World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Militarythinker · 02-27-2007, 11:19 AM

Haha. I have no doubt that if left to my own imagination I would do something to piss off the military and get the boot.

Sorry for the overstatement about the "imaginary" Iraqi army. Yes I do know there were large amounts of both tanks and troops. From what I have read I believe that most of the time they tried to avoid open engagements with our forces, which is a smart tactic on their part. And essentially an enemy force that you cannot face in open engagements is a whole different type of factor to deal with.

I know that we did and currently do have special ops working inside Iraq. My point was simply that I would have made a more public and more intense special ops campaign. Whenever the United States is involved in any type of conflict I always assume there are many Spec Ops missions going on that the public will never hear about.

Also while I am sure there were Spec Ops guys running around Iraq for the whole campaign as well as before it, I personally would have liked to see their involvement increased. If they stepped up the scale and number of that type of operation that I am proposing, it would have to be done while we didn't have any large force in Iraq. This deprives them of targets. This is actually where SnowLeopard's idea of having bases in friendly neighboring countries would help. With many different bases we could launch missions from many different staging points and therefore increase our range of operations.

With large land forces sitting just across their border and Spec Ops boys creating havoc in the interior of the country the war would have been a different story as far as casualties go. I would bet that if we were able to cut off a decent amount of the structured leadership in the Iraq army before invading, there would have been much lighter resistance. Or at the very least far more unorganized resistance wich is almost just as good.

Then after a prolonged series of Spec Ops-Like missions, we could charge in with the previously used tank columns and mechanized infantry. *I have a whole bunch of ideas for how to make that as safe and fast as possible but I will have to add those later*

As for the invading force there isn't much I would change from what actually happened as far as troop movement and such. The only thing that I would have done was increase the involvement of snipers. Keep in mind I just read Shooter which is all about one sniper's new theory of sniper tactics and how he personally used them to a small degree in Iraq. Now all these ideas are all after the fact and I don't claim that I could have come up with them before the war but I do enjoy talking about it.

I think that the US military needs to make a few changes if they/we plan on fighting more countries with similar tactics to the ones used in Iraq. The number of Spec Ops missions and overall involvement needs to be increased a lot. And not necessarily with actual Special Operations forces. This type of warfare could even be done by a baisic marine squad with a little bit more training. That is probably one of the best investments as far as training goes in my opinion. It would be simple to have a few of the Spec Ops trainers teach a few units of Marines back in the States for refitting how to operate inside enemy territory for the type of sabotage missions needed.

Anyway hope to hear your guy's own opinions and strategies as well as any thoughts you have on mine.

02-27-2007, 11:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
Militarythinker Regular Join Date: 02-27-07 Posts: 44	Haha. I have no doubt that if left to my own imagination I would do something to piss off the military and get the boot. Sorry for the overstatement about the "imaginary" Iraqi army. Yes I do know there were large amounts of both tanks and troops. From what I have read I believe that most of the time they tried to avoid open engagements with our forces, which is a smart tactic on their part. And essentially an enemy force that you cannot face in open engagements is a whole different type of factor to deal with. I know that we did and currently do have special ops working inside Iraq. My point was simply that I would have made a more public and more intense special ops campaign. Whenever the United States is involved in any type of conflict I always assume there are many Spec Ops missions going on that the public will never hear about. Also while I am sure there were Spec Ops guys running around Iraq for the whole campaign as well as before it, I personally would have liked to see their involvement increased. If they stepped up the scale and number of that type of operation that I am proposing, it would have to be done while we didn't have any large force in Iraq. This deprives them of targets. This is actually where SnowLeopard's idea of having bases in friendly neighboring countries would help. With many different bases we could launch missions from many different staging points and therefore increase our range of operations. With large land forces sitting just across their border and Spec Ops boys creating havoc in the interior of the country the war would have been a different story as far as casualties go. I would bet that if we were able to cut off a decent amount of the structured leadership in the Iraq army before invading, there would have been much lighter resistance. Or at the very least far more unorganized resistance wich is almost just as good. Then after a prolonged series of Spec Ops-Like missions, we could charge in with the previously used tank columns and mechanized infantry. I have a whole bunch of ideas for how to make that as safe and fast as possible but I will have to add those later As for the invading force there isn't much I would change from what actually happened as far as troop movement and such. The only thing that I would have done was increase the involvement of snipers. Keep in mind I just read Shooter which is all about one sniper's new theory of sniper tactics and how he personally used them to a small degree in Iraq. Now all these ideas are all after the fact and I don't claim that I could have come up with them before the war but I do enjoy talking about it. I think that the US military needs to make a few changes if they/we plan on fighting more countries with similar tactics to the ones used in Iraq. The number of Spec Ops missions and overall involvement needs to be increased a lot. And not necessarily with actual Special Operations forces. This type of warfare could even be done by a baisic marine squad with a little bit more training. That is probably one of the best investments as far as training goes in my opinion. It would be simple to have a few of the Spec Ops trainers teach a few units of Marines back in the States for refitting how to operate inside enemy territory for the type of sabotage missions needed. Anyway hope to hear your guy's own opinions and strategies as well as any thoughts you have on mine. __________________ MT . . .