The USA has already lost the war with Iraq

Wake up call!

Generals unwilling to change their tactics? Hmmm, this sounds alot like the wargames they had in the 1930's with them not wanting to believe that aircraft carriers *could* sink battleships. We all know what happend then hmm?

Lose first then rethink?

Note: this has nothing to do with wether or not the USA should attack Iraq, read the article before saying something like "this should be in the Iraq thread" please.

 

You have to take this for what it is. The military has always been like this; this story is nothing new. It's just being advertised as more because of the current real-world political situation. It was a trial-and-error situation. The Pentagon learned something; they just don't want to admit it publicly.

That's politics for you.

 

Interesting article. "I call no-fairsies!"

 

Politics and pride. To the pentagons credit, it wasn't an "uhh uhh, I'm not dead" situation, it was an "okay we didn't see that one coming, but since we've blown 250 million on this let's try again." The scripting was of course a dumb idea though even if it is in line with predicted Iraqi tactics. Of course war games do not happen quite like the real world either. As long as the learn not to be cocky, then the exercise was a success.

 

OH! That's a classic

I can't believe they did that!!!!

Let's just hope they get better tactics or learn to play dirty before they fight real troops!!!

Kithera

 

I can't believe they did that!!!!

?

This happens all the time. We just don't usually have people shooting their mouths off about it. It's not a big deal; when it comes down to the real thing, the military is much more flexible.

Give us some credit. There are goals and objectives when it comes to war games, and certain scenarios must be dealt with. The brass learned some things, they just didn't expect to lose so quickly (at all).

C'mon, are you telling me that when you play Mario Bros., it's win on the first life or not at all? No, you learn from your mistakes and move on. The brass learned what they needed to, then needed to justify their expenditures by winning the exercise.

Like I said, happens all the time. This is nothing to get excited over.

 

Actually the idea of an Iraq first strike is unlikely since the fleet would stay too far off the coast until the B-2's and other long range bombers clear the area. Again though, if it helps the pentagon not to be cocky then it was worth the money.

 

Yes, and the Rams have already won the Super Bowl. I magically erased their loss to the Broncos this weekend on my Playstation. Tough luck to all those other teams out their. Oops, pardon me, it wasn't real.

 

I'm not getting excited over it, just finding it amusing.

I know they do it all the time. They have played several war games down here in Australia and been beaten (by the Aussies) only to turn around and tell them that they had to play the 'game' again using their rules.

I'm just finding the way the article was written and the whistle-blowing amusing that is all!

Kithera

Edit: I'd love to find some examples to post, but I only have personal accounts from people who participated.

Anyway, back on target!


What will happen if Iraq takes notice of this and uses the exact same tactics against the American troops? Will they be ready for it??? In fact will they be ready for any underhand fighting?

 

We're trained for underhanded fighting everyday. Heck, I am, and I am not in a combat job!

 

Well in real life captains don't take kindly to unauthorized ships near their vessels. In fact they surrender their ship or are blown up, depending on the defcom status. Plus like I said, prior to striking the US fleet will be too far out for smaller vessles to locate or travel while the bombers do their work.

 

I'd liek to think the troops acting as red force were slightly better trained and armed and led then any Iraqi troops.

After all, as a dictator it's usually a bad thing if you have good powerful generals.

 

I just hope the military learned something and will actually integrate that information, as opposed to bury its head in the sand in embarassment.

Should we actually go to war, that scenario would create quite a quagmire. Just another reason not to rush in.

Peace,

V-03

 

If you're serious about debating this I would highly suggest the following article: USS Clueless

It's a long read and usually I hate people who link to stuff and don't debate but I really think it's worth a read in this case.

 

He's underestimating the arab anti-US feelings though, they might prove stronger then the hatred for Saddam, conquering Iraq and driving them out of Kuweit, they will be 2 very different things.

 

Anti-US feelings?

I keep hearing about this from the Europeans, even from family that lives in Europe. I have accepted that Europeans REALLY believe this but such predictions have yet to be proven.
I heard the same thing before the Gulf War, along with predictions that the US could never forge an alliance with any Arab nation against Iraq. The predictions were wrong then.
I heard these predictions again just recently about Afgahnistan. We all heard the predictions that all of Afgahnistan would rise up and fight against any American aggressions. They were, again, wrong.

There is a resentment in the Arab world against the flood of American culture which is undermining their traditional value systems... very successfully I might add.

But there is very little of the extreme fanaticism displayed by the 19 terrorists who attacked the US 364 days ago.

We also saw in the Gulf War that Iraq soldiers had no problem surrendering to the western 'infidel dogs' (and a western journalist on occasion ). In fact, they prefered surrendering to the Americans to almost anything else (even fighting). Most didn't even put up token resistance. Saddam's personal gaurd was the only unit to put up a fight. In fact they were able to ambush and greatly outnumber an Mech infantry unit... which in turn slaughtered Saddam's troops with almost no casualties.
It turned out later that many in Saddam's personal gaurd feared for the safety of their families if they didn't fight. They were afraid that Saddam would kill their families if they were disloyal... something Saddam had not hesitated to do in the past.
So we have already seen that Saddam has maybe a few thousands troops that are actually loyal to Saddam. We also have seen that Iraq troops have no reall problem with Surrendering to the Americans.

But, those same critics say, that was Kuwait. You would have met REAL resistance if you had actually entered Iraq.
When our bombings first started, Iraq citizens celebrated on rooftops, believing that the coalition (including the Americans) would liberate Iraq.

So far I have yet to see any real evidence that the Iraq people would en masse resist any such 'liberation' attempts. They already know that we are not there to stay. They saw what happened in Afgahnistan and I doubt that even Saddam's PR machine can convince his people that the American's are coming to eat their babies and rape their women.

Any more arguments?

This war can be argued on a moral and legal level. I find it humorous though, to attempt to argue it on a military level. Unless the totally unexpected happens and Saddam really IS satan, and can order the hordes from hell to his service, we are going to be the ones opening up a can of whoop-ass in Iraq.

EDIT:
I just stumbled on this minutes after leaving the board: Iranian students call for "Rememberance of the 9/11 Tragedy"

There's not as much hate as some would have you believe.
Clearly many don't like us and our subversive culture (especially the dreaded evil 'disco' ) but only a few really HATE the US enough to do something about it.

 

We'll see, we'll see...Afghanistan, uhm, if I remember there was an attack a few days ago by a group that wanted the infidels out of their country, correct me if I'm wrong about that. The Taliban is still there. You haven't won the war there by any means. But we'll see.

EDIT- for clarity, I'm not arguing that the USA will be defeated by Iraq, if that would happen the whole world would laugh at Bush. I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect it to be the cakewalk it was in 1991 or the cakewalk Afghanistan has been up until now. (mainly because you let the Afghans do the dirty work, which ironically was probably the reason that OBL slipped through your fingers...)
I'd be suprised if it would be really hard, but don't expect it to be easy either.(

 

I seriously don't see how it's gonna be harder then 1991.

They have less then half of the troops they had in 1991. They have few of the mechanized units they had then. And finally, no air force to speak of.

And this is intended with no offense to our allies in 1991: We also don't have a 'coalition' to keep together. We're going in with a bunch of true allies (i.e. not the French) and our tacticians won't have to worry about coalition politics when they plan this thing.

Will it be hard? Yes.
Will it be harder then 1991? I doubt it.

 

There is a difference between routing troops out of one country and invading thier country.

Taking Berlin wasn't as easy as taking Brussels.

Think about it.

 

Berlin still fell within just days .

But we're not going to be so stupid as to clear every last Iraq soldier from their foxhole. We don't need to do that.

Our war is with the Ba'ath regime. Not the entire country.

The difference:
German soldiers were extremely faithful to the Nazi regime. For the most part they believed in the Nazi regime and its goals. So in many cases when defeat was mostly certain they fought on tenaciously . When assaulted and greatly outnumbered, they held their positions.

Such dedication is almost impossible to find in any Arab army in the last fifty years. There are instances, but few and far between.
Arab armies are, like the soviets were, very good at rattling their sabers and parading lots of military hardware around. But when it comes down to a real fight...

Remember when Saddam promised us the "Mother of all Battles" back in 1991? An almost unopposed march through Kuwait is not exactly what I had in mind when picturing that.

So don't expect the bloodbath that the assault on Berlin was. The Iraq soldiers aren't going to fight to the last. Heck, I don't even suppose Saddam will be kind enough to suicide himself for us. He'll run fast and far... just like the majority of his army.

The US is also not going to act like an invading army. We're not going to take over the entire nation. Just control the centers of population and you've got a reasonable amount of control already.

Saddam likes to talk big. We like to speak softly and carry a big stick.

The Iraq's know that. So not only aren't they really loyal, they're a little bit scared. They've been up against us and know what we're capable off. They will fight not longer then absolutely necesary.

And Saddams' generals aren't all that happy with him. They're loyal because they like their positions... and the positions of their heads relative to their bodies.
I'm pretty damn sure we could find a general or something to run the country for a couple of months so that life goes on as normal.
Meanwhile we clean up any bio and nuke plants, set up some sort of Democractic regime, and then leave a 'security force' behind.

It's probably going to be a tad harder then that, but it's also not going to be WAY MORE difficult. And if it is more difficult then Dessert Storm... I'll buy Ice Cream all around.

 

We like to speak softly and carry a big stick.


Looks like somebody is hearing and seeing just what they want to hear and see.




Meanwhile we clean up any bio and nuke plants, set up some sort of Democractic regime


I dunno, but that sounds pretty un-democratic to me.

 

Could someone tell me why this warrants its own thread, instead of going into the existing thread on the invasion/war talk?

If we need to start a new thread and close the old one, that's fine, but seems like streamlining it would be preferable.

 

I would personally suggest that this thread remain open since it considers the military feasibility of an actual invasion and not whether such an invasion is moral or legal. All three arguments are important, but having all three at the same time can be confusing .


?Looks like somebody is hearing and seeing just what they want to hear and see.?

Take care, you?re pretty close to insulting me with nothing to back it up.
Western leaders don?t go on TV and shout loudly about ?The Mother of all Battles? or that if we attack that the ?Gates of hell shall open?. Western leaders are always more low key and when they attack, attack with force.
There are exceptions to the rule (Clinton vs Saddam 1998) but that?s generally the way things are.

In the Arab cultures most wars are fought before the battle. They threaten, they scare, they rattle their sabers and make an amazing racket. And it sometimes works. The same tactics were largely used by the American Indians. Look scary and hope it scares off anybody who happens by.

?I dunno, but that sounds pretty un-democratic to me.?

And your solution would be? It might be a bit hypocritical, but there?s no other way democracy is going to find its way into Iraq anytime soon. And it?s not going to be the usual US democracy. As with Afghanistan expect a more tribal oriented democracy. Something that works best for the people involved.

 

I think Iraq will hardly be much of a challenge to the United States millitary.

The United States will probabaly do the same thing that they did in the Persian Gulf War.

1. Bomb the hell out of the Iraqi military and industry, easily demoralizing the population.

2. Send in ground troops to mop-up resistance and collect the tens of thousands of Iraqi P.O.W.'s.

3. (not done in the Gulf War, but should have) Abolish the government and create a new, more sane, more democratic government.

4. With assistance from new gov., gather and destroy any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and facilities that make them.

 

Why would the new governement be any better then Saddam?

But that's a question for the other thread...

Saddam likes to talk big. We like to speak softly and carry a big stick.

I don't think of Bush as the softly speaking type, "Axis of Evil" etc...

We'll see how it turns out, let's hope I'm wrong eh?