| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2003/3/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27922 Activity:high |
3/31 Anybody think that the republican guards are sitting around in their
tanks waiting to be bombed from the air? You don't have to be a
military genius to figure out that this war will be fought in the
streets of bagdad. Saddam probably sent the troops home wearing
civilian clothes and stashing weapons in houses. Preparing for door to
door combat.
\_ Duh, of course they're not. You, Sir, are a military genius! Was
there a point you were trying to make? Did you have a suggestion
for our military leadership to better conduct the war?
\_ actually, it would be nice if they would listen to this sort of
thing, b/c it really appears they are not.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080814
\_ Actually, I think the US military has been afraid of exactly
this since the war was first contemplated. It's not the
US military that wanted to go to Iraq. Not AT ALL.
\_ The point is, when this turns into door-to-door combat, it'll be
another somalia. Soldiers dressed up as civilians dragging a
dead body around the streets in front of live TV broadcasted
around the world. What do you think that'll do to the morale?
\_ Hmm, I actually find that REALLY unlikely. Though there
are some surface similarities, the situations are radically
different, both politically and strategically.
different, both politically and strategically. -mice
\_ I agree. Somalia was a very limited mission with the
incident in Mogadishu due to a bad operation plan without
Hui in Vietnam during the Tet offensive, except with
decent heavy support. A more accurate parallel would be
Hue in Vietnam during the Tet offensive, except with
greener American troops, tighter rules of engagement, and
higher US concentration of logistics and heavy support.
I wonder if the US will stop doing the chem-alert dance
within city limits and under fire.
\_ many republican guards are surrounding baghdad. There is
a special republican guard unit inside of baghdad, maybe 15000
troops?
\_ So far Saddam's battle plan has been working a lot better than
the American's battle plan.
"So far"? And the sky is green, right?
\_ You call losing 75% or more of the country in a week a really
great plan? Sending out suicide bombers at the point of a gun?
That's a plan? Please send some email to Saddam with more great
military advice. It'll only make the job that much easier. You
haven't studied a whole lot of military history, if any. This
war is going fantastically well for a weeks' worth of fighting.
If you can call a week and a total route a war.
\_ true. But beware -- the hardest part is still to come.
The Siege of Baghdad continues. If only we can
create some sort of Trojan Horse.
\_ Touched a nerve, eh? First take some prozac. Second, yes I
have studied military tactics. He is doing what he set out
to do in the only way he could. He still has the bulk of his
infantry *intact* and is using every possible unconventional
guerilla tactic to sting the so-called coalition's ass.
Considering the overwhelming conventional force against him,
yes, his battle plan is working to a "T". He will bloody the
coalition badly if they are drawn into city fighting. He was
smart to not leave his forces out in the open where they would
have been shot to pieces. Don't take this the wrong way, I am
for US/Britain victory, but covering what has happened so far
with blind rhetoric won't hide the truth. Capisch?
Roger-and-out.
\_ not-op: I am the gamemaster. I give you a choice. Which
side would you like to be on? Saddam? or Coalition?
\_ not-op: Err ... how 'bout God's side. |
| 5/24 |
|
| slate.msn.com/id/2080814 War-Gamed Why the Army shouldn't be so surprised by Saddam's moves. By Fred Kaplan Posted Friday, March 28, 2003, at 1:55 PM PT Much has been made of Thursday's remark by 32 Lt. Planned over a two-year period, at a cost of $250 million, the game involved 13,500 personnel from all four services--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--who waged mock war in 17 simulation locations and nine live-force training sites. The scenario envisioned a war in a fictitiously named Persian Gulf country that resembled Iraq. The objective was to test (and, if all went well, to validate) a set of new combat theories based less on massive force and more on speed, agility, highly accurate weapons, and supremely coordinated command and control. These theories--known as "military transformation" and " 36 effects-based operations"--would serve as the underlying strategy of the real war against the real Iraq that's happening now. Marine Corps general named Paul Van Riper wrote an e-mail to some of his friends, casting grave doubt on this conclusion. Pentagon war games pit "Red Force" (simulating the enemy) against "Blue Force" (the United States). In this war game, as in many war games over the years, Van Riper played the Red Force commander. At one point in the game, when Blue's fleet entered the Persian Gulf, he sank some of the ships with suicide-bombers in speed boats. Yet, Van Riper said in his e-mail, the game's managers remanded some of his moves as improper and simply blocked others from being carried out. According to the Army Times summary, "Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue, and on several occasions directed Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue. As he explained in his e-mail, "You don't come to a conclusion beforehand and then work your way to that conclusion. However, it also quoted a retired colonel who was familiar with the game and supportive of the theories being tested. Scripted war-game enemies may roll over, but, as we're seeing, real enemies sometimes think of tricky ways to fight back. Advertisement Also on MSN For MSN's complete coverage of the conflict in Iraq, click 39 here. Marine in Iraq on Slate's home page by Eric Feferberg/Agence France Presse. Join the Fray, our reader discussion forum 47 POST A MESSAGE 48 READ MESSAGES Remarks from the Fray: Military bureaucracies routinely fail to adapt to new ideas, and insist, as one observer put it, on "fighting the last war". The Royal Navy, prior to World War II, would not allow British submarines to participate in wargames after dark, because it was too difficult for the British destroyers to find them. The exercises were scripted to allow the Royal Navy to believe they had the German submarine problem entirely under control. And curiously enough, the German U-Boat commanders weren't gracious enough to withdraw from combat after dark. This forced the British Navy to actually learn its trade, and master the extremely delicate art of hunting submarines for real. In the year and a half that it took them to do this, the Germans were able to wreak havoc across the Atlantic, sinking cargo almost at will and nearly bringing Britain to its knees. Van Riper, as a Marine Lieutenant General, should make that distinction, play only for the sake of "exercise" and replace the whining attitude with the win/win outcome such exercises are designed to engender. He's obviously an excellent Marine, but his desire to "play it out to the finish" clouded his judgment as to the common good. There are no perfect military plans, only perfect intentions. But the question leads to another failure on the part of the civilian leaders at the Pentagon. War games are based largely on intelligence estimates, and by all accounts Rumsfeld and company have done more to distort the interpretation of raw intelligence than a triple dose of Mr. |