Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on April 14, 2003, 08:21:18 PM
-
Much dreaded type of fighting was largely avoided by the Coalition who fought a smart war.
Initially, the Iraqi propaganda machine was superior to the Coalition one, but the dear Information Minister soon tripped on his own lies.
At any rate, I see several things the Iraqi regime did wrong. Of course since I suffer from insomnia and am a relatively dumb person who just wrote a lenghty pseudo-insulting post because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time, I'll most likely miss the important things, so feel free to contend things or add stuff.
- Conventional forces allowed to be in the open. We've all seen the pictures of destroyed Iraqi tanks on the outskirts of towns and cities, along with APCs. It seems idiotic to me to place them there after having been subjugated to an air war that was devastating 12 years earlier. They should have learned
- Using entrenched, static positions in the open for older tanks. Allows easy Panzer Plonking from the air, especially as metal cool down significantly slower than sand, allowing IR cameras a clear view of potential targets. The sand piled up in front of an old T-55 won't do much to the trajectory or power of a SABOT round; they'd need reinforced concrete and scrap iron to make the hull down positions viable.
- Failure to not lure, but force, Coalition forces to do battle mainly inside cities where inferior Iraqi tanks can be placed in intelligent ways so that their old tanks can get a shot at the rear of US armoured vehicles. No large scale organized use of anti-tank teams in urban settings.
- Not a sufficient continency plan in case of C&C disruptions. It seems their static defense plans weren't adequately planned.
- Insufficient use of weather. Sure they redeployed some armour but it was quickly rediscovered by Coalition forces, then pounded.
- Underrating American armour. The Iraqi tank crews seemed to believe that their T-72s were a close match to Challenger II's and M1 Abrams. This is clearly not the case. Their BMPs were also proven to be inferior to the Bradleys
- Late recruitment of Jihad suicide fighters. A large number early in the war could have given the Iraqis a propaganda victory
- Inability to command the soldiers to fight as hard as possible. A minority did make it tough on the US by digging in hard; had more done so, there'd be more civilian casualties and damages to infrastructure, which again would be a propaganda coup.
- Failure to destroy key bridges. They should have known they never would cross those bridges again.
- Failure to kill enough of their own people. Perhaps they did plant a bomb at that marketplace, much like the Russian bombed their own apartment blocks as a justification for going into Chechnya. Again, a propaganda coup. They might lose the war, but at least the rest of the Arab world would foster many more Bin Ladens that way.
- Poor use of potential propaganda victories. Destroying a APCs or Bradleys and showing the burning hulk/bodies instead of attempting to first deal with M1s was unwise from a propaganda POW. The Iraqi regime didn't so much need to destroy the Coalition war machine as they needed to inflict lots of casualties. Had the dead quickly turned into thousands, the Coaliton would be under severe pressure
- Failure to destroy oil wells. They knew that the war, once over, was gonna be financed by those wells. And they were going out one way or another, so might as well deny the Americans some cash for a while.
- Failure to capitalize on opportunities, especially on the long supply lines the Coalition had to protect. General inflexibility and lack of initiative by commanders on the field.
- Failure to create humanitarian disasters that could be blamed on the Coalition. This would have scored big with the anti-war crowd.
They did manage to opress the Iraqi population for a good while, but that came to an end eventually.
These are just from the top of my head. Some are obviously over simplifications, others might just be me being wrong. Anyone else have any additions? Would also be nice to discuss Coalition failures/shortcomings, although there are fewer of those.
-
Yeah, you missed the #1 most obvious error.......
Failure to cheerfully and immediately comply with UN SC 1441.
Would have saved all their troops and tanks right there.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, you missed the #1 most obvious error.......
Failure to cheerfully and immediately comply with UN SC 1441.
Would have saved all their troops and tanks right there.
hell, they could have even skipped the cheerful part.
-
Toad. Do really believe that would have made any difference. The only evidence that would seem to have made the US happy was to see bunch of MWD. Which of course would have brought on an invasion.
The absenbce of any evidence was proof enough that they were hiding things...
It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Toad. Do really believe that would have made any difference. The only evidence that would seem to have made the US happy was to see bunch of MWD. Which of course would have brought on an invasion.
The absenbce of any evidence was proof enough that they were hiding things...
It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
had they forked over the WMD, and not hindered inspections, there would have been no war.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, you missed the #1 most obvious error.......
Failure to cheerfully and immediately comply with UN SC 1441.
Would have saved all their troops and tanks right there.
Yep
-
#1 cause of failure..
put that mob of underfed, unpaid, maltreated conscripts up against a herd of cats.. and the conscripts still would have lost.
-
LOL good point Toad.
I suspect it wouldn't have mattered though. Bush was set on doing it the instant he shipped those troops, possibly long before that.
My speculations only though.
But what did the Iraqi regime do wrong during the war in your opinion?
Hangtime, they would if yer cat produced a large enough litter, that is fer sure :D
-
But Toad.. what if you were to find out that Iraq did in fact comply with 1441?.
You workin' on your next spin?
had they forked over the WMD, and not hindered inspections, there would have been no war.
Heh..
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
But Toad.. what if you were to find out that Iraq did in fact comply with 1441?.
You workin' on your next spin?
Heh..
They didn't comply. There is no "finding out"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, you missed the #1 most obvious error.......
Failure to cheerfully and immediately comply with UN SC 1441.
Would have saved all their troops and tanks right there.
Not to mention some civilians.
-
You seem to forget it wasn't until an actual army started to gather on their border that they even began to pretend to comply.
Which is not the same thing, is it?
BTW, you want to double down yet?
-
the #1 most obvious error
Trying to draw to an inside straight against a Texan holding 4 Aces.
-
Hmm the son in law of Saddam Gen Kardice (spelling) the one they got most of the info from seemed to think Iraq got rid of it's WMD program in the mid 90s..
This man.. Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2564861,00.html) is also saying the same thing. Why would he lie now?.. He's in no fear of his life or harm to come to his family.
So Martlet, when you say they didn't comply to 1441... appearently they did.. unless you can prove otherwise.
-
KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday.
There were no chemical or biological weapons with the containerized labs, which measure 20 feet square. But soldiers recovered "about 1,000 pounds" of documents from inside the labs, and the United States will examine those papers further, said Brig. Gen. Benjamin Freakley of the Army's 101st Airborne Division.
"Initial reports indicate that this is clearly a case of denial and deception on the part of the Iraqi government," Freakley told CNN's Ryan Chilcote. "These chemical labs are present, and now we just have to determine what in fact they were really being used for."
-------------------------
Now ain't that odd.
10Bears.. how you want yer crow cooked?? I expect to see Toad serve it within the next week or so..
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hmm the son in law of Saddam Gen Kardice (spelling) the one they got most of the info from seemed to think Iraq got rid of it's WMD program in the mid 90s..
This man.. Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2564861,00.html) is also saying the same thing. Why would he lie now?.. He's in no fear of his life or harm to come to his family.
So Martlet, when you say they didn't comply to 1441... appearently they did.. unless you can prove otherwise.
Actually, I don't have to prove otherwise.
1441 says we KNOW they had WMD, and they have to either:
A. Pony them up
or
B. Show that they've been destroyed.
They've done neither.
-
Time will tell. I could still lose; they might not find the stuff within the time limit. It could easily be in Syria by now. It might not even exist.....but I sure wouldn't bet on that.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Time will tell. I could still lose; they might not find the stuff within the time limit. It could easily be in Syria by now. It might not even exist.....but I sure wouldn't bet on that.
;)
Well, latest report is they found 1000 POUNDS of documents in buried mobile weapons labs.
A FoxNews consultant (take that for what it's worth) says they have 2000 leads from the documents so far.
-
When the US and Soviets destroyed long range bombers to comply with treaty obligations, video, satellite overflights, and humans witnessed the 'dismantling' of Bears and B-52s. It is easy to show compliance if you want to.
If Iraq got rid of WMD's all they had to show was the documentation. That would have been simple, and would have quickly taken the wind out of the sails of the military option.
Iraq did not show that they complied with the dozen or so UNSC resolutions that required Iraq's disarmament, and it is as simple as that.
It has only been a few weeks since the start of the campaign, and some pfc doesn't have the time to be looking for WMD's when he is keeping his eyes out for more immediate personal threats.
Once the dust settles a bit, and inspectors start looking in places that Hans Blix and UNSCOM weren't allowed, the true story will come out.
And the biggest Iraqi tactical mistake in the war was being led by someone who has never won a military conflict. (unless he was attacking his own populace)
-
The propaganda comments were correct, but the rest was lacking. The tanks being in the open was irrelevant. They need to be somewhat exposed to be usefull.
The problem you didn't adress that was critical was the air war. The Iraqis did not launch a single fighter the whole conflict. They did not launch many sams either. Basically, they rolled over in that aspect and all else was lost.
The also grossly underestimated the improvements in smart bomb warfare.
MiniD
-
THREAD HIJACKERS!
You bastards. Answer my question or I shall find a way to hijack a train.
-
Santa why do you have such an ugly avatar, why did u not make it cool like mine?
Hows that for a double thread hijack? :)
-
Because mine is cooler. Your shield doesn't have the right angles, you stealer of my idea. I am absolutely convinced I had mine before you did. Sure of it.
Ask the Iraqi Information Minister if you won't take MY word on it.
:D
-
biggest mistake the coalition made was not finishing the job the first time around. Would have saved a lot of French bashing :)
-
The also grossly underestimated the improvements in smart bomb warfare.
that was huge
-
Yea you had your first, in fact I was so shocked how smurfy your was I simply had to set things right. :p
-
The people were so much fed up with the regime that many of them rather accepted an aggression than fought for their country.
Then again, mob is fickle. Overthrowing staues may be just buying some points for the future, who knows.
Iraq military didn't manage to use its only advantages. Going for urban combat, knowledge of terrain and to inflict casualties at all costs with suicide attacks. Instead, they let their equipment be wiped out in the open like in a video game.
Though, this probably isn't the latest we are hearing from Iraq.
WMDs ? I am surprised they didn't find any yet. Does it take so long to plant something anyway ? ;)
-
So Martlet, when you say they didn't comply to 1441... appearently they did.. unless you can prove otherwise. -10Bears
Iraq was not in compliance. After the cease fire Iraq agreed to after the 1st Gulf War, they cataloged all their weapons including those that were to be destroyed. Some of the WMDs on that list dissapeared, never proven to have been destroyed but never located either. No matter, the proof ended up being on the Iraqi's part that they were destroyed. Why do some of you people have trouble understanding that? Iraq was playing a game and was not forthright.
Also, the UN ended up being just another corrupt entity subjugating the Iraqi people anyway. I shed no tears that the UN's 2.2% profit on the Oil For Food program (while thousands starved) is over. I shed no tears that France, Russia and Germany could hide behind the UN while voilating the UN mandates themselves in clandestine deals which often centered around the sale of weapons is now over. Now the USA has closed off some illegal oil pipeline to Syria from Iraq which the UN never noticed. I'm sure this wasn't hidden as well as a few canisters of chemical weapons. The UN is a dream, it is not an entity looking out for the world's best interest but a bunch of state leaders gathered together each looking after their own best interest. Now that the ugly is about over (this war), Iraq has the opportunity to build for a bright future. The USA actually pulled out its last aircraft from Turkey which were charged with patrolling the No-Fly Zone in Iraq. Hopefully a new dawn approaches. But please give some time so that order can be restored and a serious investigation can take place.
As for why the head of Iraq's nuclear program may be lying, anyone can speculate on that one. #1 is that he is in fear and wants to keep something to barter for his own safety with later.
-
Back to the subject !
Santa, I believe one of the biggest mistakes that the Iraqi's made, was too assume that there would be a lengthy "air war" of 30-45 days prior to the start of the ground war. This mistake meant that they did not have the time to organize, that they thought they did. And this led to many of the mistakes you listed above. Incomplete C&C, and blowing the bridges, to just name a few.
-
like to know, what for so many dead :( ? all this liberation and cataloged stock arms destruction, there was many other ways to doit , it remember me the time when CSSR change at 1990 who haz the real power and who have the ral power now, do you beleve they difrent ?:D
-
their biggest mistake was believin the russian, china, french and german arms dealers who told them their **** was better than our ****... (just wanted to see the asteriks at work) :)
-
Hristo... is your avatar a pic of Hristo Stoitchkov? ex barcelona player?
-
Originally posted by Furball
Hristo... is your avatar a pic of Hristo Stoitchkov? ex barcelona player?
Yup, I used to play there before I started online simming.
(http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Yup, I used to play there before I started online simming.
Now you just break the legs of 19 year old amateur kids in pre-season exhibition matches. ;) I have a feeling you're gonna get sued over that one before too long.
Two match ban as well, right? :p
-
Originally posted by minus
like to know, what for so many dead :( ? all this liberation and cataloged stock arms destruction, there was many other ways to doit , it remember me the time when CSSR change at 1990 who haz the real power and who have the ral power now, do you beleve they difrent ?:D
I have no idea what you are saying.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Now you just break the legs of 19 year old amateur kids in pre-season exhibition matches. ;) I have a feeling you're gonna get sued over that one before too long.
Two match ban as well, right? :p
Them boys should thank me for giving them a taste of men's game !
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Them boys should thank me for giving them a taste of men's game !
hmm - let's take this out of context :)
-
marlet, becose you watch to much crapy TV shows :D
never mind , just tryed to point out , that truth is always difrent like what we beleve
-
Originally posted by minus
marlet, becose you watch to much crapy TV shows :D
never mind , just tryed to point out , that truth is always difrent like what we beleve
ahhh, see, and all that time I was thinking it was your crappy english.
-
One of the largest mistakes on the Iraqi front......they either didn't know our special forces were there....or could not stop them. The havoc created by the Coalition Special Forces played a huge roll in this match. Some of the laser marking of targets had to be done from the ground. It was our special forces.....cut into Iraqi lines of communication and monitored them........took two air bases in the west......rallied the Kurds and trained them into a unified fighting force. I believe these forces have not gotten the credit due them. Special forces also took the offshore Iraqi Oil Terminal..........the only way Iraq could ship it's oil by tanker., and the only one Iraq had. Not to mention securing the northern Oil Fields along with the Kurds.
-
^and the CIA operatives..
to them all
-------
Them boys should thank me for giving them a taste of men's game !
I didn't know you played hockey...
-
StSanta,
You are operating on the assumption that Saddam is the bad guy becasue he:
1. will destroy his country's assets - oil, bridges, etc.
2. will waste his people in sensless war
3. will only think of his own survival - and run away when things get hot
4. will use WMDs once things get desperate
5. will mistreat US POWs - torture/kill them and deny them medical care
6. will kill many iraqis in multiple incidents to blame it on americans
7. use his population as human shields in prolonged urban war
8. will be proven an opressor of population once it raises in revolt given the slightest opportunity.
ETC.
Once all those heinous acts failed to materilalise, you may conclude that he was a really inept bad guy. Why was he a bad guy, again, btw?
miko
-
except for the WMD thing... he did do all of those.. well... we don't know if he left when things got hot but he either never got the chance, did leave or... sacraficed civilians by staying in civilian areas..
he did misstreat prisoners and use his people for sheilds...
If you think his people aren't glad to see him go.. you are misstaken... If you think that the fight wouldn't have gone a lot longer and harder if any of his people would have wanted to continue his regime you are misstaken.
we did the right thing. We will find illegal weapons and the U.S. and the world are a better and safer place because we did.
saddam was a very bad man and he needed to be gotten rid of... I'm glad we did it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by miko2d
StSanta,
You are operating on the assumption that Saddam is the bad guy becasue he:
1. will destroy his country's assets - oil, bridges, etc.
2. will waste his people in sensless war
3. will only think of his own survival - and run away when things get hot
4. will use WMDs once things get desperate
5. will mistreat US POWs - torture/kill them and deny them medical care
6. will kill many iraqis in multiple incidents to blame it on americans
7. use his population as human shields in prolonged urban war
8. will be proven an opressor of population once it raises in revolt given the slightest opportunity.
ETC.
Once all those heinous acts failed to materilalise, you may conclude that he was a really inept bad guy. Why was he a bad guy, again, btw?
miko
HAHAHAHA.
-
lazs2: except for the WMD thing... he did do all of those.. well... we don't know if he left when things got hot but he either never got the chance, did leave or... sacraficed civilians by staying in civilian areas..
The army never got moved into teh cities, as Pentagon analysts feared.
he did misstreat prisoners
That a few of lowly underlings kicked some of POWs is deplorable, but that's pretty much all I've got from their interviews. They got medical help, food, company, detention in enclosed rooms, not open cages. that seems a better treatment that the one we give the enemy combatants.
and use his people for sheilds...
By not surrendering unconditionally to US or by not giving up WMDs that failed to materialise?
If you think his people aren't glad to see him go.. you are misstaken...
Sure they are. I was glad to see Clinton go. Does not mean I would have taken a rifle to hasten his departure or welcomed a foreign invasion...
If you think that the fight wouldn't have gone a lot longer and harder if any of his people would have wanted to continue his regime you are misstaken.
Never said they loved him either.
we did the right thing. We will find illegal weapons and the U.S.
Of course we will... Will that prove he had no intention to use them and thus presented no danger?
saddam was a very bad man and he needed to be gotten rid of... I'm glad we did it.
Aren't you supposed to be a bad man because you do bad things?
Weren't you glad the last time we installed that bad man as a ruler in iraq? Saddam key in early CIA plot (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r)
We did the right thing?
miko