The Iraq thread 3

[ran 0]

If we are being attacked "smack in the middle of urban areas," then of course airstrikes will be called "smack in the middle of urban areas." Where our tactics differ is in that we are selective of our targets and strive to eliminate both collateral damage and the death of innocent life.

You answer according to the aggression. You do not in any case call in an airstrike of any kind in a (densely) populated area. Urban battles aren't won by dropping LGB's or any kind of explosives.

[Bernadotte 0]

If we are being attacked "smack in the middle of urban areas," then of course airstrikes will be called "smack in the middle of urban areas."

It seems to me that, unless it is your base that is being shot at smack in the middle of an urban area, it is you who are attacking and receiving return fire in the process. In which case, it is an offensive air strike on an urban area that you would be launching.

[denoir 0]

It was not random bombing though.  It's not like we carpet-bombed the city.  Considering we have guidance systems that can precision-guide bombs and missiles to land just about anywhere we want them to, do you honestly think we would just indiscriminantly drop a bomb in the middle of a city unless there was something in particular it was being dropped on?

If we are being attacked "smack in the middle of urban areas," then of course airstrikes will be called "smack in the middle of urban areas."  Where our tactics differ is in that we are selective of our targets and strive to eliminate both collateral damage and the death of innocent life.

You are basing your argument on two flawed assumptions and they are:

1) That you know exactly the location of those that you wish to kill.

2) Those that you wish to kill are not in civillian dense positions.

Both assumptions fall flat when it comes to urban combat. The resistance moves easily from place to place and they move in an urban environment full of civillians.

No matter how precise your weapons are, if you cannot aim them correctly then precision is a non-issue. Furthermore even the most precise weapons have a certain destructive power. You don't drop an LGB on the head of your opponent. You blow out the building he is in. And if that building contains civillians then they get killed too.

And this is what makes the 90% civillian casualties a reasonable estimate. In an urban environment you can only hope to do slightly better than to kill at random when you drop bombs.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Yes, the logic does seem a little strange. 'If we invade another country and then after an uprising blockade a particular city and send assault troops into it, we must of course bomb from the air those who attack us within that city, thats obviously self-defense of the last resort!'

Well it seems consistent with the actions of other invaders throughout history anyway.

[NavyEEL 0]

Oh please calling a airstrike right smack in the middle of civilian neighbourhoods is bound tohave collateral damage along with civilian casualties its a simple forseeable issue doesnt require lots of thought.

This in other words is indiscriminate , and dont bring the 'do you honestly think we would just indiscriminantly drop a bomb' , we all know how much thse bombs cost and how and who they are dropped on except that the judgement of the folks on the ground over what consitutes a threat to them that requires such measures is in question.

An airstrike is bound to have collateral damage, just as a war is bound to have collateral damage.  I'm glad you can see that people dying and property being destroyed is not a result of American aggression or lack of respect for Iraqis, but it is simply a by-product of being involved in war.  If calling in a precision airstrike is not an acceptable way to protect your troops when they come under attack, then what is?  

[ran 0]

If calling in a precision airstrike is not an acceptable way to protect your troops when they come under attack, then what is?

Returning fire with individual and collective weapons, requesting armor support (even if it's in the middle of an urban area, the command should be able to attach a few infantry squads to the tanks as support. If the shit really hits then fan then you call in CLOSE air support (a gunship or any armed helicopter). Is it too hard to apply suppressive fire on KNOWN enemy positions with squad weapons ?

-edit- and if it gets really bad, no obstination needed, just leave the spot, it's not a fucking western.

Denoir pointed it all out already

[NavyEEL 0]

If calling in a precision airstrike is not an acceptable way to protect your troops when they come under attack, then what is?  

Returning fire with individual and collective weapons, requesting armor support (even if it's in the middle of an urban area, the command should be able to attach a few infantry squads to the tanks as support. If the shit really hits then fan then you call in CLOSE air support (a gunship or any armed helicopter).

If those aren't available? And there happens to be a friendly aircraft nearby with attack capabilities? I don't think we can accurately assess the situation without being there, but an airstrike should not automatically be ruled out simply because it seems "overpowering".... especially since we do not know exactly what kind of resistance our soldiers were facing.

I agree 100% with your assessment that returning fire with individual weapons, armor, and CAS would be most effective and preferable in this situation. In addition, I know that the majority of other US soldiers agree. This is why I do not believe that a bomb would be needlessly dropped into a city, knowing the collateral damage it would cause. American soldiers, especially officers who are the ones giving commands, are not even close to being that incompetent. Do you think that someone would be trained on how to call in an airstrike without undergoing training on when it is appropriate to use such a strike? I certainly do not.

[MLF 0]

i think NavyEEL has hit it on the head, the thing is the Media like to make it out as though at every oppertunity they have dropped LGB's but the only one we have actually heard of is the one near or on that Mosque, im pretty sure that the commanders on ground made the choices based on there training and the level of threat they faced, just because they are Americans does not mean they are incompetent.

[bucket man 2]

It is understandable that civilian casualties are high altough sometimes I get the feeling that the broblem is with some US soldiers on the ground.

It is after all easier to call in an airstrike than exchange fire with insurgents for many hours. While it is highly bossible that civilians get killed, I am almost sure that any officer places hes men over those civilians.

That is understandable but still a very sad thing. Atleast from iraqi civilians point of view.

[ran 0]

If calling in a precision airstrike is not an acceptable way to protect your troops when they come under attack, then what is?

Returning fire with individual and collective weapons, requesting armor support (even if it's in the middle of an urban area, the command should be able to attach a few infantry squads to the tanks as support. If the shit really hits then fan then you call in CLOSE air support (a gunship or any armed helicopter).

If those aren't available? And there happens to be a friendly aircraft nearby with attack capabilities?

Those should be available, you don't go on a boys scout trip without the right tools.

American officers and leaders are far from being incompetent, i'm sure of it, but I still think an airstrike with a laser guided bomb was too much.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Let us remember a few things:

Iraqi civilians are not to blame for the terrible situation in Iraq.

Nor are US soldiers to blame for the situation in Iraq.

That dishonour falls solely and squarely on the shoulders of TBA and TBA2.

We as forum members in this thread discussed the disquietingly low numbers of US troops on the ground fully 5 month ago.

I think we all agreed there were serious strategic errors being purpatrated by TBA and TBA2 both interms of the failure to address the security situation with sufficient and correctly trained troops and in terms of the focus on Oil and not infrastructure in Iraq. In fact the first Coalition Govenor of Iraq was replaced because he placed the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure over the rebuilding of the oil business and getting it privatised.

I draw your attention to this post and those around it that clearly show the failures in TBA's and TBA2's strategy in Iraq were visible back then late november early December and that we were discusing them and what the experts on this forum. I refer to those who done successful peacekeeping duties round the world and who contribute to this thread.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote (walker @ Nov. 30 2003,02:22)

You must own the ground by soldiers on each street corner

You loose face with civilians in an occupied country when you fail to achieve your aims.

Quote (Crazysheep @ Nov. 30 2003,04:06)  

I disagree there; I think winning public support is a better way of weakening resistance. If you have soldiers on every street corner, it leads to three problems:

1) Iraqis will feel their security is being invaded and begin to resent troops

Quote (walker @ Nov. 30 2003,02:22)

Yes that is true in short term but they will also feel safer as there will be less crime and see my reply to point 3

Quote (Crazysheep @ Nov. 30 2003,04:06)

2) It would be quite easy for Iraqis to take shots at random troops from inside a building then run away

Quote (walker @ Nov. 30 2003,02:22)

Actualy no because there is a soldier on every corner you can close down streets meaning it is easier to catch the sniper. There is a secondary affect in that the resitance are prevented from moving weapons. There are going to be soldiers killed it is inevitable you just have to suck it up.

Quote (Crazysheep @ Nov. 30 2003,04:06)

3) Mistakes happen in war; more troops present would mean more civilians killed in the crossfire.

Quote (walker @ Nov. 30 2003,02:22)

Properly handled the soldiers can act as a conduit for inteligence and building a better relationship between the coalition and the civil population. This is the process the 101 Airborne and the UK Army are using. The main cause of civilian casulaties is wrong tactics and over reliance on technological weapons. Technology is great for intel or big wars but it just does not have the granularity to deal with a Guerilla war. The proper process is to swiftly form a cordon of the area of the attack. Invite all people to leave the area through a checkpoint with body search and chemical check for gunpowder residue. Conduct a house to house search in the area of the attack.

Quote (Crazysheep @ Nov. 30 2003,04:06)

So while temporarily making it harder for the resistance, it will give the resistance more supporters; then there might be relatively large scale attacks on a few more isolated guardposts, and some carnage on the streets. This will only cause problems.

Quote (walker @ Nov. 30 2003,02:22)

You are advocating giving up the land, that is when they own you. You sit in your secure bunker and have zero effect. To win you have to own the ground.

That means getting out, learning the language; how else do you know the intel? Learning the customs understanding the people round you. Then you will win over the people cause you are no longer the Alien invader. You are the guy down the street who's family photos they have seen and who helped you get a Job fixing the new power station or in the new factory making concrete.

This is after all the NEW purpose of the invasion after failing to find the WMD.

Kind Regards Walker

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=2895

If you folow the discusion we all had there, you will see that the signs of failure from then were obvious and that they were not failures of the US servicemen. They were failures of strategy at the political and millitary level. They were failures to have an exit strategy. They failures to understand. They were failures of leadership.

They were the Failures of George Bush Jnr. and the rest of TBA and TBA2

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

American soldiers, especially officers who are the ones giving commands, are not even close to being that incompetent.  Do you think that someone would be trained on how to call in an airstrike without undergoing training on when it is appropriate to use such a strike?  I certainly do not.

It's doctrine that miserably fails in urban combat. The US military has a general approach of "better safe then sorry". Why risk the lives of your soldiers clearing a building when you can drop a bomb on it?

It would seem that the US soldiers lack the training needed for MOUT. And that fits well with the miserable failure at Fallujah. It's tough luck but urban combat is expensive in terms of lives. Technological advantage means nothing. They tried to brute-force it and not surprisingly, they failed. Now they've realized that they'll have to kill most of the population to get to the resistance fighters and they try to get a truce. Ok, so what's next? Continue bombing and killing civillians? Or properly go in and clear the town, house by house, street by street with the consequence of a lot of US soldiers getting killed?

When it comes to urban combat, there is no simple solution. What we can conclude from the Fallujah case is that they did it the wrong way. Lots of people were killed and the town was not taken.

[MLF 0]

That dishonour falls solely and squarely on the shoulders of TBA and TBA2.

If by TBA2 you mean Tony Blair then i disagree the British troops are performing exelently in there job and progress is always on the UP, the are under British Control i would say is the most stable part of iraq.

[denoir 0]

That dishonour falls solely and squarely on the shoulders of TBA and TBA2.

If by TBA2 you mean Tony Blair then i disagree the British troops are performing exelently in there job and progress is always on the UP, the are under British Control i would say is the most stable part of iraq.

You mean like when Sadr's men took Basra without any form of fight?  

Quite embarrassing, I'd say.

The reason why British troops have run into less trouble is largely because they got the less troublesome part of the country. They do however also have more experience with peace keeping so I'm sure that it is a part of the equation.

Anyhow, that's not what walker was talking about. He was talking about Blair who by joining forces with Bush on his little war adventure brought Iraq into this disastrous state.

[walker 0]

That dishonour falls solely and squarely on the shoulders of TBA and TBA2.

If by TBA2 you mean Tony Blair then i disagree the British troops are performing exelently in there job and progress is always on the UP, the are under British Control i would say is the most stable part of iraq.

Hi MLF

I blame TBA because of strategic failures No reason to fight in the first place, No WMD, No Exit strategy, Not telling bush to ignore the oil and get the country back on its feet.

Dont assign UK millitary success to a failed priminister he was not there.

@Denoir yes the area is less trouble but it has been better administered than the sunni triangle as has the area administered by 101 airborne. You might like to check average age of those in 101 airborne.

Kind Regards Walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Without any sarcasm

Was anyone of you able to see a clear structure of the US military strategy in Iraq. To me it seems more like "it is a sunny day, lets see what the hours bring along today". Reactive instead of proactive. Or is this a strategy by itself. I wonder, realy I do!

[MLF 0]

That dishonour falls solely and squarely on the shoulders of TBA and TBA2.

If by TBA2 you mean Tony Blair then i disagree the British troops are performing exelently in there job and progress is always on the UP, the are under British Control i would say is the most stable part of iraq.

You mean like when Sadr's men took Basra without any form of fight?  

Quite embarrassing, I'd say.

When was Basra taken, i know there was an uprising and it was quelled with 30mm fire from a Warrior and some Diplomacy but it was nothing on the scale of Najaf or Fallujah

[Blake 0]

This is no Tet Offensive, I predict things start to cool down in a few months after extremist provocators realize there are limits to their recently acquired 'freedom of expression'...

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is no Tet Offensive

Indeed. This is a uprising of iraqis, shias and shunnis together. This is something different than "1000-6000 followers of bathist regime trying to create havoc" as Bush put it.

Even 1 battalion of 4 in total of iraqi army refused to fight against fellow iraqis in Fallujah.

Your prediction of the cooling down is quite premature, all the signs now points to more unrests and resistance.

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is no Tet Offensive

Indeed. This is a uprising of iraqis, shias and shunnis together.

They are not working together, they both dislike each other, although there is a trend that the US forces r pissing both sides off atm.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]This is no Tet Offensive

Indeed. This is a uprising of iraqis, shias and shunnis together.

They are not working together, they both dislike each other, although there is a trend that the US forces r pissing both sides off atm.

"The enemy of your enemy is your friend."

[EiZei 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1191437,00.html

Quote[/b] ]The recent uprising has raised questions about the political timetable for handing sovereignty back to Iraq on June 30, but Mr Bush vowed to stick to the programme.

"We have set a deadline of June 30th it is important that we meet that deadline," he said. "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America. We are not an imperial power, as nations such as Germany and Japan can attest. We are a liberating power."

Riiiight..

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]hey balschoiw, could you post a link to that article on the civilian toll in fallujah.

No as links to sites with disturbing gfx content are not allowed here.

It is AFP agency news. You should find them by googling with "Falluja civillian casualties".

Shouldn´t be too hard to do....

Quote[/b] ]This is no Tet Offensive, I predict things start to cool down in a few months after extremist provocators realize there are limits to their recently acquired 'freedom of expression'...

I don´t think so. Right now nothing has been decided on the roles of the several different "factions" in Iraq. Nothing has been fixed on the role each faction has in Iraq. The Kurds, Shia´s , Sunni´s....

Once the election process starts rolling the US intended way you will see another outbreak of violence. And this will be a larger one than now, I guarantee.

I fail to see the light in Iraq.

Edit:

Sidenote:

Poland, Bulgaria and Thailand are likely to pull out their troops of Iraq in June. No official confirmation yet, but it looks like the "coalition of the willing" is falling apart.

[-SOC-S--Griffon26-2lt- 0]

not sure if anyone knows ....or cares ..

a good part of the military familiy has passed on.

Scott Helvenston, was savagely butchered 31 March along with three other American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. In a despicable act of brutality, their bodies publicly disgraced by a gang of savage Islamic terrorists. It is a tragic loss for all of us that has brought the reality of Operation Iraqi Freedom closer to home. We pray our Military find these murdering terrorists thugs and deal with them with the most extreme prejudice.

Scott Helvenston was the youngest Navy SEAL in history and then a SEAL Instructor for 12 years. He’s the guy who got Demi Moore in that incredible shape for the movie G.I. Jane. He was a two-time Gold Medal World Pentathlete winner and an incredible athlete. You should remember Scott as the last man standing on the TV show "Combat Missions" with Rudy giving him hell. He was so good, that he beat the beast every time on "Man against the Beast."

For those of you that would like to contribute to the memorial fund for Scott's kids, please send a check to:

Kyle & Kelsey Helvenston

Memorial Fund

P.O. Box 895006

Leesburg, Fla.

34789-5006

Thanks ...

[Balschoiw 0]

I wish you would post a comparable thing for every innocent civillian killed in Iraq.

People get killed. It´s war.

He knew it could get dangerous. He knew about the risks.

He died. Like others did in thousands.