The obvious counter-strategy in a worst-case scenario: go to the Iraqi groups Saddam has been gassing and whatnot, and offer them a chance to kill the bastids that have been doing them. Let THEM do the house-to-house in Baghdad. It would be VERY nasty because there wouldn’t be a whole lotta mercy floating around. But it would work. And it would be poetic justice.
New York Times (requires registration)
Read that It sheds new light on the Iraki strategy. I think it is brilliant.
For me the key of the article is:
and:
Duh, I think this Colonel Starnes is a moron. What did he expect the Iraki army to do? Fight in the middle of the dessert? Surrender?
As I said the Irakies strategy is pure genius, evil genius. Sam Stone you have to remember that you are invader. No matter how evil Saddam is, the responsability to fight a clean aseptic war lies in your side (well in the american one, you are canadian, aren’t you?).
Bush said that he was going to liberate Irak from opression, that Saddam was a beast and that his removal would be the best thing for the Irakies. Of course he never said there wouldn’t be casualties among civilians but they wouldn’t amount to much compared with the casualties that Saddama Bin Laden inflicts in his own population every day. “If we wait hundreds more will die, we can’t wait another week we have to go on now” (sounds familiar)
So the cost and benefit argument was one of the best pro war arguments. The Irakies are trying to maximize the costs.
That american colonel and you are very wrong Sam Stone the responsability lies in the american. Remember that no one doubts that you will win this one but also remember that after the war you will have to remain there in the midst of a hostile population.
The british are pissed because they thought that in the south they would be viewed as liberators, this hasn’t happened. In fact each day the population (not just from Irak but from other arabs countries) are more angry. I don’t think they expected resistance.
I missed this one. It would also be yet another time that the american army let’s other do the dirty work, wouldn’t it evil captor?
(I promise this will be my las intervention of the day, ahh by the wasy this belong to the Washington Post)
Fear? what a bunch of moron? do you think that Bush is the only one able to manipulate it’s population? Saddam is better at the game. Let me give you two examples of argentinian history:
-
In 1982 the military regime was on its way out, massive protest happened every single day, one of those days Galtieri decided to invade Malvinas (Falklands) next day public places were full of people this time supporting the militars. Idiotic but true.
-
A better example, in 1806 the spanish were in their way out. Following the example of the U.S.A and France we were finally going to do something about the king, one morning a british fleet was on Buenos Aires harbour, the Viceroy fleed. Next day all those who have preached for freedom were starting resistance movements against the invaders. This shocked the english, their intelligence reports claimed that the populace would cheer them. The reason for the resistance against the British forces was best resumed by a later independence war hero, Manuel Belgrano: “If there has to be a master, better the old one”.
Jingonism isn’t only an american virtue.
The reason the coalition hasn’t been greeted as liberators is because they don’t control the country yet. As long as there is a chance that Saddam may survive this, people are going to keep their heads low.
Also, it seems that Qusay is running the southern areas, and he has infiltrated thousands of his civilian security agents throughout the population to keep them down.
In the north, fighting erupted between two Iraqi army divisions, when one tried to surrender and the other opened fire on it.
You guys think the average Iraqi doesn’t want the coalition there. That’s not true. None of the people who have been liberated so far have said anything bad about the coalition. They’re just hunkering down until the situation is resolved.
I have a question regarding our tactic with regard to “taking” small villages along the way to Baghdad. As I understand it, we aren’t “taking” the villages, but simply blowing past and taking out only those who are actually shooting at us. But the other day, didn’t our supply line get ambushed because we didn’t secure these little villages along the way? I thought it was Combat 101 to make sure you don’t leave adversaries behind you. Anyone out there know about this stuff?
Estilicon wrote about this war:
It remeinds me when Stalin first attacked Finland and the propaganda was that the Finnish workers will take the Soviets as liberators.
There was some units that came in parade uniforms and was probably very ashtonished that the Finns wanted to kill them.
But please be real, as some of the posters are;
- some scattered troops are attacking USA “from back”.
- some thousand of fighters (just rags, not even an army, as it is called) in some smaller cities are keeping USA back.
- You have a house by house fight + “elite troops” in front.
The US generals said that USA needs 400.000 soldiers.
The Administration knew better; 250.000 was enough.
A pensioned general told, that from these there can be about 10.000 - 15.000 ground troops actually fighting.
-
How to bomb “military targets” when that is the last place where the Iraq soldiers spend their time?
-
You can bomb 10 times more than in Vietnam, but still there is a sniper in the ruins.
-
Saddam is stupid if he does not send out of Baghdad some 3 million refugees on Your neck. It will look nice in the propaganda.
You can’t begin to shoot them if they throw stones at You because You do not give them food and water. They just stirr around, or what do they do? -
The Iraqi soldiers do not need and fuel inside Baghdad or anything else than ammunition, to drink and canned food. I am sure that there are storages as hell for this situation. Any “sewer or cellarage” will do.
Do You know any country that has not this storaged for a war, or when they know that they will face a war? -
OK. US takes the ruins of Baghdad. They hit in the back as they can.
And then? -
US takes the other cities. They hit in the back as they can.
And then?
Keep some thousand of miles of border “calm”. They hit and hit and hit.
Sorry, but it does not seem that US Army brought the freedom to anyone.
But we will see in a month or within half a year.
After a while, begins the: “Who is guilty?” The administration has to find someone, or a country, like France, Russia or what ever.
Your only chance is to enlist more people, much more.
I strongly just suggest that You look at
Choose ten papers, from USA, from Europe, Australia, Canada, + what ever You believe in.
Have a nice day.
Henry
Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? I’m trying to stay on task here (not an easy feat for me!).
Mr. 2001
Yes. You have my gratitude.
Weird_AL_Einstein
This is the decisive battle the Iraqis have a chance of winning. In urban warfare, most of the advantages the Allies have in technology and firepower are reduced or negated. As I once mentioned before, a rickety old T-55 doesn’t stand a chance against an M1A1, but if you park that thing in an occupied building at the end of a street and use it to shoot up an unsuspecting column of Humvees, it’s suddenly the meanest kid on the block, and it’s hard to kill without killing a lot of innocent people.
It’s nasty to contemplate, but the Iraqis have a chance of winning in the cities by a) killing a significant number of Allied troops; b) causing the Allies to inflict large numbers of casualties on the civilian populace; c) causing significant, visible collateral damage; d) prolonging the fight beyond that which the attackers are willing to accept. Turn world opinion even further against the Allies by making them appear to be the ruthless murderers, and suddenly it’s not a very glamorous (or short) war.
Beagle
I’m not sure, either. But it’s worth pointing out that despite the Bush Administrations’ prevarications about the causes of this war, the objective has been clearly spelled out. It involves regime change, democratization, and the use of Iraq’s own assets to offset the costs of reconstruction. If Bush doesn’t get all three of those things, we lose, and we Americans and Brits pay for it in both money and blood.
Having said all that, I still think there is a very good chance that the Iraqis are at a severe disadvantage in this fight. It’s going to cost more in lives, materiel, and money than our fearless (and unblooded) leaders led the population at large to believe, but it can be won. The results can still be positive–and I think that only positive results will get our boys and girls out of harm’s way at this point.
I sincerely hope that the American people do not forget that there were alternatives to this, and our leaders singlemindedly failed to pursue those options. If you ask me, we should signal our support for our troops by running every single one of those bloodthirsty bastards out of Washington next November.
Well, shoot. There I go injecting politics into what was an otherwise civil discussion.
Please ignore my editorial statements above.
I guess you do not think Saddam is using the whole civilian population of Iraq as a shield (or hostage) against the US advance? If so, you should consider the tactics the Iraqis are using. Stalin did not use the civilian populations as a shield so much as a tool. I don’t know that Hitler ever ordered citizens to stay in a city or not. Wouldn’t put it past him. Anyway, the result of the two schemes is the same, civilians intentionally put in the line of fire.
“Most bizarre”? :dubious:
Back up here. I see what you’re trying to say, but the words don’t reach the conclusion.
Because no occupied citizenery has been reported saying anything ‘bad’ about the invaders means they want them there?. Look, there’s guys with big guns in front of you, you shut up!
I don’t have accurate information on what the ‘average Iraqi’ wants. Neither (respectfully) do most of us.
My guess is that an fictitious average civilian would want bombs to stop falling around him. However… The average is irrelevant in a state of war. It’s the active that count.
There are going to be believers on both sides. There will be some that are glad to see the invading troops (Hey Joe! Got Gum?)
There are certainly going to be plenty who are not who will turn and act guerilla.
I believe the majority of folk, especially those who may get in the TV clips welcoming the enemys tanks into their village with open arms would also do the same in the unlikely circumstance that their own sons and daughters returned to liberate the homeland.
Makes sense to any sane non-combatant.
And as for the forces being surprised because the downtrodden folk they have come to ‘liberate’ don’t immediately sign up to help them take down the oppresser - Thanks for the other cites, but can anyone say ‘Bay of Pigs’?
Sometimes it’s too easy to believe your own propoganda.
I will (until proven otherwise) believe that Saddam does plenty of nasty things. I also believe that there are plenty of his people that believe in him, are willing to die for him, and that there are even more people that believe in his beliefs and in their homeland.
And THEY will be the ones with guns. This ain’t no game of Reversi. 
.dman.
Sorry I took so long to reply. It’s been a busy week.
At this point, I have to disagree with you. I think that if the Iraqis do engage us in an open battle, even in a densely packed city, their chances of winning are exactly zero.
You’ve implicitly conceded, and I agree, that they cannot defeat us in a straightforward military sense. As regards scenarios a and d above, I think what you are doing is, quite simply, significantly underestimating our resolve. At a joint press conference with Tony Blair the other day, when asked about a timeline for the war, the president used the phrase “as long as it takes”. And, while I am certainly not one to blindly accept the word of any politician, including George Bush, I believe him on this.
And I further think that he will have the support of the American people on this, at least as long as the shooting continues. American casualties, especially ones due to “dirty tricks”, and executed POWs, have served to, if I may coin a phrase, inflame the American street. And that anger is directed against the Hussein regime.
As far as civilian casualties go, I think that if it is absolutely necessary, we will change the rules of engagement and acept more civilian casualties. I think that anyone really paying attention to this war, and the manner in which the Iraqis are conducting it (munitions dumps in hospitals, a tv transmitter in a nursery, to give just a few examples), will understand where the blame lies
I am not sure what you mean by an “open battle,” so I assume it means some kind of firefight and/or direct confrontation.
They win simply by denying the coalition forces their military objectives.
So far, the coalition have been committing strategic reserves and calling up more men. And that’s before getting to Baghdad, where most of the Iraqi troops are, including the Republican Guards.
What I more or less can’t stand in these “new” wars are the rules. Things like international law, the geneva convention, and rules of engagement all seem really…dumb. I mean come on, its war. How many US lives could have been saved if we just nuked Baghdad? I know it probably makes me sound evil, but the people living in Baghdad know they’re at war and should expect the worse. They know that the city of Baghdad is the one we want most of all. Besides making the US look evil and probably alienate us from all our allies, wouldn’t nuking them be the best thing to do?
You’re just a kid, teemingONE.
The situation is a bit more complicated that you may realise.
“How many US lives could have been saved if we just nuked Baghdad?”
That doesn’t even begin to understand the situation.
All of the US lives could have been saved by not invading in the first place.
And what do you think would have been achieved by nuking Bagdad?
you would remove saddam from power wouldn’t you?
teemingONE:
Nuking Baghdad would only remove Saddam Hussein from power if he happened to be in the city at the time and not in a protected environment. What it would accomplish, no doubt, is to get the entire world, including those that are currently supporting the United States & the United Kingdom in the current endeavour, against the United States.
The rules of warfare are not new. When I first joined the military back in 1979, I was instructed on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. They’d been in place for a bit by that time.