War now appears unwinnable in light of new enemy offensive

[Q Classic]

It says copyright 2004, so I can only assume that the writer here is woefully miseducated on history...

[GePap]

The brits did not invade Iraq in 1941, they were already there and deposed the government

Also, they went first into Lybia (1940) that time.

[Q Classic]

dun dun dun

first we take manhattan...

THEN WE TAKE BERLIN!

===

STEVE HOLT!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The brits did not invade Iraq in 1941, they were already there and deposed the government

Also, they went first into Lybia (1940) that time.

They had a couple of divisions in Basra, and a small air base in Habbaniya. Rashid Ali deposed the regent, and proceeded to besiege Habaniya. Without relief by land and air, it was clear the British position was unsustainable. So they made a military move into Iraq, to restore the security situation, and the regent. You can quibble about calling that an invasion if you wish. From the point of view of allocation overstretched forces, it certainly looked like one.

They did NOT overthrow Rashi Ali only with forces already present. They required a the Habanniyah Relief Force ("Habforce") a full British brigade, to come over the desert from Palestine, to relieve Habbaniyah, and then move on to Baghdad . Also additional forces from India were sent to Basra.

Gen Wavell : "Force from Palestine can relieve Habbaniya, and hold apporaches from Baghdad to prevent further advance on Habbaniyah; but it is not capable of entering Baghdad against opposition or maintaining itself there ... In order, therefore, to avoid a heavy military commitment in a non-vital area, I still recommend tthat a political solution be sought by all available means "


As for Libya, i was thinking of Operation Crusader, which was in November 1941. Of course they also went into Libya in December 1940, but were chased out by Rommel. And Wavell attacked Libya to relieve Tobruk in June of 1941. And Montgomery went into Libya, for the last time, in 1942 after Alamein. Of course i didnt say it was the ONLY time they invaded Libya And of course it was an afterthought, to help people who didnt get the first three invasions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The brits did not invade Iraq in 1941, they were already there and deposed the government

So if we sent 10 divisions into Germany tomorrow and overthrew the govt, that wouldnt count as an invasion, since we have bases there?

[Shi Huangdi]

[Az]

If todays republicans were in charge in the 40s, they would ally with Hitler.

I WIN!

[lord of the mark]

if Rummy ran WW2

"what this 5 divisions on the beaches, plus 2 airborne? And whats this about dozens of follow up divisions, masses of equipment? ****, somebody toss this out and get me a plan without so much overkill = How about we land with 3 divisions, and then add another 2 or 3 the month after the landing. Hell, theres no war without risks, you know, no plan survives contact with the enemy, ...... - and besides, if we have too many troops in France, the French will become dependent on us and wont build their own forces"

[Nubclear]

LOL IF YOU CRITICISE THE IRAQ WAR ITS LIKE CRITISIZING WW2 LO!L

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So if we sent 10 divisions into Germany tomorrow and overthrew the govt, that wouldnt count as an invasion, since we have bases there?

Smartass

[GePap]

Azazel, I bow to the winner

[Colon™]

WWII anologies suck.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Colon
WWII anologies suck.

Any analogy with any war is completely ignorant. Societies and political situations change.

If we were to have postponed the Iraq war by 10 years, the resulting war would be entirely different than the one we have today... just by the nature that its ten years in the future.

Drawing parallels is fine, but justifying a losing war today because we won a war in Europe 50 years ago is just dumb.

[lord of the mark]

i guess the point is that its sometimes hard to tell whos winning. D Day isnt that good an illustration. Much better is to look at how desperate things looked for the UK in the early years. And not just when things really were desperate, in 1940, but even after.

For example in May 1941, theyd just screwed up an offensive in Libya. Theyd lost thousands of troops, and several ships, in the evacuation from Crete, only the latest in a string of German triumphs. They didnt have enough troops to deal with the Vichy forces in Syria, and had barely won in Iraq. Sinkings in the Atlantic were high, and the Luftwaffe had just destroyed the House of Commons (the building, not the members)

The whole war was seriously screwed up. Yet in retrospect we know that they were well on their way to victory.

which doesnt prove a thing about Iraq today, but it does tell us something about the need to look beyond the headlines to the underlying strategic questions.

[Giancarlo]

It is quite simple, republicans win wars.