Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Sure, just take a small part of a complex military operation from 50 years ago and spin it!

There is have plenty of material I could add to that- it's not like the Brits under Monty had any shortage of ****ups exemplifying how not to do things, while the US, British Airborne and Polish Airborne forces fought their asses off under extremely adverse conditions.

[GePap]

And WW2 involved more than one Operation.

Though the point I think Agahton was making, which is sadly a good point, is that the Brits have a better feel for Occupation duty than the US. The Brits treat it more like a police mission than the US, that treats it fully like a combat mission. The problem being, even if the other guys have RPG's and Assault rifles it does not always mean th best course of action is to treat it as regular combat.

[Kropotkin]

So what? You're still spinning (as you hip youngsters call it these days). And no, I don't agree with the people that are doing the same in the other direction. It was just that yours was so much more obvious and over the top than most of the others.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
And WW2 involved more than one Operation.

So? Combat doctrine isn't applied on a one-off basis for each operation. Excessive caution, excessive delays, and a slow pace of operations on the part of the British forces were common throughout the war.

Though the point I think Agahton was making, which is sadly a good point, is that the Brits have a better feel for Occupation duty than the US. The Brits treat it more like a police mission than the US, that treats it fully like a combat mission. The problem being, even if the other guys have RPG's and Assault rifles it does not always mean th best course of action is to treat it as regular combat.

It depends entirely on the people being occupied and the intentions and capability of enemy forces in the area. Fallujah is a problem now because we were too goddamned soft and slow dealing with them in the first place.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So what? You're still spinning (as you hip youngsters call it these days). And no, I don't agree with the people that are doing the same in the other direction. It was just that yours was so much more obvious and over the top than most of the others.

Spinning what? The fact (known at least since Sun Tzu wrote about it 2500 years ago) that excessive caution and delay in warfare produces negative results far more often than decisive action?

[Kropotkin]

Oh so you where not using the incident to get a point through. You just found a suddent urge to drop some military anecdotes into the thread despite the context.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So? Combat doctrine isn't applied on a one-off basis for each operation. Excessive caution, excessive delays, and a slow pace of operations on the part of the British forces were common throughout the war.

So? Are you saying the British did not hard fighting during the war? The point made was about friendly fire-are you then admitting the Brits, by their actions, have a lower iincidence of it?

It depends entirely on the people being occupied and the intentions and capability of enemy forces in the area. Fallujah is a problem now because we were too goddamned soft and slow dealing with them in the first place.

The porblem was not "softness"-the problem was lack of good policing-a big difference. But US forces don;t police-they either shoot things up, or stay out of it. And that is the point. The US forces built up nothing but an adverserial relation with most of the pop. in this city-fine, after doing so, sure they would have to go in shooting-but as we saw, that approach was condemned by our own appointed Iraqis, which is why they demanded a truce.

Instead of patrolling with armored vehicles, in full combat gear, with guns pointed at the locals, like the GI's do, maybe if we patrolled on foot, without full combat gear and the gns pointed down, like the Brits do, then things would be a little better. Yes, we are occupying Iraq, but according to our political leaders, for their won beenfit, NOT ours. Any time for exaqmple we accidentaly shoot up some passing motorists we undermine that notion-that we are there for Iraqis.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by GePap


So? Are you saying the British did not hard fighting during the war? The point made was about friendly fire-are you then admitting the Brits, by their actions, have a lower iincidence of it?



The porblem was not "softness"-the problem was lack of good policing-a big difference. But US forces don;t police-they either shoot things up, or stay out of it. And that is the point. The US forces built up nothing but an adverserial relation with most of the pop. in this city-fine, after doing so, sure they would have to go in shooting-but as we saw, that approach was condemned by our own appointed Iraqis, which is why they demanded a truce.

Instead of patrolling with armored vehicles, in full combat gear, with guns pointed at the locals, like the GI's do, maybe if we patrolled on foot, without full combat gear and the gns pointed down, like the Brits do, then things would be a little better. Yes, we are occupying Iraq, but according to our political leaders, for their won beenfit, NOT ours. Any time for exaqmple we accidentaly shoot up some passing motorists we undermine that notion-that we are there for Iraqis.

Nice idea, but we would get our arse shot off more than we are now. Talk about ducks in a pond.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

It depends entirely on the people being occupied and the intentions and capability of enemy forces in the area. Fallujah is a problem now because we were too goddamned soft and slow dealing with them in the first place.

Enemy forces = resistance

Break out the mustard gas !!! If the US doesn't want to get it from Germany, they can get it from Ally and good guy Ghaddafi !

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Oh so you where not using the incident to get a point through. You just found a suddent urge to drop some military anecdotes into the thread despite the context.

The point, for the ignorant civilian types, is that yes, you can avoid fratricidal casualties (and all sorts of other things, including victory and a rapid conclusion of the conflict ) by not engaging the enemy aggressively. The unpleasant minor detail that this entails is that the prolongation of the conflict results in more overall casualties on all sides.

[GePap]

Nice idea, but we would get our arse shot off more than we are now. Talk about ducks in a pond.

Thanks to bring this up:

We are in Iraq, or so our political leaders tell us, to create a better Iraq for Iraqis. The US military is the main tool our political leaders decided to use.

I have every respect for people that sign up to serve, like Oerdin. But in the end, I also believe they understand the risks they might be asked to take, and as long as they are not asked to take risks beyond those that the mission requires, they will do ask ordered.

So our dorctine should be mission specific, NOT simply desinged to lower casualties. IF an operation calls for tactics that might lead to higher casualties, then so be it-this is a risk known before we undertake it, and it is the job of the political leadership to inform and be honest with the people about the risks the mission will require.

Again, our leaders tell us we are doing this to better the lives of the Iraqis-do you think the average Iraqi who sees a soldier come donw the road pointing a gun at them from a heavily armored combat vehicle feels that soldier is there trying to make their lives better? Now have this person know somoene who has knows someone hurt by an incident with GI's, or had property ruined by GI's and so forth, will they really think that GI's are there as partners?

Here in NYC, the police found that, if people in a neighborhood saw cops daily, got to know their beat cop, then they would cooperate more, and help the police against the criminals, as opposed to sitting on the side or acting againt the police.

Out leaders say all the time a minority of Iraqis support the violence and most don;t want it, and so forth-well, this is probalby true, but most iraqis won't help us even if they might not join to hurt us, and that only makes our job harder. I think US troops would overall be safer if, this whole year, they had built close and friendly relations with the Iraqio populace everywhere, as opposed to limiting the outreach to the type of missions men like Oerdin carry out.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by GePap

Nice idea, but we would get our arse shot off more than we are now. Talk about ducks in a pond.

Thanks to bring this up:

We are in Iraq, or so our political leaders tell us, to create a better Iraq for Iraqis. The US military is the main tool our political leaders decided to use.

I have every respect for people that sign up to serve, like Oerdin. But in the end, I also believe they understand the risks they might be asked to take, and as long as they are not asked to take risks beyond those that the mission requires, they will do ask ordered.

So our dorctine should be mission specific, NOT simply desinged to lower casualties. IF an operation calls for tactics that might lead to higher casualties, then so be it-this is a risk known before we undertake it, and it is the job of the political leadership to inform and be honest with the people about the risks the mission will require.

Again, our leaders tell us we are doing this to better the lives of the Iraqis-do you think the average Iraqi who sees a soldier come donw the road pointing a gun at them from a heavily armored combat vehicle feels that soldier is there trying to make their lives better? Now have this person know somoene who has knows someone hurt by an incident with GI's, or had property ruined by GI's and so forth, will they really think that GI's are there as partners?

Here in NYC, the police found that, if people in a neighborhood saw cops daily, got to know their beat cop, then they would cooperate more, and help the police against the criminals, as opposed to sitting on the side or acting againt the police.

Out leaders say all the time a minority of Iraqis support the violence and most don;t want it, and so forth-well, this is probalby true, but most iraqis won't help us even if they might not join to hurt us, and that only makes our job harder. I think US troops would overall be safer if, this whole year, they had built close and friendly relations with the Iraqio populace everywhere, as opposed to limiting the outreach to the type of missions men like Oerdin carry out.

Gepap,
The only problem here is we are in the Sunnit Triangle and chances are they are a quite of few "civilians" pointing their weapons at us. Even the cease-fire in Falluja is not a cease fire. We are in Iraq for Americans not the Iraqis, I know what all the politicians say, but we are there for our overall safety. Our response to these so called uprisings should be hammer fast and quick with maximum effort, that is all these people understand.

[Defiant]

The best result, however, is what you brought up before, is get their military and police forces up to par and let them patrol and they then would only answer to us if they are not keeping up the peace.

[Arrian]

I'd have to agree with GePap that the main goal is a successful occupation -> handoff to a new Iraqi government and armed forces of their own, and *not* just about reducing our own casualties (yes, says the guy who is nowhere near a combat unit).

However, while it might sound like having US soliders walk a "beat" with a non-aggressive posture might put them at greater risk, I'd say there is a strong possibility that such tactics might reduce the overall hostility vs. our guys and therefore overall casualties.

I'm not sure we can switch now, though. First impressions are pretty powerful, and I think at this point the "trigger happy American" stereotype is firmly entrenched in the Iraqi conciousness.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant


Gepap,
The only problem here is we are in the Sunnit Triangle and chances are they are a quite of few "civilians" pointing their weapons at us. Even the cease-fire in Falluja is not a cease fire. We are in Iraq for Americans not the Iraqis, I know what all the politicians say, but we are there for our overall safety. Our response to these so called uprisings should be hammer fast and quick with maximum effort, that is all these people understand.

Resistance in the Sunni triangle is a result of the political uncertainty and loss of priviladge this area sees. Opposition would always be hgiher here than elsewhere, BUT even here, without building partnerships with Iraqis we ensure that even if we stamp one set of gunmen today, another set of gunmen, maybe more gunmen, will be here tommorrow.

As for your statement that we are in iraqi for Americans and not Iraqis-then we failed, because thet real implication of your statement is that we will be forced to stay in Iraq indefinitelly.