Dez's Advanced Warfare Thread
- 03-29-2003, 08:20 PM
Dez's Advanced Warfare Thread
Im currently taking a history class based purly on America at War. Though I cannot be drafted or join the military I strongly support our troops. In this thread we will discuss about the war and how it will go down. The evolution of warfare and how wars have been fought.
To start it off id like to start on Somalia since everyone in the news is talking about how Iraqi will become the next Mogadishu.
My theory on how the war will be fought is simple. During the Blackhawk down situation they were poorly ready for urban style fighting. They suffered from lack of infromation lack of equipment and the lack general idea of what was going on. Also the ROE (rules of engagement) stated that they couldn't fire upon anyone unless fired upon. Changes to be made in the rules of engagement allow use to be much safer then what we were doing in Somalia. Saddam has proven that hes useing tactics that should be banned by the Geneva Convention thus the ROE must be changed to fallow suit.
This will not be another Mogadishu. Since by common warfare our troops have trained for urban warfare and are much more suited for this type of fighting then they were in 1993. Further more the Blackhawk down situation was a single mission. Also there will be heavy areial bombardment and possible upriseing in Baghdad. And troops coming in through from all sides.
Another thing about this war is the fact Saddam is holding troops in civilian facilitys. PSYOPS should be dropping leaflets about this. Not only does it endanger the people who work there, but it also endangers the facility itself, thus slowing down any chances of recovery in case of civlian damages.
We are within 50 miles of Baghdad. No real troop movement on Iraqi sides (that we know of) Iraqs communications have almost been shut down.
If push comes to shove we can pull a "strangulation" attack on Baghdad. to put we shut off the power to the city with the E-bomb. Though this might hinder future abilitys for them it will save troop lives and may cause Saddams men to give up without power a country is useless. Any other thoughts on this?
- 03-30-2003, 02:36 AM
Although I appreciate your ability to analyze past activities my view differs somewhat.
First, let me highlight the DIFFERENCES between Somalia and today's conflict with Iraq. Somalia was a military action and Iraq is a full blown conflict. The Ranger battalion that was depicted in the movie is actually 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment stationed out of Ft. Benning, GA. My brother was an 11M during the Somalia incident and his company, B. co., lost the brunt of soldiers that were lost during that incident. It is the same battalion that I lost my cherry with in 1993 and served in for 2 years. Through personal experience with training in that battalion and relaying my brothers exerience running the Mogadishu mile I feel that I am uniquely qualified to say your assessment of Somalia is completely off base. They had excellent information, the best equipment, and a good impression of their surroundings.
What they DID NOT have is good communication with leadership. In the Somalia incident there was a precedent for top echelon to give orders virtually. Before, the highest level of command that was supported was battalion level with direct contact and all above received sitreps and issued OPO's / FRAGO's by radio. Somalia was the first time that some rear echelon ****er directed combat from the comfort of his office.
Aside from what sustained the confusion how did they do in urban warfare? Given that they did not have the luxury of re-inforcements, heavy munition support (artillery or mortar), armored support, or even helo support they kicked ass is in the tradition of the brothers that are 3rd battalion. Keep in mind that they are a mobile light infantry unit carring only the bare essentials. Given that the Somalians held an overwhelming force and on home turf the fact that we did not suffer 100% loss is simply amazing...a true testament to the creed and their warrior spirit. IMO, the incident in Somalia is a resounding success from the common foot soldier point of view.
So how does that differ from Iraq? As you have pointed out the rules of engagement are different now. This is a full blown conflict where we are bound to Geneva convention mandate but not the political bull**** of Somalia. We are not worried about stepping on the UN's toes this time since we flat out told them to suck a big one to get to the desert in the first place. We also have supporting numbers with all the metal we can bring to bare.
The campaign thus far has been a big game of monopoly...who has the most real estate. From a military standpoint - why fight for ground when you can rush fast with a record setting blitz krieg? Now that we are at the gates of Baghdad there is no doubt that urban warfare in a city of martyrs will be bloody. The strategy is to handle the head of the snake and allow the dissatisfied body to rebel. Now that we are this close to Baghdad the message is more powerful than any bomb we can drop or bullet fired. We are not counting on overwhelming numbers, firepower, or psyops to win this war...we are counting on the people of Iraq to win it for us. If they do not rebel we have been dealt a bloody hand.
- 03-30-2003, 03:40 AM
thanks for the imput Chemo this enlightened me. PRINT!
03-30-2003, 11:11 AM
Amen Chemo. The issue with the people uprising however, is that we encouraged them to do that in the last Gulf War, then when they did, we went home, and let them get slaughtered. Ooooppppsss! I don't know how thrilled I would be to uprise at this point, considering the past.
I suspect the battle for Bagdad will be a bloody one. This ain't going to be easy.
I must admit, Bush cracks me up..with his derogatory statements on "Gurrella war" that they are using. This is not "fair"? LMAO! It is a standard war tactic..some people called the..umm..errr..AMERICANS even ued it in the revolutionary war against Britan. When it is used against us tho..it is unfair..PLEASE!
The American version of "civilized" war is going to get good US soldiers killed. As the Marines say, "Kill them all, let God sort it out"
03-30-2003, 11:17 AM
Well stated Chemo.
I think we will see the bloodiest conflict that American troops have seen for quite some time in taking Bagdhad. I also believe that Bush will not let us loose this war based on Political pressure. There is more to us being in Iraq than meets the eye for the long term goals of securing peace for the world. It is strategic beyond measure and we can not, the world can not, afford to have us lose. Bagdhad will be bloody and the cost will be great, but that we will win I am confident and that we will be vindicated to the world that our action was just, that to I am also sure of.
03-30-2003, 11:45 AM
03-30-2003, 02:32 PM
Man suicide attacks and faulty prisioners we have delt with for over 50 years
04-01-2003, 10:52 AM
it depends on how much genuine support there is for saddam v. hatred for the US. in afganistan the taleban really wasn't popular, and it might be the same w/ saddam's regime. i.e. quick war, few casualties.
however, if the iraqi people are going to put up a real fight, and i don't just mean the republican guard, then it'll get ugly. US has to avoid killing civilians, so they can't just bomb baghdad to the ground and then invade. if they go in w/ troops, then they can still take the city, but at high cost in casualties. on ground, the US does not have that big of an advantage over a defending opponent. So say it takes 20,000 dead marines? do you think the US would be willing to pay this price?
and after that, the iraqi troops could disperse into the mountains or whatever they have over there, and start guarilla warfare. if they have popular support, then that could go on forever. the US would occupy the country, but casaulties would keep slowly mounting.
04-02-2003, 01:52 PM
Another point--For the last few years, the US military in general and the USMC in particular have been doing MOUT (Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain) exercises, trying to improve combat doctrine. They've come up with a lot of good tricks, but the wargame results still show heavy casualties for both sides, with a decided homefield advantage for the defenders.
We really need the support that the Shiite leaders, learning from last time, aren't giving us. Like they said in Full Metal Jacket--They sort oftook away our freedom and given it to the Iraqis, you know. But the Iraqis don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards.
Similar Forum Threads
- By dez/null in forum Weight LossReplies: 75Last Post: 05-23-2004, 05:25 AM
- By Gmonkey in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 3Last Post: 03-17-2003, 05:50 PM
- By curt2go in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 70Last Post: 03-04-2003, 10:34 PM
- By Big H in forum General ChatReplies: 19Last Post: 12-21-2002, 05:18 PM
- By Chemo in forum AnabolicsReplies: 64Last Post: 10-07-2002, 12:03 AM