Is Iraq inspired by strategy that caused the greatest defeat in British military history?

1914-1918.net ^ | 2003 | Chris Baker

[MHGinTN]

Saddam is only a casual soldier, not a tactician. I don't care what fantasies casue him to run the Iraqi forces the sad way he does. We just need to kill enough of them so that we can disarm the survivors. MHG's 1st Axiom of War: Crush the enemy, then disarm the survivors. There is no #2.

[Destro]

Saddam doesn't delegate?

[Wavyhill]

I hate to use science fiction books as references about something as serious as war, but Saddam reminds me of Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling's Go Tell the Spartans. In the story, the bad guys are retreating before the good guys so fast that the G.G.'s get suspicious. Something fishy is up. Sure enough, the B.G.'s turn out to have chemical weapons and use them. The thing is, though, and this is basically the "moral" of the story: although the B.G.'s have a Surprise Secret Weapon, they do not have the training to deal with adverse circumstances. The G.G.'s, who are better trained, regroup and proceed to kick the crap out of the B.G.'s, who have played their trump card. The hero points out to one of his men that this is proof of the old axiom, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." The B.G.'s, he points out, had undoubtedly heard that saying, but had probably interpreted it to mean that battle plans get slightly warped in battle. The hero points out that the saying is really saying that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, and that victories are won not by Brilliant Strategies but by thorough training. It was a very good point, and I think that Saddam is a lot like the B.G.'s here. He thinks he's come up with a Brilliant Plan to defeat us; but he doesn't realize that we have the training to be prepared for it, whereas his troops do not have the training to seriously take advantage of it.

[FreedomFlyer]

we will not use nukes, period.

[MHGinTN]

What's the point of your question? He may even be dead and the Ba'athist goons are running the show to hell.

[Cacique]

Any comments?

[supercat]

Ok, gotcha. I'm beginning to think that Saddam believes that he really will win. That's probably a good thing because when he realizes that he is doomed to swing from a lamppost, he's going to cut loose the chem/bio weapons on our troops and/or his own people.

If Saddam or his minions decide to unleash chemical weapons on Baghdad, do we have any viable counter-strategies to rescue the people? Are there any types of ordnance that could be set off near the city to create enough wind to disperse gas and limit its effectiveness?

To be sure, if Saddam's minions do gas Baghdad, the liberals will blame Bush et al. for any casualties, even if the U.S. manages some extraordinary operations to save most of the people.

[JohnOG]

The Iraqi harrasment of supply lines may be only a nuisance.....but its a nuisance and not a threat because we are staying off main roads to avoid ambush and using smaller roads where there are clearer lines of sight....
This change of roads is delaying supplies getting to the front....its true that no supply convoys have been destroyed, but Iraqi harrasment is slowing them and delaying needed supplies....that is one reason why the drive on Baghdad has been delayed....
Respectfully, John.

[wireman]

I think that goofy mask is cutting off the oxygen to your brain.

[chilepepper]

Baghdad will not be Stalingrad, but rather BERLIN. Remember that at Stalingrad, there was a fresh Soviet Army ready to pounce upon the Germans after they succeeded in actually taking Stalingrad

There is no possibility of another Army (Iraqi or otherwise) coming to Saddam's aid...

[LS]

Lessee, this would be BEFORE the Australian Light Cavalry crossed the desert BEHIND the enemy and captured his key cities? Much like we are doing?

[LS]

Keep believin' it buddy. Every time they "venture out," it's called "targets." Every time they stay put, it's called "targets." When you run out of targets, the game is over.

Oh, and while you are so concerned about our supply lines, have you managed to account for an ENTIRE MARINE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE and thousands of regular infantry and 101st AIRBORNE that have seemingly "fallen off the map?"

Don't know where those are, do you?

Clue: neither does Saddam. But he's about to find out.

[packrat01]

Q: What's the last thing going through Saddam's mind?

a 7.62 boat-tail, delivered from 800 yards away...

[Destro]

Just speculation. Posting what I think the Iraqi startegy may be--and how maybe it is based on a historical event.

[expatpat]

Yes. The only problem is that sniping cuts both ways, and in fact favors the defenders more than the offense.

[expatpat]

I should remind you that I am not proposing that it will be like Stalingrad -- I'm speculating on what Sadam might have as his model. I personally am inclined to think we will avoid house-to-house fighting in Baghdad -- I certainly hope we have a smarter approach than that.

[chilepepper]

IMHO if the Allies can get into the bunkers somehow, its all over. Finding the airducts would do it as well...

[js1138]

What a great strategy: withdraw into a compact mass so we don't need to use as many bombs.

[devo]

I think the more appropriate comparison could well be that of Leningrad in the early years of WW2. The Germans lay seige to the city for some time (was it a year?)- killing in the process (through hunger and war) over 1 million Russians.

Lets pray that Baghdad just rolls over and gives up. What's the chance of that?