The Dogs of War

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One important coalition success however is securing that bridge over Euphrat. I'm surprised that the Iraqi didn't blow it up when they had the chance. It would have forced engineering and logistics troops to the front which would have made them convenient targets.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think you are taking a too strategical attitude here. I doubt that the Iraqis fight with a clean long term strategy in their head untill it comes to Baghdad. I assume this first act of defense by Iraqi forces was uniquely to cause amerian casualties...may it be for medial purposes or to be able to weaken Bush's homefront support!

[MLF 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 23 2003,21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Basra may be surrounded but it is still in Iraqi control and will probably remain so unless the coalition forces decide to not give a damn about the civilians. Even then it's questionable if MOUT can be avoided. As for "most major cities" - the only major city is Basra and it's been has been "in the process of being captured" for days now, without any success. Nasiriyah isn't going well and neither is Najaf.<span id='postcolor'>

you contradict urself in that post. anyway what do you expect where a town that has resistence in it cannot be captured in hours if Coalition forces are surrounding it then waiting for troops to clean up other areas then move in it is indeed going to take days.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 23 2003,21:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not think i am under many illusions about this conflict and i do not think i am being -mindlessly- optimistic. I am well aware of the possibility of things going wrong in a big way. I was simply pointing out in my previous post that so far things -have not gone wrong in a big way-.<span id='postcolor'>

And what I have been saying isn't that things are screwed already. All I am saying that there are some indications that the strategy for this invasion may be flawed. Right now things are too much in movement to make any real predictions. This Iraqi fighting will could last one more day or ten more years. There's not enough information to base any reliable predictions on. Let me put it like this: If I was still working for the military and my boss asked me to give an evaluation of the situation in Iraq, I would have said: "I don't know. There is too litle information". If he later approached me in the cafeteria and said: "Off the record, just tell me what you think about the situation.", I would have answered "I don't know". If we later went to the pub and he got me really drunk and said "Aw, come on, just tell me what you think - just your gut feeling", then I would have replied "I don't know but right now there are indications that things are not developing favourably for the coalition".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You say its only regulars in Basra but i have heard other

TV reporters with the British military around Basra report Hussein Paramilitaries are operating out of Basra university.<span id='postcolor'>

I'll trust Rumsfeld on this one. He would have every reason in the world to claim that it was elite Iraqi units and not regulars, but he didn't.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am aware of the lessons of history. If i wish to remain optimistic it is perhaps partly motivated by a desire not to see thousands of my countrymen and women die and tens or hundreds of thousands or Iraqis die. Sorry if this dissappoints anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

The best course of events would be that Saddam got it and that the Iraqi military collapsed after that. Coalition victory without excessive fighting, the lifting of sanctions, aid etc etc

It doesn't really look like things are developing that way however.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nationalism (or arguably false nationalism) may play a part but i still think the loyal nationalists in the Iraqi regular army are a definate minority. I may be proved wrong.

<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree with you there. If we have seen anything so far it's that the Iraqi view the coalition forces as enemy agressors and not liberators. There have been no mass surrenders. Where are those two divisions? Where is that one division? Pentagon promised 8,000 men two days ago. What did they get of those men? One or two officers. The men are still fighting in Basra. I think that the Iraqi have proved now beyond all doubt that they are willing to defend their country, even when they are the underdog. The question now is if they are willing to sustain that fighting or if they'll give up in a forseeable future.

[MLF 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 23 2003,21:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Executed..maybe because in the eyes of the Iraqis the americans are not POWs but terorists.... no I know this is a tasteless humor I come forward with.

My concern right now is rather that if it takes several marines lifes to take a city of 10.000 inhabitants....then how much is it gonna take to conquer a multi-million metropol like Baghdad? Do the calculation but the result might be slightly frightning. <span id='postcolor'>

yes they are, but we as a country both the UK (me) and the US along with AUS have a job to do and we will win, but i am frightened at what cost, but if they do die there deaths will not be 'Worthless' nor 'needless' but when my children ask me in the future (dont have atm) what happened and how i felt about the you men of the US and the UK who died i will tell them they died making the world safer for them and me.

also UK RM Commandos are fighting in the Al Shaw peninsular.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MLF @ Mar. 23 2003,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you contradict urself in that post.<span id='postcolor'>

How so?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyway what do you expect where a town that has resistence in it cannot be captured in hours if Coalition forces are surrounding it then waiting for troops to clean up other areas then move in it is indeed going to take days.<span id='postcolor'>

There hasn't been a lot of progress and both US and British military officials have on several occasions said that it's possible that they wouldn't be capturing it. Rumsfeld even put it like "We're not an occupying force, we are liberating the Iraqi people." While the southern front is still unclear it's obvious that the northern front is all about reaching Baghdad as soon as possible without really securing the grounds they pass through. They expected that the Iraqi people wouldn't fight and that the regular untis would surrender and welcome the coalition as liberators. That hasn't happened and obviously the strategy has been adapted to that. They havn't solved anything however. As Albert put it - if they are having trouble taking a town of 10,000 inhabitants guarded by regulars and reserves how will they then take Baghdad with 6,000,000 people and protected by the Republican Guard?

[MLF 0]

also British Fuseliers have secured the Basra Airport and are movin in on enemy tanks along the main Highway, althougth slow reoprts are they are making slow but steady progress. also about those Capitulations of thousands of Troops are still being negotioated wether they do or not is still to be seen.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As many as 10 U.S. Marines killed in combat at Nasiriyah in what U.S. official calls "sharpest engagement of the war thus far." Details soon.<span id='postcolor'> -CNN

[Schoeler 0]

ABC news is reporting that 3 Republican Guard divisions between the south and Baghdad have disappeared. Speculation is that they dressed in civilian clothes and headed south to infiltrate the cities and attack stretched out supply lines on the flanks.

It seems this would explain increasing resistance in some of the towns being contested, and also the captures of support unit members. Also, RG units in technicals are conducting hit and run operations on the supply lines.

New reports of 7 Marines killed in an ambush in An Nasiriyah. Iraqis waving a white flag in apparent surrender drove up alongside some Marines and then opened fire with small arms, supported by mortar fire.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Actually i tend to think that Rumsfeld doesnt know squat about the minute by minute on the ground situation-

reporters with troops are closer to the action

and they were told directly by the troops doing the fighting..

...apparently he didnt know about US POWs until he saw it on TV

There have been a number of incidences like this- journalists trumping the officials with information.

the top politicians and brass seem to be occupied in other matters than constantly recieving minute by minute info about the war(the politicians) or just not getting the information filtering up very quickly(the generals).

However you may be right about the Iraqi regulars... i think it still remains to be seen

I think some of them certainly do regard it as a hostile invasion, but it has yet to be played out. Could still be a minority ,could be the majority.

[MLF 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 23 2003,22:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MLF @ Mar. 23 2003,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you contradict urself in that post.<span id='postcolor'>

How so?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyway what do you expect where a town that has resistence in it cannot be captured in hours if Coalition forces are surrounding it then waiting for troops to clean up other areas then move in it is indeed going to take days.<span id='postcolor'>

There hasn't been a lot of progress and both US and British military officials have on several occasions said that it's possible that they wouldn't be capturing it. Rumsfeld even put it like "We're not an occupying force, we are liberating the Iraqi people." While the southern front is still unclear it's obvious that the northern front is all about reaching Baghdad as soon as possible without really securing the grounds they pass through. They expected that the Iraqi people wouldn't fight and that the regular untis would surrender and welcome the coalition as liberators. That hasn't happened and obviously the strategy has been adapted to that. They havn't solved anything however. As Albert put it - if they are having trouble taking a town of 10,000 inhabitants guarded by regulars and reserves how will they then take Baghdad with 6,000,000 people and protected by the Republican Guard?<span id='postcolor'>

Basra may be surrounded but it is still in Iraqi control and will probably remain so unless the coalition forces

the only major city is Basra and it's been has been "in the process of being captured"

to me the 1st statment to me says that you say they are sittin on the edge while the 2nd suggest thye are movin in, the later wich is correct.

Also Alot of Araqis have celebrated the arrival with civiies chanting sadam ur days are numbered.

to me it looks like the main armoured thrust is to go through the desert and get to the edge of Baghdad and sit there till the rear is secured which imho will be within time (ythats the key word here TIME), also nobody really has stated that the Iraqi's WILL capitualate on site it was a best case senario, the one at the moment is probally between the the best and worst scenario.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 23 2003,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(WarinPosted on Mar. 23 2003,21:27)

What does the UCMJ say about such actions in a war zone?

I am not a proponent of capital punishment, but a soldier who has taken oaths doing such a thing...well, if military justice says it's a firing squad offence, I wouldnt argue for a minute.<span id='postcolor'>

The UCMJ requires a trial, but I think the penalties change during war-time.  I know that during World War II soldiers convicted of desertion, murder to avoid combat and similar offenses were executed by firing squad or hanging.<span id='postcolor'>

If convicted there is no doubt in my mind that he will be executed. 10+ counts of attempted murder, plus one count of murder, several counts of attacking a superior officer, abandonment of a guard post without being properly relieved in a war zone, and possibly a charge of treason/aiding-abetting the enemy, depending on how the UCMJ prosecutors pursue the case.

BTW, as far as I know, only one American soldier was executed by military court order during WW2, at least in Europe. I believe the charge was either rape or murder, and the soldier in question already had a lengthy disciplinary record (not that that had anything to do with the sentencing).

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Apparently a large portion of the resistance behind the lines is coming from Fedaieen(sp?) paramilitary types. Remember those pictures of Iraqis running around on an obstacle course, doing somersaults and generally looking dumb? Well those were these guys. They're essentially civilians with crash-courses on infantry fighting and weapons skills, and have been turned loose behind Coalition lines to cause as much trouble as possible. A good way to achieve martyrdom, if you ask me.

[Bordoy 0]

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

Iraqi troops say they have captured two Allied airmen who they say were shot down over Baghdad.

Iraqi sources told Sky's David Chater, who is operating under reporting restrictions in Baghdad, that two aircrew had been captured by the River Tigris.

The reports follow earlier confusion, which began when Arabic television network Al-Jazeera reported that an Allied aircrew had bailed out over Baghdad and parachuted into the river.

TV pictures showed troops shooting into the river and setting fire to undergrowth near the riverbank as they hunted for the crew.

US officials insisted no pilots had been shot down over the city.

However, Chater has now been told that two crew have been found.<span id='postcolor'>

Information from

[Tex -USMC- 0]

As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.

[Bordoy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 23 2003,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.<span id='postcolor'>

i'm sure the news crew said there were Tornados over Baghdad.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 23 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think anyone can be sure of that. The Pentagon isnt telling us which a/c are being sortied and where. Considering the large number of Navy a/c from carriers operating in the theater, my assumption is that there likely are Naval aircraft overflying Baghdad. After all, I dont think you can do Iron Hand with an F-117 And flak suppresion has got to be a good part of the job over Baghdad.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MLF @ Mar. 23 2003,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also Alot of Araqis have celebrated the arrival with civiies chanting sadam ur days are numbered.<span id='postcolor'>

ABC is reporting that in some of the towns in central Iraq, there is quite the opposite reaction.  The civilians are angry and unhappy to see coalition forces.

This does not bode well for winning their hearts and minds, and it seems the Bush administration is really fucking up by not getting humanitarian aid and military police control to captured towns immediately.  The situation in these towns is apparently chaos with a lot of looting, banditry and lack of food going on.  This is a gigantic sized fuckup for the administration.  The idea was to make things better for the Iraqis immediately, not to make things worse for them after we came in.  Now they are saying it will be 36 hours before any aid gets tothese people.  Fucking morons!

[Bordoy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 23 2003,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 23 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think anyone can be sure of that.  The Pentagon isnt telling us which a/c are being sortied and where.  Considering the large number of Navy a/c from carriers operating in the theater, my assumption is that there likely are Naval aircraft overflying Baghdad.  After all, I dont think you can do Iron Hand with an F-117  And flak suppresion has got to be a good part of the job over Baghdad.<span id='postcolor'>

Yer the Flak over Baghdad is heavy, for every flash there is, there is another 12 inbetween them.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 23 2003,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 23 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think anyone can be sure of that.  The Pentagon isnt telling us which a/c are being sortied and where.  Considering the large number of Navy a/c from carriers operating in the theater, my assumption is that there likely are Naval aircraft overflying Baghdad.  After all, I dont think you can do Iron Hand with an F-117  And flak suppresion has got to be a good part of the job over Baghdad.<span id='postcolor'>

Hence the 'As far as I know'. Meaning that the amount of stock you place in the post depends on how much you trust/respect my personal opinions

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 23 2003,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 23 2003,20:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seems to me that these "Loyalist" forces may be like the Soviet Political officers from WW2. You run, we shoot. Maybe the nerve gas isn't for our troops after all. You dig?

-Crew<span id='postcolor'>

Isnt it possible that the Iraqis fighting are doing so because they love their country and see the US as an invader?  Without getting political, the way I see it is that some people will fight for their country no matter how much they disagree with the government.<span id='postcolor'>

It`s indeed that way and because of this it`s a big mistake to pin the strategy to Saddam`s death. What the USA and the brits are doing reminds me a little to battles in the darkages where you went for the enemies king with an assault force. After the death of a king the battle was over, but I really doubt that will happen in Iraq, even if Saddam is really dead / will really be killed. I read that after the US attack the Iraqis hate the USA more than they hate Saddam. It might even be that his fight against the "invasors" makes him more popular among his people. I guess the fights will become harder and harder...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 24 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*B-2*cough*

I doubt they've captured anything. I wouldn't believe them until I saw a video or something.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 23 2003,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 24 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know, no non-stealth aircraft are operating over Baghad itself, and the US does not have a stealth plane that has a two-man aircrew. I'm sure that a plenty of two-man aircraft are operating over the outskirts of the city, wild-weasels and such, but so far there is no indication that they have been flying over Baghdad proper. I'd take anything the Iraqis say with several large spoonfuls of salt.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*B-2*cough*

I doubt they've captured anything.  I wouldn't believe them until I saw a video or something.<span id='postcolor'>

True. But the B-2 also often carries a 3rd crewmen, doesn't it?

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 23 2003,20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trigat.dont know but I  didnt find any image of a Trigat with a pointed head...usually TRIGAT look like this!

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh shit... the poor guy which took that picture...    

 

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 23 2003,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Don`t they look kinda phallic??

I guess I have to get some sleep, rockets with condoms pulled over the tip, hehe

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 23 2003,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MLF @ Mar. 23 2003,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also Alot of Araqis have celebrated the arrival with civiies chanting sadam ur days are numbered.<span id='postcolor'>

ABC is reporting that in some of the towns in central Iraq, there is quite the opposite reaction.  The civilians are angry and unhappy to see coalition forces.

This does not bode well for winning their hearts and minds, and it seems the Bush administration is really fucking up by not getting humanitarian aid and military police control to captured towns immediately.  The situation in these towns is apparently chaos with a lot of looting, banditry and lack of food going on.  This is a gigantic sized fuckup for the administration.  The idea was to make things better for the Iraqis immediately, not to make things worse for them after we came in.  Now they are saying it will be 36 hours before any aid gets tothese people.  Fucking morons!<span id='postcolor'>

I partly agree with you. There should have been a lot more effort to get humanitarian aid into the contested zones as soon as humanly possible. But then do you wantto put aid workers in a battle zone?

I think this is a good example of what might be hindsight in the rapid dash across the desert. Perhaps capture, consolidate and advance may have been a better battleplan than a mad rush.