[OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war

[Thermodyne]

The Air power can not be removed from the equation, it was an integral part of the combined
arms operation. With out air power, it would have been a different war. The Iraqi Army
officers were its weak point. Officers were posted because of bloodline and loyalty, not their
ability to lead troops. Also, given their poor performance with the equipment they had, I doubt
the Iraqi army could have found skilled operators in the numbers that would have been needed
to field up to date equipment. The T 72 was built to kill M 60’s, which are medium tanks that
had their roots in the late days of WW II. It was also designed to be crewed and maintained by
unskilled conscripts. The T-8X series of tanks were built to counter the M-1, but never came
close in performance. Also, the Soviets had a very hard time keeping the 8X series of tanks
serviceable, which is probably why they were not popular in the third world. Both 8X's and M1's were very unreliable in their early years. The T 72 is still the MBT of China and NK, although both countries have claimed to have modernized the design. And they can be found everywhere the
Soviets sought influence, along with the ever present AK and RPG. I find it strange that these
weapons that we all link to the Soviets and communism were developed in Germany during the
war. RPGs in 43-44, assault rifles in 43, including the short cycle cartridge. And Scuds are just V2’s with out the nice German machine work. England has a first rate MBT in the Challenger, and while untested, Germany may still field the best tank in the world.

To prevent this from happening, Iraq would have needed the ability to maintain ACO over the
gulf , and AS over Iraq proper. Then they would have needed to hit the staging areas as we
unloaded the ships. There was no chance of this taking place, so Saddam should have spared
his country and fled with his billions. Bet he had a lot of second thoughts on that decision.

[Loser]

In the not-so-distant future, we will have so much data, such powerful computers, such cleverly designed simulator interfaces, and so much free time that will be possible to simulate, in detail, the entire scope of any modern conflict.

Challenges will be issued: successfully defend the Falklands against Britain; Iraq/Iran conflict, fully invade and overthrow your opponent; as the US, avoid supporting France in Southeast Asia without loosing face; as the USSR, survive the Cold War; stabilize (with any political alignment) South and Central America by 1980; prevent 9/11; defend Iraq and its conquests against either the 'Allied Coalition' or the 'Coalition of the Willing'. Countless other engagements are possible, large and small, political and economic, won and lost.

Surely one of the most daunting challenges would be the land invasion of the United States (or really any portion of North America) as a conclusion to the Cold War.

When we have these devices at our disposal, the discussion of Hardware vs. Tactics will, I believe, boil down to "If they, then, had tactics that we have since developed..."

Back on topic:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2842.htm

What the heck happened to US Intelligence? "Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?" I don't mind deception, that's downright human and natural, but it will be very hard to earn respect as a superpower if the US keeps making stupid mistakes like this.

At least, I think that was on topic...

(edit: edited for apostraphe abuse)

[ April 11, 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Loser:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2842.htm

What the heck happened to US Intelligence? "Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?" I don't mind deception, that's downright human and natural, but it will be very hard to earn respect as a superpower if the US keeps making stupid mistakes like this.

At least, I think that was on topic...

(edit: edited for apostraphe abuse)

Funny, they neglected to mention a few things when they wrote this story. One of the things that I noticed while watching this event was that men, women and children were freely coming and going during the two hours or so that I was watching. Also, the size of the crowd in the wide angle shots changed dramatically over time. At first, there were very few people there, given that word had not spread that it was safe to come out. After a while a much larger crowd (yes, in the wide angle pictures) was there. Then things began to wind down after the statue had been down for a while. I can't tell if the statue is down in those pictures or not, so I'm not sure when they were taken, but I know for the fact that the crowd at its peak was larger than shown in them. In short, there was a great deception going on, not on the ground in Iraq, but in this article.

As for the supposed same milita member in the two lower pictures: there are several possibilities. It could indeed be the same person and the military did bring in some people. They could be people that look similar and the whole thing is a coincidence. Or, the picture could be doctored. I have no evidence one way or another to know which it was, but given the total lack of integrity shown by this site in the upper picture, I see no reason to draw any significant conclusions from the lower pictures.

Edit-On closer looking at the picture, I see the M88 in the picture, so it could be after the statue went down. Regardless, the picture is misleading as to the size of the crowd at its peak.

[ April 11, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

I will say this about the military plans, I think they should have had more preparation for law enforcement for when the regime collapsed. I understand that there is going to be a time of rough transition, but it seems like it would have been smart to have a significant number of MPs ready to bring in right behind the troops to provide a higher level of civil security. Maybe I will be proven wrong and they will have something in place quickly (I've sure been wrong before watching this campaign) but unitl I see it I am somewhat concerned.

[Loser]

On the issue of law enforcement, I think the coalition is doing the right thing. If they came in strong right after they drove the other guys out, it might seem that one oppressive organization was replaced by another.

By letting the truly inevitable happen (see _any_ real revolution (the American one does not count, as local authority was, for the most part, maintained)), and then bringing in law enforcement afterward, the people will not feel restrained as they are able to see the need for the light level of oppression inherent to law enforcement.

A question: who is being looted?

Who had all the 'stuff'?

Are people associated with the Ba'ath party, or their property, suffering the most?

It would be nice if it were that simple.

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I understand that there is going to be a time of rough transition, but it seems like it would have been smart to have a significant number of MPs ready to bring in right behind the troops to provide a higher level of civil security. Maybe I will be proven wrong and they will have something in place quickly (I've sure been wrong before watching this campaign) but unitl I see it I am somewhat concerned.

Actually watching as much as I do, the looting in Iraq is nothing compared to what happens here in the States when the so called fans decide to celebtate their team winning (GOD forbid loosing) by going out and trashing the town.

But then again, when them turds are looting, there aint other people ready to stone them to death (maybe if that happened, then the idiots wouldnt be stoopid).

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Loser:
On the issue of law enforcement, I think the coalition is doing the right thing. If they came in strong right after they drove the other guys out, it might seem that one oppressive organization was replaced by another.

By letting the truly inevitable happen (see _any_ real revolution (the American one does not count, as local authority was, for the most part, maintained)), and then bringing in law enforcement afterward, the people will not feel restrained as they are able to see the need for the light level of oppression inherent to law enforcement.

A question: who is being looted?

Who had all the 'stuff'?

Are people associated with the Ba'ath party, or their property, suffering the most?

It would be nice if it were that simple.

Excellent point, I hadn't thought of it that way. I knew I would get into trouble second guessing the military plan. Every time I have so far I have been proved wrong. It has worked amazingly well, and I would not be surprised if this part works well also.

It is true that the Ba'ath party people had most of the stuff, so they are the primary targets. The big problem is when hospitals and other infrastructure facilities are looted, preventing people from receiving vital services.