I think the Iraqis are intentionally doing the fake surrender thing to make it more difficult for their own troops to surrender... if you think you might get shot holding a white flag, why not get shot firing a weapon? The exposed lines made sense given what the original plan entailed. Do we need to go back and secure these areas? If not now, when would that trigger point be reached?
Now I'm reading about them using women and children to lure guys into thinking it's safe, then opening fire... This is a kinda cool take on the stuff going on: http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_philcarter_archive.html#91262976
They're fighting as dirty as they can. Sounds like desperation to me, it'll come back and get them, no doubt.
I think since we are disavowing international law in as many ways as possible, we should just use the high grade tear gas to flush every one out since we're the only ones prepared to fight a chemical war. That way we don't have to destroy hardly anything.
It seems like the more guys on their side that we try to keep safe, the more guys on our side get killed. It may soon be time to stop p***y-footing around and really show the damage we can cause.
Fake surrenders are a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions... But that won't matter till it's over. The guys behind this are the Fedayeen Saddam - fanatical Saddam supporters directed by Uday. These guys are hardcore Baath Party guys, the ones who need to be eliminated in order to clear Iraq of Saddam's influence. I'm actually somewhat glad that they're exposing themselves like this; otherwise, we'd have to root them out later in Baghdad, which could be more costly. It does make it more difficult for their troops to surrender. The even less fortunate flip-side to that is that it makes it much more difficult for us to accept surrender. We really don't want to destroy the Iraqi army; it will be important to our plans in postwar Iraq. This just forces us to be much more cautious, the result being that it is slowing us down a little. Maybe a couple of days longer before we get to Baghdad. As for changing the strategy to protect our lines, no. The strategy is to make Baghdad as quickly as possible in order to engage the regime there as soon as possible. The regime in Baghdad is the center of gravity; once that is gone the resistance to our rear will cease. The faster we get to Baghdad, the sooner this whole thing is over. If we stopped to consolidate this area, that would not only be pointless tactically, as these areas are not really strategically important (only Baghdad is really important strategically - center of gravity, like I said), but it would keep us from achieving our main objective - removing the regime from Baghdad. I do want to say that despite how it may seem with the news coverage of this, POWs, casualties, etc, the campaign is still going extremely well. The 3 ID is less than 50 miles from Baghdad. Today they stopped to refit themselves, and tonight they should be ready to engage the 3 Republican Guard divisions between them and Baghdad. They will be at Baghdad's doorstep in less than 2 days, maybe tomorrow. Thousands of prisoners have been taken. Three enemy divisions have been erased as coherent fighting units. The RG around Baghdad is being pounded relentlessly. The Iraqi leadership has been largely cut off from its troops - communication seriously degraded. Over half of the country has been effectively wrested from Saddam's control. His symbols of power in Baghdad have been obliterated. Israel's security from SCUD attacks has been secured (very important - that could have been a serious complication). No WMD used against our troops yet (I expect this to change soon). We are advancing on Baghdad from three directions. Despite how it looks on the news, casualties have been extremely light (less than 25 dead in combat against at least 3 divisions, compared to thousands of Iraqis). This war is still going extremely well, in spite of the depressing news of the past couple of days. This is war, after all, but the outcome is still not in doubt.
Hey, treeman, thanks for that post. Seriously. Any word you're hearing about infrastructure? Are the retreating Iraqis leaving more of a mess or less of a mess than expected. The news media, (and the UN, for that matter), make it sound as if water will be a big problem is southern Iraq.
You mean those chemical weapons that you dimwitted lefties don't want us to use to save lives? Are you telling me that we should break another treaty? Idiot.
treeman, Why did the 101st deploy so late? I thought they would be the first to go once the bombs fall instead of the third infantry. also, how would they be using the two western airfields?
B-Bob: The south needs food and water. As soon as the waterways at Umm Qasr are de-mined, and most of the isolated pockets of resistance eliminated, aid can start flowing. As far as infrastructure goes, I would say that we have been pleasantly surprised so far. In the south, I think about 9 or so wells were torched out of about 500. A few oil pipelines set on fire. Some other facilities torched, but for the most part the country's infrastructure is being left intact. There is some sabotage, to be sure, but it is in no way a scorched-earth campaign like they promised and we were expecting. It will make reconstruction much easier. I do fear, though, that when we get to Baghdad and the writing on the wall is too clear to ignore, Saddam may entertain some of his more destructive impulses. But I suspect it will be more along the lines of destruction of life than property. I expect him to use Baghdad's residents as hostages, many of whom he may murder in an attempt to garner world horror to get the war stopped. We will obviously do things to minimize this possibility.
sinohero: The 101st's equipment was not all there when the shooting started. They were waiting for it all to get there so that they could move as a division, instead of breaking up into brigades. They're ready and engaged now, I believe. H2 and H3 will be very useful to open up another front. Good staging grounds for the 101st and Special Forces, although the 101st will have to set up a FOB to the east to really strike at Baghdad. That is, if they are going to use heliborne assault - they may just roll in Hummers. But we can start pouring in troops and supplies from there now. If the 82nd elements aren't coming in to the north, then they will come in here (I think the AB brigade from Italy - 173rd AB Bde?- is going into the north right now). Also, protect Israel from attack.
You're the one who immediately resorted to ad hominem attacks with no substantive content and name calling. I'm sorry you lack a sense of humor in addition to a lack of tolerance for dissent with your view point.
1) I couldn't care less about dissent with my viewpoint. This is America - you are free to say and think whatever you want, no matter how stupid. Contrary to what you may think, I would not stifle the dissent we have seen. I may jeer at it and argue against it, but I would never stifle it. Your accusation is not only baseless, but insulting. 2) No substantive content? It was only a week or two ago that a thread was posted here claiming that Rumsfeld believed that using nonlethal weapons in Iraq might be a good idea, and the board's resident peaceniks resoundingly condemned such an alternative to lethal force. Now you are telling us that it might be a good idea. You do not see the inconsistency in this argument? 3) Name calling: guilty as charged.
I know it'll cause unhappy, but I think it is reason-preparation of allies' army for slaughter 'cause the on-going difficulty.
