Yeah–that’s part of what I was implying in my terrorism comment in the OP.
I’m still one of those folks scratching his head at the whole ‘rules of engagement’ concept.
I can’t understand how killing people by remote control from hundreds of miles away is more ‘honourable’ or ‘conventional’ than hiding in a ditch when outgunned 500-1, but that’s all addressed in other threads.
Right now, I am surprised at the problem with this little list
Apart from the first 2 - which are comparatively modern developments, and the last, which admits to being speculation, the rest of the tactics (if calling someone a loser is a tactic) have plenty of history!
Using a town as a shield is ‘unconventional’???
I think we need to watch the difference between
*Illegal (according to one set of rules - the G.C.)
and
*Unconventional (what does that mean in this context anyway? Looks like anything unexpected)
We could add
*Dishonorable (to cover things like fake surrender and hiding)
but you’d have to avoid
*Unfair (such as making use of home-ground advantage or vastly superior weaponry)
and then there’s
*Immoral (which covers most conflicts since bombing was introduced IMO)
As for the OP - I think a fair guess would be to take it to the invader on their own ground. What form that will take, no idea.
You are putting too much of a negative spin on the term “unconventional”. It merely means NoT conventional. No morality inserted in there. Its things you dont normal expect or see everyday. You are perfectly correct, being overwhelmed and overpowered, they should resort to unconventional tactics. The ones theyve used so far (as listed) dont work. My point was they havent been fighting a conventional war, so why announce you are going to use unconventional acts?
Oh, honor has more to do with keeping the fighting between military units only. Dont purposely use civilans as part of the fight, offensively and defensively. They, who cowardly hide behind innocents, have no honor.
Not sure how many of the oilfields they still control but perhaps they’ll blow them all? Don’t know how possible it is they have them all secretly wired.
The pregnant woman in the suicide bomb car sure is an ugly move but I doubt that’s what the Iraqi Info minister is talking about. Simply because I doubt it’s a tactic they should want to highlight. Whoever is responsible for that should get a thousand years in an isocube.
The pentagon press briefing today said they see a lack of “command/control structure”. Will Saddam’s army splinter into a hundred guerilla/terrorist cells?
Er, I’d say not very likely if it is indeed to begin tonight. The above presupposes that there is a) some contingency plan for terrorism on US soil that was put in place months ago by the Iraqi government, or anotrher party on their behalf, and b) the Iraqi government has some easy means to communicate and co-ordinate operations of these pre-existing sleeper cells in the US, without showing up on NSA intecepts, when it apparently has the most difficult time even contacting its own field commanders.
Not to discount entirely the risk of a terrorist attack on US soil, but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts whatever operation is planned will occur in or near Baghdad.
Thanks for the clarification, toadspittle. I think the response Iraq would prefer would be against American interests at home. Whether they can pull it off or not is another story.
(I don’t know what war X~Slayer(ALE) has been watching, but for the past five days or so American forces have been closely engaged with several conventional Iraqi units in quite conventional infantry tactics. The Iraqis have not been very successful, but they are definitely trying.)
Look, the Iraqis aren’t stupid. I have no doubt that they will attempt to use civilians as a main political component of their defense, but they have hundreds of other asymmetric options open to them which do not involve actions which might be considered distasteful by the world at large. Here’s a few left-fielders to consider:
-
Kamikaze-style attacks by the remaining Iraqi air assets against the forces assembled around Baghdad.
-
An attempted roll-up of supply lines in a surprise attack by Iraqi Fedayeen and civilian-dressed infantry currently going incommunicado in rear areas. As I’ve mentioned before, the machine-gun mounted Toyota truck can be an incredibly effective weapon, especially if used against relatively unprepared forces.
-
An Iraqi incursion into Kurdish territory, where American forces are dangerously weak and the Kurds are traditionally easily overwhelmed.
-
A sortie by Iraqi security forces from one or more of their own embassies against the American, British, Australian, or Polish embassies worldwide. You could have firefights break out in any one of these cities.
-
Grounding and unloading a shipload of Iraqi troops onto unguarded American soil via a third-party cargo ship already at sea.
-
Shopping mall bombings, attacks against the American power grid, refinery bombings, etc.
Any one of these attacks is theoretically possible, though of low probability. If they’re not just whistling Dixie, we likely will be surprised by a sufficiently creative response. We hold a myriad of things dear, and we cannot protect against everything.
Just a rectal extraction here, but I’ve been half expecting them to gas a bunch of Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad and blame it on US troops.
Problem is, I don’t quite see how that would relate to their announcing an unconventional attack.
Best guess is what somebody else already suggested: sending out the Lion Cubs.
Blowing up the dams on the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers.
Or…the use of a nuke.
Blowing up the dams on the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers.
Let me get this straight–
The Iraqi “Ari Fleischer” says something, and people go scrambling. My head is “spinning.”
I remember hearing some rumor about the Iraqis wiring bombs all over Baghdad, wiring them to civilian buildings. The entire city might be one huge booby trap.
They’ve already tried some “unconvetional” things: perfidy. While the U.S. never signed the treaty making this illegal, it is generally recognized as downtright unconventional and evil to abuse the tradition of non-bloody surrender.
Well, the Iraqis apparently didn’t do anything particularly newsworthy on Friday night. It’s now Saturday morning there (daylight, even), and there’s nothing new on CNN.
Seppuku.
Bullets made out of frozen ground beef.
Yes. Not only that but how jaded we’ve become to how evil this regime is. No one would be truely suprised if they used any of the tactics in this thread & probably some we havent’ thought of. The only thing that stops them for doing ** anything ** is physical inablility to do something, not morals.
errr…
I’m not gonna try and defend the Iraqi “regggime”… but…
US bombing and shelling has killed aprox. 800 civilians so far,… men, women and children.
Where, pray tell me,… are the morals… in that… ?
I have 2 questions for you ** ChaosGod **.
Do you honestly see no moral difference between the way the coalition is conducting the war and the way the Iraqi regime is conducing the war?
How many of those estimated 800 were killed directly by the Iraqi regime, how many were killed by the coalition but because of Iraqi policies, & how many were killed by the coalition?
For the sake of argument, I’ll accept your numbers.
There are greater goods at work here – one of which is the disposal of a horrendous, salacious, wantonly murderous government.
Now here’s the controversial part with not everyone will agree: An action is not prima facie immoral merely because it results in the death of innocents. Some things are more important. YMMV.
Appearently, whatever this “new” tactic was, they did it last night and took back the airport. It crushed 5 columns and destroyed four US vehicles. They were appearently pretty small columns.
Where are you getting that information? Looking at CNN, that appears to be the story of that lovable Iraqi Minister of Information, while our side has a different story. It’s not like I can’t believe our side would lie to us, but in my eyes the US has a BIT more credibility.