Honestly . . .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Felch X
I believe you misspelled UN, because it is UN sanctions that are imposed on Iraq.

I believed that the US pushed the sanction through the UN.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
US urban warfare doctrine has evolved since then, house to house fighting will be largely unnecessary due to the differences in organization and motivations of the Iraqis vis-a-vis the Habr Gidr and their allies, and bombing in the cities will be limited to very specific types of targets.

It's pretty much up in the air at this point. As it is said, the best plan falls apart when it meets reality.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Another big difference is Iraqi civilians will be mostly looking to get out of the fight, not join it, and the US will have heavy fighting vehicle support.

Unless it is pure Iraqi propaganda, otherwise some civilians will join the fight against the US/UK forces.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


How many more by US actions?

If I were to go into a small, old city and pour poison into a water well, I haven't directly killed anyone.....But I have indirectly killed MANY.

Actually, responsibility for that one (the chlorine / water supply quality issue) is squarely on Hussein. There are several other methods besides chlorination for biologically treating potable water supplies. Hussein apparently found more propaganda value in allowing well water to be biologically contaminated. If you're referring to DU, it's a non-issue in well water.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's pretty much up in the air at this point. As it is said, the best plan falls apart when it meets reality.

Benning has a very nice urban warfare training center, staffed by loving professionals who take pride in ruining the days of the trainees who pass through there.

One very big difference is that in a city as large as Baghdad, with huge avenues and open spaces, and heavy equipment, you won't need to occupy every building. Instead, you can just isolate sections of the city one at a time, cut off water supplies, let the civilians out (not many Iraqi soldiers would be motivated to take their own civilian hostages), and let the firepower from the heavies work for you. Most Iraqis will come out rather than die in place.

Unless it is pure Iraqi propaganda, otherwise some civilians will join the fight against the US/UK forces.

Some, not many, not for long, and with minimal capability. In a city of 4 million or so, there will be some.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's pretty much up in the air at this point. As it is said, the best plan falls apart when it meets reality.

That cuts both ways.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Honestly . . .

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The subsequent economic performance of the two Germany's illustrates the intelligence of the Soviet approach in East Germany.

It also means that a lot of Nazis got away with their war crimes.

Given that East Germany had the 11th highest standard of living in the world according to US statistics, the Soviet de-Nazification program wasn't too much of a hindrence. Furthermore, the East had to deal with a lot more sabotage than the West did, as well as having it's engineers and educated actively recruited by Western intelligence agencies and sucked out of the country. They did quite well considering the problems they faced. I'm sure the Iraqis could do well enough without the Baathists.

If you're gonna do the job, don't do it halfway. Either don't invade or destroy Ba'athism root and branch.

[SlowwHand]

More of the same

America, how do I despise you? Let me count the ways.

[HershOstropoler]

"Given that East Germany had the 11th highest standard of living in the world according to US statistics"

CIA stats?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Given that East Germany had the 11th highest standard of living in the world according to US statistics"

CIA stats?

The US government puts out these books of statistics, big blue books, forget what they're called though.

[Plan Austral]

According to my old Britannica Encyclopedia from 1987 East Germany and Checoslovaquia had the highest standards of life of the communist world.

The gnp per Capita of western Germany was 14460 dlr USA and the gnp per capita of eastern Germany was 12430 dlr USA.

So, even though it was not as developed as Western Germany it was a very developed country.

[HershOstropoler]

The DDR had about 40 % of the west german living standards, and that only by living from the substance. Western intelligence largely underestimated the degree of economic decay; essentially the whole capital stock of the DDR economy was worthless under market conditions.

"The gnp per Capita of western Germany was 14460 dlr USA and the gnp per capita of eastern Germany was 12430 dlr USA."

A guesstimate that does not match the post 1989 experience.

[Richard Bruns]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly . . .

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Furthermore, the East had to deal with a lot more sabotage than the West did, as well as having it's engineers and educated actively recruited by Western intelligence agencies and sucked out of the country. They did quite well considering the problems they faced.

Do you know what this reminds me of?

Our armies didn´t lose the war, they were stabbed in the back.

And if they did such a nice job, why did West Germany have to spend so many billions of dollars to fix the place up? And it didn´t take much effort to get East Germans out of the country. All you had to do was give them the means to escape the walls and guards that the Communists built to keep them imprisoned in the place.

I think this P.J. O´Rourke quote sums up the situation nicely:

Only the Communists could make a poor country out of a nation full of Germans.

And on-topic, street fighting does tend to be a bloody mess. Let´s just hope they can get the Iraquis to surrender before it comes to that.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
One very big difference is that in a city as large as Baghdad, with huge avenues and open spaces, and heavy equipment, you won't need to occupy every building. Instead, you can just isolate sections of the city one at a time, cut off water supplies, let the civilians out (not many Iraqi soldiers would be motivated to take their own civilian hostages), and let the firepower from the heavies work for you. Most Iraqis will come out rather than die in place.



Some, not many, not for long, and with minimal capability. In a city of 4 million or so, there will be some.

Baghdad is a very old city. There may be some bright shiny new broad avenues, but I suspect that large portions of the city more resemble Le Casbah rather than Le Champs d'Elysee. The sheer density and size of these parts of the city will mean that guerillas can fight a mobile battle, sniping from one spot, then staging a fighting withdrawal to another spot if they're well organized. With regards to the use of heavy equipment, I'd hate to see us bull dozing large portions of an ancient city and getting the sort of reputation for ruthless heavy-handedness that the Israelis have gotten. Furthermore I wouldn't completely count on the Iraqis military not demanding extreme sacrifices from the civilian population, either by ignoring the privations of a prolonged siege, or even using them as humn shields. Remember the Palestinians?