A very interesting theory by the New York Times It's worth a look http://nytimes.com/2003/04/03/international/worldspecial/03BATT.html
manny, have you ever heard the saying, you'll get more with a kind word and a shotgun than you will with a kind word? You'll get more responses with a link and analysis than you will get with a link. I don't get this. What happened to, the enemy gets a vote too? OK, this is what he means. Well, I still don't get it. If the RG and fedayeen devolve into units of 2 and 3 soldiers, or even lone wolves, what is our strategy for avoiding urban warfare then? I don't see how it's possible. At this point, the future of the war depends alot more on the decisions of individual Iraqi soldiers than anything the US can do.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak08.html Middle East ANALYSIS Baghdad: Outside in and inside out This article explains why superdave, *************** pakovits, mike lasort2, & their ilk do not understand the military, military history, and military maneuver, both strategic and tactical.
The "wave your right and throw the left" move has been around since at least the Mexican War in the US playbook. Of course with total air domination,any attack in a non-urban area is going to be easier. We still do not know how many Iraqis are willing to fight for the regime in Baghdad. This isn't over yet.
Well, secretly these guys are cheering for this war to turn into another Vietnam so that the next Democratic candidate will get elected in a landslide. It's better just to ignore them...
yes, we would like nothing more than for numerous Americans to die (and die horribly for good measure) just for political gain. Jackass.
This is highly amusing: The "pause" was a pause. Backup by the US 4th ID was reasonably regarded as critical by Franks, who is no cowboy, but a meticulous, careful and patient planner. It was also a ruse, preparing for the wheel east, driving through Iraqi positions from the flank. This has brought US forces to the immediate outskirts of Baghdad in 48 hours - a move that "informed" French military observers writing in Le Monde (Monday) estimated might take another month of fighting. The French, it seems, are a bit hard at learning. What next? Inside out, says Central Command. This could have several meanings. US Special Forces fighting outwards. US paratroopers landing inside fighting out. Iraqi elements changing sides and joining US troops in Baghdad. If it comes off, this campaign may well be over in days rather than weeks. Franks will not speak about it. He shuns big talk. Some time back, he told a press conference about the first book he ever read: "It was a book about Julius Caesar. I remember parts of it. The book said Julius Caesar was a general. He made long speeches. They killed him."
Which is about on a moral par with secrety cheering for another Vietnam so you can have something to watch on TV for awhile.
[Pulp Fiction paraphrasing] Jimmie: I can't believe this is the same Baghdad! The Wolf: Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. [/Pulp Fiction paraphrasing] This isn't over yet. From a tactical standpoint, if the pause was indeed a feint, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. Military experts all over the world were saying that the pause was caused by outrunning supply lines, but it this was part of the plan all along, what a great idea. And I'm no military expert myself, but I am fascinated by history, particularly military history, and have read quite a lot about battles through history. From Hannibal crossing the Alps and conquering Italy (I even visited a battlefield site in modern-day Umbria) before Scipio drove him back to Carthage, to Rommel verus Montgomery in the deserts of North Africa, to Desert Storm. I love playing war games, and trying out different tactics. No, I'm no expert, but I do think I understand the basics of warfare reasonably well. And I thought, like everyone else, that the US had outrun it's supply lines too. Did you honestly think this was all planned yourself? If so, let's see where you posted that theory. And for "The Wanderer." I want this war to end with a massive US victory. I want Saddam dead or captured, and I want to see hostilities end with a US victory. I challenge you to find a post of mine where I ever stated otherwise. Find any post of mine where I said I hoped that this would turn into a quagmire that would result in an eventual Democratic presidential victory. I'd take another 20 years of Republican presidents if it meant that this thing could be over today, with no more casualties on either side. I hope you were kidding about my wishing for a drawn-out war for political reasons.
Um, I'm just wondering, does anyone think that if Iraq had chemical or biological weapons--enough to cause mass destruction--they would have used them by now? I mean wasn't the justification for this war in part due to the suspicion that Iraq indeed had these weapons and would use them against Americans? Well, here's their opportunity to use them. Why haven't they? Please don't get me wrong, it's not something I hope to happen, but I'm thinking that they (biological/chemical weapons) don't exist, at least don't exist in any great threat to our troops or they would have been used by now. It looks to me like Iraq's WMD consists of their own soldiers using their own civilians as shields, something every single person everywhere KNEW would happen if a war was carried out.
Watching NBC news right now. It looks like they 3rd Infantry Division really outflanked the right side of the Iraqi line, catching them completely by surprise.
well, just b/c they have not used them yet doesn't mean they are still not planning to use them...and there is the distinct possibility that they have them and won't end up using them, if saddam is dead i could see them having them but not having the 'guts' to use them in the war. saw that too. pure stroke of genius, i really think that when this whole thing ends you will see a nice book by tommy franks that tells of his methods and ways behind the invasion and it will be nothing short of genius...but then again, perhaps i am just being hopeful.
Perhaps I'm taking this particular quote out of context or General Grant was jesting: "I don't want to go to France only to buy wine in order to spite the guys dying in Iraq. I also want to go to France so I can buy some champagne, cognac and armagnac. Then I'll drink the wine, champagne, cognac and armagnac. Afterwards, I'll drive to the nearest American military cemetary and piss on as many graves as I can." - Mike Lastort - 4/2/03 99% of Superdave's posts minus "Bridging the gap between hawks and doves" always seem to be a huge second guess of the whole administration. And now we don't see a post like that until the realization that the conclusion to this war is basically moot.....things that make you go hmmm.....
General Grant? Not quite. I thought it was pretty painfully obvious that that entire post was tongue in cheek. I was responding to a ridiculous premise in a ridiculous fashion.
The Angel of Sarcasm flew by just now. She said your post was the most wonderful thing she had ever read, and she was going to name all of her little winged children "The Wanderer's April 3rd Post on the Battle for Baghdad Thread" in honor of your achievement.
Get all your licks in now lads......... I never saw the original post, just the sig line on General Grant's (aka Bill Archer) post.
Well, no less than renowned expert John Pike, of globalsecurity.org, thought he was going to use them from the get go, and has been puzzled that he hasn't. Here are some reasons why he hasn't used them, some of which are NOT mutually exclusive, some of which are: He doesn't have any at all. He has the raw material, but hasn't weaponized them. He has weapons, but has buried them or hidden them so well that not only can't WE find them, but his generals can get at them either. He's got them, they're deployed, but command and control is so screwed up, no has gotten the orders to use them, and no one will use them unless they get orders from the very top. He's got them, they're deployed, the orders have been give to use them, but no military officer dares carry out the order for fear of being tried as a war criminal after the war is over. He's got 'em, and he's just waiting to use them as a total last resort. I think that about covers the waterfront. If I had to vote it would be for a combination of 3, 4 and 5.
I think he has the weapons, but is making a political decision not to use them. Upon using them, this war would gain instant credibility in the eyes of many. Saddam may be crazy, but he ain't no dummy.