Article

2007-01-04 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-01-04 07:50|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

It doesn't matter how many troops if you don't have the will to use them to win. You demonstrate that will by removing the restrictions and interferences that you impose upon the ones you already have. War is hell.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-01-04 08:49|| 2007-01-04 08:49|| Front Page Top

#2 the vast fleet of C-5 transports

?

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-04 09:54|| 2007-01-04 09:54|| Front Page Top

#3 Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral

You don't phueching say?

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-04 09:55|| 2007-01-04 09:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Article: Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.

The problem isn't that there aren't enough forces to take the fight to the enemy. It's that there aren't enough forces to garrison the whole area and prevent the enemy from showing his face. The enemy doesn't seek out our strong points. Most of the time, he doesn't stand and fight at all, preferring to plink (not very effectively, but that's his strategy - and it makes sense*) at our people using snipers and mines. When we come out in force, he just stows his weapons and waits for another opportunity. A surge in troop count should help, but not because they will be used in large scale operations - heck, we killed large numbers of the Taliban using perhaps a few hundred Special Ops people.

* Traditionally, what you do to get guerrillas to come out and fight is to kill the population that feeds and arms them. That, and not killing for the sake of killing, was why throughout history, armies have ravaged civilian populations during their wars of conquest. Guerrillas have families, too. Go after their families, and they'll show up to defend them.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-04 10:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-04 10:22|| Front Page Top

#5 "Traditionally, what you do to get guerrillas to come out and fight is to kill the population that feeds and arms them. That, and not killing for the sake of killing, was why throughout history, armies have ravaged civilian populations during their wars of conquest. Guerrillas have families, too. Go after their families, and they'll show up to defend them."

Absolutely, positively Zhang. If the good general means what he says, we don't need more troops. We start massive attacks on entire areas of Baghdad with the intention of leveling it. No survivors. This will be effective. Just bring in napalm and heavy artillery. Put the troops already there on the perimeter and execute anyone trying to sneek away. Do you concur and support, el generale ? We don't need more troops, just more action. Your call for more troops only indicates your real purpose, more door to door hand holding. Let's reach a concensus. Either we exterminate these useless bastards or we withdraw. It's a clear choice.

Posted by SpecOp35 2007-01-04 11:50|| 2007-01-04 11:50|| Front Page Top

#6 It doesn't matter how many troops if you don't have the will to use them to win.

EXACTAMUNDO! The troops we have there already could make short work of the problem, given the free reign to do so. More troops in Iraq with the same "rules of engagement" and PC micromanagement = more IED and ambush casualties.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-01-04 13:38|| 2007-01-04 13:38|| Front Page Top

#7 We don't need no stinkin ROE.

Posted by wxjames 2007-01-04 16:10|| 2007-01-04 16:10|| Front Page Top

#8 "there aren't enough troops to garrison the whole area" is the core of the issue which is mostly avoided by strategists. Killing off the civilian population is most easily done by blockade, artillery or bombardment. Going after the sources of terrorism (SA & Iran) won't be done due to the oil export/import standoff. Maybe the Iraqis will save Iraq.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-04 19:53|| 2007-01-04 19:53|| Front Page Top

#9 Keegan should consider retirement. 50,000 or 500,000 troops won't matter a damn with our welfare as warfare policy. If the US were bloody mined enough, 5,000 troops could control the entire country. Instead we've allowed western oriented Iraqis and exiles to be murdered (Ayatollah al-Khoei), run out (Pachachi) and marginalized (Allawi). Instead Iraq is entirely controlled by Iran exiles (Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq or Badr Brigades or Dawa) or Iranian agents (Sadr of Badr Brigades, probably Chalabi). Hell, even the Talibani the Kurd was just caught sponsoring Iranian agents who were teaching them how to make armor piercing IEDs. SCIRI, Dawa, and Badr with the Kurds ARE the Iraqi government.

We've partially thrown off slavish devotion to the Saudi master manipulators only to become unpaid Janissaries for our most impplacable enemy, the Iranians. When the Sunni have been run off or beaten down so bad they can't be rearmed and used against the Shiites, you can bet the full attention of the Iranians and Shiites will be turned on our troops.

All many Americans ask is can we get some revenge for the muslims twice trying to wipe out 250,000 American civilians and succeeding in killing 3,000 and gutting the center of our premier city? IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD?

Posted by ed 2007-01-04 21:03|| 2007-01-04 21:03|| Front Page Top

15:15 wxjames
23:46 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:32 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:30 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:23 SteveS
23:22 Verlaine
23:20 ed
23:16 Mike N.
23:13 USN, ret.
23:11 USN, ret.
23:11 SteveS
23:06 ed
23:02 mrp
23:01 JosephMendiola
23:01 USN, ret.
23:00 Frank G
22:54 USN, ret.
22:52 Killer Rabbit
22:49 Frank G
22:49 USN, ret.
22:47 Frank G
22:46 Frank G
22:45 ed
22:45 Frank G