Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[monkspider]

I'm sure there aren't too many people in the administration hoping for a repeat of the Tet Offensive.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Felch
Oh, and anybody who thinks that murdering civilians leads to problems down the line is welcome to show me how many American troops have been killed by Germans and Japanese angered by Dresden and Hiroshima. It doesn't. It's morally wrong, but it's effective.

Maybe, but then the aim was not to liberate the Germans and Japanese. Also they were more concerned with the Russians, than with the Americans who they knew they could handle politically and economically later on.

[Felch]

Why not? It was a fantastic victory in tactical terms. The only problem was that people who didn't know a damn thing about it were freaking out.

If you have the most advanced military in the world, especially one geared towards big pitched battles with tanks and artillery and that sort of thing, a Tet Offensive is far more welcome than IEDs and convoy ambushes.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Maybe, but then the aim was not to liberate the Germans and Japanese. Also they were more concerned with the Russians, than with the Americans who they knew they could handle politically and economically later on.

The American aims in WWII were the unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan - essentially we wanted regime change, what we got in Iraq. There wasn't any desire for a negotiated peace sixty years ago, any more than there was last year.

And while it's true that there aren't any other great powers anymore, I don't see how that matters in the least. My point was that sufficient brutality will crush people's will to resist, and it certainly does.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Felch
Why not? It was a fantastic victory in tactical terms. The only problem was that people who didn't know a damn thing about it were freaking out.

If you have the most advanced military in the world, especially one geared towards big pitched battles with tanks and artillery and that sort of thing, a Tet Offensive is far more welcome than IEDs and convoy ambushes.

As far as I understand the Tet offensive, specifically the Battle of Hue City, was largely won due to significant artillery support by the navy. I doubt that the US will start lobbing cruise missiles into Iraqi cities, just now.

Without heavy artillery support the American forces have mostly suffered a 1 to 1 casualty ratio. Now of course the Americans are better protected and have acces to better healthcare. But in a tactical sense that might not be an advantage, since a wounded soldier on the battlefield is more of an immediate reliability than a dead one.

The reports of Iraqi combat losses are very probably exaggerated.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
As far as I understand the Tet offensive, specifically the Battle of Hue city, was largely won due to significant artillery support by the navy. I doubt that the US will start lobbing cruise missiles into Iraqi cities, just now.

Without heavy artillery support the American forces have mostly suffered a 1 to 1 casulty ratio. Now of course the Americans are better protected and have acces to better health care. But in a tactcal sense that might not be an advantage, since a wounded soldier on the battlefiled is more of an immediate reliability than a dead on.

The reports of Iraqi combat losses are very probably exagerated.

I have faith that a further thirty-five years of investment in fire-control, night-vision, etc. will give the Americans as much of an advantage as having the Iowa or whatever off-shore.

Are the Iraqis using weapons much different from the Viet Cong? I know that the US has greatly advanced training and equipment since the 1960s.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Felch
The American aims in WWII were the unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan - essentially we wanted regime change, what we got in Iraq. There wasn't any desire for a negotiated peace sixty years ago, any more than there was last year.

And while it's true that there aren't any other great powers anymore, I don't see how that matters in the least. My point was that sufficient brutality will crush people's will to resist, and it certainly does.

Well it could be argued that there was no regime change in Japan. As far as Germany is concerned I think that people often forget that German Fascism was not that far away from Democracy. I would argue that a substantial amount of Germans did support Hitler who actually ruled through emergency decrees. And Germany was a genuine democracy before Hitler came to power.

In both countires the major corporations, and Zaibatsu were not dismantled. And the business elites of America, Germany and Japan soon found common ground. Indeed these elites were in negotiation with eachother during the war, and American businessmen often intervened to save this or that German or Japanese manufacturing plant. Also the population was relatively well off in terms of skills and education. The destruction of property was largely concentrated on communication, workers quarters and certain warproducing facilities. Different with Berlin of course, which the Russians more or less razed, of no fault of theirs I might add.

Iraq is largely a community of tribes, with an economy based on agriculture.

Then I would say, that there was indeed plenty of room for negotiations with Saddam Hussein, who in retrospect did not breach enough, if any, UN imposed sanctions to warrant war.

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, said in a recent interview that he believed that the Iraqis were better off under Hussein than now.

Regarding the effects of brutalizing the population, I would say that the SS was not very succesful in Russia, nor the Japanese in China. Nor the Americans in Vietnam. Of course, you can get so brutal, that you commit genocide.

Maybe when Bush talked of liberating the Iraqi people he meant liberating them from this earth.

[Alexander's Horse]

I found this all rather staggering last night - in the Vietnam war the resistance didn't come out to fight in the cities until a full 3 years after the Marines landed.

The coalition clearly doesn't have enough forces to maintain security and civil order.

[Felch]

In all of those cases where the brutality did not subdue the populations, the brutalized people had powerful allies that could support clandestine guerilla movements. Although there are outside sources of assisstance to the Iraqis, there are none capable of providing aid in the way that the United States or the Soviet Union were able to help their fifth collumns in the past.

I agree that regime change was not complete in Germany or Japan, however, the reforms forced by the Allies did dismantle the militarist movements and brought moderate leaders to the forefront.

In any event, you haven't explained to me why the United States should show restraint in the current situations. I still feel that killing a bunch of Iraqis would go a long way towards discouraging future revolts.

The Iraqi people will be liberated as soon as they can behave themselves. If they all die before that happens, it's unfortunate, but I'd prefer a thousand hostile Iraqis dead to one American or coalition troop dead.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The coalition clearly doesn't have enough forces to maintain security and civil order.

I agree, especially given the current doctrines they're operating under.

[PLATO]

Let's look a little closer at Germany and Japan.

Japan was able to keep the Emperor and therefore a large part of it's national identity. The Emperor, at least verbally, lent his support to the occupation government.

Germany was divided. There was the French, American, and English zones that led to the formation of West Germany. Each of these zones led to heightened security, containment of the population, and limited movement.

The US in Iraq is trying to subdue an entire nation that has hostile (to the US) boarders on three sides (Syria, Iran, and yes...Saudi). To accomplish its goals (and the goals of the Europeans as well), the US should enlist the aid of at least two of the following: France, Germany, Russia, China. Iraq should be partitioned into its three natural zones with a particular country administering each zone. There should be an agreed framework for political reunification within 3-5 years. UNSC would take over oversight of the plan but would leave individual zone control to the assigned country.

[chequita guevara]

The U.S. f*cked up. They let Sadr get to Najaf, where he is politically untouchable by the U.S. They should have been keeping tabs on him and nabbed him on the road. Badr's forces are in control of Najaf, the Holy city of Shia Islam. If the U.S. goes in, guns blazing (and they'd have to be as the Muqtada are in control) the Shia (and the Iranians) are gonna go ape****. Sistani is at the mercy of Badr at the moment.

Meanwhile, the casualties in the neighborhoods appears to be turning Shias against the coalition.

We're on the edge of a precipiece.

[Last Conformist]

Problem with that being that while the Germans wanted to be reunified, national cohesion is somewhat lacking in Iraq, esp in the Kurdish areas. I suspect yout plan would lead to a permanent breakup of the country.

Not that that necessarily would be a bad thing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Felch
Why not? It was a fantastic victory in tactical terms. The only problem was that people who didn't know a damn thing about it were freaking out.

War is political and strategic, combat is tactical. No matter how many of their asses we stacked, we got whooped in Tet. Not as bad as the VC, who got screwed by the northern political leadership, but we lost the meaningful issue in Tet - the political one.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I found this all rather staggering last night - in the Vietnam war the resistance didn't come out to fight in the cities until a full 3 years after the Marines landed.

Well, Iraqi *******s are just as short on patience as they are on planning.