Posted on 03/29/2003 6:09:00 AM PST by LS
"Iraq set for more sandstorms"
Don't suppose the Marines would use the cover of these sand storms to move into position do you?
Interesting as I have been making a personal observation of how the left-wing divides from right-wing when it comes especially to supporting the president, in general, and this war, specifically. Those who have served stand firmly on the right, even those who voted for Gore or others. Like the term "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal", I believe you are right; after the war we might need a new term.
I am not military but I have to wonder about this. Wasn't the tunnel rat the most dangerous occupation in wartime Vietnam? Are you saying Saddam's tunnels are safer than the VC's? (Respectfully)
Putting myself in the military planners' shoes, I would notice first the need to maximize effectiveness given the political and manpower constraints. That translates to me to "use all possible non-military advantages available".
Note: including an "adversarial" domestic press corps!
The press gets it wrong so much of the time, why not utilize that fact to full advantage? The easiest way would be to arrange it so that the press does not view the full strength of the military position as it advances; shield a portion of the position from the press. The adversarial press would then report weakness, holes, and failed tactics, while advantage is stealthily being gained on the actual battlefield.
That way, the multibillion dollar mainstream media industry can be used profitably to military advantage, with no loss of life. It is too good of an opportunity to pass up.
This is why press reports, at least at this early stage, do not bother me much if they report bad news.
The only reason not to do this, in my view, would be if the administration had any respect for the press. Watching a couple of press conferences being held by Fleischer, I get the impression that they don't (and that the press doesn't deserve any).
I am somewhat more pessimistic than this. As everyone seems to agree these days, urban warfare is the toughest form. And civilians are concentrated in the urban areas. Therefore Saddam's best defense seems as if it would be to hold onto urban Baghdad at all costs. Counter to this in my estimation is embodied by the expression "we own the night". That would seem to imply that the time needed to control Baghdad would be regulated by the need to hold position without advancing during daylight hours, to minimize troop and civilian casualties. I would think the measure of success would be a comparison with someplace such as Beirut. That is, anything short of total destruction of Baghdad could be viewed as a success, at least by military terms. Not to cast aspersions-- just one line item in the necessary cost of war.
However, yes, obviously, they are much different. We are talking concrete (not mud) and modernized bunker-type tunnels more like those of Nazi headquarters. I'm convinced if we get inside one or two of these, because of his need to be mobile, it would lead to all others. Even if he blows one, you could probably dig through pretty quickly. And he can't blow all of them. So this is not at all like Vietnam.
But this is the last resort---it's all moot when Saddam, his sons, and one or two of his top thugs are room temperature. You cannot convince me that many of these people will continue fighting for a "regime" that exists only in their minds.
I suppose I had booby traps in mind, along with lack of a quick escape route.
I disagree. Someone else posted yesterday that the way to do this is to clear a zone, move the people out, check them thoroughly, then readmit the "free Iraq" loyalists to the cleared zone. At this point you would need the "free Iraq" people close by to help clear people in and out.
Clearing a zone to begin with is, I would think, the hardest part.
But this is the last resort---it's all moot when Saddam, his sons, and one or two of his top thugs are room temperature. You cannot convince me that many of these people will continue fighting for a "regime" that exists only in their minds.
I would not be so optimistic. Support for Saddam crosses national boundaries, and is common to many Arabs in the region. But what it really is, I think, is a cameraderie based on common ethnic, linguistic, religious, economic, and political ties. In such an environment, killing Saddam will probably elevate him to martyr status, without necessarily resolving immediately all the issues that gave rise to the cameraderie to begin with. Some Iraqi leader in exile such as Khoumeni could even pop up. I don't like it, but that is how I see it. Although I do agree that it would be nice if the local population were to give up the fight after Saddam was gone.
Is someone reading FR?
Your point is at least the 2nd time a Japanese reporter has asked a point blank question at CENTCOM briefing and gotten a non-response. The other was a question about which did Iraq receive technical assistance with their anti-shipping mines that were found their ports. These are intelligent questions receiving a lot of silence unlike the really dumb and insulting questions we normally hear from the world press.
Do you think CentCom should be giving up strategy and tactics because a reporter asks an intelligent question? The Japanese appear to have their neurons firing, while the remainder of the (mostly ignorant) press are more interested in propaganda shots at the U.S. -- but that doesn't mean they deserve to have their questions answered.
If the north is the heavens, then I say, "look to the skies!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.