I tend to agree with M/Sgt. Goff's views when he says, "Iraq will be militarily defeated and occupied. There will be no sustained Iraqi guerrilla resistance. There will be no Stalingrad in Baghdad"
"The Iraqi military won't prevail because they can't. They are weak, under-resourced, poorly led, and demoralized. What the delays mean is that the US will depend on sustaining the initiative and momentum through brutal, incessant bombing designed to destroy every soldier, every installation, every vehicle, every field kitchen in the Iraqi military. War will inflict terrifying casualties on the Iraqi military. There will be collateral damage to civilians, even with attempts to attenuate that damage, and in case we fail to remember, soldiers are like everyone else. They have families and loved ones." I would strike "through brutal, incessant bombing designed to destroy every soldier, every installation, every vehicle, every field kitchen in the Iraqi military". How we maintain the initiative and momentum may, or may not, follow the Sergeant's prescription.
There are several dictums for successful battle that appear to have been lost by the seemingly endless delays and hand-wringing. Surprise is perhaps the most important casualty so far. We appear to be forced into an advance across a very narrow, predictable front, and at a predictable time. It would have been better if Saddam had to defend on two fronts, and at an unexpected time. Delay has made it possible for the Iraq military to perfect it's defensive lines and command system. Experience tells us that it is best to pit your strongest force against the enemy's weakest point. Being forced to advance along a known route has permitted Saddam to focus his limited resources where they will be most obstructive to us. The better the defense, the more costly the assault. These are not good things, as Ms. Stewart might say.
On the other hand, our forces are well-trained, well-equipped and out number the defenders by considerable margins. The problems within the Iraqi military establishment have also increased somewhat by delay. Saddam has apparently been busy purging those who may not be quite ready to die for him. The officer corps must be in disarray, and unprepared for the coming storm. Iraqi troops are notoriously under-trained and motivated, while their logistical support is almost non-existent. Those factors and others seem to support the idea that most units will surrender after a symbolic shot, or two in the air. Our air superiority will not have been much degraded by the delays, but every day works against ground forces coiled to strike from a very difficult environment.
It sounds as if Gen. Ripper did a ripping job as OPFOR Commander. War games are intended to reveal the weaknesses in a plan, and to sharpen the combative skills of the participants. I'm sure that Gen. Franks, his staff and men will benefit from the exercise. The "winning" and "losing" of these games is less important than the lessons taken away from them. What we have to remember is that the Iraqi military is not in Gen. Ripper's class. Their doctrine is risk adverse, and avoids the sort of initiative and imagination we expect of a Marine general officer. Gen. Ripper is used to commanding the finest soldiers available, but the Iraqi command structure has never come to grips with it's own internal weaknesses.
Where I come to a parting of the ways with Sgt. Goff is regarding the aftermath and costs. I sincerely doubt that Iraqi military casualties will even approach 50,000, and the civilian casualties resulting directly from allied action should be a tenth of that. All bets are off if Saddam decides for the Gotterdamerung, and leaves Iraq a smoldering wreck. The Iraqi military is likely to be shocked into paralysis, and thrown into turmoil and panic. By the time they recover their wits they will be defeated. The loss of internal discipline and moral will keep Iraqi casualties low, if they just remember to surrender in the approved manner. With the collapse of the military, Saddam will likely be torn apart by the relatives of all those thousands he's murdered. I doubt that anyone will really mourn the passing of Saddam, and this operation is not likely to ignite any more Arab/Islamic hatred of America than now exists.
Constructing a new government while guaranteeing the safety and security of the Iraqi's will be a much greater challenge. The U.S. military will be a necessary ingredient, but it cannot act alone. The stripped pant boys and girls should get their chance to show off what they learned in grad school about building effective governmental structures. If the UN wanted to be helpful, they could greatly ease the transition from a repressive tyranny to an open society. I expect that our military will have to be very vigilent against incursions from Iran and Turkey into portions of Iraq. We seem committed to retaining Iraq as a single entity, but that may not be possible. I think that the Shi'a can be an important part of balancing the religious tensions within a new government. More difficult will be the Kurds. They want a homeland. They've fought for a homeland for many years against terrible odds. They have an essential role in the coming battle, and will deserve reward. Personally, I favor a new Kurdistan formed out of portions of northern Iraq. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.
Quote:"Personally, I favor a new Kurdistan formed out of portions of northern Iraq. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen."
the US does not have a good history of forethought and consequences.
haha, that is quite true. there is always someone to do the cleanup. besides, there is little glory in that, so the motivation lacks.
Dizzy,
Quote:the US does not have a good history of forethought and consequences.
... and who does have a good history of forethought and consequences?
The sad fact is that no one ever sees the future as clearly as they see the distant past. What is regarded as a present "good", sometimes turns out to be a terrible choice. Not knowing, we are forced to find other basis for forming our policies. Idealism has a really bad record when used by religious zealots, or when used to design the "perfect" state. History is the great teacher, but the students too often are more interested in the Prom than in the dry pages of old books. It is so easy to merely adopt the current rant from a self appointed commentariat than to think.
PDiddie, I pretty much concur with Asherman's assessment. This particulat incident, the War Game, was discussed somewhere way back on the original Us, UN, and Iraq thread ... some time in January or Febrruary, I believe. I am not as pessimistic as some ... I fully expect unpleasant surprises, for that is the nature of war. My greates worry has nothing to do with the war, it is the post-war that holds the greatest peril.
Especially with these poll results. People around europe polled on how they view the US.
Reuters
more than 'sadly', despairingly....
I wish to revive this thread for one reason.
Are all the Americans are happy after this war?
Why the hell the war supporters are shouting with their silence.
Are they ashmaed?
This thread was not from me
