Once in Bagdad, what is the objective?

Factual Questions
1

This is not a GD topic, there is a factual answer. While there are lots of opinions, I just want the facts.

What I mean is that Saddam Hussein could remain in hiding without ever formally giving up power, so do we just smack down any resistance, march up to the capitol building, raise the Stars and Stripes, declaring that this war has been won, or what? I’m curious because I can see our troops getting bogged down in street fights while trying to obtain a central objective, I’m just not clear on what that objective is. If it is Saddam and he is nowhere to be found then what?
Can any one shed some light on this?

Thanx,

Janx

2

Maybe but unlikely. saddam doesn’t have a big fan club in the middle east.

Goals:

  1. Destroy Saddam’s power base.
  2. Destroy the Baathist Party itself
  3. Taking Bagdad is itself a major victory and expels the Iraqi rep. Guard out of another urban center.
  4. It removes more of their economic base from their control.
  5. Capture more military supplies and force them to work in poorer conditions.
  6. Capture intelligence documents.

I’m sure the military came up with many more. Its not the end of the road, but it is one of the major stops along it.

3

** smiling bandit ** wrote:

Thanks for your reply, that helps put it into a practical perspective. Only one answer in almost 3 hours, hmmm this must be the best question I ever asked ‘cos nobody else has an answer. OR it’s so stupid no one would grace with na answer…hmmm.

4

I think somewhere in the list of objectives was “turn management of the country over to the Iraqi people.” Not an opinion - I thought GB said that.

Also, given anti-US sensitivities, its a safe bet they won’t be raising the Stars and Stripes above much of anything over there.

5

Janx: Excellent question and I don’t think anybody has an answer. Probaby we’ll just hang out there for six months and then we’ll gradually forget about Iraq and Saddam the way we’ve forgotten about Osama and Afghanistan.

6

This seems to be playing out just like most PC war games. You try to capture the capital city. Then capture more cities until you control the country then you win.

7

I think we have to open up a certain number of Starbucks in each Iraqi city before we “win.”

8

Once in Baghdad you can tear up the previous oil contracts and give them to Halliburton … err… start a new round of bidding.
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1752

‘Prospects for democracy in post-Taliban Afghanistan appear dimmed by the bare-knuckled oil services deal-cutting overseen by the victor, the United States. Last December, the US Department of Defense made a no-cap, cost-plus-award contract to Halliburton KBR’s Government Operations division. The Dallas-based company is contracted to build forward operating bases to support troop deployments for the next nine years wherever the President chooses to take the anti-terrorism war.’
Of course this has nothing to do with Iraq. The situation is completely different.
'The Pentagon posts all contract announcements exceeding $5 million on its Website, but in Halliburton’s case declined to disclose the estimated value of the award. A spokesperson for Halliburton gave $2.5 billion as the amount the company earned from base support services in the 1990s, acknowledging that the contract value could exceed that number assuming that the scope of US military actions widens in the next decade.

Though the Pentagon may be wary of admitting its favor towards Halliburton, the British Ministry of Defence shows no such reticence. In the third week of December 2001, the Defence Ministry awarded Halliburton’s subsidiary Brown & Root Services $418 million to supply large tank transporters, capable of carrying tanks to the front lines at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour.

The first increment of Halliburton’s award is being subcontracted to Oshkosh Truck Corporation in Wisconsin and King Trailers in Market Harborough, England. Because of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s invaluable service of persuading Britain’s reluctant public to go along with the American campaign and in providing British peacekeepers to secure Afghanistan, America’s junior partner has been rewarded with a boost to its manufacturing base.’
Of course this has nothing to do with why Blair is supporting Bush. The situation is completely different.

9

As of this morning, the stated plan for taking Bagdad is to make Hussein’s organization “irrelevant” by incrementally taking over territory and proving an alternate source for public goods services. Eventually, the people will turn to us and the Baathists will be without power.

At least, that’s my loose paraphrasing of the article. I’m running off to find an online copy.

10

If there are U.S. soldiers in Bagdad, they’ve made a hell of a wrong turn, and I don’t think our Australian allies would be very happy about it.

11

Link (may be only be good today)

12

Well, I thought he OP meant more in the short-term.

13

I’m certain that finding the “weapons of mass destruction” are the highest priority.

14

** handy ** wrote…

I have thought about this my self but didn’t want to appears so simplistic as to think you could compare a real war to a game, but the more I think about it the more this makes perfect sense.

** bradwalt ** wrote…

:smiley:

** glee ** wrote…

Man, my conspiracy theorist brother in law has been telling me there is more to this then WMD, I will hate to add fuel to his fire when I show him that. As for the rest of what I think in this regard, I think I will start IMHO thread or maybe even the pit – but not here.

** RealityChuck ** wrote…

Ummm, Yeah. Bag, Dad? Paper or plastic. Baghdad. Sorry.

** cornflakes ** wrote…

Thanks, that was very informative, I hadn’t had a chance to scan the headlines or see the news today.

** smiling bandit ** wrote…

you are both right, I will try to be a bit more specific in the future.