Operation Iraqi Freedom...

G

GuyontheRight

Active member
Before I get to the point of this, I just want to explain that i think this thread should be addressed only from a military standpoint, in other words, I don’t care what your political views are or whether you were for or against this war, but what you thought of the conduct of the Operation...

Anyway, I just want to say that I felt this campaign was handled quite nicely, certainly for effective then the first desert Storm. I attribute this to Donald Rumsfelds view of the military, or his “swifter and more lethal” doctrine. This mindset allowed the Coalition forces to attain victory in a good time, while also minimizing the risk of “fratricide”.

I also believe that the Northern Front was partially “ botched” by someone within the coalition, or a joint decision. The people of the US 5th and 10th SFGs could have easily moved the Peshmerga a lot faster and attained more ground they actual did, as we saw in Afghanistan. But because of the controversy over the position of the Kurdish in the general thick of things, it made for a better political operation to have the force that entered Baghdad not be made up of Kurdish fighters.

Well, Im off for know, just share your general thoughts on the military aspects, and lets all try not to incorporate politics to much in this…
 
we've done more damage

we've done more famage than good. More americans have died trying to protect civlians in Iraq. They still attack us. Why? We try to hjelp them. We just want them to live a better life. The tank division was ambushed getting close to the end of the war. we under estemated the enemy. They were ready.
 
Actually Franks overestimated the enemy. In reality Saddam made littel attempt to use his conventional military in an organized defense.
 
There is no way to estimate guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is for kitties. I long for the days when it was two distinguishable forces straight up fighting each other. With guerilla warfare nowadays smart bombs and the like are the only things that make the fight more even.
 
if i had an army like they do i would prob would be doing the same

guerrilla warfare is a tactic used to annoy the enemy and move efforts from one place to another in order to weaken a target.

It breaks morale and frightens the enemy to run. Its an excellent tactic if you are dealing with a larger force.. it becomes the needle in the haystack theory .. smaller units would use it to overcome the larger units.
 
diplomatic_means said:
There is no way to estimate guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is for kitties. I long for the days when it was two distinguishable forces straight up fighting each other.
Click to expand...

You mean like back in 1776? When the Revolutionaries used guerilla warfare against the British? :wink:
 
The only thing that made that guerilla warfare is the fact they were shooting at them from the jungle. Usually back then armies met face to fac`e like 30 yards or so from each other and fired until the other one pulled back. the "guerilla warfare" of then is common sense tactics now. I mean guerilla warfare in you can't distinguish you enemies from civilians so the enemies get right into your gut and blow themsekves up. that kind of guerilla warfare is for cowards. I don't remember german civilians coming out into the street while troops marched through Germany blowing them selves and five infantry men up at the same time. Warfare should be unless the civilians are going to fight in similar fashion to the army they should keep away from battle and civilians should be distingushable from the army protecting them to enough of a degree so you know who to shoot and not to shoot. think about American video games like the police trainer arcade game where the civilian or robber pops upand you have to make sure you choose correctly whether or not to shoot in that split second. Playing a gmae like that set in the middle east it would be impossible to win because every pop up would be the same and you would only be able to tell the pop ups apart with xray vision. So you can see the bombs under there clothes. Understand my point?
 
I don't remember german civilians coming out into the street while troops marched through Germany blowing them selves and five infantry men up at the same time.

Himmler set up a group called the Warwolves (I have no idea how you spell that) in '44. They continued a long but not highly effective guirilla campaign until late 1946.
 
I think the Ground War was conducted masterfully. 3ID's rush to Baghdad was uncomparable to any other action in modern warfare. They literally cut through Iraq's ragtag defenses like a hot knife through butter. The only improvement, in my opinion, would be to streamline the logistical tail. A Mech Infantry/Tank Division can only travel as fast and as far as it's fuel. I think if we hadn't outrun our fuel supply at times, we would have been in Baghdad much sooner.
On a darker note, the transition from Saddam's old Regime to the new Free Iraq Government has had it's ups and downs. The US Military of the 21st Century isn't designed for occupation duty. We're designed to overwhelm the enemy using superior fire and manuever, taking huge chunks of ground enroute to our final objective. Infantrymen are right alongside scouts, tankers, and artillerymen conducting patrols through urban areas. Thankfully, the number of US casualties has dramatically decreased in frequency since the first few months after the ground war. It seems the "holdouts" from the old regime are more interested in killing thier own people. The rift between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq will inevitably lead to huge problems for the New Iraqi government when we hand over authority at the end of June.
 
I hear you there, master_gunner. Unfortunately I don't think there is much we can do to repair the Shiite/Sunni relationship, but hopefully men more intelligent than myself can come up with something.
 
There are a lot more problems between the population than just Sunni vs Shi'ite. There is hardly any sense of "Iraqi" nationalisim. Political, tribal, religious, cultural differences are abound and stand before a nationalistic responsibility of being an Iraqi. These groups no longer have the threat of total annihaltion under the Ba'ath party to keep them from conflict.

Watch the Kurds, closely. The caldron is bubbling.
 
They honestly need their own countries...
Click to expand...

Iraq is a bit like Yugoslavia was. It was an artificially created state, with the disparate groups concentrated in specific areas. After Yugoslavia reformed, we had to establish separate areas for the groups, and relocate those who would move or protect them if they chose not to. The problem is that the Sunnis have the industrial and urban areas, while the Kurds and Shiites occupy the areas with most of the oil.

If the economic picture were better and there was less animosity, perhaps a confederation of semi-autonomous states, like the U.S. would be a viable option.

Also, area political forces (i.e., Iran, Syria, etc.) do not want this to succeed. And are willing to offer at least some support to the insurgency so as to keep open the possibility of the US running home in defeat. There are many "visitors" at play within Iraq as well as your rivaling hometown factions.
 
I have the best idea make the tribes split up into different geographic regions and then carve up the country accordingly between whichever countries we feel can do a good job at governing that tribe. Woohoo.
 
Also, area political forces (i.e., Iran, Syria, etc.) do not want this to succeed. And are willing to offer at least some support to the insurgency so as to keep open the possibility of the US running home in defeat. There are many "visitors" at play within Iraq as well as your rivaling hometown factions.

Yea, Im aware, but those same countries also dont want Isreal as a country, but that aint changin. The reality is that the British failed to take into account the cultural diffrences of the Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite, and now where paying the price for it.
 
They were the ones who drew up the modern country of Iraq, that is it's borders. They did it soely based on geography, so thats why we have the culture clashes we do in iraq.
 
The reality is that the British failed to take into account the cultural diffrences of the Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite, and now where paying the price for it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what the British did, we could sit and discuss how half of the ME's exacerbated problems are because of the Brits, France, et al, but it won't solve anything relating to this issue. What matters is sorting the mess out .. and it's impractical to think we can assimilate these people into supporting and believing in our (western) idea of democracy. The Kurds are getting impatient, and if anything big is going to happen (read succession) it's going to happen in the North. At least, this is what I saw while I was over there.

Do you really think America would have drawn it up much differently?
Click to expand...
As to the history of Iraq, and what the US would have done .. the US did have a hand in dictating what was to become of Iraq. France and Britain wanted to divvy the provinces and absorb them into their Empires. The Arabs wanted independence so the US pressured them into a compromise. The Brits were given Iraq, and France Syria and Lebanon under the League of Nations supervision. Of course, if the Ottoman Empire wouldn't have declared jihad to begin with .. it's likely they would have lasted another 100 years .. but, eh.

And when was it redrawn?
Click to expand...
1919
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top