I don't have a theory, but I do agree with the military advisors that it is time to take off the gloves and untie the other arm. If the enemy has resorted to fighting dirty and cowering behind innocent, vital civilian institutions, it's time to fight aggressively with less consideration of collateral damage. It's not a motion to relish, at all, but it is a reality if this conflict is to proceed strongly and in the shortest time possible.
I think that if we go in to Bagdad with just the 3rd infantry then it would be like the line in Little Big Man when Little Big tells General Custer that if he goes into the valley then etc . . . which is exactly what happened
The city has 4.5 million people and endless buildings on buildings . . . we have allready been shocked at the seriousness of the resistance . . . what do we think? that a battalion of several thousand can subdue a city that big with well armed civilians and soldiers who know the lay-out and, as the majority are Sunni, who may be loyal to the Baathe party
I think that they were counting on uprisings due to the 'shock and awe' of the rapid advance . . . but I don't think they were awed at all
What if we encircled the city (the city of Bagdad, that is) so no food or fresh water could enter the city. As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is ). Then when the city is lethargic and half-asleep, we go in and start pulling sleepy people out and into encampments until we can sort them out. Naturally, the soldier looking dudes would be sent right to POW internments, of course.
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Aside from that, if they are utterly surrounded, doomed to defeat, yet they still won't surrender, drop the MOAB. Seriously, level the city. It's not pretty, virtually 100% casualties are ensured, and probably it won't be looked upon positively. ...but what are you going to do for an enemy that refuses to surrender? The civilians held captive are "dead" already whether you wait or act. Just level it, and call it a day. It will be a sad day to be sure, but hey, they should have surrendered. ...but then again, I'll never be the general to a real war, so I can say whatever I want, right?
...and damn if we can't just change uniforms on the fly?! Is it possible to re-suit 100, 000 ground personnel in mid-operation? Sounds crazy, I know. This uniform impostering really sucks, though!
What if we encircled the city (the city of Bagdad, that is) so no food or fresh water could enter the city. As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is ).
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Aside from that, if they are utterly surrounded, doomed to defeat, yet they still won't surrender, drop the MOAB. Seriously, level the city. It's not pretty, virtually 100% casualties are ensured, and probably it won't be looked upon positively. ... Just level it, and call it a day. It will be a sad day to be sure, but hey, they should have surrendered. ...but then again, I'll never be the general to a real war, so I can say whatever I want, right?
Wrong. It is called genocide and subject to International Court. You'd better pray that nobody hears your ideas.
What if we encircled the city (the city of Bagdad, that is) so no food or fresh water could enter the city. As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is ). Then when the city is lethargic and half-asleep, we go in and start pulling sleepy people out and into encampments until we can sort them out. Naturally, the soldier looking dudes would be sent right to POW internments, of course.
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Aside from that, if they are utterly surrounded, doomed to defeat, yet they still won't surrender, drop the MOAB. Seriously, level the city. It's not pretty, virtually 100% casualties are ensured, and probably it won't be looked upon positively. ...but what are you going to do for an enemy that refuses to surrender? The civilians held captive are "dead" already whether you wait or act. Just level it, and call it a day. It will be a sad day to be sure, but hey, they should have surrendered. ...but then again, I'll never be the general to a real war, so I can say whatever I want, right?
...and damn if we can't just change uniforms on the fly?! Is it possible to re-suit 100, 000 ground personnel in mid-operation? Sounds crazy, I know. This uniform impostering really sucks, though!
I swear to god . . . you actually sound excited when you list over three things that are directly against INTERNATIONAL LAW and the Geneva Convention
and seem to froth in glee when you mention the MOAB!!
is this attitude in anyway indicative of the deep faults with many of your other attitudes?!?!
As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is ). Then when the city is lethargic and half-asleep, we go in and start pulling sleepy people out and into encampments until we can sort them out.
I thought that it would be brilliant military strategy to put them to sleep with tryptophan (spellin?). Too bad that Bush misunderstood what the Pentagon meant when they said they wanted to enlist the aid of Turkey.
But maybe we can invite them to a Thanksgiving dinner with some of our "Indian" friends. Of course, that could be problematic as well as the "Indians" might give them the wrong impression of how long we plan to stay.
Quote:
Wrong. It is called genocide and subject to International Court. You'd better pray that nobody hears your ideas.
Would that be the International Court whose treaty neither the US nor Iraq is party to?
The last thing that coalition forces want to do is a prolonged siege of Baghdad, but the city will need to be taken eventually. I'd say three weeks or more to stake down everything.
What concerns me are the plans for installing a new government and how that government will deal with the military.
What's to prevent a future coup?
How will they protect the Iraqi people from aggression from Iran or the Kurd held areas?
Who, besides Saddam, commands the respect and power to administer the particular geo-political forces in that region?
It's the long-term issues that concern me the most.
But I'm not so cynical that I don't hold out hope for a modern Iraq to rise from Saddam's broken palaces.
Of course a modern Iraq requires a modern population, something that Saddam has been careful to beat down. The reality is that it will take 15 to 30 years before the population could begin to work in the complex manner that todays' free democracies do. And there are a lot of little generals that might want to take an opportunity in the meantime.
. . . we have allready been shocked at the seriousness of the resistance . . .
We have? I suppose some are but I'd be extremely surprised if the military didn't prepare for this war expecting the worst. And I don't think we've even come close to whatever the military considered to be a worst-case scenario. Psy-ops have been a prominent feature in this war. When this tactic works, a lot ground is gained and fewer people on both sides get killed. The disadvantage to this tactic is that it sometimes "psychs out" our own people - especially the media. Just before the war started I told a friend, "There's no way this one will be anything like the last Gulf War. It's inconceivable we could achieve our objectives this time around with as few casualties but that's where the bar has been set. It will be interesting to see how people respond when things get difficult."
Finally, I honestly don't think the military has any intention of going into Baghdad. Why would they?
We think that the psy-ops are going to work....clearly we thought that they were going to lead to mass defections.....
the problem?
we imagine that the rest of the world has the same psychological make-up that we do!
guess what. . . . it's a different region and might as well be a different world than that of our college educated psychologist/military consultants . . . . probably as much "arm chair" international psychologists as I am a general
schooled in priveleged East coast academies and conservative "think tanks" . . .meaning ; revolving around their own little hermetic vision of the rest of the world
We'll just lay seige to the city. We'll probably even leave the lights on. We'll wait it out while consolidating our gains in the rest of the country. There's just no reason to get involved in urban warfare.
We'll just lay seige to the city. We'll probably even leave the lights on. We'll wait it out while consolidating our gains in the rest of the country. There's just no reason to get involved in urban warfare.
hmm, you must be a millitary genius... how long could you afford that with the current budget?
hmm, you must be a millitary genius... how long could you afford that with the current budget?
Just how short and cost-free did you expect this war to be? Our troops are going to be in Iraq for an extended period of time even if Baghdad falls tomorrow.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Or with the clamor concerning the humanitarian catastrophe that would definitly ensue??!?!
Why definitely? Like I said, we'd leave the lights on; the water too.
Okay. But if you asked that same Pentagon official if this represents some kind of worst-case scenario I doubt he'd say yes. Think of all that could have gone wrong that hasn't. The oil fields aren't on fire. There's no massive oil slick in the Persian Gulf. So far, chem/bio weapons haven't been used. Saddam hasn't been able to try and bait Israel into joining the war...
Quote:
We think that the psy-ops are going to work....clearly we thought that they were going to lead to mass defections.....
the problem?
We haven't seen the type of surrenders we saw in the last Gulf War because the Iraqis are already in their home country. They don't need to surrender in order to get home. They can just go home. All of the fighting is being done by Saddam loyalists - the kind of soldiers we already thought we were probably going to have to engage anyway. Apparently we didn't know about the Fedayeen, though. They are employing guerrilla tactics because that's all they can do.
Comments
The city has 4.5 million people and endless buildings on buildings . . . we have allready been shocked at the seriousness of the resistance . . . what do we think? that a battalion of several thousand can subdue a city that big with well armed civilians and soldiers who know the lay-out and, as the majority are Sunni, who may be loyal to the Baathe party
I think that they were counting on uprisings due to the 'shock and awe' of the rapid advance . . . but I don't think they were awed at all
He made several points :
- he have the feeling that the US troops expected a better support among the iraqi people, and unfortunately that was not the case.
- the decision to turn around the big town was probabily not scheduled first, it's may be the consequence of the first point
- the US military staff seems to have his hand tied by the politicians. But like any military they have to obey to their governement;
What if we encircled the city (the city of Bagdad, that is) so no food or fresh water could enter the city. As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Aside from that, if they are utterly surrounded, doomed to defeat, yet they still won't surrender, drop the MOAB. Seriously, level the city. It's not pretty, virtually 100% casualties are ensured, and probably it won't be looked upon positively. ...but what are you going to do for an enemy that refuses to surrender? The civilians held captive are "dead" already whether you wait or act. Just level it, and call it a day. It will be a sad day to be sure, but hey, they should have surrendered. ...but then again, I'll never be the general to a real war, so I can say whatever I want, right?
...and damn if we can't just change uniforms on the fly?! Is it possible to re-suit 100, 000 ground personnel in mid-operation? Sounds crazy, I know. This uniform impostering really sucks, though!
Originally posted by Powerdoc
There was an interview of the former general in Chief of the air French army in charge during the 1991 war gulf.
He made several points :
- he have the feeling that the US troops expected a better support among the iraqi people, and unfortunately that was not the case.
- the decision to turn around the big town was probabily not scheduled first, it's may be the consequence of the first point
- the US military staff seems to have his hand tied by the politicians. But like any military they have to obey to their governement;
I'm sure the last one is untrue.
Negotiation for top Iraq commanders surrender is still the US best option. Lengthy and costly yes, but this will result in minmal deaths.
And there is nothing more precious than the human life.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Here's a crazy idea:
What if we encircled the city (the city of Bagdad, that is) so no food or fresh water could enter the city. As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Aside from that, if they are utterly surrounded, doomed to defeat, yet they still won't surrender, drop the MOAB. Seriously, level the city. It's not pretty, virtually 100% casualties are ensured, and probably it won't be looked upon positively. ... Just level it, and call it a day. It will be a sad day to be sure, but hey, they should have surrendered. ...but then again, I'll never be the general to a real war, so I can say whatever I want, right?
Wrong. It is called genocide and subject to International Court. You'd better pray that nobody hears your ideas.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Not to mention the fact that Iraqi soldiers seem to have gas masks, possibly incase Saddam resorts to using nerve gas.
Originally posted by pfflam
what are your ideas to get a fast, less politically volatile victory?
This is a fast less politically volatile invasion. It's only been one week. I've said it would take 2 prior to the invasion and I'm sticking to it.
However, since this is an invasion and occupation, there's always going to be some resistence after the mainline military forces have been defeated.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Here's a crazy idea:
What if we encircled the city (the city of Bagdad, that is) so no food or fresh water could enter the city. As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is
Alternately, I guess you could use a "big sleeping gas" bomb on the city, but proper doseage and containment of the gas could be a problem.
Aside from that, if they are utterly surrounded, doomed to defeat, yet they still won't surrender, drop the MOAB. Seriously, level the city. It's not pretty, virtually 100% casualties are ensured, and probably it won't be looked upon positively. ...but what are you going to do for an enemy that refuses to surrender? The civilians held captive are "dead" already whether you wait or act. Just level it, and call it a day. It will be a sad day to be sure, but hey, they should have surrendered. ...but then again, I'll never be the general to a real war, so I can say whatever I want, right?
...and damn if we can't just change uniforms on the fly?! Is it possible to re-suit 100, 000 ground personnel in mid-operation? Sounds crazy, I know. This uniform impostering really sucks, though!
I swear to god . . . you actually sound excited when you list over three things that are directly against INTERNATIONAL LAW and the Geneva Convention
and seem to froth in glee when you mention the MOAB!!
is this attitude in anyway indicative of the deep faults with many of your other attitudes?!?!
As they hold-out and find themself starving and suffering from thirst, we drop in food rations. Except the food rations are doped to put you to sleep for 48 hrs (yes, exactly 48.132 hrs, that is ). Then when the city is lethargic and half-asleep, we go in and start pulling sleepy people out and into encampments until we can sort them out.
I thought that it would be brilliant military strategy to put them to sleep with tryptophan (spellin?). Too bad that Bush misunderstood what the Pentagon meant when they said they wanted to enlist the aid of Turkey.
But maybe we can invite them to a Thanksgiving dinner with some of our "Indian" friends. Of course, that could be problematic as well as the "Indians" might give them the wrong impression of how long we plan to stay.
Wrong. It is called genocide and subject to International Court. You'd better pray that nobody hears your ideas.
Would that be the International Court whose treaty neither the US nor Iraq is party to?
It's working.
The last thing that coalition forces want to do is a prolonged siege of Baghdad, but the city will need to be taken eventually. I'd say three weeks or more to stake down everything.
What concerns me are the plans for installing a new government and how that government will deal with the military.
What's to prevent a future coup?
How will they protect the Iraqi people from aggression from Iran or the Kurd held areas?
Who, besides Saddam, commands the respect and power to administer the particular geo-political forces in that region?
It's the long-term issues that concern me the most.
But I'm not so cynical that I don't hold out hope for a modern Iraq to rise from Saddam's broken palaces.
Of course a modern Iraq requires a modern population, something that Saddam has been careful to beat down. The reality is that it will take 15 to 30 years before the population could begin to work in the complex manner that todays' free democracies do. And there are a lot of little generals that might want to take an opportunity in the meantime.
Originally posted by pfflam
. . . we have allready been shocked at the seriousness of the resistance . . .
We have? I suppose some are but I'd be extremely surprised if the military didn't prepare for this war expecting the worst. And I don't think we've even come close to whatever the military considered to be a worst-case scenario. Psy-ops have been a prominent feature in this war. When this tactic works, a lot ground is gained and fewer people on both sides get killed. The disadvantage to this tactic is that it sometimes "psychs out" our own people - especially the media. Just before the war started I told a friend, "There's no way this one will be anything like the last Gulf War. It's inconceivable we could achieve our objectives this time around with as few casualties but that's where the bar has been set. It will be interesting to see how people respond when things get difficult."
Finally, I honestly don't think the military has any intention of going into Baghdad. Why would they?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Finally, I honestly don't think the military has any intention of going into Baghdad. Why would they?
Saddam is there?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
We have? I suppose some are but I'd be extremely surprised if the military didn't prepare for this war expecting the worst. ?
hmmm?!
Pentagon:Iraqi militias unexpected challenge
"unexpected" - - ?
We think that the psy-ops are going to work....clearly we thought that they were going to lead to mass defections.....
the problem?
we imagine that the rest of the world has the same psychological make-up that we do!
guess what. . . . it's a different region and might as well be a different world than that of our college educated psychologist/military consultants . . . . probably as much "arm chair" international psychologists as I am a general
schooled in priveleged East coast academies and conservative "think tanks" . . .meaning ; revolving around their own little hermetic vision of the rest of the world
Originally posted by New
Saddam is there?
We'll just lay seige to the city. We'll probably even leave the lights on. We'll wait it out while consolidating our gains in the rest of the country. There's just no reason to get involved in urban warfare.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
We'll just lay seige to the city. We'll probably even leave the lights on. We'll wait it out while consolidating our gains in the rest of the country. There's just no reason to get involved in urban warfare.
hmm, you must be a millitary genius... how long could you afford that with the current budget?
Originally posted by New
hmm, you must be a millitary genius... how long could you afford that with the current budget?
Or with the clamor concerning the humanitarian catastrophe that would definitly ensue??!?!
Originally posted by New
hmm, you must be a millitary genius... how long could you afford that with the current budget?
Just how short and cost-free did you expect this war to be? Our troops are going to be in Iraq for an extended period of time even if Baghdad falls tomorrow.
Originally posted by pfflam
Or with the clamor concerning the humanitarian catastrophe that would definitly ensue??!?!
Why definitely? Like I said, we'd leave the lights on; the water too.
Originally posted by pfflam
hmmm?!
Pentagon:Iraqi militias unexpected challenge
"unexpected" - - ?
Okay. But if you asked that same Pentagon official if this represents some kind of worst-case scenario I doubt he'd say yes. Think of all that could have gone wrong that hasn't. The oil fields aren't on fire. There's no massive oil slick in the Persian Gulf. So far, chem/bio weapons haven't been used. Saddam hasn't been able to try and bait Israel into joining the war...
We think that the psy-ops are going to work....clearly we thought that they were going to lead to mass defections.....
the problem?
We haven't seen the type of surrenders we saw in the last Gulf War because the Iraqis are already in their home country. They don't need to surrender in order to get home. They can just go home. All of the fighting is being done by Saddam loyalists - the kind of soldiers we already thought we were probably going to have to engage anyway. Apparently we didn't know about the Fedayeen, though. They are employing guerrilla tactics because that's all they can do.