1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Top General Sees Plan to Shock Iraq Into Surrendering

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Invisible Fan, Mar 5, 2003.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    Kuwait is around the size of New Jersey...probably why the rest of the world fears our millitary.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/i...00&en=eaf190a9e39699e7&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

    Top General Sees Plan to Shock Iraq Into Surrendering
    By ERIC SCHMITT and ELISABETH BUMILLER


    QASHINGTON, March 4 — The nation's top military officer said today that the Pentagon's war plan for Iraq entailed shocking the Iraqi leadership into submission quickly with an attack "much, much, much different" from the 43-day Persian Gulf war in 1991.

    Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to give details. But other military officials have said the plan calls for unleashing 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours of a short air campaign, to be followed quickly by ground operations.

    "If asked to go into conflict in Iraq, what you'd like to do is have it be a short conflict," General Myers told reporters at a breakfast meeting. "The best way to do that would be to have such a shock on the system that the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end was inevitable."

    General Myers gave a stark warning that the American attack would result in Iraqi civilian casualties despite the military's best efforts to prevent them.

    He said disarming Iraq would define victory, not capturing or killing President Saddam Hussein. He also added that American forces would open a second front from the north against Iraq, with or without Turkey's help. "It'll be tougher without Turkey, but nevertheless it'll happen," he said.

    With 200,000 American military personnel in the Persian Gulf and 60,000 more on their way, General Myers declined to give a timetable for war other than to say that the military was ready to attack on President Bush's order.

    But several diplomatic and military issues remained to be resolved, including the possibility of a second resolution on Iraq from the United Nations Security Council. Officials said the United States was likely to call for a vote next week.

    Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that he was "increasingly optimistic" about securing a majority of nine or more votes on the Council. "We don't know whether we have nine votes or 10 votes, or more," he said.

    The White House was also trying to keep pressure on Turkey, saying that Turkey would not receive $15 billion in grants and loans now that its Parliament had turned down a request for tens of thousands of American troops to use the country as a base to attack Iraq.

    "The particular package that we've been talking to them about was predicated on assistance and cooperation in any plan for the use of force against Iraq," said Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman. He said the White House was not willing to increase the amount of the grants and loans to try again to secure Turkish approval.

    With the northern-front issue unsettled and one leading alternative — deploying the 101st Airborne Division from Kuwait — still one to two weeks from being in place, some military officials said any attack could be delayed until late March.

    That could fit with emerging diplomatic and military timetables. A vote late next week in the Security Council would roughly coincide with the arrival in Kuwait of many of the 101st Airborne's helicopters. Other units in Kuwait could deploy north sooner, if needed.

    Administration officials said a vote on the Council resolution effectively authorizing an American-led attack on Iraq could come next week, after Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, report to the Council on Friday on Iraq's compliance with United Nations demands that Iraq disarm.

    Mr. Fleischer said today that the administration planned to call for a vote "shortly after" the inspectors' report. Administration officials say Mr. Bush could order an attack soon after a United Nations vote. But President Bush has repeatedly said that he will disarm Iraq with a "coalition of the willing" even without Security Council approval.

    "The choice is Saddam Hussein's to make," Mr. Bush said again today.

    Western diplomats said Russia was considering whether to offer its own resolution, perhaps in an effort to break the deadlock between France and Germany and the United States.

    The intervention of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could raise the diplomatic ante for President Bush as he seeks Security Council endorsement for war while also trying to avoid a divisive split among allies and post-cold-war partners.

    The Russian foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, said in London that Russia probably would not abstain from a Security Council vote, which diplomats interpreted as a warning to Washington that it had to compromise and give the inspectors more time.

    A veto from any of the permanent members of the Council would kill a second resolution. Along with the United States, they are Britain, Russia, France and China.

    So far, France, China, Germany, Syria and Russia are opposed. The administration counts on four Security Council votes, its own and those of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Six nations — Pakistan, Chile, Mexico, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon — remain undecided.

    Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Powell also left open the possibility that the administration would not call for a vote if it did not have 9 votes among the 15 members.

    "Early next week, we'll make a judgment on what we have heard, make a judgment on whether it's time to put the resolution up to a vote," Mr. Powell told RTL television of Germany, part of a series of interviews with European networks.

    The White House also announced today that Mr. Bush would meet on Wednesday with Pio Laghi, a retired cardinal sent by Pope John Paul II to Mr. Bush to make "every effort" to avoid war.

    As the diplomatic maneuvering intensified, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, arrived here for briefings with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush over the next two days.

    Turkey is a main topic of discussions. There are now 30 Navy cargo ships in the eastern Mediterranean, waiting for Turkish approval to unload tanks and other heavy equipment for the Fourth Infantry Division. Some ships have had to refuel in other foreign ports.

    "There are several options on the table," General Myers said. "Some are easier to execute. As in most wars, logistics plays a very big role. It helps define what the art of the possible is. The equation changes dramatically whether or not you have support from Turkey or you have to find support some other way."

    The options include dispatching the 101st Airborne Division and its fleet of helicopters north from Kuwait to attack targets in northern Iraq. Another alternative would be to fly or parachute troopers to secure air bases in northern Iraq. Tanks and other heavy equipment could be flown in later.

    In addition to the heavy use of precision-guided bombs and missiles, the war planning includes missions by allied Special Operations forces in and around Baghdad, attacking leadership, command and control and storage sites for weapons of mass destruction.

    "If your template is Desert Storm, you have to imagine something much, much, much different," General Myers said, issuing a warning to journalists who plan to cover any war from Baghdad. "I would just be very, very careful about how you do your business." In 1991, allied aircraft conducted a 39-day bombing campaign before ground troops moved into Kuwait. Commanders this time plan a nearly simultaneous attack by land, air and sea.

    General Myers said that throughout the campaign, the American military would go to "extraordinary lengths" to avoid civilian casualties.

    "But we can't forget that war is inherently violent," he said. "People are going to die. As hard as we try to limit civilian casualties, it will occur. We need to condition people that that is war. People get the idea this is going to be antiseptic. Well, it's not going to be."
     
    #1 Invisible Fan, Mar 5, 2003
  2. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    This is as I said weeks ago.
     
    #2 treeman, Mar 5, 2003
  3. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,162
    Likes Received:
    39,651
    The UN will never work, as long as you can buy votes.

    Why are we wasting time with the UN if it is going to be a simple "Hand out" operation?

    DD
     
    #3 DaDakota, Mar 5, 2003
  4. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    Interesting how things from across the world look different in the same day, even on the same paper.

    Turkey's Military Signals Support for Aiding U.S. Troops

    I don't know if this is a red herring, spin to repair relations, and/or incentives for the US to give the Turks more money.

    If I was the Turkish millitary, I'd be worried too. They'd have no say on the Kurds, Americans could pull out of Turkey and put bases on Iraq, and the Turkish sphere of influence upon the US would be diminished if not over in light of the embarassing parliamentary scandal.
     
    #4 Invisible Fan, Mar 5, 2003
  5. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    The Turkish military was very unhappy about the recent parliamentary vote. They understand the stakes.

    I just hope that they understand that they will no longer be welcome inside Iraq unless accompanied by US forces. It could get messy if they try to force their way in...
     
    #5 treeman, Mar 5, 2003
  6. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    What scandal?
     
    #6 Cohen, Mar 5, 2003
  7. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6

    ?
     
    #7 Cohen, Mar 5, 2003
  8. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    As has been discussed quite a bit the US plans a Hiroshima type assault on Bagdhad with thousands of so called smart bombs and tomahawk missiles. The planners assure us that few if any Iraqis will die. Hopefully journalists not controlled by US censors are around to record this for posterity.

    For those who don't know fire bombings on Tokyo and Dresden during WWII are estimated to have killed as many people as the nukes on Hiroshima and NAgasaki.

    *************************
    *************************

    War Drums
    BY MICHAEL KING




    February 21, 2003:


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Shock and Awe"
    Current U.S. plans for the pending war in Iraq call for an attack on Baghdad as immediately devastating as the 1945 nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those analogies are presented not by wild-eyed anti-war activists, but by the supporters and developers of U.S. military strategy.

    According to published reports, the attack plans are aimed at inducing in the Iraqis what the strategists define as "Shock and Awe" -- capitalized war-wonk synonyms for overwhelming military terrorism. The plans call for Air Force attacks on Baghdad with 300 to 400 cruise missiles each day in the first two days -- about one every four minutes, and roughly twice the number used in the entire 39 days of the first Gulf War. During the same period, 3,000 "precision-guided" bombs would be launched from ships in the Persian Gulf. In all, the U.S. would lob 10 times more bombs than in 1991. The Pentagon says the primary Baghdad targets would be "military and political" -- but would include the water and power utilities of a city of 5 million people, more than half of them children 15 or younger.

    When these plans were first reported in late January, Harlan Ullman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told CBS News, "We want them to quit, not to fight, so that you have this simultaneous effect rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes. ... You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power and water. In two, three, four, five days they are physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted."

    "Exhausted" is rather an understatement. A leaked UN study anticipates many thousands dead, two million Iraqi refugees, 100,000 direct casualties requiring immediate medical care, with another 400,000 afflicted by war-related outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, and other diseases. All of these will require attention from a medical system in a country whose infrastructure will be in a state of collapse.

    Ullman is one of the authors of the book Rapid Dominance: Shock and Awe (National Defense University Press, 1996), which argues, "Theoretically, the magnitude of Shock and Awe [that] Rapid Dominance seeks to impose (in extreme cases) is the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese. ... In most or many cases, this Shock and Awe may not necessitate imposing the full destruction of either nuclear weapons or advanced conventional technologies but must be underwritten by the ability to do so."

    In fact, the U.S. has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, either in retaliation for any Iraqi attempt to use its own purported "weapons of mass destruction," or, more tactically, using nuclear "bunker-busters" against Iraqi underground defenses. U.S. allies have objected, with little effect, to this aspect of U.S. policy as significantly lowering the international standard of "last-resort" use of nuclear weapons.

    In recent weeks, there has been considerable coverage and debate of these war plans in the international press, while U.S. media coverage has largely been devoted to whether or not the Europeans will submit to the U.S. administration's plans for war, or whether the "allies" -- in substance, the U.S. and Britain -- will be "forced" to go it alone.

    The American media's reflexive deference to the Bush administration is nicely summed up by CBS anchor Dan Rather's lead-in to its only report on the "Shock and Awe" military strategy. "We assure you," Rather promised solemnly, "this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military."

    US plans for Bagdad.
     
    #8 glynch, Mar 5, 2003
  9. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    The Parliamentary decision to turn down the US was a disaster for Powell because he was promised by the Turkish officials that the votes were there. It's almost like what happened in the UN Human Rights Commision a couple of years ago when the US was ousted in favor of countries like Sudan. We assumed the votes were there without working the political ladder to see if they really were.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 91 Gulf War was executed with three fronts.

    You have such a small strip of land to launch a full offensive upon a landmass twice the size of Idaho. They know we're coming. They probably know our route of invasion given the predictability of concentrating the bulk of our troops on one front. Even with softening up the areas under the No Fly zones, if the US pulls off the invasion as planned, it will be pretty damn impressive.
     
    #9 Invisible Fan, Mar 5, 2003
  10. robbie380

    robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    23,986
    Likes Received:
    11,162
    No they did not say few if any...they said civilians will die it is unavoidable.

    You are missing the important difference between the fire bombings of WWII and the stated shock warfare. The fire bombings were targeted at civilian populations and were intended to terrorize the enemy into submission.

    These shock tactics are designed for a quick take over and occupation. The US knows that they will have to work fast to rebuild the infrastructure to save civilian. They aren't just screwing around here and playing with different tactics and trying to kill civilians. We know we can't screw this up since we are putting a lot on the line. If anything this shock warfare should result in less indirect civilian deaths because if it does succeed then there will be a quick recovery from the attacks because the US would be occupying and rebuilding within less time than the first Gulf War took.
     
    #10 robbie380, Mar 5, 2003
  11. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    glynch:

    Ever heard of JDAM? If memory serves, no JDAMs were dropped against Japan during WWII...

    I realize that arguing with you about civilian casualties will be as pointless now as it was before Afghanistan (who was right there? Hmmm.....), so I will just make a simple bet with you:

    *If fewer than 3000 Iraqi civilians die as a result of our campaign (air and land), then you will quit posting here forever. If more than 3000 Iraqi civilians die as a result of our campaign, then I will quit posting here forever.*

    The only exception that I will ask is that civilians who die as a direct result of Iraqi weapons (ie, Saddam gassing his own people) not be counted. After all, we cannot reliably control that factor, although we are going to try to decapitate their leadership quickly so it doesn't happen... But for the purposes of the bet, only those killed by our direct action will ber counted. You seem to think that we're prepared to slaughter quite a few innocents, so there shouldn't be a problem with this.

    3000 is the approximate number of civilians who died during the 1991 war. You appear to believe that there will be many more. I believe that there will be far fewer. Since you appear to be 100% confident of your assumptions regarding civilian deaths, I ask you to consider this bet. The admins can ban the loser just to give it an element of enforceability...

    So, how 'bout it? Are you that confident of your assumptions? I am... Are you up for it? :D
     
    #11 treeman, Mar 5, 2003
  12. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    No bet. The US military will cover up the number of inncoent Iraqi civilians killed. You know that.
     
    #12 glynch, Mar 5, 2003
  13. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Originally posted by Invisible Fan
    The Parliamentary decision to turn down the US was a disaster for Powell because he was promised by the Turkish officials that the votes were there. It's almost like what happened in the UN Human Rights Commision a couple of years ago when the US was ousted in favor of countries like Sudan. We assumed the votes were there without working the political ladder to see if they really were.

    I just wouldn't use the term scandal. They did have the votes req'd earlier in the day, then Iraq destroyed a few missiles, and the votes turned. The pressure from the voters is pretty severe.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 91 Gulf War was executed with three fronts.

    You have such a small strip of land to launch a full offensive upon a landmass twice the size of Idaho. They know we're coming. They probably know our route of invasion given the predictability of concentrating the bulk of our troops on one front. Even with softening up the areas under the No Fly zones, if the US pulls off the invasion as planned, it will be pretty damn impressive.


    I just couldn't figure out what you meant by 'Kuwait is around the size of New Jersey...probably why the rest of the world fears our millitary'.

    I don't think that Iraq can put up much of a defense on the Kuwaiti border; my impression was that their defenseive lines are well inside Iraq. We'll have bases in southern Iraq pretty quick.
     
    #13 Cohen, Mar 6, 2003
  14. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    That sounds like a lot of people to me. :(
     
    #14 Cohen, Mar 6, 2003
  15. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0

    According to Amnesty International, Saddam kills 3000 Iraqis every 3 months for political dissent (average for last ten years).

    I think if we kill Saddam and keep the civilian death toll below 3000, we will have done an incredible service for the people of Iraq.
     
    #15 johnheath, Mar 6, 2003
  16. Pole

    Pole Houston Rockets--Tilman Fertitta's latest mess.

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    8,569
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    pretty please??
     
    #16 Pole, Mar 6, 2003
  17. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    You're trying to bet on the number of innocent people who are going to frikken die by American hands? That's pretty damn sick dude.
     
    #17 Timing, Mar 6, 2003
  18. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    glynch:

    Ahh, I forgot the conspiracy factor. You're right, we'll kill 50,000 and just drop a couple of zeros off the number... :rolleyes:

    What a friggen lame excuse. You know as well as I do that minimizing civilian casualties is a top priority for us. You also know as well as I do that every damn NGO on the planet is going to be scouring the rubble and talking to families afterwards in order to find out how many Iraqis were killed. Apparently, you aren't quite as confident of your gloom & doom estimations as you claim.

    Whatever. Perfectly in character. I didn't think you'd bite.

    Cohen:

    Yes, 3000 is alot of people. But put into the right context, and relative to wars of comparable size, it's pretty damn small. Remarkably small, when you consider the numbers from Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, etc. With 1.5 million soldiers squaring off, it's amazing that so few died.

    As my bet indicates, I think the tally will be even smaller this time around. That is not to minimize the loss; I would prefer that number was zero - I truly would. If you don't believe that I actually have a heart and really don't like the idea of innocents dying, there is a practical reason for keeping the figure low: we are going to have to live with the Iraqi people for quite a while after this, and the higher opinion they have of us, the better.

    I have repeatedly said here that we are going to avoid hitting the nation's infrastructure wherever possible, and when we have to we are going to use nonlethal means to do so. Yes, there will be accidents - there always are in war. Murphy's Law... But at least we make a conscious effort not to kill the enemy's civilians (and in this case, we are not going to regard them as the enemy). In this war, that consideration is going to be more important than it has ever been to us before.

    I understand that you are looking at the coming war in terms of the worst case (or at least a pretty bad one - street fighting, civilian casualties, etc). Every military person has to consider those possibilities. But I can assure you that this war is probably one of the best planned wars in history (we've had a year and a half), and startling new technologies and tactics are going to be used. I think that everyone will be surprised. Take that for what it's worth, I realize that only results will reassure you.

    Timing:

    Uh, actually I was trying to bet on the number of people we aren't going to kill. Glynch declined the offer, so talk to him.
     
    #18 treeman, Mar 6, 2003
  19. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    Talk about spin. :rolleyes:
     
    #19 Timing, Mar 6, 2003
  20. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    It is interesting to compare the value that many Americans attack to the 3,000 innocent lives in NYC versus the cavalier discussion of killing "only" 3,000 inocent Iraqis.
     
    #20 glynch, Mar 6, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page