RE: Where's Osama? (Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's next)
-- On 14 Nov 2002 at 14:47, Andrew John Lopata wrote: > I'm no expert, but a friend of mine in the military suggested > that invading Iraq now would be a lot different than the Gulf > War. He said that urban combat, which will be necessary to > depose Hussein, is the most difficult and dangerous type of > combat there is. The last time the US engaged in urban combat, Somalia, US troops took significant casualties, and innocent bystanders suffered enormous casualties. In Afghanistan, urban combat was avoided by three a dimensional envelopment. The enemy inside the city was threatened by ground troops outside the city, from the sky, and by subversion from within the city. It was this final threat, subversion from within, combined with containment from above and around, that provoked capitulation. This third element, subversion from within, may well be unachievable in Iraq, or if it is achievable, the regular army not very deft at getting it done. For the Iraq war to be completed without enormous civilian casualties, massive destruction of infrastructure, and intolerable US casualties, successful political warfare is likely to be essential. > There is no readily available alternate government to install > in Hussein's place. The resulting destabilization in the > region will likely result in a U.S. military presense in the > country for a much longer time than in the Gulf War. When the US defeated Nazi germany, the nazi government was largely obliterated, and the remaining apparatus of government mostly signed up with the German communist party, which had been the second largest party before the nazis, and which was subservient to the Soviet Union. Thus the US eventually had to suppress every vestige of German government and foster a new government from nothing. It took about five years for a plausibly German government to get its hands on the reins of power, and few more years for it to get rid of the institutions and apparatus of nazism. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG AoQslZIvueBx4Zn3xjfrmZVppIjzS70PWbcba9wQ 4QY9/UCaEXMTq2ePACwR96pH+xkCwMdSGqYXRuXaA
RE: Where's Osama? (Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's next)
> Is there any overwhelming reason to believe that going back to >Iraq would be any different? Short answer: yes. Long answer: I'm no expert, but a friend of mine in the military suggested that invading Iraq now would be a lot different than the Gulf War. He said that urban combat, which will be necessary to depose Hussein, is the most difficult and dangerous type of combat there is. The Gulf War was fought on a flat plane with no obstructions or terrain differences (the desert) where superior fire power has a great advantage. Other reasons to think that invading Iraq this time will be much more difficult and likely cause many more U.S. causalities include: 1. The troops the U.S. fought against in the Gulf War were mainly recent conscripts with little training or motivation. Taking Baghdad will require fighting veteran republican guard troops. 2. There is no clear objective to this invasion of Iraq besides deposing Hussein. Ignoring the long-term consequences of this invasion (which is the usual practice), the short-term prospects aren't good. There is no readily available alternate government to install in Hussein's place. The resulting destabilization in the region will likely result in a U.S. military presense in the country for a much longer time than in the Gulf War. -Andy
Where's Osama? (Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's next)
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote: > Anyone guess where's Waldo (Osama) now? My guess he's on the end of a bungee > being kicked into Iraq right now! (The other end of the bungee is in a US > chopper!) Osama is wherever Bush wants him to be. Once we're done with Iraq (assuming that we'd win that Vietnam**2 war - Ha!), Osama will magically produce yet another audio or video tape from North Korea or whatever nation Bush wants to make his next bitch. At this point, we do have the technology to alter both video and audio, and to build fake clips at will. I don't believe that the latest audio bite has been forged by us, but rather that the technology exists. Likely Osama is either dead or has had cosmetic surgery enough for him to live the rest of his days in the French riviera, and what sound bites and videos we have seen and will see are pre-recorded ones. While I'm opposed to us going to war since I believe that between Afghanistan and Iraq, we're opening ourselves up for a far worse beating than Vientam in the long term, I'm far more opposed to the outright lies being presented as reasons for doing so, and the sheer bald faced freedom and privacy grabs that this is an excuse for. Even if we pull a victory like we did in Japan and both democratise and capitalize Afghanistan and Iraq, in the long term, they'll become economic competition. If we "do" Afghanistan again, like we did them after Russia fell and abadon them without further support, it'll turn out the same as it did, like Somalia and other failed abandoned overthrown states. In the end, that will produce far more terrorists than we have seen to date, more of our freedoms will be taken away unil an equilibrium of rights will exist between the USA and dictatorships like Iraq. Luckily there's only two more years before the next election...
Re: Where's Osama? (Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's next)
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Sunder wrote: > (assuming that we'd win that Vietnam**2 war - Ha!), Just as a small aside, I think it's worth noting that every war the US has gotten involved in since Vietnam has been called "Vietnam 2" by somebody: The first Iraq war, Kosovo, Somalia(even those two weren't actually "wars", perse), Afghanistan. So far, not one of them has turned out to be. Is there any overwhelming reason to believe that going back to Iraq would be any different? -adam
RE: Where's Osama? (Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's next)
Interesting points. Now, the corollary questions: How -much- worse? Long, drug out, lots-of-body-bags-coming-home and nasty political scandal worse, or Vietnam-style lots-of-dead-american-conscripts worse? -adam On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Andrew John Lopata wrote: > Short answer: yes. > > Long answer: > I'm no expert, but a friend of mine in the military suggested that invading > Iraq now would be a lot different than the Gulf War. He said that urban > combat, which will be necessary to depose Hussein, is the most difficult and > dangerous type of combat there is. The Gulf War was fought on a flat plane > with no obstructions or terrain differences (the desert) where superior fire > power has a great advantage. Other reasons to think that invading Iraq this > time will be much more difficult and likely cause many more U.S. causalities > include: > 1. The troops the U.S. fought against in the Gulf War were mainly recent > conscripts with little training or motivation. Taking Baghdad will require > fighting veteran republican guard troops. > 2. There is no clear objective to this invasion of Iraq besides deposing > Hussein. Ignoring the long-term consequences of this invasion (which is the > usual practice), the short-term prospects aren't good. There is no readily > available alternate government to install in Hussein's place. The resulting > destabilization in the region will likely result in a U.S. military presense > in the country for a much longer time than in the Gulf War. > > -Andy
