The British Defeat in the South and the Uncertain Bush "Strategy" in Iraq - Page 2

**Officer of Engineers** · 02-27-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

I find it inresting that you mention that Saddam actually thought that he can stand against US conventional might???

Why? Saddam went to war, didn't he? The Iraqi Army was obviously positioned to fight and those divisions that went head on against the 3ID did fight. Basra held out for a long time and before the Americans reached Baghdad, with the sandstorm pause, 3-7Cav being surrounded, things were not as easy as you might have thought.

Stan187 · 02-27-2007, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Why? Saddam went to war, didn't he? The Iraqi Army was obviously positioned to fight and those divisions that went head on against the 3ID did fight. Basra held out for a long time and before the Americans reached Baghdad, with the sandstorm pause, 3-7Cav being surrounded, things were not as easy as you might have thought.

It always looks easy and assured to people after it's already been fought and won.

T_igger_cs_30 · 02-27-2007, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

.
I find it inresting that you mention that Saddam actually thought that he can stand against US conventional might???

Well he (Saddam) thought he could............

xerxes · 02-27-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Why? Saddam went to war, didn't he? The Iraqi Army was obviously positioned to fight and those divisions that went head on against the 3ID did fight. Basra held out for a long time and before the Americans reached Baghdad, with the sandstorm pause, 3-7Cav being surrounded, things were not as easy as you might have thought.

I never said it was easy. and I am not saying that he was not prepared to fight ... even Kuwait fought against Iraqi invasion with whatever they had .... though that doesnt mean that were thinking on the line that they were going to win.

If you tell me that Saddam thought of being able standoff US attack in 1991, I would believe you. But in 2003, it must have been obvious to him that his regime was doomed, it was only a matter of time. As far as the spearhead of the US invasion is concerned, it is what it is: A spearhead of narrow thrust (3ID) into Iraq, and encirclement is the risk for such cases therefore it shouldnt suprising IMHO that at one point they were surrounded. btw What happened to the republican guards at the gate of Baghdad?? ... didnt they melted away as 3ID got closer after being bombed so many time. With events link these, it is far to believe that, Saddam actually thought the he could fight off US forces conventionally.

All of the above, IMHO

**Officer of Engineers** · 02-27-2007, 16:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

But in 2003, it must have been obvious to him that his regime was doomed, it was only a matter of time.

You're not reading his strategy. His strategy was to buy time to inflict casualties. He was counting on the cities to be death traps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

As far as the spearhead of the US invasion is concerned, it is what it is: A spearhead of narrow thrust (3ID) into Iraq, and encirclement is the risk for such cases therefore it shouldnt suprising IMHO that at one point they were surrounded.

Again, you're not seeing what Saddam was seeing. A single vulnerable thrust with the entire LOC under constant threat, so much so that every relief convoy had to fight their way through. At one point when a single battalion, 3-7Cav, was cut off by an entire division, the Medina, it looked like his strategy was working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

btw What happened to the republican guards at the gate of Baghdad?? ... didnt they melted away as 3ID got closer after being bombed so many time.

They were pulverized.

**Shek** · 02-27-2007, 21:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

Mr shek, if i may intrude. ... here

I find it inresting that you mention that Saddam actually thought that he can stand against US conventional might???

Read the "Iraqi Perspectives Project" report, or the Foreign Affairs article, which is very much like an executive summary.

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf

Foreign Affairs - Saddam's Delusions: The View From the Inside - Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray

xerxes · 02-27-2007, 22:42 PM

I will go over them and read them .... allow me sometime

Op-Tom · 02-28-2007, 23:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

It is very easy to be pessimistic on the UK's decision to withdraw from Iraq, but given that it is already obvious why, the UK's resolve to also sort out the Afghanistan problem by reinforcing that combat zone because of the lack of willingness of other UN countries to add extra support, also our other commitments around the world which we are still honouring, and though not much has been said at this point, but Argentina and the "Malvina's" is being whispered again in certain quarters...........The UK is certainly not "running away" from anything" indeed she is "running to" ongoing commitments and preparing itself for other's....it is time that we had a Government who realised that it is time to "increase our strength" and stop the false economy that is going on.

US Runnin IRAQ
British troops Afghanistan For 2nd time

xerxes · 03-01-2007, 00:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're not reading his strategy. His strategy was to buy time to inflict casualties. He was counting on the cities to be death traps. Again, you're not seeing what Saddam was seeing. A single vulnerable thrust with the entire LOC under constant threat, so much so that every relief convoy had to fight their way through. At one point when a single battalion, 3-7Cav, was cut off by an entire division, the Medina, it looked like his strategy was working.

You are right ,,, i was ignoring the other side perspective and strategy .... I just finished reading Shek's documents .... I stand corrected.

@Shek...

mr shek, do you have any similiar material in regards to the other perspective and strategy during the GUlf War (1991) .... i would be very much indebted

**Shek** · 03-01-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

You are right ,,, i was ignoring the other side perspective and strategy .... I just finished reading Shek's documents .... I stand corrected.

@Shek...

mr shek, do you have any similiar material in regards to the other perspective and strategy during the GUlf War (1991) .... i would be very much indebted

Xerxes,

I'm not aware of anything, but I haven't dug into it at all.

Cheers.

Shek

ExNavyAmerican · 03-03-2007, 14:22 PM

All this skepticism, and statements that democracy is Iraq is failing...

First off, the fact that 70 percent of the Iraqi population took part in the elections tells me that democracy in Iraq is succeeding.

Bush's strategy seems fine to me. It appears to be working because there have been less bombings, and less deaths in Iraq. His strategy may seem weak, but he isn't going to give the public a page-by-page briefing is he? No, that would kind of enlighten our enemy as to our plans. That would be bad.

The British haven't been defeated. They are beginning a phased withdrawal, not retreat, from Iraq. This is only after bombing and attacks have decreased to practically nonexistent in southern Iraq. One thing that may support this is the small death toll for the British troops: 130 dead. Basically, the only very violent part of Iraq is central Iraq: i.e. Baghdad, and Anbar. Kurdistan is perfectly peaceful (no attacks whatsoever), southern Iraq is mostly subdued (sporadic attacks), the main problems in the east and west is mostly the borders where foreigners are bringing in supplies for the insurgency that is comprised of a large amount of foreigners (meaning al Quieda) as well.

From all this I infer that we are succeeding in Iraq, and that the British haven't been defeated.

**Shek** · 03-03-2007, 21:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

First off, the fact that 70 percent of the Iraqi population took part in the elections tells me that democracy in Iraq is succeeding.

A vote does not a Western liberal democracy make. They voted for religious parties and these religious parties have now divided up the spoils as they skim off the top from their respective ministries. If you want to make an argument that they have pure democracy where there is the tyranny of the majority that will create civil war, then I'll agree there.

Secondly, if it is so peaceful in southern Iraq, why have the Brits gone from not wearing full kit to wearing full kit? Why is there soft ethnic cleansing going on? It is because it is not peaceful.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-04-2007, 00:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

A vote does not a Western liberal democracy make. They voted for religious parties and these religious parties have now divided up the spoils as they skim off the top from their respective ministries. If you want to make an argument that they have pure democracy where there is the tyranny of the majority that will create civil war, then I'll agree there.

Secondly, if it is so peaceful in southern Iraq, why have the Brits gone from not wearing full kit to wearing full kit? Why is there soft ethnic cleansing going on? It is because it is not peaceful.

The vote means that 70% of the population approve of democracy, and the percentage of votes in Iraq is about 40% higher that that of the U.S. That would tell me that the Iraqis are more enthusiastic about the new system than we are of our old one. As far as tyranny of the majority goes; you're right. It's called the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system is a bad form of government, but the Iraqis chose it: not us. The Iraqis are doing the soft ethnic cleansing, and it is illegal. I would submit that they need a different PM, but that doesn’t mean that it has been a “quagmire”; it’s actually been an amazing success.

If I said it's peaceful, than that was the wrong word. It is much more quiet that central Iraq, and the British troops have done a remarkable job pacifying it. Now, granted, there has been a small resurgence of attacks, but that doesn't mean that the British have been defeated. The British are slowly withdrawing (the won't be totally gone until '08), and handing it over to the Iraqi army. That points to a success. It shows that the Iraqi army can take charge, and will. And as I said before; the small body count is very definitive. Aside from all this, there have been many areas of success in Iraq, why are you so quick to slant it? And why are you so quick to call it a defeat. Wishful thinking maybe?

Forgive any typos. They're frequent in my posts.

TheChosenOne · 03-04-2007, 04:16 AM

Xerxes,

Quote:

I can tell u easilly that American culture influence was there before OIF and the fall of Saddam. I dont even know why are u relating them together sense Saddam was secular and he had as part of his collection the movies like Scareface, Godfather etc, etc. and considering the way his sons dressed, what you have said IMO is wrong. As far as inter-marrying cousins, that practice as you said has always been there, however I do believe that existed on smaller communities that kept to themselves, rather then cities.

You have really misinterpreted my post. I was responding to a part in Versus's post about him stating that the people in the middle east will NEVER except western values or views of the world.

Quote:

I can tell u easilly that American culture influence was there before OIF and the fall of Saddam.

I never said it wasn't. One would have to be completely ignorant to think that it hasn't. I used those two examples, one that has inference to before we were there and one that has inference to after we came that demonstrates that Versus's statement is indeed wrong.

Quote:

As far as inter-marrying cousins, that practice as you said has always been there, however I do believe that existed on smaller communities that kept to themselves, rather then cities

It's still more or less just a rural phenomon. But like I stated, this is even changing, albeit slowly.

Quote:

I find it inresting that you mention that Saddam actually thought that he can stand against US conventional might???

Xerxes, the man was a lunatic! He remained defiant and refused to accept the reality of the sitution until we were actually invading where he subsequently went into hiding. His rhetoric before we invaded was that we couldn't defeat his army. Ohh I'm sure somewhere up in the hamster that ran his wheel he knew he was $$#$%# but publicly he stated his forces would triumph. But I'm glad you read shek's articles and now realize your mistake.

ExNavyAmerican,

Quote:

It appears to be working because there have been less bombings, and less deaths in Iraq.

I'm sorry, but where are you getting your information from?

Quote:

This is only after bombing and attacks have decreased to practically nonexistent in southern Iraq

Once again, where are you getting your information from? By all means this isn't the case. I'm a Operations/Intel Sargeant on the ground in the southern part of the Babil Province. Attacks in our AO and AOI are on the rise. Albeit I'm still 5 hours north of Basra, I see plenty of reports of 'activity' in those southern regions.

Quote:

the small body count is very definitive

The body count for British troops is very mis leading and by no means can be associated with success. First, the British for the most part have always had operations in MND-CS which has always been a less violatile area due to it's overhelming Shi'ite population. The relative British troop level has been quite low since the initial invasion. That is why I believe Ray sums it up in this sentence quite well.

Quote:

The Mahdi will run a riot.

We have seen a huge spike of attacks south of Baghdad in the last couple weeks since the security crack down in Baghdad started. Is there a correlation? I'm sure but that is yet to be determined. The majority of these attacks are carried out by the Mahdi Army. The attacks have become more complex in every nature. British troops pulling out will only embolden the Mahdi Army. The Iraqi army is a hit and miss as to what units and leaders are actually effective. The southern areas may very well be in control of effective Iraqi units but my skepticism remains 'strong' and 'unwavering'. Have you heard of Iraqi units conducting joint raids and 'pocked' belongings from the search? Probably not....nothing like stealing from the countrymen you are supposed to be protecting. It's becoming protcol to search all Iraqi individuals after joint raid operations because of this.

And don't even get me started on how just because 70% of the people voted that it induces a democracy. Shek entails part of it above. There is indeed much more.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-04-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChosenOne

Xerxes,

You have really misinterpreted my post. I was responding to a part in Versus's post about him stating that the people in the middle east will NEVER except western values or views of the world.

I never said it wasn't. One would have to be completely ignorant to think that it hasn't. I used those two examples, one that has inference to before we were there and one that has inference to after we came that demonstrates that Versus's statement is indeed wrong.

It's still more or less just a rural phenomon. But like I stated, this is even changing, albeit slowly.

Xerxes, the man was a lunatic! He remained defiant and refused to accept the reality of the sitution until we were actually invading where he subsequently went into hiding. His rhetoric before we invaded was that we couldn't defeat his army. Ohh I'm sure somewhere up in the hamster that ran his wheel he knew he was $$#$%# but publicly he stated his forces would triumph. But I'm glad you read shek's articles and now realize your mistake.

ExNavyAmerican,

I'm sorry, but where are you getting your information from?

Once again, where are you getting your information from? By all means this isn't the case. I'm a Operations/Intel Sargeant on the ground in the southern part of the Babil Province. Attacks in our AO and AOI are on the rise. Albeit I'm still 5 hours north of Basra, I see plenty of reports of 'activity' in those southern regions.

The body count for British troops is very mis leading and by no means can be associated with success. First, the British for the most part have always had operations in MND-CS which has always been a less violatile area due to it's overhelming Shi'ite population. The relative British troop level has been quite low since the initial invasion. That is why I believe Ray sums it up in this sentence quite well.

We have seen a huge spike of attacks south of Baghdad in the last couple weeks since the security crack down in Baghdad started. Is there a correlation? I'm sure but that is yet to be determined. The majority of these attacks are carried out by the Mahdi Army. The attacks have become more complex in every nature. British troops pulling out will only embolden the Mahdi Army. The Iraqi army is a hit and miss as to what units and leaders are actually effective. The southern areas may very well be in control of effective Iraqi units but my skepticism remains 'strong' and 'unwavering'. Have you heard of Iraqi units conducting joint raids and 'pocked' belongings from the search? Probably not....nothing like stealing from the countrymen you are supposed to be protecting. It's becoming protcol to search all Iraqi individuals after joint raid operations because of this.

And don't even get me started on how just because 70% of the people voted that it induces a democracy. Shek entails part of it above. There is indeed much more.

In the end whether or nor we're winning is a matter of opinion. However, bombings in central Iraq (Anbar, and Baghdad) are decreasing after the beginning of this security surge.

My informational sources? Friends and 2 Family members fighting in Baghdad, and Anbar. I have a couple of Brit friends in southern Iraq. They say that the situation is getting better in Baghdad (that is, less attacks), and that the south is deteriorating, but remains in overall good condition.

03-03-2007, 14:22 PM	#26 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	All this skepticism... All this skepticism, and statements that democracy is Iraq is failing... First off, the fact that 70 percent of the Iraqi population took part in the elections tells me that democracy in Iraq is succeeding. Bush's strategy seems fine to me. It appears to be working because there have been less bombings, and less deaths in Iraq. His strategy may seem weak, but he isn't going to give the public a page-by-page briefing is he? No, that would kind of enlighten our enemy as to our plans. That would be bad. The British haven't been defeated. They are beginning a phased withdrawal, not retreat, from Iraq. This is only after bombing and attacks have decreased to practically nonexistent in southern Iraq. One thing that may support this is the small death toll for the British troops: 130 dead. Basically, the only very violent part of Iraq is central Iraq: i.e. Baghdad, and Anbar. Kurdistan is perfectly peaceful (no attacks whatsoever), southern Iraq is mostly subdued (sporadic attacks), the main problems in the east and west is mostly the borders where foreigners are bringing in supplies for the insurgency that is comprised of a large amount of foreigners (meaning al Quieda) as well. From all this I infer that we are succeeding in Iraq, and that the British haven't been defeated. __________________ "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson Last edited by ExNavyAmerican : 03-04-2007 at 01:53 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

02-27-2007, 22:42 PM	#22 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 950 Country:	I will go over them and read them .... allow me sometime

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)