the most to lose and the two with the most recent involvement with Iraqi businessmen. Dirty hypocritical French. The French who let Mugabe visit Europe despite a EU ban on him travelling. What is it with France supporting dictators ? Do the words Vichy and collaboration mean anything to you ?
Dear Marko,
did you read my other post about the french colapse of 1940!! Please, dear ally, read it carefuly.
For your own knowledge, My uncle fought the War in 1940, he was in maginot line he stop fighting late in june 1940, he was put in fortress due to 3 escapes. My father join 1st French army in 1944 and fight up to to Berchtesgaden. So for me the accusation of hypocrism don't touch me.
Just for propective, what would UK citizen made if they have been invaded by German ??? ( Exocet 1 launch) :)
Colaboration was not french specific. The big drama in France was it was driven by a "world war one hero", not an obscure facist. And French Poilus were confident with him, at VERDUN (may be you have eared about this town), he saved the french from colapse, same when part of french army riot against uncessful mass atack in 1917. Attack which could have be stopped if the UK HQ had not refused, as they can continue their own attack !
Question south afica and other bantoustan, you know those apartheid countries with big farms owned only by white, they were not UK colonies ??? (Exocet 2 launched) :)
Worst there is one big leader of GIA in London, he drove all the terrrist attacks against France, since 6 years we are still waiting him to be judged. Spanish people with ETA are more responsive
it is not worst than muggabe ( Exocet 3 launched) :)
We can continue to argue up to the morning, but UK people are not my enemy since I realy apreciate the way they were receiving me when I was a teenager trying to learn English, an youg Uk ladies, yeaaah! ( Exocet of pleasure launched):love:
But at the end for me French, UK, German, we are all members of the only one country which must count for all of us The European Union.
dear Marko did you read what I wrote in a French Point of View, it is the true fear we have, remember IRA, we are brother of fear . What would occur if your pakistnese citizens riots in london pushed by Extremist predicators
Best wishes from Paris
Originally posted by Cheetah772
I'll pretend to think you said you love MacDonald's! And American football, not one of these kooky soccer players with stupid socks making them look like transexualites....
Dan :D
Sure I drink Coca or Pepsi too, my company has a bureau in austin an My US colleage are my friends. My son like baseball, did you know that 2/3 of the TV we are looking are made with US series. E.R I love it. Cameleon ( I don't know the US title, it is a story of JAROD who escape from the Center). And Star Treck and Babylon 5 etc... the Lord of the Ring etc.... My favorite science fiction novelist is Alfred Van Vogt.
My dream, visit all the civil war battlefields.
What I would like to say to you ALL US folks, french people are against this war, not agaist US. when the 11th of september arrised the 1St foreign president to go on groud zero was big Jack. Don't mix everything, polital reasons good or bad and friendship between us. We have right to told you we don't agree.
If not we are only shoes that you can wear and drop away.
Amicales pensées
Der Wanderer:love:
Wolfe Tone
28 Mar 03, 15:32
Originally posted by Tim McBride
I was half kidding Dan.
Actually the British experiance againt the IRA will probally make them the best troops to police the cities after they are taken.
_Tim
The Brits made a complete balls of handling the situation in the North right from the start. I’ll spare you the sordid details suffice to say that many of their actions were completely counter productive. When the British troops were sent out of their barracks and on to the streets in August 1969 the local Catholic populace actually welcomed them! In a far more friendly way than I have seen any Iraqis interact with Allied soldiers in the past week on TV.
By the summer of ’70 they were resented and hated. Things went further off the rails after that for them as the Provo’s gathered popular support before launching their War in early 1971. This lasted till 31 August 1994 and then again in 1996 and 1997. Since the signing of the Good Friday Peace Agreement in 1998 a shaky peace has existed.
All the indications are that Iraq will be like a mixture of the Palestine/Six Counties situations once the conventional war comes to an end. In the North of Ireland the conflict claimed the lives of over 3,000 people on a population base of aprox. 1.5 million people, of which the Catholics made up 33% at the beginning of the conflict and around 44% today.
About 1,000 or so members of the Crown Forces were killed, mostly by the IRA. The British Government has had to maintain between 20 to 30,000 armed members of the Crown Forces there to keep the situation from getting beyond their control.
When the British troops were deployed there onto the streets back in the Sixties no one would have thought that they would still be on patrol in the year 2003! On the news last night it was stated that British soldiers are openly talking about this involvement in Iraq turning out to be a similar type of deployment.
John Paul
28 Mar 03, 15:34
Originally posted by jlbetin
Sure I drink Coca or Pepsi too, my company has a bureau in austin an My US colleage are my friends. My son like baseball, did you know that 2/3 of the TV we are looking are made with US series. E.R I love it. Cameleon ( I don't know the US title, it is a story of JAROD who escape from the Center). And Star Treck and Babylon 5 etc... the Lord of the Ring etc.... My favorite science fiction novelist is Alfred Van Vogt.
My dream, visit all the civil war battlefields.
What I would like to say to you ALL US folks, french people are against this war, not agaist US. when the 11th of september arrised the 1St foreign president to go on groud zero was big Jack. Don't mix everything, polital reasons good or bad and friendship between us. We have right to told you we don't agree.
If not we are only shoes that you can wear and drop away.
Amicales pensées
Der Wanderer:love:
The show you call the cameleon is known as the pretender here,actually its off the air,and i think its been off for a couple years.
Tim McBride
28 Mar 03, 15:38
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
The Brits made a complete balls of handling the situation in the North right from the start.
<>
When the British troops were deployed there onto the streets back in the Sixties no one would have thought that they would still be on patrol in the year 2003! On the news last night it was stated that British soldiers are openly talking about this involvement in Iraq turning out to be a similar type of deployment.
No problem skipping the details, I very familiar with them,you did make my point..............I was being a bit tounge in cheek on this whole thread.
_Tim
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
The Brits made a complete balls of handling the situation in the North right from the start. I’ll spare you the sordid details suffice to say that many of their actions were completely counter productive. When the British troops were sent out of their barracks and on to the streets in August 1969 the local Catholic populace actually welcomed them! In a far more friendly way than I have seen any Iraqis interact with Allied soldiers in the past week on TV.
By the summer of ’70 they were resented and hated. Things went further off the rails after that for them as the Provo’s gathered popular support before launching their War in early 1971. This lasted till 31 August 1994 and then again in 1996 and 1997. Since the signing of the Good Friday Peace Agreement in 1998 a shaky peace has existed.
All the indications are that Iraq will be like a mixture of the Palestine/Six Counties situations once the conventional war comes to an end. In the North of Ireland the conflict claimed the lives of over 3,000 people on a population base of aprox. 1.5 million people, of which the Catholics made up 33% at the beginning of the conflict and around 44% today.
About 1,000 or so members of the Crown Forces were killed, mostly by the IRA. The British Government has had to maintain between 20 to 30,000 armed members of the Crown Forces there to keep the situation from getting beyond their control.
When the British troops were deployed there onto the streets back in the Sixties no one would have thought that they would still be on patrol in the year 2003! On the news last night it was stated that British soldiers are openly talking about this involvement in Iraq turning out to be a similar type of deployment.
sunday bloody sunday.
IRA are extremist but not fanatised as could be some Irakis, it could be worst
Grey are the stones of Dublin,
So nice and hard to climb in mist and rain, is the croagh Patrick.
So Wild is the coMayo
So crowded are the Irish Pubs
:violin:
Wolfe Tone
28 Mar 03, 16:06
No probs!
Point I am trying make re Iraq compared to the North though is that even in a low intensity war like that things become messy. A long protracted conflict with no end in site goes on for years. TBG here in Ireland some sort of settlement is now in place though it is always hitting snags I'm afraid.
But if you look at Iraq it makes the North look like child’s play! It has all the potential to be the New Palestine. I don't know how many Palestinians live under Israeli Occupation or in semi autonomous areas but it cant be more than 3 or 4 million. They sure don't like having their lands occupied!
The Shia and Sunni Arab population of Iraq is around 18 million. There is not a snowballs chance in hell of America and Britain being able to military occupy this country short of a huge Army of Occupation. Even then it will mean being prepared to take casualties on a daily basis for years to come. A Vietnam in the sand scenario if you like.
The War is lost already. It only would have 'worked' if the Iraqi people really wanted the Allied armies to invade. It's obvious they don't.
Trouble is it's too late now. Retreat is out of the question so it's on to Baghdad!
I think in all fairness though the honour of driving the first tank into the city should go to Bush, Cheny, Perle and Rumsfeld. Tony can go ahead on foot to check for mines.
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
No probs!
The War is lost already. It only would have 'worked' if the Iraqi people really wanted the Allied armies to invade. It's obvious they don't.
Trouble is it's too late now. Retreat is out of the question so it's on to Baghdad!
And the price in human lives will be very high
I think in all fairness though the honour of driving the first tank into the city should go to Bush, Cheny, Perle and Rumsfeld. Tony can go ahead on foot to check for mines. [/B]
Don't forget the UK Cabinet as scouts yark yark
Surrender is not so bad in this case, we can teach them as it seems that UK people told that it is our speciality :)
Fading Captain
28 Mar 03, 16:49
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
No probs!
The War is lost already. It only would have 'worked' if the Iraqi people really wanted the Allied armies to invade. It's obvious they don't.
Trouble is it's too late now. Retreat is out of the question so it's on to Baghdad!
I really have to agree with this. The war is lost. Bush and has cabinet made the stupid assumption that the Iraqis actually wanted to be liberated by American troops. Given the choice between a Stalinist Arab dictator and American invasion and occupation, the Iraqis will take their Stalinist Arab dictator and fight for him to the death. The Iraqis don't like Saddam, but they hate the US even more.
Furthermore, Bush has also created a major setback in the war against terror; he hasn't helped stop the war on terror; he has fomented it by giving Arabs another reason to be angry at the US.
The war is lost? Oh, please. So, the Iraqi's haven't showered us with flowers. What did you expect. They've lived 30 plus years in a Baathist dictatorship and for the last ten years have been bombarded with anti-American propaganda. Not to mention that we don't occupy any of the cities so for the typical Iraqi nothing has been decided and remembering back to '91 they might decide pretending to be loyal to Saddam would be prudent until the bastard is dead.
Furthermore, when your world has been flipped upside down you might not be in the best of moods. See Normans during the Normandy Campaign and Germans after WWII.
There is no reason to think that we won't be able to make the typical Iraqi's life better after the combat is over. Until then, saying that the war and occupation have been lost is simply ridiculous.
Also, the reaction by the Iraqi's is as much a part of the fog of war as everything else. There is very conflicting anecdotes from Western reporters. Read John Burns in the NYTimes for a contrarian view on how the Iraqi's are reacting when they meet an Englishman or American in Baghdad.
Fading Captain
28 Mar 03, 17:18
Originally posted by Tex
There is no reason to think that we won't be able to make the typical Iraqi's life better after the combat is over.
We walked into Somalia with the same attitude. Look what happened. . .
Originally posted by Fading Captain
We walked into Somalia with the same attitude. Look what happened. . .
Somalia and Iraq have little in common so it is a bad analogy.
Cheetah772
28 Mar 03, 17:48
Originally posted by Tex
Somalia and Iraq have little in common so it is a bad analogy.
Yup,
Somanlia government collapsed and the warlords emerged, so there was a civil war, and we went right in middle of it.
In Iraq, there's no civil war, and the government is pretty strong (read dictatorship). Moreover, we have a strong president instead of a president more concerned with stroking his weenie. And we're going to rebuild Iraq partly with our money and its oil where in Somanlia we were ordered there to protect the food convoys and peacekeeping duties, not rebuilding Somanlia.
Dan
Fading Captain
28 Mar 03, 18:03
Okay, okay. . . Tex and Cheetah772 you're both right. Other than the fact that 1) Iraq and Somalia are muslim countries 2) they both don't want the US meddling in their political affairs 3) the US entered both contries with noble, altruistic goals that either country could care less about and 4) the US resolve to fight in both countries ended, or will end, in brutal urban fighting, the two countries have very little in common :p
No civil war in Iraq? True. But just wait. . .
Tim McBride
28 Mar 03, 18:35
Originally posted by Fading Captain
1) Iraq and Somalia are muslim countries
Of different breeds, Arab and African muslims are different, its like saying all prodestants are the same.
2) they both don't want the US meddling in their political affairs
Agreed here, although the level at which the Iraqi people actually care is debatable.
3) the US entered both contries with noble, altruistic goals that either country could care less about and
This is also true, really 90% of these people just want to live in peace, they don't care who is in charge as long as they are not getting killed.
4) the US resolve to fight in both countries ended, or will end, in brutal urban fighting, the two countries have very little in common
The differance though is the forces involved. The combat in Somilia was different then your standard, street fight. In Iraq we have Tac Air support, Armor, More Armor, Artillery, and a lot more troops. A city taking operation is much different then what happened in Mogidisuha.
The US resolve in somolia died becuase the Pres screwed the pooch. We had in0suffienct forces and the public percieved the whole thing with"Why do this for these ungrateful people?" Were as in Iraq, rightly or wrongly, most americans feel this is connected to 9/11
_Tim
Of course the biggest difference is that Iraq in a few months will be able to pump 2M barrels of oil a day, roughly $40M a day, will be able to pump 5M barrels a day in 5 years and possibly up to 10M barrels a day in 10 years. That will pay for a whole lotta social services.
Furthermore, Iraq has water, which should allow it to feed itself.
Finally, the literacy rate is 58% in Iraq, previously in the 70% range, as compared to below 40% in Somalia.
Wolfe Tone
28 Mar 03, 19:24
Tex: When I say the War is lost I mean that the Iraqis will not accept US/UK occupation. The conflict will drag on for years at various levels of intensity. Eventually the occupation forces will pull out, a bloody civil war will ensue and the most ruthless/effective politician or General will emerge in control of Iraq. With the Oil still pumping out of the ground he will use it to rebuild Iraq militarily and economically. So back to square one....
The chance of the US maintaining a presence in Iraq after the war is inversely proportional to the stability of the Saudi regime.
Originally posted by Fading Captain
I really have to agree with this. The war is lost.
For which side?:hmmm:
Originally posted by Fading Captain
We walked into Somalia with the same attitude. Look what happened. . .
Well the truth is that most Somalians welcomed the UN mission there. However this fact got lost in all the uproar that occured after lossing the two Black Hawks.
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
Tex: When I say the War is lost I mean that the Iraqis will not accept US/UK occupation. The conflict will drag on for years at various levels of intensity. Eventually the occupation forces will pull out, a bloody civil war will ensue and the most ruthless/effective politician or General will emerge in control of Iraq. With the Oil still pumping out of the ground he will use it to rebuild Iraq militarily and economically. So back to square one....
It's probably true that most Iraqis don't want an occupation. How much they resist after the current government is toppled is another question all together.
Fading Captain
29 Mar 03, 00:28
Originally posted by Fading Captain
I really have to agree with this. The war is lost.
Originally posted by Chuck
For which side?:hmmm:
Both :cry:
Deltapooh
29 Mar 03, 02:38
There are some similarities between the current Iraq and Somalia.
For one thing, I don't believe the White House heeded the advice of it's military commanders. Secondly, I'm not sure if JCS and CENTCOM were properly consulted before this "decapitation" operation occurred. (There is a photo of the President and some of his aides discussing this option. I don't recall seeing the JCS Chairman.) IMHO, this should have been a military, not political decision. The chances for success were slim, even with good intelligence. The military, not the White House needed to weigh the risk, gains, and consequences of this operation.
The White House attempts to seperate the March 19, 2003 attack from the military campaign to invade Iraq was completely unrealistic. The speech made by the President that night enhanced the belief that the war had started. It took more than 48hrs for a major attack on Baghdad's C3I to develop, giving the Iraqis plenty of time to prepare for imminent war.
There was alot of debate over the war plan. Many senior military planners spoke out as early as October 2002. There is no evidence that the White House sought to, or were able to, ease the concerns of the military brass. President Bush never left the country to visit personnel in the region. This is politically important to the decision-making process. Video linked chats and phone calls will not provide you with information aout soldiers and military leaders feel about the impending conflict. That can only occur when you go out into the field, and sit with the troops. No one in the White House attempted to communicate one on one with soldiers.
When an Administration neglects it's field commanders, a degree of tension develops. While you will not see open rebellion, anger and concerns can effect the military effort, particularly at the communications level. I believe the Bush Administration might be making this mistake.
The politically chaotic situation in Somalia from April-October 1993, is well noted. Many commanders thought the Clinton Administration was ignoring their mission. Indeed, Clinton had basically signed our force over to the UN and forgot about them. Ambassador Robert Oakely spoke discussed just how bad the White House Somalia HQ relation became. In a visit, he said, "you could almost see the tension."
Clinton paid no attention to events in Somalia until it was too late. After the Pakastani Peacekeepers were killed, the White House drew up a Resolution, basically declaring war on Aideed without consulting JCS. Powell said he didn't know about the Resolution until he read his Monday morning newspaper!
Throughout the crisis, lack of understanding, and poor communications hampered the operation to arrest Aideed, and the mission as a whole. October 3, 1993 was simply the end result of the amount of confusion and anger floating around.
Soldiers will carry out their orders. However, their effectiveness depends on how they perceive their superiors. If they view them as a bunch of numbnuts, you will see a counter-productive attitude. It might do nothing more than injure morale, but it's still not good.
I would hope Bush has learned the lessons from Somalia and applied them appropriately. However, I seriously question that.
There is also alot of political involvement in the military campaign. Like in Somalia, Bush is placing alot of pressure on the military to achieve politically productive, but militarily unrealistic objectives. In Somalia, you had a White House who demanded all kind of results from Task Force Ranger, but did not provide them with the means to achieve those objectives. In Iraq, you have a White House who wants to minimize civilian casualties, yet see more results. How on earth can we scare the Iraqis into surrendering when the ROEs almost ban targeting the key officials.
Bush is trying to appease the Arab population in the Middle East. He is ignoring clear evidence that it doesn't matter what he does, no one will see us a liberators. The people in that region have limited resources for information. Those that exists are strictly controlled by governments, and individuals who have a vested interest in making us look bad.
I agree the war on terrorism might suffer as a result of our invasion. However, I don't believe we were getting anywhere in the first place, so........
The Islamic society in the Middle East is a field of illusions. People's resistance to reform, and change have driven them to extreme points. While fundamentalism might not be widespread, misinformation is. The people have few independent resources, and simply accept what they're being told. There are no informed debates, objective discussions, etc. The people accept what is being said by those who share their faith. Until we attack this directly, we will continue to see Islamic terrorism no matter what we do.
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
Tex: When I say the War is lost I mean that the Iraqis will not accept US/UK occupation. The conflict will drag on for years at various levels of intensity. Eventually the occupation forces will pull out, a bloody civil war will ensue and the most ruthless/effective politician or General will emerge in control of Iraq. With the Oil still pumping out of the ground he will use it to rebuild Iraq militarily and economically. So back to square one....
I think it's premature to say the war is lost. When the US invaded Haiti, many of the local population were very apprehensive about trusting the Americans. However, a well organized and executed nation-building operation changed that. I recall opponents of US involvement disccusing how it was the second such internvention, and how the first failed, etc. Yet, today, Haiti is very independent.(although not the best place on earth.) Many Haitians changed their views of our presence, and the mission is seen a great success.
People don't have to great our troops. If we treat the Iraqis fairly, and proceed along a course that gradually, but consistently increase indepence, I believe the mission can be successful. I don't see the whole Iraqi population fighting our operation. There is good evidence people are being forced to. Resistance in urban settings can be very misleading. Twenty, lightly armed, and poorly trained enemy soldiers can pin down whole battalions. We're not facing thousands of enemy soldiers every step of the way. In 1991, VIIth Corps reported it was engaging Iraqi forces from H-hour to the ceasefire.
I don't think the Iraqi people want Saddam Hussein anymore. However, they are also apprehensive as to our intent. It will be up to Coalition forces to win over the people through by helping them help themselves. People are not quick to destroy what they've built. As Tigersqn stated, Iraq has a source of income. This can be used not to build palaces, but homes for the people, and improving life. The ultimate goal of the Iraqis is to prosper like everyone else. If given the opportunity under the appropriate conditions, I believe they'll choose prosperity over war.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.