Posted on 09/30/2002 2:10:01 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:09:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
DURING the Gulf War, Israel absorbed 39 Iraqi Scud missiles without retaliation. In recent days, senators from both parties have raised the alarm that an Israeli response this time around would lead to a wider war - we'd find ourselves fighting the entire Arab world.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Problem would be getting to fight, that's all.
Even the lessons of RVN are now forgotten when discussions take place about asymmetric warfare. The unchallenged assumption is that we were beaten by an unconventional guerilla force because of their determination to throw us out of the country. Untrue. They won that conflict in the newspapers of our own country, in the halls of Congress, and in executive office staff conferences. Our military application of availanle resources was limited by politics not by potential.
Oh yes. March up 500,000 soldiers with rifles. In the sand.
Can you say "testing ground"? I'd like to test cluster bombs. Bet there is even more fun stuff that needs testing :).
No, I don't think so. This isn't Korea anymore, or the Iran-Iraq war. Human-wave attacks will do nothing but get all the humans in the wave killed. Come to think of it, that's what happened to the Iranian untrained soldiers used in mass attacks.
A modern army just has too much firepower. Massed attacks can only be effective in a limited scale ambush in rugged country where modern firepower cannot be brought to bear.
A big AMEN to that! Enough of the pathetic, fearful, scaremongering.
As for civilians fighting, a case in point are the “Sammis” in Mogadishu. Sure we dropped a lot of them but they kept coming.
Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on. If we had left South Korea after the truce, I'm sure the end would have been the same.
Basically, you don't know how the masses will react to a full-blown invasion of their nation.
We were lucky in Afghanistan. There was a strong, well-equipted opposition force waiting to help out when we arrived.
I believe if you will go back and review the facts that you will find that we hit the RG hard in their own barracks and in the field. Their decision to withdraw any distance at all was influenced greatly by their losses.
As for civilians fighting, a case in point are the “Sammis” in Mogadishu. Sure we dropped a lot of them but they kept coming.
We were certainly facing a conglomeration of militia kinds of forces there. No "organized" forces were in existence. We also, thanks to X42 did not have a full menu of capabilities to deal with the situation, e.g. no armored options and a meager air attack capability. The political will to kill our attackers was a direct result of Clintons policy to not turn our meals on wheels program into a full fledged military capability to defeat some two-bit warlords armed with rat scout jeeps and RPGs. Our underequipped forces acquitted themselves well, killing over 1,000 of the attacking rabble despite setting out on a 30 minute raid.
Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on. If we had left South Korea after the truce, I'm sure the end would have been the same.
You missed my point entirely. Please reread the original post.
Basically, you don't know how the masses will react to a full-blown invasion of their nation.
One never knows for sure. I recounted the history of islamic forces when faced with overwhelming firepower. You need look no further than the Israeli defense to get an idea. In every conflict, the trained iislamic attackers abandoned their positions and vehicles to escape their perceived annihilation. You do not remember our Iraqi opponents surrendering to CNN reporters? You do not remember seeing video of our soldiers pointing surrendering Iraqis to rear positions without supervision because the numbers of surrenders were just too large to deal with?
We were lucky in Afghanistan. There was a strong, well-equipted opposition force waiting to help out when we arrived.
Luck had very little to do with it. That was engineered. Do not forget that there are large groups of dissidents, e.g. Kurds who would like nothing better than to kill a few Iraqis. Saddam has killed off a lot of members of opposing clans who would love to exact revenge under their own islamic codes of (dis)honor. His murders over time number at least in the hundreds of thousands. This does not breed a fierce monolithic loyalty.
Because it was America's will to fight on that was destroyed, and that was destroyed by Americans - basically the same crowd that today wants appeasement with the Arabs and destruction of American society, and of Israel.
You left out something critical
If Iraq or a handful of nation sympathizers generate several hundred to thousand portable WMD and then distributed these to any disparate group or individual who had no 'homeland'. And further, if Hussein promotes the identical incentive to fight 'America', which he promoted to his people when they invaded Kuwait,.....then an assymetric warfare would arise within the borders of the US with the spoils of 'war' as whatever was leftover for the grabs of those seeking to loot the US.
Consider this scenerio for a moment.
If multiple WMD were used within the US, even a handful, and a large number still remained distributed amongst disparate groups, then even a retaliatory strike wouldn't remove that threat, but most likely we would suffer continued attack.
If such activity were linked to Iraq, then most probably a grouping from Europe would invade southerly to seize the region, the Chinese would probably invade from the east to seize the area with overwhelming numbers, and even a coalition from the African continent would seek to defend its interests by moving north.
Even during WWII, I don't recall another series of events this close to reality, which all seem to converge upon descriptions of the Apocalyse in Scripture.
A nations without walls being attacked for its loot, Kingdom of the East with 200 million invading across the Euphrates. An idenitfication of likely groups forming kingdoms of the north and south where the kingdom of the west (the US) is naturally not mentioned.
An interesting Prophecy,...but then again some people just really believe the Bible is myth. Of course if its just myth then this really wouldn't be happening?????? or just maybe it isn't quite so mythical.
On July 1, 1916, at the Somme, 27 British and French divisiions -- 750,000 men -- had been assembled over a 30 kilometer front. The German lines had been bombarded for eight solid days by 1,500 pieces of heavy artillery.
By the end of the first day, the British army casualties totalled 57,470. By the end of the battle, the cost was 420,000 British casualties plus 200,000 French casualties.
The British and French gained 12 kilometers of ground.
Such tactics had become obsolete two generations earlier.
On June 3, 1864, at Cold Harbor, Virginia, 50,000 Union troops from three Union corps climbed out of their trenches and advanced in a two-mile-long line against entrenched Confederate positions defended by men armed with muzzle-loaders.
In half an hour, they had lost 7,000 men and retreated.
Grant ordered another attack. The Union soldiers all along the line refused to obey. One Capt. T.E. Barker said, "I will not take my regiment in another such charge if Jesus Christ himself should order it!"
Five hundred thousand Arab troops (assuming they were secretly and safely transported over desert terrain over which Israel enjoys total air superiroty with modern aircraft and assuming they have a massive infusion of courage that they have seldom shown on the battlefield) will fare no better against Israeli defenses especially in desert terrain where the Israeli Air Force owns 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.