Replies

3. The Iraqis could simply stay where they are and slowly disintegrate under intense bombardment.

Sounds like a plan to me.

The outcome was never in doubt...only how many lives it would cost.

Also from Stratfor: the sun rose in the east this morning.

These guys bug. Why is that they can do only bland description well, whereas their prediction and deeper analysis seems like undergraduate speculation run amok? Just go back and compare this most recent dispatch-- of theirs-- to their pre-war discussion of Iraqi chemical units at bridgeheads, the danger to coalition supply lines, etc. Two different conflicts altogether. And yet it wasn't impossible to read things more accurately, as a host of posters here demonstrated prior to the conflict.

Stratfor: save your money.

The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division penetrated the formations of the Iraqi Al Medina division, which had been bombed for several days before the attack, and encircled the town of Karbala.

Just yesterday, STRATFOR claimed that Medina was only 5% attritted. The other 95% sure must have fallen in a hurry.

It is not clear why five key Iraqi divisions moved as far south as they did. The Iraqis may have mistaken their early ability to resist in some areas as a sign of U.S. weakness, and they began to develop a more ambitious plan than they originally had. However, it leaves the Iraqis extremely exposed and vulnerable

It's clear to me why they moved so far South-because they were getting their tactical information from CNN.

What is not clear yet is whether we used the entirely predictable whining and undermining from Fedayeen Clinton in Doha and Atlanta as part of the plan.

If so, my God that was brilliant.

Hey Axion, could you at least watch/read the morning news before posting this drivel? Not only is the analysis vacuous and nonspecific, it's dated. Let's examine and destroy the Stratfor analysis "in detal", as General Franks would put it.

STRATFOR "There are two questions now. The first and most important, is how the Iraqis will react to this. There are three possible paths:"

A classic Jeane Dixon tactic, one of N number of things can happen. I could fry my eggs, scamble my eggs, or not eat any eggs. Stratfor's technique is the same used by those who claim to speak to the dead. If you say enough, one predition is bound to come true.

STRATFOR "It is not clear why five key Iraqi divisions moved as far south as they did."

To form an integrated line of defense that the US is now destroying in detail. They deployed to the point that they could retreat to Baghdad without having to cross either major river, knowing that the US would destroy any major bridges behind them if they went farther. They've never deployed in force across key bridges. They wanted to be able to fall back.

STRATFOR "The second question is: What will the United States do? Here too, there is a dilemma. Sound military doctrine holds that armies do not take territory; they destroy the enemy's ability to resist. That would argue that the 3rd Infantry Division should now engage the Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezer divisions. But in this case, the rules might be a different."

First, all of these words say nothing, except for mistating sound military doctrine. Armies are designed to destroy enemy forces and hold territory. If we just wanted to destroy their ability to resist, we could have an a war that lasted until every last vehicle and weapon system was destroyed. We are taking territory and the only way to do that is buy it or invade it.

STRATFOR "Simply looking at a map, we get the feeling that the United States could use a couple of additional divisions on the ground to complete this operation."

Simply looking at the map is all the forehead-slappers at Stratfor can do. They have no visibility into the theater, they have no concept of combined arms, 3-dimensional warfare to guide them, and they just keep pushing out this Pyschic Friends Network quality "analysis". We need more divisions? To do what? The prize is regime change, which lies in Baghdad. The Iraqi military has been hit with more than 5000 precision munitions from the air alone, not counting Apache attacks, A-10 minigun attacks, tank-on-tank and artillery actions. They had fewer than 5000 armored vehicles/tanks to start. It's likely that more than half of this weapons cadre is already destroyed.

Moveover, the divisions cannot retreat into Baghdad. Rest assured there is a wall of metal behind these idiots. Anything moving north is destroyed from the air. Vehicles, tanks and other weapons systems are by now seen as ticking bombs to the RG soldier. Remember in Afghanistan that the most disquieting element of the conflict to the Taliban fighters was the continued threat of a vehicle exploding unexectedly. Eventually the combatants in Afghanistan were afraid to approach, ride in, stand near or in any way associate with a vehicle. That's what's happening right now to the RG. Unnerved, they will abandon their remaining weapons and run for their lives.

STRATFOR "Therefore, regardless of time frame, the probability of a U.S. victory increased dramatically tonight."

What? Did it increase from 100% to 110%? What dope would print such a thing? Nothing says more about the stupidity of STRATFOR than this statement. Not even Saddam ever thought his chances of military victory was anything greater than ZERO. What a bunch of morons!

Now that victory is clear, Stratfor ends the "quagmire" prediction. Same pattern in Afghanistan.

Conclusion: Stratfor has no idea what they are talking about.