Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hristo on March 24, 2003, 06:10:52 AM
-
Yes, I am aware it might not be very popular, but that's my opinion.
How US troops plan to take big cites like Basra and Bagdad ?
-
I think the only thing underestimated is the lack of surrendering Iraqis. Also, the presence of Iraqi Special Forces in the South maybe surprised them.
I'm hoping Baghdad doesn't have to be taken by force. The number of dead coalition forces will be hard enough to take - but what about the 5 million civilians living there?
-
I'm not so sure, however it should never be underestimated how people will fight for their country against a foreign invader despite the type of govt. they have.
Tronsky
-
IMO, time is Bush' greatest enemy.
Saddam, OTOH, counts on time.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
IMO, time is Bush' greatest enemy.
Saddam, OTOH, counts on time.
this is very true ...
america is all about NOW NOW NOW
if the war drags on, the media will prey on the dead & captured providing ammo for the peace niks - making the NOW NOW crowd doubt their resolve
I say before that happens take off the PC gloves and fight a war like you fight a WAR
sorry, if that means additional Iraq civilian casualities to save allied lives, so be it... especially when the line between the civilian pop and their army continues to blur each day..
-
Coalition Forces have not underestimated the Iraqis. Due to the policy of minimizing civilian causaulties by Coalition Forces the Iraqis have adopted a tactic of ambushing troops by masqaurading as civilians or surrendering troops.
This tactic could lead to a change in policy by Coalition Forces to "shoot first, ask questions later". This would be regretful to say the least, but understandable in light of such behavior.
Urban combat is the most brutal type of warfare known, short of WMD.
See; Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin, etc.
Any conflict in the cities is going to be costly for both sides.
-
GScholz is right here, this is a 80 % political and 20 % military war.
They have to be carful with civilian losses cause the whole middle east region will might be even more unstable if that happens.
Guess that is why somone says it "goes slow".
I dont think it goes slow its a huge country afterall and alot of citys to take, the citys is the hardest nut to crack.
It seems like somone tough it was a home run to bagdad, but it wont be and I am sure the leaders knew that in the first place.
And i hope people understand that too.
there will be losses ( Sadly enough)
on the allied side cause it is after all a war. And not a show as some stupid reporter said when i was watching tv the other day :(
-
I think partly the Coalition is just takeing its time. Getting forces in the area. Securting assests and supply lines.
Once the start the squeeze play on Baghdad It might get ugly for a bit.
I think Turkey has complicated things considerably. They may be waiting to get our forces in the North setup. Locking the last door so to speak.
-
I say before that happens take off the PC gloves and fight a war like you fight a WAR
Im with you on this one Eagler.. you can't have warm and fuzzy Marines. Let them do what my tax dollars are paying them to do, which is kick bellybutton wholesale.
suspend taking prisoners..F' em. if they want to pretend to surrender and then start shooting, then they have abused the convention and it no longer applies.
-
Bush never underestimated the fighting. He's reported every night as saying something to the effect of "it will be a long, hard fight."
Its the media that underestimated the fighting.
-
Originally posted by hawk220
I say before that happens take off the PC gloves and fight a war like you fight a WAR
Im with you on this one Eagler.. you can't have warm and fuzzy Marines. Let them do what my tax dollars are paying them to do, which is kick bellybutton wholesale.
suspend taking prisoners..F' em. if they want to pretend to surrender and then start shooting, then they have abused the convention and it no longer applies.
Nope, we always observe the Geneva convention. Its what makes us who we are. Everyone got there hopes up right off the bat. Being a little more careful and taking a little more time will do it in the end. The outcome is the same whatever happens as far as Iraq goes. That one is writ in stone. As for what happens after...that one is still up in the air. Suspending the Convention rules just because they have will get us no where fast.
World opinion be damned, but we do have our own opinion of ourselves to live with after. Time to suck it up...and say a prayer.
-
The sky is falling! (http://www.msnbc.com/news/889892_asp.htm)
It's amazing how a day of light casualties suddenly undermines an entire war strategy. Given an operation of this size and scope, I'm amazed that we've lost so few people thus far... and several of those as the result of a wrong turn that put them into a bypassed enemy-controlled area (i.e. human error rather than strategic miscalculation).
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
And most of the rest dies to a dirty trick by "surrendring" Iraqi fanatics who hid guns inside their clothes.. Only 10 KIA after all this fighting and progress is amzing. We are now 60 miles south of Baghad according to Tony Blair..
-
I don't believe they were underestimated. It explains why the military representatives have been saying "this will be a long war" for some time (well before the heavy resistance). Anyone with military training knows that urban fights are the hardest of all.
I do believe they were caught off guard by the surrender / ambush thing. At least... they were for a day.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I do believe they were caught off guard by the surrender / ambush thing. At least... they were for a day.
That we would be caught offguard by such a time-tested tactic is actually kind of surprising. I was talking to my grandfather awhile back (WWII Marine who fought in Iwo Jima), and he said it was a common Japanese tactic in Iwo Jima to feign surrender and then set off a grenade when the American soldiers came to take them into custody.
Needless to say, they didn't take very many prisoners in Iwo Jima as a result.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
only an idiot would come to that conclusion after 5 days of war.
The Coalition has already advanced much further then in Gulf 1. And if you understand the type of mobile thrusts that the Coalition seems to be following you would know the lead elements are pushing rapidly in country while leaving and / or avoiding certain pockets that are left to be cleaned up by follow on forces.
What inside info do you that makes you assume the Coalition is rinning of time of that anything they have faced was "unexpected"?
Contrary to what you may think the US took casualties in Gulf 1 and in Afghanistan. They will take casulties in this war.
By any messure or any comparison to previous wars this Coalition has made great progress.
As others have pointed out there was no "under estimating" this war. We all know that Saddam has his fanatics and those whos only choice is to defend this regime. We all know that these types of folks will use civilians and any method of warfare to try to hang on. The reality is it wont work.
As to being seen as liberators that will come when the population is sure that Saddam and his regime can no longer reach them. Removing that fear and providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqis will work to the Coalitions favor. Getting a secure port to begin unloading and delivering aid is a priority.
-
As much as I hate to admit it, many Americans are ignorant. They've all but forgotten that people die in wars. This is what wars do, they kill people... Including Americans...
The tree hugging peaceniks will of course wave their peace signs ever higher with each American that dies and try to say I told you so. The news media is of course no help in this matter.
A media spectacle is made of each American soldier that dies, which in a way is a credit to the way the military is running things. Rather than reporting hundreds of casualties at a time, we hear about one or two.
Although I feel we will lose quite a few soldiers when we enter Baghdad, I certainly don't feel this will be another Vietnam.
-
Urban fighting is rough, but if you use the Battle of Mogadishu as reference, taking Baghdad wont be as bad as you think.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Bush never underestimated the fighting. He's reported every night as saying something to the effect of "it will be a long, hard fight."
Its the media that underestimated the fighting.
I agree.. it's the media and it's constant speculation over
everything. During the Centcom press briefing, I heard many
stupid questions being asked by the press. Some guy from Hong
Kong asking the general there what would you say to the family
of an innocent civilian killed after we attack a city or something
along those lines. Someone else asked the same question about
underestimating the Iraqis. I guess it could be that they're told
to ask these questions by their bosses or something, but that
doesn't make it less stupid. I'm sure most generals have
studied their history well enough to realize that the stuff
happening isn't very surprising. However, I can't say the same
about the press so far, if I judge them solely by their questions.
mauser
-
My God!
We have taken 2/3 of the country of Iraq, we have moved entire armored columns hundreds of miles and brought a force to bear on a well armed enemy with less casualties than we have on a normal rainy weekend in California.
People who think this is anything but a triumph of the greatest military power on Earth are just misinformed.
-
The US has lost a total of around 30 troops in 5 days and you are saying that we underestimated them? OK, if you say so.
-
Hiya's,
This aint a darn video game
It was stressed from the start of the conflict it would'nt be a quick thing
Seems some assume it's running like a damn train timetable
It's like shifting sand, Things change all the darn time
Iraqui's in grid 240A one night, Ok guys lets goto 240a hmmm seems enemy has moved, This is real not something you can plan and stick to 100% of the time
Let's give the guys in the front all the time they need, Let em pinpoint targets with as much accuracy and least loss of live to civs as possible
This has got to be fought very carefully as not only is the rest of the world watching afterwards the people of iraq will be asking questions on all aspects of their cassualties
Best have a long slog that results in very minimal forces/civ loss of life than a quick-blow everything up kind of affair don't ya think
If some want a quick battle/war i suggest america's army online or OFP or maybe Mohaa etc
-
If Bagdad (the town) doesnt surrender when US/Brits arrive it will be Saigon #2 for the coalition forces
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
If Bagdad (the town) doesnt surrender when US/Brits arrive it will be Saigon #2 for the coalition forces
I'm betting Bagdhad will fall within a week of the start of the seige. It may require an extensive air assualt first though. We'll probably find Saddam sooner than that once our forces arrive.
I really hope France, Germany, and Russia continue to oppose our efforts in the UN. I'm ready to see the creation of a new world body.
-
80 percent of their military was destoryed in the first war, and whatever was left over was bombed on occasion by the UN. To think they would put up any kind of resistance besides guerilla is silly. They really should rename the operation thought. Kinda hard to liberate a people that dont want to be.
-
12 years is a long time to rebuild...
I doubt the Iraqi's will go down easily.. they learned a thing or two since the last war with the US.
Hopefully we can get this over with soon or the looong looong supply line to Bahgdad will be difficult to protect.
-
If the people want to fight and Saddam really has those 7 million assault rifles he bragged about, taking baghdad can indeed be very difficult.
You have to remember that the culture allows sending 10-year old boys harvesting mines with a keychain to 'heaven' around thier necks. They think dieing as a martyr is something to look forward to.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
80 percent of their military was destoryed in the first war, and whatever was left over was bombed on occasion by the UN. To think they would put up any kind of resistance besides guerilla is silly. They really should rename the operation thought. Kinda hard to liberate a people that dont want to be.
Where have you heard they have no desire to be free of Saddam?
The only ones who are going to stick w/him are those who have tied thier futures w/his.
It'll be interesting to see what the people say after this is over.
Oh and as far as "learning anything"... this conflict is way different than the first gulf war. There we bombed them for weeks and cut them off from Iraq. Now we are psuhing into area's where static defense's w/fresh troops is possiable. Especialy if they are dug into civilian areas..areas we have no desire to level due to the body count that will be upped w/such an action (civilian bodies)
-
A 2,000,000 populated, multiple division defended "pocket" ? Hmmmm.
-
Well during the first gulf war, many of the surrendering iraqis were bombed for 3 months straight of course they didn't want to fight. With the ground war starting immediately this time it is a totally different story.
Every briefing I saw said that the war would be tough going, the republican guard being the hard nut to crack. The war is progressing (as well as wars can i guess) rather well.
-
I can't wait until the troops wipe the smugness from all of your anti-american faces.
I think some of you are just hoping that the US and Britain fail. Unfortunately for you, that's not going to happen.
-
only one who expected fast and safe war were UK&US`s bla bla bla generals..... and naturaly all, who were listen just them
what a surprise that they do defend their country as they can
-
They also tend to forget that the 4th Infantry Division (remember the other heavy armor unit that was suppose to attack from Turkey) should be unloading in Kuwait/Umm Qasr in the next few days. Not to mention the 101st is finally getting into action.
American Combat strength will only increase, while the Iraqi strength can only decrease.
True once we get to Baghdada there are only 4 options.
1.) Turn around, apologize, and retreat from the country (not going to happen).
2.) Direct frontal assault with "light" units and no preparations to minimize civilain casulties. (again not very likely). But the Coalition would end up taking massive losses in house to house fighting, due to self imposed restrictions.
3.) Encircle Baghdad, and cut it off from outside supplies. And then simply wait. Baghdad is not a self sustaining city, and supplies are limited. This is probably the best solution in regards to Coalition and Civilain casulties. But we will of course catch a world of bad PR because we are "starving the poor Iraqi people to death".
4.) Encircle Baghdad, conduct large scale assault preparations with artillery and massive generalized air strikes, and use a full frontal assualt with eveyrthing we have. The traditional method. Basically what the Russians did in Grozny a couple of years ago (of course they had UN approval for that war didn't they? :p) Very bloody and destructive to the civilian population and infrastructure, but less risk to Coalition troops than option #3.
So which do YOU think will happen?
-
Uhmmm Orel, The US Generals have NEVER said it would be a cake-walk. They have always gone out of their way to say it would be a tough, difficult campaign.
Stop getting all of your information from a urinal....ahh Pravda.
-
1) and 2) would make a hero of Saddam in Arab world
3) and 4) would make a martyr of him in Arab world
1), 2), 3) and 4) will make dozen of new Bin Ladens
-
Hristo, much of what you said is true.
But its also a fact that there were going to be dozens of new Bin Ladens in the world anyways. Its a clash of cultures (West vs. Islamic Fundamentalists), and regardless of what we do to protect ourselves, is going to continue and escalate. Remember, they've been coming after us for the past 10 years, regardless of what we do.
So if we remove some of their support and access to WMD's, we win. Its not a total win, buts its one step along a long road march of history.
-
ehm
and what is this Cobra ??
"The US press and networks give the war wall-to-wall coverage, as hopes grow for an easy victory."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2873803.stm
" Iraqi war 'will be short'
A possible US-led war with Iraq is likely to be short and "won't be a World War III," US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2873803.stm
so im probably blind Cobra
afk.. heading to visit doctor
-
Originally posted by Hristo
1), 2), 3) and 4) will make dozen of new Bin Ladens
holy true
-
Orel,
I said the US Generals, not the politicians or the Washington Post!
Besides that BBC article you linked doesn't have any quotes from the US Commanding Generals.
You said US Generals.
In the briefings from Central Command, they have never said it would be a cake-walk.
That link you posted does not dispute at all what I said.
-
the 101 airborne divison has not yet been set in action , I think they will hold i until the Badad line is close.
And that is a wise way to do it in my eyes tough.
they got abot 250 apache copters and a hell of a lot fire power to launch. god bless those guys and good luck when thetime comes.
-
you right Cobra.. my fault, just missed Genrals with Commanders
ahhhh so BBC is just writing their owen news or what ??
come on Bush spoke about fast war, thats why price of Oil went a bit down
do me favour try to search some information, before you gonna cry what is, isnt true
anyway i will apriciate any links to Bushs quote " it will be looong war" ... older that 4 days please ;)
-
Orel,
I don't need to do you the favor, I wasn't the one that was wrong here.
In most things, I will try to sift through all the words and listen to what is being said by the people who's job it is to do such things.
Sooo, if I want learn something, I generally give more weight to those that actually have studied and trained and who's job it is to implement or accomplish said task.
If you want to take talking heads spewage as gospel, then YOU do me the favor and research more before re-spewing it. I don't have to provide you any Bush link, as I never made any claims one way or the other.
At least you admitted you were wrong.
Cobra
***Edit--Orel, regarding the BBC making up their own news....of course they do, except in this case of course. I mean, how funny is that a leading News Organization is running as its lead paragraph quotes from other News Organizations! Papers quoting Papers....sheesh!
-
Orel,
Here is an excerpt from President Bush's speech to the Nation on the OPENING day of the war...
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
Sure doesn't sound like the President predicted a real quick war to me Orel...
You get YOUR facts straight sir :-)
-
Hey guys it's very simple. If the goal was purely to minimize Coalition casualties and get it over with as soon as possible, they would just "take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Maybe not nukes, but just liberally applied air power. Enemy troops mixed in with civilians? Too bad... MOAB Time.
But that's not the goal. The goal is to free the Iraqis from Saddam and get their economy going again and let them choose their own leaders. So in order to avoid trashing the country's infrastructure, avoid civilian casualties, and to avoid letting the Turks run wild in Kurdistan, the planners have taken a few risks. That means it won't be done overnight, some expensive hardware is going to be destroyed, and some Coalition troops are going to die.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Orel,
Here is an excerpt from President Bush's speech to the Nation on the OPENING day of the war...
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
Sure doesn't sound like the President predicted a real quick war to me Orel...
You get YOUR facts straight sir :-)
thanks for link instead of blabla
but this disclaimer is not older that 4 days is it ?
-
200 miles in four days...
light casulaties.....
no organized restistance....
oil fields intact....
Plus: Why do we have to 'take' Bagdad?
-
Orel,
Here's the link... You sure are a confrontational lil bastard :-)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
-
BTW Orel,
Even with the link, I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse as to why you're not wrong.
So here it is again :-)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
-
One more thing Orel....
This address is 5 days old :-)
Here's the link again...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html