Article

2005-09-27 Iraq

Zark seizes 5 towns along the Syrian border

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 Dan Darling 2005-09-27 14:18|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I have great confidence in the USMC and US forces generally, but .... would it kill us to just ONCE maybe show a little razzle-dazzle .... instead of telegraphing every move weeks in advance, use our resources to surge large forces overnight and establish an instant cordon around a given town .... and rush in depending on chaos and superior training and equipment to harvest all the vermin, instead of just a %? If the nitwits are emptying the towns of non-combatants, it seems they're virtually begging to be slaughtered.

Unit rotations here are depicted in colorful graphics that detail all the movements of US forces in and out of the theater. Many of the larger units' movements are a amply publicized in the US and world media even before they leave CONUS. Would it be impossible to just bring in some combat power without warning? Either I'm missing something, or we've completely abandoned maneuver, surprise, and local concentration of superior force. I'm puzzled.

Posted by Verlaine in Iraq 2005-09-27 14:40|| 2005-09-27 14:40|| Front Page Top

#2 We abandoned it long ago. Politicians and sleezy generals need sound bites don't ya know? I'm all for a sudden, unexpected and previously untelegraphed MRLS barrage on the towns followed by a swift assault by mechanized infantry. Kill 'em all (since the civilians are gone) and stack up the bodies. THEN bring in the press.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-09-27 15:23|| 2005-09-27 15:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Basically, the insurgents say if they don't leave they will ... behead them,
Would it help us with the MSM,if we did this?
After all, it's what "minutemen" do, I've been told by the Michael Moore's of the world.

Posted by plainslow 2005-09-27 16:21|| 2005-09-27 16:21|| Front Page Top

#4 Verlaine, good points. But why does a dawg lick it's balls?

Posted by halfEmpty 2005-09-27 16:46|| 2005-09-27 16:46|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually telegraphing that we're going in and the scumbags not being able to do a damn thing about it is more demoralizing to their supporters than a quick lightning unannounced attack that they would spin into being an irrelevant victory for the good guys.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2005-09-27 16:57|| 2005-09-27 16:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Verlaine, if we were going to do that, why not, while we're at it, make it an even 100,000 new troops and STOMP DOWN HARD on the northwest area once and for all. I'm sick of this death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Posted by jolly roger 2005-09-27 18:07|| 2005-09-27 18:07|| Front Page Top

#7 Zarq kicking the civilians out only means one thing: he is more concerned about them tipping off their location to the Coalition than he is concerned about having human shields.

Posted by Captain America 2005-09-27 18:56|| 2005-09-27 18:56|| Front Page Top

#8 I have a baaaaad feeling about this:

Normally, the Jihadis would PREVENT people from leaving, for the purpose of providing human shields, and as propaganda fodder when Americans accidentally kill civilians (trust the MSM to omit the fact that the Jihadis have killed more civilians than the Americans have). Why drive them away and INVITE the response that verlaine is pining for?

speculative scenario (that I hope is dreafully wrong): Saddam's WMD is about to turn up. American and Iraqui soldiers attack the town to eliminate the Jihadis, and they set the WMD off, taking themselves and lots of Americans with them.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-09-27 18:58|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-09-27 18:58|| Front Page Top

#9 Meh, if they were concerned about civilians, they'd evacuate 'em back into Syria. Anyways, this is Zarqawi's devil-worshippers. Dead babies, mommas and grandpas make them giggle like schoolgirls. Why would WMD change matters? They planted a crude chemical-dirty bomb in Tal Afar in such a fashion as to encourage heavy civilian casualties.

No, this is them trying to drive out the local anti-al Queda tribe. I seem to remember hearing about the border in that area dividing up into a pro- and anti-Queda set of tribes. Sounds like the anti-Quedas have gotten their asses tanned.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2005-09-27 19:15|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2005-09-27 19:15|| Front Page Top

#10 insurgents loyal to militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Zark is dead.

Posted by 2b 2005-09-27 21:00|| 2005-09-27 21:00|| Front Page Top

#11 time to remind Syria what "hot pursuit" and "aiding and abetting insurgents against a sovereign country" means? Walk the artillery back to our front lines

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-09-27 21:06|| 2005-09-27 21:06|| Front Page Top

#12 I detect a shrinking of the theater. Next week will it be three towns ? Two towns ? What will we do when our boots choke out their last breaths ?

Posted by wxjames 2005-09-27 21:06|| 2005-09-27 21:06|| Front Page Top

#13 I should've sadi "Start at Syria and walk..."

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-09-27 21:08|| 2005-09-27 21:08|| Front Page Top

#14 2b, please elaborate on the "Zark is dead" comment.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2005-09-27 22:55|| 2005-09-27 22:55|| Front Page Top

00:02 C-Low
23:56 JosephMendiola
23:56 anon1
23:54 anon1
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 C-Low
23:44 Phil Fraering
23:32 asedwich
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:28 closedanger
23:13 Frank G
23:09 Alaska Paul
23:01 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:55 Edward Yee
22:55 Whiskey Mike
22:53 Frank G
22:51 CrazyFool
22:49 MunkarKat
22:47 Frank G
22:46 DMFD
22:46 CrazyFool
22:41 Tony (UK)
22:40 DMFD