The Dogs of War

[turms 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Mar. 29 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al-Jazeera is confident in showing blood-spattered skulls but god forbid if they dare to show too short women's skirts <span id='postcolor'>

Western medias are confident in showing too short women's skirts but god forbid if they dare to show blood-spattered skulls

Wich is the better option? show the brutality of war as it is or

nudity abd rambo movies? (nothing wrong in both of them alltough)

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither is Iraqi TV. It's run by the ministry of information, a civillian agency.<span id='postcolor'>

Come on now Denoir, everyone knows who is in charge of the Ministry of Information in Iraq. How far away is that from being run by the military really?

I think TV is a legitimate target. If the Iraqis can bomb western media, then so be it.

[bn880 5]

It doesn't really matter who the TV station is run by, if it's used as a military comm's center then it is a military target, if it is not, then it's a civilian target.

OKay, so you think it spreads propaganda to the Iraqis, then if Iraq had the might to invade U.S.A., bombing the hell out of CNN,MSNBC,ABC would be just dandy.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 29 2003,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think TV is a legitimate target.  If the Iraqis can bomb western media, then so be it.<span id='postcolor'>

Bn880, perhaps you missed this part of my post!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 29 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 29 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Mar. 29 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al-Jazeera is confident in showing blood-spattered skulls but god forbid if they dare to show too short women's skirts <span id='postcolor'>

yeah , i too prefer the contrary ... the western medias , especially german TV <span id='postcolor'>

Really?? I bet and hope you`ve never seen Gute Zeiten, Schlechte Zeiten or Deutschland sucht den Superstar...  <span id='postcolor'>

no , but there's a porn channel on the public TV network , isn't it ?

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ Mar. 29 2003,16:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wich is the better option? show the brutality of war as it is or

nudity abd rambo movies? (nothing wrong in both of them alltough)  <span id='postcolor'>

i'll leave you the rambo movies a,d i'll keep the other one

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suicide bombing or cruise missiles? What's the difference? The only thing that I can see is that it takes guts to blow yourself up which cannot be said of pressing a button to launch a tomahawk.<span id='postcolor'>

Unless you've already blown yourself up trying to kill as many people, including civilians, as possible, don't tell me how much guts it takes to do so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither is Iraqi TV. It's run by the ministry of information, a civillian agency.<span id='postcolor'>

hahahaha, so why does the information minister wear a military uniform?

sometimes you worry me denoir. next you'll be saying Saddam was democratically elected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and in that aspect its almost American. Its OK to show people killing eachother, but a bit of nudity is terrible!<span id='postcolor'>

Actually no. All American TV stations didn't show the dead POWs when it came up, and none of them are allowed to show pornography. Nudity for education is OK. Hence the reason TLC and the discovery channel are so popular.

[Balschoiw 0]

Here comes biased news again. The ones who don´t tend to believe me can skip this irrelevant post. Saves me from arguing...

In northern Iraq, 6,000 Kurdish troops and a hundred American Special Forces have jointly attacked Islamic radical Ansar al-Islam fighters camped near the Iranian border. Over a hundred of the thousand or so Ansar fighters were either killed, captured. The rest fled to mountain caves right on the Iranian border. In those caves, the Ansar no longer have access to food and other supplies, unless they establish supply routes through the mountains into Iran.

After Iraqi troops retreated about 20 kilometers from their positions facing armed Kurds in northern Iraq, some Kurdish fighters advanced to within 16 kilometers of Kirkuk (the major oil city in the north). The Iraqis eventually fired on those Kurds with artillery. The Kurds pulled back.

There are very few embedded journalists with the special operations troops, so little has been reported on what is going on where they operated. There have been reverses. A special forces A team was overrun by about a hundred Iraqi troops outside of Irbil in northern Iraq.

In Basra, it was discovered that some 200 local Saddam supporters were meeting in a multi-story building. Two smart bombs hit the building and destroyed it and, apparently, the people in it. A nearby church was unharmed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where have all the flowers gone? When American troops entered Kosovo in 1999, Moslem Albanians cheered and threw flowers. When American troops entered Afghanistan towns in 2001, Moslem Afghans cheered and threw flowers. When American troops entered Iraq in 2003, Moslem Iraqis glowered and a few threw grenades. Unlike Kosovo and Afghanistan, the entry of American troops has not caused the bad guys to flee. Saddams security troops and Baath Party members have much to fight for and are willing to do just that.

American generals have commented that the current resistance in Iraq was not what they encountered in their wargames. This is one of the weaknesses of the use of wargaming in the Department of Defense. There has long been a reluctance to diligently pursue "what if?" possibilities. Instead, it's more popular to test procedures. Nothing wrong with that, but the most valuable aspect of wargames is the ability to test enemy capabilities, not your own ability to perform complex military operations. Wargaming Saddam's government means taking into account changes since 1991. In the last twelve years, Saddam's rule has become more brutal and complete. The 1991 war did not go after Saddam's government officials and secret police. Those that were in Kuwait quickly fled back to Iraq. But now you have to fight these thugs and one thing American wargames should have explored more diligently was; what do you do if the thugs get organized and fight? That question now has to be answered while the shooting is going on.

The US plan, by all indications (force buildup and comments by senior officials) indicated a bold, quick decapitation attack. This type of operation depends on "maintaining the initiative." This means keeping your troops moving and constantly doing something before the enemy can respond. But the three day sandstorm, and the growing attacks on supply troops with irregulars has stopped the coalition advance. The initiative has been lost and it will be difficult to regain it. One way to do that is to make an attack on Baghdad from several directions. That may be what is in the works, as troops go after the armed Saddam loyalists down south, while continuing to move combat units closer to Baghdad.

<span id='postcolor'>

And let me say one thing at last. I am not happy with the insults having brought up against me or other forum members. You want to debate ? OK. You want to insult ? Get off.

I told you that you will probably see the new ROE´s in action, but even now you claim that they are not-existant. The last days have proven you wrong. So you´d better live with it, that I do have sources of interest.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 29 2003,17:43)</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">Suicide bombing or cruise missiles? What's the difference? The only thing that I can see is that it takes guts to blow yourself up which cannot be said of pressing a button to launch a tomahawk.<span id='postcolor'>

Unless you've already blown yourself up trying to kill as many people, including civilians, as possible, don't tell me how much guts it takes to do so.<span id='postcolor'>

But the Iraqi suicide bomber did not attack civilians, he attacked legitimate military targets: enemy soldiers. I frankly don't see any difference between that and blowing away your enemy from an airplane.

Suicide bombers have a bad name because they are extenisivly used in Israel to blow up civilians. That isn't however the case here. It was a legitimate target.

One interesting sidenote: very soon after he killed those soldiers his picture and name was shown on Iraqi TV with the comment that he was posthumously awarded two medals by Hussein. It's interesting because it tells something about the shape of their command and control structure.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Balschoiw-I think what you have posted there sounds perfectly credible. I had read and posted reports of the attack on Ansar to which you have added some interesting new information as well as some totally new details of the war i had not heard of.

I hope everyone welcomes diverse information sources. However if a person makes a somewhat extreme allegation but is unable for whatever reason to provide substantion then i dont think it is totally wrong for a bit of further questioning to take place. This is especially true on the Internet.

Please do not take it personally

Im inclined to agree that what seems to have been the Rumsfeld strategy has not been very sound.

For the record i still do not think troops around Basra will start indiscriminate bombing or gunning down of civilians. Nor do i tend to think that 'misguided' bombs are deliberatly aimed at killing civilians.

Other than that i read with interest what you have to say.

[Guest]

I hope you have been watching BBC today and saw the "statue" mission. It's just about the only funny thing I've seen in this damn war. I laughed for five minutes solid

Apparently on the agenda today of the British forces in Basra was the destruction of three statues of Saddam Hussein in the city. After completing the mission they withdrew back to the outskirts of the city. If you have the chance, tune in to BBC, this segment is hilarious

Web report - not at all as funny as the TV segment

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-"But the Iraqi suicide bomber did not attack civilians, he attacked legitimate military targets: enemy soldiers. I frankly don't see any difference between that and blowing away your enemy from an airplane."

I think the main possible problem may be with the way he did it. From the reports i have heard he was not wearing a uniform, nor was he openly carrying a weapon. Thus could he not already be seen as a spy?

It has mostly to do with the trust between combatants and non-combatants which the Iraqis appear to be deliberatly breaking down. Thats clearly a bad thing and i think should be criticised or at least open to criticism.

Then again to be a suicide bomber its obviously helpful to be covert and a republican guard outfit is not very covert.

Perhaps thats an argument against suicide bombing.

Of course practically it is often the case that there is one rule for the strong and another for the weak.

Perhaps America was able to break rules in the international arena. Now Iraq seems willing and able to break them on the arena of battle.

[Guest]

Since Anglo-American special forces operate out of uniform, I think it is a non-issue. If such forces are caught they are not protected by the geneva conventions, and that goes for both sides.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"He said the ability of British troops to enter the city at will and destroy "representative tokens" of Saddam Hussein's regime would have sent "quite a shock" to Baathist and irregular organisations."

LOL

-Hey Ali

-What Tariq?

-They got the statue!

-OMG! ...call Saddam ,the wars off!

[ran 0]

hmmm . just noticed one thing ...... the only things that changes from a pentagon briefing to another are the woman's clothes .......

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 29 2003,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually no.  All American TV stations didn't show the dead POWs when it came up, and none of them are allowed to show pornography.  Nudity for education is OK.  Hence the reason TLC and the discovery channel are so popular.<span id='postcolor'>

dead POW's ? if they're dead , they aren't POW's anymore , are they ?

[PFC_Mike 2]

Allowed to show porn in the US? YOu ever hear of the Spice Channel?

I notice that when the US opens fire on a bus full of Iraqi troops, they are condemned. Would you criticize the Iraqis for opening fire on a C-17 filled with US troops? Just checking...

[Longinius 1]

5 more FF casualties. 3 soldiers died from unexploded cluster bombs. 1 died from being run over by a bulldozer while sleeping and at the same time a 2nd soldier lost his leg.

Source: Aftonbladet

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 29 2003,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I notice that when the US opens fire on a bus full of Iraqi troops, they are condemned. Would you criticize the Iraqis for opening fire on a C-17 filled with US troops? Just checking...<span id='postcolor'>

Who has ever condemned the US firing on a bus full of Iraqi soldiers? It's a legitimate target.

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

A piece of completely unrelated info: Internet connections in Baghdad's internet cafés have been down for three days now.(Aftonbladet)

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

Death toll of market bombing now 62 and rising

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 29 2003,19:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 29 2003,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually no.  All American TV stations didn't show the dead POWs when it came up, and none of them are allowed to show pornography.  Nudity for education is OK.  Hence the reason TLC and the discovery channel are so popular.<span id='postcolor'>

dead POW's ? if they're dead , they aren't POW's anymore , are they ?<span id='postcolor'>

they go as KIA, right?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

The latest War in Iraq entry at

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

has an interesting and in my opinion quite accurate analysis of the war so far. It makes a few disputable claims but i agree in full that the diplomatic failures have had a real effect on the battlefield.

here it is:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First conclusions can be drawn from the war

The first week of the war surprised a number of military analysts and experts. The war in Iraq uncovered a range of problems previously left without a serious discussion and disproved several resilient myths.

The first myth is about the precision-guided weapons as the determining factor in modern warfare, weapons that allow to achieve strategic superiority without direct contact with the enemy. On the one hand we have the fact that during the past 13 years the wars were won by the United States with minimum losses and, in essence, primarily through the use of aviation. At the same time, however, the US military command was stubborn in ignoring that the decisive factor in all these wars was not the military defeat of the resisting armies but political isolation coupled with strong diplomatic pressure on the enemy's political leadership. It was the creation of international coalitions against Iraq in 1991, against Yugoslavia in 1999 and against Afghanistan in 2001 that ensured the military success.

The American command preferred not to notice the obvious military failures during expeditions to Granada, Libya and Somalia, discounting them as "local operations" not deserving much attention.

Today we can see that in itself massed use of strategic and tactical precision-guided weapons did not provide the US with a strategic advantage. Despite the mass use of the most sophisticated weapons the Americans have so far failed to disrupt Iraqi command and control infrastructure, communication networks, top Iraqi military and political leadership, Iraqi air defenses. At the same time the US precision-guided weapons arsenal has been reduced by about 25%.

The only significant advantage of the precision-guided weapons is the capability to avoid massive casualties among the civilians in densely populated areas.

What we have is an obvious discrepancy between the ability to locate and attack a target with precision-guided weapons and the power of this weapon, which is not sufficient to reliably destroy a protected target.

On the other hand, precision-guided munitions demonstrated their superiority over conventional munitions on the battlefield. The ability to attack targets at long ranges with the first shot is the deciding factor in the American superiority in land battles.

The second myth disproved by this war is the myth propagated by the proponents of the "hi-tech" war, who believe in the superiority of the most modern weapons and inability of older-generation weapons to counteract the latest systems. Today the technological gap between the Iraqi weapons and those of the coalition has reached 25-30 years, which corresponds to two "generations" in weapons design. The primary Iraqi weapons correspond to the level of the early 1970s. Since that time the Americans, on the other hand, have launched at least two major rearmament efforts: the "75-83 program" and the "90-97 program". Moreover, currently the US is in the middle of another major modernization and rearmament program that will continue for the next five years. Despite of this obvious gap, Iraqi resistance has already been publicly qualified by the US as "fierce and resilient". Analysts believe that the correlation of losses is entirely acceptable to the Iraqis and they [ the analysts ] do not see any strategic coalition advantage in this war. Once again this proves that success in modern warfare is achieved not so much through technological superiority but primarily through training, competent command and resilience of the troops. Under such conditions even relatively old weapons can inflict heavy losses on a technologically-superior enemy.

Two enormous mistakes made by the US command during the planning stages of this war resulted in the obvious strategic failure. The US has underestimated the enemy. Despite the unique ability to conduct reconnaissance against the Iraqi military infrastructure through a wide network of agents implanted with the international teams of weapons inspectors, despite unlimited air dominance the US military command has failed to adequately evaluate combat readiness of the Iraqi army and its technical capabilities; the US has failed to correctly asses the social and political situation in Iraq and in the world in general. These failures led to entirely inadequate military and political decisions:

The coalition force was clearly insufficient for a such a large-scale operation. The number of deployed troops was at least 40% short of the required levels. This is the reason why today, after nine days of war, the US is forced to resort to emergency redeployment of more than 100,000 troops from the US territory and from Europe. This, in essence, is the same number of troops already fighting in Iraq.

The buildup and distribution of the coalition forces have been conducted with gross neglect of all basic rules of combat. All troops were massed in one small area, which led to five days of non-stop fighting to widen this area. The initial attack begun without any significant aerial or artillery preparation and almost immediately this resulted in reduced rate of advance and heated positional battles.

Today we can see that the US advance is characterized by disorganized and "impulsive" actions. The troops are simply trying to find weak spots in the Iraqi defenses and break through them until they hit the next ambush or the next line of defense.

Not a single goal set before the coalition forces was met on time.

During the nine days of the war the coalition has failed:

- to divide Iraq in half along the An-Nasiriya - Al-Ammara line,

- to surround and to destroy the Iraqi group of forces at Basra,

- to create an attack group between the Tigris and the Euphrates with a front toward Baghdad,

- to disrupt Iraq's military and political control, to disorganize Iraq's forces and to destroy the main Iraqi attack forces.

A whole range of problems that require their own solutions was uncovered directly on the battlefield. Thus, combat in Iraq raised serious concerns about the problem of coordination between units from different services. Limited decision-making time and the ability to detect and to engage an enemy at a great distance make "friendly fire" one of the most serious problems of modern warfare. For now the coalition has no adequate solution to this problem. At one location or another every day of this war the coalition troops were attacking friendly forces.

The second problem of the coalition is its inability to hold on to the captured territory. For the first time since the war in Vietnam the Americans have to deal with a partisan movement and with attacks against their [the US] lines of communication. Currently the coalition is rushing to form some sort of territorial defense units for guarding its supply lines and for maintaining order in the occupied territories.

A range of technical problems with equipment has been revealed during the combat operations. Most operators of the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank agree that the tank was inadequate for performing the set combat tasks. The primary problem is the extremely low reliability of the tank's engine and its transmission in desert conditions. Heat from the sun, hot sand and the constantly present hot dust in the air nearly nullified the advantages offered by the turret-mounted thermal sights. Visibility range of these sights did not exceed 300 meters during movement in convoy and reached up to 700-800 meters during stops. Only during cold nights did the visibility range reach 1000-1,500 meters. Additionally, a large number of thermal sights and other electronics simply broke down. The tiny crystalline sand particles caused electrical power surges and disabled electronic equipment.

This was the reason for the decision by the coalition command to stop movement of troops at night when a contact with the enemy was deemed likely.

The main strong side of the coalition forces was the wide availability of modern reconnaissance and communication systems that allowed to detect the enemy at long ranges and to quickly suppress the enemy with well-coordinated actions of different types of available forces.

In general the US soldiers showed sufficiently high combat resilience. Even in the extremely difficult weather conditions the troops maintained control structure and adequately interpreted the situation. Combat spirit remained high. The majority of troops remain confident in their abilities, while maintaining belief in the superiority of their weapons and maintaining reasonable confidence in the way the war is being fought.

It should be noted, however, that the way the war is being fought did create a certain sense of disappointment in most of the troops. Many are feeling that they've been lied to and are openly talking about the stupidity of the high command and its gross miscalculations. "Those star-covered Pentagon idiots promised us a victory march and flowers on the armor. What we got instead were those damned fanatics fighting for every dune and the sand squeaking in your ass!" said one of the wounded recuperating at a hospital in Rammstein. [ Reverse translation from Russian ]

Nevertheless, despite the sand storms the terrain favors the coalition actions by allowing it to employ their entire arsenal of weapons at the greatest possible range, which makes it difficult for the Iraqis to conduct combat operations outside of populated areas.

Overestimating the abilities of its airborne forces was a weak side of the coalition. Plans for a wide-scale use of helicopters as an independent force did not materialize. All attempts by the US command to organize aerial and ground operations through exclusive use of airborne forces have failed. Because of these failures by the end of the fourth day of the war all airborne units were distributed across the coalition units and used by the attacking forces for reconnaissance, fire support, and for containing the enemy. The main burden of combat was carried by the "heavy" mechanized infantry and tank units.

Another serious drawback in the coalition planning was the exceptionally weak protection in the rear of the advancing forces. This resulted in constant interruptions in fuel supply. Tank units sometimes spent up to 6 hours standing still with empty fuel tanks, in essence, being targets for the Iraqis. Throughout the war delivery of food, ammunition and fuel remains a headache for the US commanders.

Among the US soldiers there has been a wide-scale discontent with the quality of the new combat rations. Servicemen are openly calling these rations "shitty." Many soldier just take the biscuits and the sweets and discard the rest of the ration. Commanders of the combat units are demanding from the coalition command to immediately provide the troops with hot food and to review the entire contents of the combat ration.

Among the strong sides of the Iraqi troops are their excellent knowledge of the terrain, high quality of defensive engineering work, their ability to conceal their main attack forces and their resilience and determination in defense. The Iraqis have shown good organization in their command and communication structures as well as decisive and and well-planned strategy.

Among the drawbacks of the Iraqi forces is the bureaucratic inflexibility of their command, when all decisions are being made only at the highest levels. Their top commanders also tend to stick to standard "template" maneuvers and there is insufficient coordination among the different types of forces.

At the same time commanders of the [iraqi] special operations forces are making good use of the available troops and weapons to conduct operations behind the front lines of the enemy. They use concealment, show cunning and imagination.<span id='postcolor'>

[Cloney 0]

That article makes it sound like we are loosing the war and the Iraqis are conducting an effective guerilla war on our supply lines. So they ambushed a small supply convoy? Thats 12 guys out of the thousands that traverse those supply lines every day. If you look at it that way you see that the Iraqis are far from success.

Like I said, it makes it sound like we are loosing the war, the morale of our troops is dropping and vietnam style protests are imminent.

Which is far from the truth.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 29 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The latest War in Iraq entry at

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

has an interesting and in my opinion quite accurate analysis of the war so far. It makes a few disputable claims but i agree in full that the diplomatic failures have had a real effect on the battlefield.<span id='postcolor'>

It's certainly a good analysis and it's certainly from a source with up to date information about the onging war. There are certain details that correlate very good with my own sources and that as far as I know have not been reported in the media. What it is lacking is an analysis of the damage sustained by the Iraqis so far. If it is left out by intent or by lack of information is difficult to tell.

They have also the following information:

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

March 28, 2003, 1448hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - According to the latest intercepted radio communications, the command of the coalition group of forces near Karabela requested at least 12 more hours to get ready to storm the town. This delay is due to the much heavier losses sustained by the coalition troops during the sand storms then was originally believed. Just the US 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division sustained more than 200 disabled combat vehicles of various types. The 101st Airborne Division reported some 70 helicopters as being disabled. Additionally, the recently delivered reinforcements require rest and time to prepare for combat.

At the same time the US forces have resumed attacks near An-Nasiriya and An-Najaf since 0630hrs and are continuously increasing the intensity of these attacks. During the night and early morning of March 28 the Iraqi positions in these areas were subjected to eight aerial assaults by bombers and ground attack aircraft. However, so far [the coalition] was unable to penetrate the Iraqi defenses.

Also during the early morning the British units begun advancing along the Fao peninsula. Latest radio intercepts from this area show that under a continuous artillery and aerial bombardment the Iraqis have begun to gradually withdraw their forces toward Basra.

First firefights between troops of the US 82nd Airborne Division and the Iraqi forces occurred in northern Iraq in the area of Mosula. At the same time the arrival of up to 1,500 Kurdish troops has been observed in this area. So far it is not clear to which of the many Kurdish political movements these troops belong. Leaders of the largest Kurdish workers party categorically denied participation of their troops. They believe that these may be units of one of the local tribes not controlled by the central authorities of the Kurdish autonomy and "ready to fight with anyone" for money.

According to verified information, during the past 48 hours of the Iraqi counterattacks the coalition forces sustained the following losses: up to 30 killed, over 110 wounded and 20 missing in action; up to 30 combat vehicles lost or disabled, including at least 8 tanks and 2 self-propelled artillery systems, 2 helicopters and 2 unmanned aerial vehicles were lost in combat. Iraqi losses are around 300 killed, up to 800 wounded, 200 captured and up to 100 combat vehicles 25 of which were tanks. Most of the [ Iraqi ] losses were sustained due to the artillery fire and aerial bombardment that resumed by the evening of March 27.

<span id='postcolor'>

Credibility? Difficult to tell. From the previously posted analysis one can as I said conclude that they indeed do have military intel sources. If this had been five years ago, I would have no doubt about the authenticity of the report. The GRU has however gotten its shit together since then and they would not leak stuff like this unless they really wanted to. So while those numbers could very well be real they could also be presented to support Russian interests. The numbers do add up and IMO represent a believable ratio of Anglo-American/Iraqi casualties and losses. I'd still have some reservations before directly accepting it as the undisputable truth. So my final verdict is that I do believe it may very well be accurate while keeping in mind that there are other interests at play here.

[Cloney 0]

Iraqi Civilians feed hungry US Marines

Yep, they all hate us. I'm sure a gesture like these really raises the morale of the troops on the frontline. Especially how the civilians are telling them they are very welcome. I'm sure that this means a lot to the average 19 year-old Marine infantryman.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Mar. 29 2003,22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi Civilians feed hungry US Marines<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. The supply line situation must be really bad. Wasn't this supposed to go the other way around?