Isn’t the answer obvious? There is no conceivable way America can successfully capture the fighters and preserve the sanctity of the mosque. Therefore, wouldn’t the most prudent course be to withdraw forces, drawing the fighters and Sadr away from the Mosque, then engage them in a neutral area, condoned off from the mosque so they cannot retreat there again?
Of course, this goes against the perceived American military policy of only acting in ways such as to anger Iraqis and Muslims as a whole.
I understand your concern, but I think we are long past that point. The next generation of terrorists has already been created.
I don’t think anyone really will have a GQ worthy answer to the OP, just some factual points and opinions. That said, diplomacy is probably the easiest way out. Failing that, maybe we should ignore them. Let them have the mosque. If they keep the general Iraqi citizens from getting to the mosque, maybe the bad PR will end up on al-Sadr?
Chemical weapons would also work, but they are a bigger problem in their own right.
Bombing the mosque does have a certain appeal. As it is, any leader with a hundred people behind them and guns can hold the Iraqi government hostage. Again, this has its own problems.
A SWAT style raid might be a possibility, but there would be large scale casualties on both sides. There is also nothing to stop al-Sadr’s group from destroying the mosque as a last desperate act.
Diplomacy seems like the way to go.
To a devout muslim, just what are the rules about sanctity of mosques? Could an unarmed US negotiator be sent in without danger? Could US troops be stationed outside without being shot at? could ordinary Iraqi citizens be outside without being shot at? In short, what are the strategic benifits of a mosque?
For that matter, with the fact that al-Sadr’s militia has brought weapons into the shrine itself, where is the outrage that I had expected? Is it being suppressed? Is it a result of different rules being applied to America’s allies versus America’s opponents? Or is there outrage, but we’re just not hearing about it over here in the States?
Although some people are distressed by Sadr’s tactics the only real outrage I’ve seen is directed at the US forces beseiging the mosque. The Arab press gives this heavy coverage and many Shiite districts in Baghdad are essentially in open revolt. I can hear gunfire all night where I live.
The problem is, that both Sadr and the Iraqi government have got themselves in a postion where neither can back down without losing legitimacy. It might still end up with an attack from the Iraqi forces. Saddam did the same thiing and many Shia are already comparing the new Iraqi government with Saddam’s.
I’ve been pondering this question myself for a while.
The military has access to “industrial Strenght” tear gas (CS agents) and also a type of gass that incapacitates by inducing severe nausea (CN agents). They were used in Vietmnam to clear cave complexes. If I were planning an attack, I would use a combination of Spectre C-130 gunships with .30 caliber minigun fire or anti-personnel cluster bombs in the cemetary to clear it of combattants without damaging the stonework too much, followed by saturation of the mosque building with CN/CS agents. Then walk in and hand-cuff the incapacitated fighers puking their guts out.
I don’t know how much cover the cemetary offers from air to ground fire, however.
The only drawback I see is a suicide charge & then PR claims the Americans bombed the mosque. We would then have a moslem Waco…
Just my $0.02. They will probably have the locals try to do it, and they will in turn let most of teh comatants and big-wigs escape, then claim victory… :mad:
Not the way to go if you are trying to avoid doing property damage. Just because it won’t punch through a tank doesn’t mean .30 won’t take some nice bites out of masonry.
Well, I remember reading somewhere that the U.S. military had/was developing Oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper Spray) warheads for 2.75" rockets, to be launched from helicopters for riot control. I’ll keep trying to dig up a cite…
Or, there’s always the Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System, aka the “pain ray,” if and when that ever gets into service.
To a devout christian, just what are the rules about sanctity of churches? Could an unarmed arab negotiator be sent in without danger? Could arab troops be stationed outside without being shot at? could ordinary arab citizens be outside without being shot at? In short, what are the strategic benifits of a church?
The problem is, that both Bush and the American government have got themselves in a postion where neither can back down without losing legitimacy.
Bombing the church does have a certain appeal. … There is also nothing to stop the Bush group from destroying the church as a last desperate act.
I like the OP-- I was thinking of starting this exact thread myself. Perhaps in this new world situation we need some research on “church clearing non-lethal” weaponry.
I still think there’s got to be a way to evacuate the air from that church. Or maybe point some of those gas-powered space heaters at the windows and dump tons of hot air and propane fumes in there. Flash-bangs? Freeze rays? Bowel Disruptors? Come on, there’s got to be something we can use here.
Or is the church too voluminous for tear gas to do any good? Hell, why not get a tank of nitrogen and just force all the air out of the church?
I think that you can’t fight a PC, ‘sensitive’ war, if you are shot at from a church, the people inside have violated the shrine and IMHO you have the right to take out the building. I know this may not be popular in some circles, but neither is a prolonged war. Also this will send a message to other Anti arab forces not to try this tactic. And once destroyed and the area secured, I’m sure Halliburton can rebuild it.
It also prolongs it in an embarrassing way (“Evil arab forces beseige place of worship!”) I grant you that attacking a church is also embarassing and inflammatory; my point is that you don’t completely solve the embarrassment problem by beseiging instead of attacking. … Ultimately the beseiged church must fall, but the cause represented by those inside it may be strengthened.
With the current situation in USA (anti-arab forces holed in up a church who have no trouble shooting at us from inside, but will cry their heads off if we shoot back), I’ve got a question on military tactics. Being general questions, I’d like to avoid the “why’s” of the war, but focusing solely on the current situation, why are the arab forces not simply laying seige to the encampment?
Are you sure about this? I can’t imagine that the Arab press would only focus on the evil U.S. forces beseiging the mosque or that people in the area are getting a one-sided story? I assume there is generally pretty fair and balanced discussion.
The best way to clear the Imam Ali Mosque is just the way Saddam did during the 1991 Shi’a uprising: chemical weapons. A vaulted space is an imperfect environment for knock-out sprays. Tactically, sarin would be easiest and most effective.
Actually SH’s forces stormed it:
Al-Najaf’s holy shrines suffered considerable damage during the uprising, although not as much as those in Karbala. Much of the security forces’ fire in al-Najaf was directed at the Tomb of the Imam Ali, a greatly revered Shi’a pilgrimage site. During the uprising the rebels had used the shrine as a base, perhaps surmising that the security forces would not dare to attack it. In fact, loyalist troops pounded the shrine with mortar fire and then stormed it firing at both the rebels and their sympathizers who were barricaded inside. According to the Najaf resident interviewed in Qom, about 50 of those in the shrine managed to escape, while the other 450 to 500 were either killed or wounded.
From here: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
The mosque has been damaged and rebuilt multiple times - the first time when it was burnt to the ground by a Sunni mob in 1051. The current version was built ( re-built ) after the Safavids took Baghdad in 1508 ( though there were several additions at later dates as well ).
Unfortunately ( perhaps ), in Shi’a history, as a usually minority and often persecuted faith, such holy places have often been walled and used as places of refuge and asylum from persecution by the authorities - basts. Sadr and his followers are taking advantage of this tradition, just as the anti-SH rebels did so during the 1991 uprising. From a tactical POV it makes perfect sense and it is likely stretching the concept of the bast to the breaking point. But he and his ilk, arguing that they are defending Islam from attack ( generally sanctioned under most interpretations ) and are resorting to a traditional place of refuge, has just enough theological wiggle room to confuse the issue.
Which, again, doesn’t mean most or many Shi’a may not want them out as a threat to the shrines. But it does mean he has a half-assed justification under his belt.
I’m reasonably sure about this, given that I am in Iraq, I can hear the fighting and protests out my window and that one of my Iraqi colleagues writes a digest of what is in the Arab media every day.
To be sure there is some nuanced discussion of the issue of Sadr (more true in print media than TV). But the overall story is one of Christian crusaders surrounding a muslim holy site. Al Jazeera in particular gives the insurgency very sympathetic coverage.
From what I’ve seen and read, Arab media TV coverage of the Sadr uprising is about as favorable as US media was of US operations at the start of the Iraq war.
Al Jazeera in particular, gives the insurgency the same kind of coverage Fox news gives the Bush administration: some discussion of criticism and problems, but overall favorable.