Coalition tactics - Post your critics here

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
So you'd prefer they solve the humanitarian crisis in the city by telepathy?

It would be better if they aren't that half-arsed. First they wanted to bypass Basra, leaving just a screening force in place. Finding out that doesn't work, now they want to take the city, or at least clear it out of Iraqi forces. Unless I am mistaken, you need a much bigger force doing that than just sitting there screening.

[Sloth]

Very interesting article....
The matter is the role and ideas of Iraqi opposition, something that in my opinion is crucial for the political outcome of the war.

A bit off-topic but I deemed better to post here than to start a new thread

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34762-2003Mar26.html

[CerberusIV]

Some of what is coming out suggests that the Fedayeen loyal to Saddam are forcing other Iraqi forces in Basra to come out and fight the British. If true I suspect the British are content to wait a few days until only the hard core loyalists are left in Basra before they move in.

They will then rely on the ordinary population not hiding these loyalists so they are exposed and can be dealt with. The UK troops can control an urban area IF the Saddam loyalists don't have anywhere to hide. A lot of if's and the biggest one is how the ordinary people of Basra will react to foreign troops. Without secure areas it will be very difficult for Iraqi forces to wage guerilla tactics for more than a couple of weeks if the British can secure the city.

One thing that might hold back an advance into Basra is that it would be somewhat embarassing for the US army if the British can secure control of Basra whilst US forces cannot deal with Baghdad.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Coalition tactics - Post your critics here

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It is a civilian structure. It is against Geneva Convention to attack non-military targets. Doing so lends legitimacy to the 911 attack.

Government facilities are legitimate targets.

[Ned]

I just love to have the defenders of Saddam's Iraq explain the hanging of the woman caught waving at Allied troops.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Stuie
This is more spin related, but why is it that when Iraqi military/paramilitary dress as civilians they are called "war criminals", but when the US military does the same (as they have been purported to have done in northern Iraq) they are called "special forces".

There are distinctions. When SOF's operate with friendly foreign troops in high risk areas, they often adopt local wear (Peshmerga "uniforms" in Kurdistan, local militia wear in Afghanistan, beards if common among the natives, etc.) to reduce their profile as a target of snipers, suiciders, etc. These are not "civilian" clothes - the intent is to just look like one more of the local fighters.

In many covert observation missions or of direct action missions, SOF's operate in uniform, or uniform variants. Whether issue uniforms, allied nation issue uniforms, or native militia wear with issue distinctions or any other variation on uniform is worn is at the discretion of the SOCOM commander in the particular theater. In some cases, civilian clothes may be an essential component of the mission, however it is recognized that an individual captured in that state is not entitled to GC protection.

It is understood that if captured, you're not likely to be treated according to the GC in any event, although you may be kept alive if the enemy finds that doing so has some perceived use. The general rule is not to let yourself be captured.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Instead of seiging Basra, I heard that the Brits will instead enter the city and fight the Iraqis in the streets. I think that's a big, big mistake.

You've heard is likely wrong, at least as to the tactics. What the Brits will most likely do is enter in small groups on missions applied to specific targets.

The general population of Basra is not armed and prepared to fight to the first man, let alone the last. There's a mixture of Baath party members who know their post-Saddam future is standing in front of a wall, Saddam fedayin, SRGs, ISSS and conscript army units with regular officers.

The Brits (paras, RMCs, etc.) can infiltrate in small unit actions for recon, sniping, hit and run raids against the hardcore, ammunition caches, etc. They will also try and establish contact with likely rebels, and give them supplies and coordinate recon and intel activities.

The cowboy meatgrinder thing in cities is really passé.

[Pekka]

Nah, I don't think this is comparable at all to finns vs ussr. The only thing is that other one is tiny and other one is huge, but that's pretty much about it. I find it offensive that these are compared.

As for coalition tactics.. I don't think coalition has underestimated Iraqs military force and ability to defend themselves. I believe they made it look like it's going to be very easy, to get larger support. It's only been a week now, and coalition forces WILL reach Baghdad soon. The question is what the fight in Baghdad will be like. I hope they launch massive ground fighting, taking fast victories so that the civilians suffer less. It means casualites, maybe lots of them, but I'm in favour for that kind of attack. Civilian losses have been relatively low, and it would be good to keep it that way.

It will be interesting fight in Baghdad, let's hope everything goes as quickly as possible for everyones sake.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Stuie
This is more spin related, but why is it that when Iraqi military/paramilitary dress as civilians they are called "war criminals", but when the US military does the same (as they have been purported to have done in northern Iraq) they are called "special forces".

THe Iraq troops are doing this so that they can let the US drop their guard and kill them. US is trying to just gather intell and so forth, not ingaging Iraqi Troops dressed like that.

[Jack_www]

Also everyone should remember that the orginal plan was to have two fronts, maybe even three fronts. One in the North with the 4 infantry division and anther one in south with Current troops already there. The 4th infantry division equiment is now heading for the captured port(sorry I forgot the name of it!) and will reinforce the forces arround Bagdhad. I think most of precieved misstakes and such are result of media not know the full plan, since it is top secret. Also no one said that this would be a quick and easy war, but they want to take out Saddam and his government as fast as they can then focus on the pockets of resistence that are left.

[Flubber]

Overall I have no real criticism of US/UK tactics. The plan, to the extent the public knows it, seems logical. I am surprised that the reporters and pentagon are acting surprised wrt Iraqi tactics. The Iraqi approach seems entirely predictable to me. The only thing they have done that surprises me is to attempt to move columns from place to place, becoming vulnerable to airpower. Perhaps stories of stiff Iraqi resistence led them to gamble some forces on an attempt to push the coalition back.

If I were the coalition, I would LOVE anything that brings Iraqi troops out of the cities and into places where the superior firepower may be brought to bear. If it were possible to accomplish, I would try to dangle possible victories before the Iraqis so that they commit more and more forces in open battles of maneuvre where US military might would flourish.

Don't know if :
a) such disinformation is possible OR
b) that the Iraqis would fall for it

The best Iraqi strategy seems to be to stay in the towns and cities and run a harrassment campaign of lightning strikes at supply lines

[spiritof1202]

Basrah had its TV and radio knocked out today... preventing the Saddam propoganda getting in. People tend to notice these things as signs that the old regime is losing its grip.

[Dr Strangelove]

I just read that the US is now in the process of sending another 100,000 troops to Iraq. I kinda think that the command should have realized they'd be needed there before starting and should have seen to it that they were already in place.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Coalition tactics - Post your critics here

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Government facilities are legitimate targets.

I am not sure. Suppose the water supply is regulated by the government, does that become a legit target? It seems doubtful.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flubber
The only thing they have done that surprises me is to attempt to move columns from place to place, becoming vulnerable to airpower.

They have been doing it under the cover of sandstorms.