[OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war - Page 5

Alpha Kodiak · #41 April 11th, 2003, 09:37 PM

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 · #42 April 11th, 2003, 09:50 PM

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 · #43 April 11th, 2003, 10:11 PM

Quote:

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 · #44 April 11th, 2003, 10:25 PM

Quote:

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 · #45 April 12th, 2003, 12:11 AM

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 · #46 April 12th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

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.

Loser · #47 April 12th, 2003, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TerranC:
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.[/QB]

The B-52, the Battleship, SR-71 (you know they still use them, I mean come on, they're just to cool to scrap), and soon the tank?

I have trouble imagining a world where tanks are mothballed and only brought out for The Next Big War...

Anyone see it a different way?

Alpha Kodiak · #48 April 12th, 2003, 01:08 AM

I wouldn't want to take a Bradley against a determined tank-armed enemy that knew how to use their tanks. For that matter, it takes a much lighter infantry weapon to take out a Bradley than an M1. I would guess that an RPG could substantially damage a Bradley, while it would be unlikely that it could do much to an M1. Given all of that, I suspect MBTs will be around for a while yet.

Thermodyne · #49 April 12th, 2003, 01:16 AM

We could force law and order on them, or we could let them ask for some law and order. I would think that letting them ask is the best course of action.

Baron Munchausen · #50 April 12th, 2003, 02:45 AM

Bah... 'the tank is obsolete' is one of those cyclic idiocies that military doctrines go through. The gun was 'obsolete' on aircraft in the 1960s. Until US pilots got into some dogfights in Vietnam and discovered that missiles were not 100 percent effective.

Big surprise there. They had to put external gun pods on the F4 Phantom to let our pilots keep fighting when the enemy closed in. At least they did learn from their mistake and put guns in the original design for the next generation, the F-14/F-15/F-16 series. Those simple (and cheap!) shaped charge weapons did make the battlefield dangerous for tanks for a while, but they came up with counter-measures in the next generation of armor. Despite this there was some resistance to building the M1 Abrams on the grounds that tanks were 'obsolete'. Well, OUR tanks sure didn't look 'obsolete' in Desert Storm...

The tank will not be obsolete until, as already said, we have the SciFi type of tank that walks.

The real observation to be made here is that the 'highly irregular warfare' of the future, where terrorists do their best to attack where our defenses ain't will not be won with heavy weapons. I suspect that the very dangerous merging of police and military that we've already begun to see will continue in the attempt to cope with this problem. We'll have 'SWAT' teams getting more and more heavy-duty and high-tech, and police legal powers getting more and more crazy - as already demonstrate with the 'Patriot' and 'Patriot II' acts.