Iraqi tactics - Post your critics here

[spiritof1202]

The Iraqis actually claimed that they had shot down 196 cruise missiles on the 27th. Even if they were counting each missile twice... once from the left, once from the right... thats still 98 cruise missiles knocked out of the sky when the Iraqi's aren't turning on any air defense radars.

Any numeric claim of victory or casualty for Iraq is frankly not believable.

Thats not to say that everything the allies say is a lie. Just that you can tell that the Iraqis (or by all accounts Al Jazeera) are lying by the fact that their lips are moving.

[Drogue]

Is there an international rule that says soldiers must wear uniform? I know dressing soldiers in civilian clothes is generally regarded as morally questionable, and I can see that, but is there a law that states that have to be in uniform? What if some of the Iraqi non-uniformed fighters are civilians who happen to have a gun and want to fight, as opposed to paid members of the military. I'm not disputing that this doesn't make them targets to be fired at, if they're firing, they obviously are, but is it then wrong for them to be in civilian clothes?

[DanS]

Kontiki: Actually, the support numbers (president, war) haven't budged one bit. The American people drastically reassessed how long it would take, but this hasn't seemed to impact views on the competence of the team or the necessity of prosecuting the war.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Drogue
Is there an international rule that says soldiers must wear uniform? I know dressing soldiers in civilian clothes is generally regarded as morally questionable, and I can see that, but is there a law that states that have to be in uniform? What if some of the Iraqi non-uniformed fighters are civilians who happen to have a gun and want to fight, as opposed to paid members of the military. I'm not disputing that this doesn't make them targets to be fired at, if they're firing, they obviously are, but is it then wrong for them to be in civilian clothes?

Yes, the Geneva Convention states that they have to diferentiate themselves from civilians... to protect civilians. If a civilian independently acts... he could fight (but the opposing force can still shoot and kill him in self defense)... but if he organises with others, he is illegally acting.

Soldiers violating this aren't due the benefits of POWs, but we are being nice and not shooting these cowards on sight.

Oh... and if the Iraqi's use human shields and we shoot them... we aren't liable for that... the Iraqis are, according to the G.C. too.

[Kontiki]

No, the numbers haven't moved yet, but I'm willing to bet that you will start to see some decline if things aren't stepped up quickly (not that they necessarily can be, I'm just saying for expectations' sake). One of the biggest factors, IMO, is the reaction of the Iraqi people themselves. So far, I have seen little in the US media about this, but in Canada, we get many more reports that the US invasion isn't as popular as the US admin would have us believe. This isn't because Saddam is loved, but rather that the Iraqis:

A) Have been brought up to hate the US and

B) Are a little wary in general of being "liberated" from Saddam by being invaded.

A little off topic, but we in the west can take a somewhat callous view that while the US/UK are doing everything in their power to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties and that a few hundred is a small price to pay for getting rid of Saddam, it's a little different when someone in your family or one of your friends has been killed by mistake from the coalition. It doesn't exactly inspire a sense of love for your "liberators".

edit: fixed grammar

[DanS]

You probably haven't seen this discussion because you just haven't focused on American media. The subject has been covered heavily. To those points, it is added...

C) The US encouraged an uprising in '91 but then left them in the lurch (once bitten twice shy);

D) There is a general anarchy going on;

E) Fear of what Saddam's men will do to them on expression of any joy; and

F) They don't know who will win yet. Yes, I know that this seems silly to us, but is not so silly to them.

[Kontiki]

I don't think your last point seems silly at all. Only obtuse people can't see that the world doesn't work on simple black or white, good or evil principles.

[DanS]

Yes, but the US will win. That is a definite.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DanS
You probably haven't seen this discussion because you just haven't focused on American media. The subject has been covered heavily. To those points, it is added...

C) The US encouraged an uprising in '91 but then left them in the lurch (once bitten twice shy);

D) There is a general anarchy going on;

E) Fear of what Saddam's men will do to them on expression of any joy; and

F) They don't know who will win yet. Yes, I know that this seems silly to us, but is not so silly to them.

Actually I would find it laughable that the World's only superpower is relying on Iraqi civilians to endanger their lives after being so terribly shafted in '91, if it weren't so pathetic...

We supposed to be saving them - not vice versa!

It is interesting to see the US is also using the Peshmerga to do their dirty work for them in the North - just waiting for that day when they tell the Kurds to give up their independence...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Funny how the US won the war of Independence mostly by 'cheating' and now they're crying about the Iraqis doing the same kind of thing...

Aw Boo Hoo!

The concept of even taking prisoners in the 1700's was still a tad iffy, unless you needed labor or the prisoners might be worth something in ransom. If you want a nice, slightly later example, how about Wellington's army's handling of Reille's Corps after Waterloo?

The standards were a bit different then, old chap. Remember, you guys loaded that village into the church and burned them all alive?

Besides, we didn't have an army, we were just a bunch of rebellious colonials, and we didn't use our women and children as shields.

So boo hoo to you too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Actually I would find it laughable that the World's only superpower is relying on Iraqi civilians to endanger their lives after being so terribly shafted in '91, if it weren't so pathetic...

We supposed to be saving them - not vice versa!

It is interesting to see the US is also using the Peshmerga to do their dirty work for them in the North - just waiting for that day when they tell the Kurds to give up their independence...

We're not relying on it, we'd just find it convenient, and it would result in less of them getting killed.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS
Yes, but the US will win. That is a definite.

Again, not to the people of Iraq.

[Chris 62]

I have to repeat, the Iraqi tactics are totally useless.

As for winning the PR war, that's even more laughable.

Only the usual "hate the US" bashers think the coalition is losing, and as usual, their simple minds can't comprehend military tactics, so they seek archaic examples that have no bearing on the modern world.

Such fools spew on at length about concepts they can't understand, while presenting as evidence centuries old examples of wars long over, fought in eras with different rules and different concepts.

A better cross section of the PR war would be to listen to the Iraqi people, who can't wait to be rid of Saddam, rather than some fool who thinks the US is happily carpet bombing everything in sight.

BTW, the government and the US Army never said it would be a fast war, the PRESS said that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, Yank, Little Red Rummy Hood and the Big Bad Wolfowitz have made quite a few statements alluding to their timeline.

It's true that CentCom and JCS and any of the professionals never said it would be quick, but the think tank and cocktail circuit crap came from the would be stars of the show themselves - same with the "shock and awe" crap.

edit - BTW "you people" killed my logon and email over at FFZ.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I have to repeat, the Iraqi tactics are totally useless.

As for winning the PR war, that's even more laughable.

Only the usual "hate the US" bashers think the coalition is losing, and as usual, their simple minds can't comprehend military tactics, so they seek archaic examples that have no bearing on the modern world.

Such fools spew on at length about concepts they can't understand, while presenting as evidence centuries old examples of wars long over, fought in eras with different rules and different concepts.

A better cross section of the PR war would be to listen to the Iraqi people, who can't wait to be rid of Saddam, rather than some fool who thinks the US is happily carpet bombing everything in sight.

BTW, the government and the US Army never said it would be a fast war, the PRESS said that.

I don't know why I bother responding to you, but I feel compelled due to some major errors in your post.

A) I don't think anyone is actually claiming that Iraq is winning or will win the military conflict. There are other issues, though, and that's what's being discussed here.

B) It doesn't matter what the US government or Army says, it ONLY matters what the press says since that's where the vast, vast majority of Americans get their information. As far as the most of the US public was concerned, via the press, it was going to be quick and easy. Rumsfeld can make counterclaims until he is blue in the face, it doesn't change the perception, which is what a PR war is all about.

C) Perhaps you should listen to the Iraqi people instead of the administration here. I know of several reputable news organizations, including ABC, BBC, CBC and others that have spoken to ordinary Iraqis and they aren't necessarily thrilled with the invasion, for the very reasons that myself and DanS have been posting.