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

[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.

[Loser]

It certainly would be best to avoid the destruction of infrastructure. However if, and I'm not saying this is the way it is but if, some degree of destruction cannot be avoided, it would be best to let it happen easily.

Another thing to remember here is that Iraq is not a poor country. We are not talking about Guatemala or Somalia or Vietnam. This country is _rich_ in the most valuable resource since the dawn of the industrial era. This country will not remain broken and destitute for decades, a pitiful testimony to the destructive capacity of Science and Industry. This country will be rebuilt, it will be strong, it will support itself in a matter of years.

If the 'Coalition of the Willing' does half as good a job on Iraq as the Marshal Plan did on post-war Europe, there will be a new and powerful democracy where one would be most useful.

Of course, they could still screw it up.



That said, if the Bradleys are doing so well against tanks, and work with infantry so well, will there come a time within the next fifty years when we will no longer need pure tanks?

I mean, before we get tanks that walk on two legs.

(edit: this post has been formatted to fit your screen, and to have better spelling)

[ April 11, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Loser ]

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Loser:
That said, if the Bradleys are doing so well against tanks, and work with infantry so well, will there come a time within the next fifty years when we will no longer need pure tanks?

I mean, before we get tanks that walk on two legs.

We'll need them, but I don't think we'll be building new ones, IMHO. I think the Abrams will go the way of the Stratofortress; Useful when you need it, but at other times, just a liability.