The Battle of Baghdad

[Demerzel]

We've been discussing it for months, is there any need when the fighting has started?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I think it's fine to discuss anti-war things pre-war but when the troops are actually in there and are laying down their lives if necessary, then you should be getting behind your country's fighting men and women.

well, the anti-war movement in america during vietnam and anti-war movement in serbia prevented even greater catastrophes.
i questioned my govt policies every single day and refused to fight for a cause i did not believe in. they even initiated criminal prosecution but later the amnesty act was passed

[problem_child]

It always surprises me when people think you should honestly turn off your brain because of their auto-patriotism, I will always refuse to turn off my brain and my opinions just because the politicians have gone ahead and sent people that chose to be soldiers into a war the politicians belive is necessary. Despite that, I hope our UK boys and girls do go through the war, and survive or prevail in Victory or Democraticaly ordained withdrawal.

[uh Clem]

We've been discussing it for months, is there any need when the fighting has started?

Yep, sure is. More than ever.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Daz
They're AFAIK mercenaries, right?

Excuse me?

[Fidel]

mercenaries = paid soldiers, as opposed to conscripted troops
as i understand, even national guard people are mercenaries on call

[Daz]

MadMonk: If you dont understand, read it again. If you want to enlighten me, do so. Your choice. That questionmark HAS a purpose you know...

Well, they are no conscripts. They are volunteers who fight for money. Isnt that a mercenary? Maybe there is a difference because mercenaries can be contracted by anyone. Is there? English in not my native tongue....

[Harovan]

There's a huge difference between regular professional soldiers and mercenaries. Mercenaries can choose in which wars they want to participate. They're not bound to oath or pledge. Soldiers are sent by their government and usually don't have a choice.

[Daz]

Ok. If you insist on "professional soldiers", professional soldiers they are.

Bottom line is; nobody made them join the army and go to war... The went for money... some probably for ideals, too...

[Harovan]

Nobody made them to join the army. But they hardly were asked if they want to go to war, they were just sent.

[DanS]

You guys are ruining this thread. The only remotely on-topic and interesting post was about whether or not the American forces had actually made as much progress as advertised.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I can fix that, Dan.

The next poster who posts off this thread topic will be banned for the duration of the war. If there's a group who participate in a threadjacking, the entire group will be banned for the duration of the war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: The Battle of Baghdad

Originally posted by DanS
Coming soon to a living room near you.

So where is the 3rd Infantry Division units that have been blacked out for TV for 2 days after moving 200 miles in the first two days? What about the airfields that have been secured in Western Iraq? When will the 4th Infantry Division show up? Will the weather impede the advance? Here's a good overview...

3 ID is out well northwest of that road net they were advancing on, and will be deploying in line, facing east, from the north side of Lake ar Razazah. 3 ID will be securing the area around Ar Ramadi, al Habbaniyah and al Falujah

The H2 and H3 airfields will be set up as a refueling and supply base for XVIII Airborne Corps (which includes 3 ID) and will likely be secured by the brigade of 82 ABD

4 ID is one the move, and was headed to the Suez a few days ago. By now, one would expect the lead elements are at full speed half way down the Red Sea. Give 'em 6 more days, then a couple in port, then another couple getting their equipment matched up, then they're heading north.

[Flubber]

Looking at the population density maps, its unfortunate the US does not have better access to Western Iraq. It looks like there is uninhabited land until you get mighty close to Bagdad. Since most of their problems seem related to urban environment, staying out in the uninhabited areas would likely be welcome

I am totally unsuprised by recent events. The speed at which the US advanced, combined with the possibility of military hidden within the " civilians " they bypassed, meant that there had to be some enemy forces in their rear.

As for any stalling at a specific city, this was to be expected as well at some point. It takes time to secure and consolidate supply lines and it was only sensible that the Iraqis choose to make a stand somewhere. The real test will be whether the Iraqis can hold their ground against a concerted and determined assault.

My fear about this war has been realized if the Iraqis are using civilians as human shields. I salute the US restraint if they are actually refraining from attcking in the face of such tactics but this restraint could be a fatal flaw in the war plans. To win some battles, the military MUST bomb or shoot even in the face of such shields

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber
Looking at the population density maps, its unfortunate the US does not have better access to Western Iraq.

We own it. H2 and H3 airfields are in western Iraq. There's probably in excess of a million gallons of fuel there already, munitions, 24 hour flight ops, and a security zone that keeps everyone out. About 3/4 of the way from H2 and H3 to Lake ar Razazah, you can expect a forward refueling and resupply base has been set up by aviation elements of 101 ABD. That can be done in a couple of large heavy lift movements in about 6-8 hours, with 101 ABD troops securing that area. That's where 3 ID will likely refuel, as the right flank of XVIII Airborne Corps.

It looks like there is uninhabited land until you get mighty close to Bagdad. Since most of their problems seem related to urban environment, staying out in the uninhabited areas would likely be welcome.

The bigger problem isn't the relative level of resistance, it's observation. We want to move and shake out units into new axes of advance without being observed.

I am totally unsuprised by recent events. The speed at which the US advanced, combined with the possibility of military hidden within the " civilians " they bypassed, meant that there had to be some enemy forces in their rear.

That was accepted as part of the plan, no doubt.

As for any stalling at a specific city, this was to be expected as well at some point. It takes time to secure and consolidate supply lines and it was only sensible that the Iraqis choose to make a stand somewhere. The real test will be whether the Iraqis can hold their ground against a concerted and determined assault.

For the most part, they won't have to.

My fear about this war has been realized if the Iraqis are using civilians as human shields. I salute the US restraint if they are actually refraining from attcking in the face of such tactics but this restraint could be a fatal flaw in the war plans.

If you're referring to the south and south-center of Iraq (an Nasariyah, Basra, al Faw and Umm Qasr), the main reason we're not attacking in force is that most of those forces we'd attack with are long gone to the north. The trouble with cult of personality thugocracies like Hussein's is that the political, economic and military centers of gravity are all in one spot. All we need to do outside there is leave enough forces to establish an effective security zone, and move the bulk of the forces up to where the big dance is going to be.

To win some battles, the military MUST bomb or shoot even in the face of such shields

One of the imperatives of the fight for Baghdad is to be able to hit if from all sides, and limit the Iraqis ability to defend against an attack on one or two axes. That's why I think I know pretty much what the whole plan is from what I've seen.