The Dogs of War

[JAP 2]

Well the coalition forces ARE gonna find chemical or weapons of mass destruction !

..... questions will be, is it really Iraqian or is it fabricated evidence ....

[Blaegis 0]

Good synapsis, Balschoiw.

An interesting sidenote: as I understand it, failure to capture Umm Qasr prevents large-scale shipment of humanitarian aid into Iraq. That, in turn, makes it impossible to fulfill yesterday's Bush promise of "aid within 36 hours" and makes the hearts-and-minds battle that much harder. A very vicious and very effective tactic by Saddam's forces, I'd say.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as I understand it, failure to capture Umm Qasr prevents large-scale shipment of humanitarian aid into Iraq. <span id='postcolor'>

Not only this. We are in a miltary operation. So every move is done to fulfill military objectives at first hand. The control about the harbour is significant for the military plans as they need the harbour for logistical reasons. Support and troop reinforcements were planned to be shipped in at that harbour. The status today makes this impossible. Humanitarian aid is very secondary right now.

EDIT: H2 and H3 airfield control achieved from troops located in Jordania are not suffiecient to support the troops at Bagdad nor a good place to stay at for a long time. The troop strength needed to defend both of them against commando forces is simply to great. We now have reports of looping helicopter transports from Jordania towards these airfields. Looks like the needed reinforcemets from the north will be inserted from the west now. I am still curious as they lack of heavy tanks wich play a keyrole when it comes to Mosul.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 24 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The control about the harbour is significant for the military plans as they need the harbour for logistical reasons. Support and troop reinforcements were planned to be shipped in at that harbour.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a given. Hence, the label "sidenote" in my post 

[WhoCares 0]

btw: Can't they use harbours in Kuwait? Or are there only non-Deepwater habours?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's a given. Hence, the label "sidenote" in my post

<span id='postcolor'>

I didnt doubt that for a second. I only wanted to make that clear to other participants of this discussion. You know fog of war is mostly in the heads

[shadow 6]

@Balschoiw:

You heard anything on this so-called 2nd Apache supposedly downed by the Iraqis?

All I see they show is one Longbow, two helmets and some papers...

[Oligo 1]

It is amazing how efficiently Iraqis have managed to defend their country so far. I'll probably have to somewhat revise my estimates of what would happen if Russia ever attacked Finland again.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can't they use harbours in Kuwait? Or are there only non-Deepwater habours?

<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is that if you donr control that major harbour you don´t control it´s surroundings as well. A major factor in the coaltion plans is to use the waterways to go way up to Bagdad. Right now this is impossible as the entry point is under Iraqi surveilance. Also the distance may look close to Kuwait but it is a siginficant distance when it comes to supplies and a guarded entry into Iraq with something like permant control over it. Both is not established.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You heard anything on this so-called 2nd Apache supposedly downed by the Iraqis?

<span id='postcolor'>

No. Actually killcounts for both sides are very vague right now. I don´t believe they got 2 in a row. But who knows. If I shoudl get something pointing towards that direction I will post it. The only thing that worries me a bit is that collateral dammage seems to jump now. We have a civillan bus with refugees missiled by caoltion forces now. Basra is expected to have very much losses amongst it´s population. If Iraq is smart they will take this into public on a large scale later on this day.

[Blaegis 0]

Another thought just occured to me: if you collate the press reports, most of the British/American units reported to be in the theatre appear to be engaged across Iraq. What are they keeping in the way of reserves? 101st ABD?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is amazing how efficiently Iraqis have managed to defend their country so far. I'll probably have to somewhat revise my estimates of what would happen if Russia ever attacked Finland again.<span id='postcolor'>

Oligo gets a hard-on every time he imagines guards tank divisions bogging down on the way to Helsinki... Anyway, I don't think it's fair to compare the current Gulf conflict with the (very unlikely) Russo-Finnish one - the terrain, equipment and the way the belligerents would fight are too different. And we already knew that a determined defender can have a field day with almost any attacking force in urban terrain.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are they keeping in the way of reserves? 101st ABD?

<span id='postcolor'>

the 101 in parts has been flown to Northern Iraq and is trying to get control there. They are outnumbered in man and vehicles. No good position there right now. Therefore only punctual attacks are reported. Another part of the 101 is in south Iraq and the third part is heading for the airfields near the Jordanian border if my infos are correct.

The reserves are not that big at the moment, but if the coaltion forces decide to bring down the forces intended for the northern front to Jordania they could be some source fro reinforcement. Limited, cause the vehicles will be a timeconsuming transport for the air transports.

[killagee 0]

According to the BBC, British marines are taking heavy artillary bombardment fired from within Basra. This would make it very difficult for them to return fire without killing civilians, who are too scared to leave their homes...

[Exocet Argentino 0]

"....Iraqi TV has shown pictures of an American Apache attack helicopter which it said had been shot down near the town of Karbala, about 80 kilometres (50 miles) south of the capital.

The US military has confirmed that one helicopter is down. It has not commented on Iraqi reports that a second helicopter was hit and two American pilots taken prisoner..."

Opsssssssssss, maybe this is not a military ride...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 24 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An interesting sidenote: as I understand it, failure to capture Umm Qasr prevents large-scale shipment of humanitarian aid into Iraq. That, in turn, makes it impossible to fulfill yesterday's Bush promise of "aid within 36 hours" and makes the hearts-and-minds battle that much harder. A very vicious and very effective tactic by Saddam's forces, I'd say.<span id='postcolor'>

One interesting observation on that, earlier on CNN they interviewed an American logistics officer who was talking about Umm Qasr. She said that the Iraqi should not expect much in the way of food since "we currently have a hard time of supporting ourselves". This would indeed indicate that the failure to secure the harbor is affecting the logistics.

[Winters 1]

After this weekend, maybe people will finally stop saying "this is gonna be a picnic" those guys had 12 years to learn from the mistakes they made in Gulf War1 and to learn the tactics we used.

The coalition will prevail just not as quickly and easily as many first believed.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,16:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 24 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An interesting sidenote: as I understand it, failure to capture Umm Qasr prevents large-scale shipment of humanitarian aid into Iraq. That, in turn, makes it impossible to fulfill yesterday's Bush promise of "aid within 36 hours" and makes the hearts-and-minds battle that much harder. A very vicious and very effective tactic by Saddam's forces, I'd say.<span id='postcolor'>

One interesting observation on that, earlier on CNN they interviewed an American logistics officer who was talking about Umm Qasr. She said that the Iraqi should not expect much in the way of food since "we currently have a hard time of supporting ourselves". This would indeed indicate that the failure to secure the harbor is affecting the logistics.<span id='postcolor'>

No I'm not a moderator, but this is posted in the political thread:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=5145

[Guest]

Damn. I found the article right here. 2/3 of the original text has been removed and this has been added:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details. <span id='postcolor'>

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Blaegis-"I do find it amusing that a country goes to war, and an offensive war at that, having a military strategy based on a contradiction."

"I don't see the problem with the Russians providing them with some means of self defense"

I will not go into the contradiction of Russias insistance on pursuing UN processes on Iraq whilst breaching UN sanctions by supplying them with military equipment as that would be too political ,

but if you refer in the first quote to the lack of cheering crowds on the street and the apparent 'stiff resistance' as signs that there is a popular uprising against the 'liberation' or a lack of willingness to throw off Saddam Husseins governance

then i am not so certain that that is indeed a proven contradiction.

The military strategy (which i have not thus far been very impressed by) it seems counted on the majority of Iraqis not being happy under Saddam Hussein and much preferring to see the end of him even if in the form of an invasion. That may well still be the case(..may not).

If this war was simply against the regular Iraqi army then victory even if some hard fighting was involved would in my opinion appear much less elusive.

The military strategy however does not seem to have taken much account of Saddams large irregular forces such as the volunteer militias eg the Fedayeen, special police units and republican guard and special republican guard. There are reports of some of these units being present in most of the areas where the hardest fighting has occured. Not coincidentally these areas tend to be in or around towns or cities

It was surely obvious that these forces would fight unconventionally either in urbanised areas or conduct small ambush type operations, yet this strategy appears to have taken very little account of this possiblity.

It is my opinion that these units are providing a much needed backbone to the Iraqi armed forces in leading by example and whether through encouragment or coercion providing the regular army with the impetus to continue fighting longer and harder than they may otherwise have done.

Yes the Iraqi regulars may in significant numbers be simply fighting to expel the invaders, but i really do not think they are happy to see their country continue under Saddams rule and they could be coaxed into surrender -in many instances- without the loyalist guerillas in their midst continuing the fighting.

There is a reason why Saddam does not trust his regular army.

Thats my opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------

-also on those reinforcments there are reports that the 4th Infantry is already coming(or being sent) throught the Suez canal from Turkey

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/iraq/1831299

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 24 2003,10:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The coalition will prevail just not as quickly and easily as many first believed.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt that.

I'm in total agreement with Denoir on this issue, and Bals... this is not going well, and will go worse. The Coalition turned out NOT to be liberators, this is their demise. I belive.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

There is also the alternative possibility that large parts of Iraq will forget the misdeads of Saddam and unite against this invasion in which case the whole thing will go to hell.

[edit-alternative to my previous statement not bn880s obviously -edit]

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 24 2003,16:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The military strategy however does not seem to have taken much account of Saddams large irregular forces such as the volunteer militias eg the Fedayeen, special police units and republican guard and special republican guard. There are reports of some of these units being present in most of the areas where the hardest fighting has occured. Not coincidentally these areas tend to be in or around towns or cities

It was surely obvious that these forces would fight unconventionally either in urbanised areas or conduct small ambush type operations, yet this strategy appears to have taken very little account of this possiblity.

It is my opinion that these units are providing a much needed backbone to the Iraqi armed forces in leading by example and whether through encouragment or coercion providing the regular army with the impetus to continue fighting longer and harder than they may otherwise have done.

Yes the Iraqi regulars may in significant numbers be simply fighting to expel the invaders, but i really do not think they are happy to see their country continue under Saddams rule and they could be coaxed into surrender -in many instances- without the loyalist guerillas in their midst continuing the fighting.

There is a reason why Saddam does not trust his regular army.

Thats my opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

You are very stubborn in repeating unsubstantiated rumors. The only confirmed engagements with RG units have been in last night's Apache attacks, which didn't go to well and near Kirkuk where the 'lost' division of RG turned up and repelled an attempt of the coalition special forces and airborne units to secure a landing area.

As for the Iraqi not wanting Hussein, that's very questionable too. I don't know if you watched the interview with one of the British embedded reporters this morining discussing the issue. She said that the people in the captured areas were very resentful to the invading force. They filmed a couple of Iraqi kids that were waving to the coalition troops and then turning to the reporter saying "Saddam is our leader and he will come to liberate us soon. We just have to endure this but we will fight [the coalition forces] as soon as we can. We are Iraqi and Iraq is our country. We will defend it."

I don't think you should underestimate the propaganda from the Iraqi side. They've been exposed to it for 35 years. Do you really think that 6 months of US propaganda will counteract that?

[MLF 0]

this thread has turned into our speculation of what we think not what has been reported.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 24 2003,16:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I will not go into the contradiction of Russias insistance on pursuing UN processes on Iraq whilst breaching UN sanctions by supplying them with military equipment as that would be too political ,

but if you refer in the first quote to the lack of cheering crowds on the street and the apparent 'stiff resistance' as signs that there is a popular uprising against the 'liberation' or a lack of willingness to throw off Saddam Husseins governance

then i am not so certain that that is indeed a proven contradiction.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, what I meant by "contradiction" may be better exppressed as "mutually exclusive circumstances" i.e. on one hand, the American/British forces have a set of military objectives, not the smallest of which is the capture of Baghdad. Any way you slice it, the capture of Baghdad will result in sizeable American/British casualties. On the other hand, the American public is notoriously sensitive to American casualties. So either you appease the public and fail in your military objectives or you accomplish your military objectives but lose the popular support. Since the Bush administration clearly would like to do both (achieve the military objectives and keep the public support), I called it a contradictory strategy.

... And I'll be more than happy to discuss the allegations of Russia suppling military equipment to Iraq in the politics thread.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this thread has turned into our speculation of what we think not what has been reported. <span id='postcolor'>

Definately not. The info I gathered is military and intelligence info from german services. I have been to BND at the weekend to gather as much info as i was able to.

Sure the outcome or real deals on the fileds are not completely covered here, but I really try to give an actual realistic look on the things going on in Iraq. Same with denoir and other senior militaries who are around here and have more than one source of info.