Skip to comments.
Top US military planner fears a 'likely' repeat of Somalia bloodbath [in Iraq]
The Independent ^
| 15 March 2003
| Andrew Buncombe
Posted on 03/16/2003 9:32:38 AM PST by Hoppean
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: Fitzcarraldo
>>Israel instantly retailiates with nuclear weapons targeted for Baghdad...<<
Israel will give us time to back away from ground zero.
To: Hoppean
Yep. A possible, even likely, outcome.
Another is that all the Muslim states we dislike - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt - will be drawn into the conflict and smashed. The carcasses would then be divided among the conquerors, with the carrion going to the vultures who stayed on the sidelines during the conflict.
War always entails risk. Unless you believe the current leadership - led by the son of the President who presided over the war which Turner so admires - are complete morons, you have to know that they are well-aware of Turner's arguments and have decided to reject them because they believe the war must be fought regardless of the risks.
To: Hoppean
Colonel Turner said the US had made the mistake of fixing its sights early on ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. This plan had met stiff opposition from the uniformed staff within the Pentagon, but the administration had chosen this focus regardlessly. The president has specifically said that the mission is to "disarm Iraq and institute regime change." They have specifically said that capturing Saddam was not the mission. It is an objective somewhere down the line of objectives.
23
posted on
03/16/2003 9:50:32 AM PST
by
xzins
(Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
To: mystery-ak
(Saddam...your time is almost up..my hubby and son are on their way to kick your a$$ out of Baghdad!)I hope your hubby and son, personally, have the opportunity to do just that!
God bless them! And, God bless you!
DC2K Former Navy Pilot/Viet Nam Vet's Wife
24
posted on
03/16/2003 9:50:51 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(THIS dixiechick is a patriot! THOSE Dixie Chicks are traitors!)
To: homeagain balkansvet
This war....will last no more than 10 days...kill probably less than 200 civilians (human shields don't count as real people...remember)...and probably have less than 100 American casualities. It is quiet likely that 75 percent of Iraqi army units will stand down as the US forces advance...allowing them the fastest advance in any US campaign ever. The only place where blood will be seen is Baghdad...and the faithful Republican Guard will give a last ditch defense of Saddam. My guess is that they will suffer high rates of death. My guess is that most of Saddam's personal staff and family will meet at some deep buried complex and believe that US munitions will not reach them. US munitions will reach them...and terminate them.
And when all the smoke has cleared...all of these idiots in Europe will completely forget about Iraq within four weeks. Their economies are in such a mess that this has helped to focus the voting public on Bush and Iraq and not the terrible economic trouble at the heart of Europe.
To: mystery-ak
Argggh! That should be
DC2K Wife of former Navy Pilot/ Viet Nam Vet
We're still married...;o)
26
posted on
03/16/2003 9:53:49 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(THIS dixiechick is a patriot! THOSE Dixie Chicks are traitors!)
To: Hoppean
I hope it goes well and the people of Iraq rise up and rebel against their masters.
If they don't we could be in for a debacle. How long will our President be able to stay in office if the people of Bagdad defend their city?
A successful siege takes time especially if we are not going to level everything and everyone in our path.
Do we have the staying power to hold out for 6 months or a year? Do we have the ability to withstand massive Iraqi civilian casulties?
Blitzkreig is nice, but we can't blitz the city itself.
To: dixiechick2000
I see you're going to keep your login name. Your tagline explains it well.
28
posted on
03/16/2003 9:55:20 AM PST
by
McGruff
(HBO Special: Dixie Chick live from Baghdad - March 17th. Pyrotechnics by US Military)
To: Hoppean
More scare-mongering from the leftist Independent.
29
posted on
03/16/2003 9:56:41 AM PST
by
AF68
To: Hoppean
If we truly do fight the last war as this guy suggests, then wouldn't logic dictate that we won't repeat Somolia?
Not to be a wise ass, just curious.....btw, I am NOT worried about this battle
To: jlogajan
The "bloodbath" occurred to the enemy forces because they engaged United States Army Rangers. The "tragedy" occurred to US forces because their commander in chief treated American Soldiers as political distractions and refused to allow them the resources to be warriors.
To: pepsionice
...kill probably less than 200 civilians You are dreaming. I hope and pray that you are correct, but that's like expecting the Democrats not to pull a DWI or S. Dakota vote fraud in a major election. Wishful thinking.
To: pepsionice
Yeah, more than likey.
33
posted on
03/16/2003 10:01:48 AM PST
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: Hoppean
This Colonel's concern is valid but not unique.
I have long suspected the US will not engage in urban combat in downtown Baghdad.
If Awe and Shock does not percipitate a regime collapse we will lay siege to Baghdad and seek international cooperation to resolve the city's fate.
Our immediate goal is to secure Iraq's resources, percipitate the collapse of Saddam's government and liberate its non-Shiah population.
To: Hoppean
Colonel Turner is full of crap.
To: Hoppean
A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf has warned that a US-led war against Iraq could turn into a disaster that echoes the bloody debacle of Somalia rather than the relatively painless 1991 Gulf war. Why wouldn't they just try to do what the Nazis tried at Leningrad. (The heroic Russian defense notwithstanding) Starve them out.
When you have the tactical advantage and can surround that city without letting so much as a flea get in...it certainly makes more sense than trying to take it by force. Good old siege warfare á la the Middle Ages.
To: Pukka Puck
"...and with insufficient firepower." Wasn't Hillary's husband Commander in Chief then?
And didn't a guy come along who said "help is on the way".
To: mystery-ak
God Bless you Hubby and your Son. I have them in my prayers. Dont worry about the flapping mouths. A Colonel with an inflated ego and aspirations to be a master strategist is as common as crabgrass in your yard in March.
The real strategist is the Infantry Grunt. They make history and cause the revision of most prepared strategies as they fight the war.
38
posted on
03/16/2003 10:16:51 AM PST
by
judicial meanz
(If you sacrfice your freedom and liberty for a feeling of security, you dont deserve to be free)
To: Hoppean
Top US military planner The guy is a former aide to "Stormin' Norman". Turner is not in on the planning of this operation and thus does not have any inclination as to the plan, the goals, or the implemetation of the schematics of this campaign. Therefore he is totally in the dark and knows not of which he speaks and should shut up.
To: Hoppean
The new war will be called:
Desert Breeze.
The wind-swept panoramic desert evoking scenes from Lawrence of Arabia will be the order of the day.
The two-bit hustling lying Iraqis decrying this and that to Petey (I sleep with ugly terrorists) Jennings and Christiane (does my face look like a camel's ass?) Amanpour will be largely ignored.
The road trip's next stop: Iran.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson