Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Any thoughts? The Iraqi's do seem to be drawing us in toward the "red zone" around Baghdad, which corresponds to the location roughly where the battle of Ctesiphon crushed the British advance. Does not mean the Iraqi's will succeed with this strategy (not by a long shot), only that I think I see the inspiration for their strategy.
1 posted on 03/27/2003 8:13:56 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
To: Admin Moderator
That should read: Is Iraq inspired by strategy that caused the greatest defeat in British military history?
2 posted on 03/27/2003 8:15:09 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
Any thoughts?

Inspired by repeated viewings of "Blackhawk Down"

3 posted on 03/27/2003 8:18:33 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
I hope and pray our military leadership has learned lessons from the past and is on top of all this.
4 posted on 03/27/2003 8:19:56 PM PST by OperationFreedom ( www.OperationFreedom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
No, we have big planes now and bigger bombs.
5 posted on 03/27/2003 8:20:06 PM PST by Porterville (Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
This approach was reversed at the Battle of Ctesiphon (after an initial withdrawal by the Turks) with a counter-attack launched at the retreating British force under Sir Charles Townshend.

Must remember to pack extra vowels this time.

8 posted on 03/27/2003 8:21:12 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
There were never enough shallow-draught boats, nor enough mules or camels, to adequately supply the fighting forces that were to be up to 500 miles away from port.

Oh damn, we forgot the mules and camels. We are screwed.
10 posted on 03/27/2003 8:21:22 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
I think that Stalingrad is perhaps more likely as a model for Sadam's strategy. The US presumably has a plan for handling Baghdad when they get it surrounded, but I don't know what it is.
11 posted on 03/27/2003 8:21:25 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
It is not analogous situation. The present day Iraqi's have no realistic way to interdict our supply lines.

Once Baghdad is surrounded we can lay seige to the city and attrit the Republican guard. They have no way to resupply themselves. Once Baghdad is surrounded the apple should fall from the tree pretty quickly.
15 posted on 03/27/2003 8:24:07 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
There is no comparison.

The coalition forces are an Iraqi meatgrinder unparalleled in history. While Saddam feints and jabs and sends his fedayeen fools scrambling over the sand with AK-47s, the coalition forces annihilate them by the thousands. Saddam's elite thugs cannot continue to bleed in this way. There is a limited supply of them.

16 posted on 03/27/2003 8:24:09 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
No comparison!

We have F-16's!

:-)
19 posted on 03/27/2003 8:28:37 PM PST by jacksonstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
There were never enough shallow-draught boats, nor enough mules or camels, to adequately supply the fighting forces that were to be up to 500 miles away from port.

I think we solved this problem by inventing helicopters, airlifts, tanker trucks etc.

20 posted on 03/27/2003 8:28:40 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
Kinda reminds me of that old SNL skit, "What if Napoleon had a fully loaded B-52 at Waterloo?" [it may have been Wellington instead of Napoleon, I don't remember]. Anyway, the point is that things are slightly(!) different now. Our army can't be cut off these days. The ONLY chance Saddam has is if he managed to be successful in a massive chemical weapon attack on our 3rd ID.
22 posted on 03/27/2003 8:28:45 PM PST by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
Interesting. You know, earlier this evening I was thinking about the German 6th Army in the battle of Stalingrad and how the Russians lured the Germans in.

It would be nice to have some historical strategy discussions going on here. Because it seems like the best strategies in history are overlooked, or ignored by our modern day overconfident politician-generals.

In WWII the greatest minds challenged one another (i.e Rommel-Montgomery)
Now it seems like our strategies are only half planned.

On hearing the news of sending 100,000 more troops (and saying we meant to do it all along) I can only think of the attitude of the Japanese commander in Guadalcanal that was so overconfident that he kept back more than half of his force - he was wiped out.

If we are going to war we need to go in to win. Period.







24 posted on 03/27/2003 8:31:44 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
The Iraq strategy was the same as the Russian strategy of 1812. Fall back and wear down the attackers by attrition and logistics dificulties and using terrain and weather on their side.

It's Saddam's fantasy. It wont happen.

1. The HUGE error here is the assumption that we would out run our logistics. We wont. we were able to operate in a theatre - Afghanistan - last year with logistics that were worse. Technology is massively different today than in 1914 or 1812. Enough trucks and gas and any army can be supplied.

2. Most of our firepower is in the air. We go to Baghdad from carriers. So on both logistics and attrition, we are winning, not losing. The kill ratio is massive both from the air and from the ground.


27 posted on 03/27/2003 8:33:36 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq! Lets Roll! now!-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
It's not really relevant.
30 posted on 03/27/2003 8:34:35 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
The army in Kut became surrounded and besieged; eventually 9,000 (3,000 British and 6,000 Indian troops) surrendered five months later - the greatest defeat and loss in British military history up to that point.

"Up to that point" being the operative words. The fall of Singapore in 1942 was a much greater defeat.

I suspect the Iraqi leaders would like to have decisive fighting take place in Kut. It no doubt has a mythic significance to them, in view of its history.

May not matter to U.S. troops. But it may have an effect on the morale of Iraqi troops.

32 posted on 03/27/2003 8:35:40 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
Landscape for battle

Mesopotamia is an ancient land, through which run the great Rivers Tigris and Euphrates.

Ah yes an ancient land unlike any other on earth....Could be that Iraq and its great leader Sadaam are trying this strategy, however I am sure the Brits for sure and probably the Americans are well aware of this piece of history...while not ancient it is a battle several wars ago...things have change, weapons supply and city population...my only fear is WMD beyond chemical...such as biological or nuclear...could a suitcase nuke or smallpox from Russia have ended up in Sadaam's bag of tricks? Other than those concerns, I feel confident of our commanders plans...I also feel that if WMD are used and significant casualties are taken by the coalition, that Baghdag could morally be nuked back to the stone age...

34 posted on 03/27/2003 8:36:47 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
"The Iraqi's do seem to be drawing us in toward the "red zone" around Baghdad."

Drawing? They haven't had a choice.

38 posted on 03/27/2003 8:38:04 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
Gee, the greatest defeat in British history was when they lost the American revolution to George W.
53 posted on 03/27/2003 8:47:38 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
Excellent post, Destro. I'll let others question your motives and draw inferences which you clearly did not imply. I believe your supposition regards possible Iraqi intentions, and not Iraqi capabilities. This is a very interesting article.

Rest assured that colonels and generals (ours and theirs) study military history -- and though weapons, ranges, speeds and communications have changed greatly over time, the basic principles of war have not. It is vitally important to know what your enemy intends, and you can gain solid clues to his plans from the history which inspires him. Thanks...

63 posted on 03/27/2003 8:54:15 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson