Chance: It will be fairly surgical - about as surgical as an invasion of this scale can be. The tanks will roll, and there will be large engagements, just like there was last time. There is no other way to dispatch large armored formations such as the Iraqis have quickly (air can only attrit, not destroy, such formations). But like I said, we are not going to storm Baghdad. That would be WWII tactics. But we will send in a column, hit a specific target, and leave. That is 21st century warfare in action. Not all wars are going to be SF/airpower affairs from here on out. The air will be very surgical. The ground battle less so, but that is the nature of such force-on-force engagements. That is unavoidable. As for MOPP gear - don't you think it'd be a good idea to go in MOPP gear? I would say that the likelihood that Saddam will attempt to gas our troops is about 100%...
No matter what you think of Bush, that was a great speech. I'm proud he is from Texas and proud that he is our president.
I know I'd have my MOPP gear...It's just that if Saddam doesn't have WMD like he says, and a lot of people on this board and in Congress & the House seem to agree, then why would we need the MOPP gear? We should just stroll in like Vic Morrow.
sosorox: MOPP gear makes the heat worse. Much worse. It is very uncomfortable, and it is very hot. In a desert with mild temperatures - say 90 degrees - you will be able to wear MOPP IV (full protection) for about 30 or 40 minutes. Then you will pass out from heat exhaustion. Chance: What do you think that the likelihood is that Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? I would say that the odds of that are small enough to warrant wearing MOPP gear... codell: I also agree that Saddam has nowhere to go in that amount of time. Not that he would leave if he had the time... He has already said that he will never leave. I believe him.
Oh, the Aussies are now part of the "coalition of the willing". I wonder what we did to coerce them into going to war? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030317/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_iraq_16
I was attempting sarcasm. A stab at the die-hard lefties. (Sorry about the Bruce Willis reference lefties!) Of course that f4cker has WMDs. Apparently he is going to be using them from D-Day. Shouldn't after he whips one out, the UN fully support the attack?
sosorox: Yes, but now they're committing their troops to the actual battle. Not many, but they're good. Chance: One would think so, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Some people simply think that there is no possible justification for it. Others will think it a US trick...
My impression of Bush tonight: 30% FDR, 40% John Wayne plus 30% his father (a little read my lips there).
Treeman: Regarding strategy, I think the plan might look a little like Operation Marketgarden, with special forces and 101st going in on the same day the bombing starts. One of the clear advantages Western military enjoys in its conflicts with the Stepe military tradition was the Westerners' willingness to engage in frontal assault with the most powerful enemy contingent. Allied forces might seek out Republican Guard units and perhaps take the cities of Tikrit and Baghdad as soon as possible. It might also be very important to cut off completely the traffic between those two cities by air. This is a TV war. The Iraqis will watch television and listen to the radio just like the American public. The U.S. military not only want the defeat of the enemy, it want a collapse. Capturing Tikrit would basically cripple any morale that's left.
SAS chief forecasts a one-week war March 18 2003 War in Iraq could last just one week, a former head of the Special Air Services said yesterday. Brigadier Jim Wallace said he expected allied forces to run over Iraqi defences quickly. But he cautioned that if the fighting moved into urban areas, then it could continue for much longer. "I have little doubt that we should see it over within a week, but there are risks," he told the ABC's Four Corners program. The SAS chief warned that the greatest challenge posed by a war in Iraq was to rebuild the country. He said if allied forces had to remain in Iraq for up to five years, then this could provoke further terrorist activities across the globe. "It would become instead a catalyst for further terrorism, a focal point (to) move moderate Islamics to the more fundamental extreme position," he said. advertisement advertisement Meanwhile, former Office of National Assessments analyst Andrew Wilkie has written to Prime Minister John Howard, challenging his claims of a link between Iraq and terrorism. Mr Wilkie, who resigned from the spy agency last week, warned Mr Howard that he was out of step with mainstream public opinion. "Australia is at a crossroads. We stand to pay a high price for your pro-war stance and stubborn disregard of public opinion," he told the Prime Minister. • Victorian unionists will be urged to hold short workplace meetings next week to discuss the Iraqi crisis and draft anti-war statements to be sent to the Prime Minister. Victorian Trades Hall secretary Leigh Hubbard called on members to take the symbolic action next Thursday, March 27, saying unions had historically played an important role in opposing unjust wars. "Workers have a democratic right to express their opposition to this war," he said. "John Howard has tried to silence public debate and dismiss anti-war protesters as ill-informed, but we will continue to say that this war is immoral, illegal and abhorrent to civilised people." Trades Hall would like the action to begin at 10.45 am and last 15 minutes. The move comes after reported comments by Mr Hubbard, which he has denied, that unionists would ban food and equipment bound for Australian troops. A Trades Hall spokeswoman said unionists would not target soldiers in Iraq. - AAP, Meaghan Shawthe age
sinohero: I also think that the 101st, SF, and elements of the 82nd will assault by air on the first day... As far as hitting the enemy's strong point first, his only real strong point is Baghdad, and I do think that we will surround and isolate that one, while surgically removing vital organs of that defense. The divisions that stand between us and Baghdad will not be a hindrance, even if they fight. Last time, several divisions were totally destroyed with no allied losses incurred, and the Iraqis are even worse off now than they were then... It will resemble Market Garden, but with a heavy armored punch and air power the likes of which has never been seen in warfare. The Kirkuk/Mosul and Basra areas will be siezed quickly; gaining control of the oilfields and port area will be an important first step. They are also important morale booster for Iraq's dissident populations (Kirkuk/Mosul for the Kurds and Basra for the Shiites). Tikrit will be a prime target as well, both for its symbolic value (as Saddam's hometown) and because it is likely to be Saddam's fallback point is his defense in Baghdad falls. Next to Baghdad, it will be the most important city to take, at least in the psychological sense. When it falls, it will be a tangible signal to the entire Iraqi populace that Saddam is finished, because he has made that city a symbol of his rule. Personally, though, I think that the odds are not bad that Saddam will be removed from within. Rebellious generals, that sort of thing. I know about how tight his security is, but Bush's speech was very clear on the choices they face... I would imagine the air in the room is very tense for Saddam's war cabinet right now.
Baathism is basicly a form of (Italian strain) Fascism. Sadam had been known to have studied extensively on Stalin also. In his country there is no institution or group like the German army or Italian crown to even attempt to depose him. During the worse hours of 1941, no general under Stalin even thought of defecting to the Nazis. Sadam stayed in power for three decades, he might be too good in the totalitarian dictator game to let his generals get the better of him Sadam may have dug up rings of defensive works around Baghdad, but trenches, outdated anti air-batteries adn armor without air cover mean jack under the impending assault. The only way Sadam might fight is a Stalingrad style urban defense. Baghdad does not serve that purpose because it is fairly spread out, its streets lined in rectangular grids and its population hostile to Hussein. It is much easier to fight behind "civilians" sympathetic to his cause, therefore my concern about Tikrit.
