• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"Baghdad will be near impossible to conquer"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: MadRat


I guess it should take them a week to surround Baghdad. Once Baghdad is under siege the war will drag on but in all reality its over for Saddam and the Ba`ath party.
The coalition will not lay siege to the city. It won't do to starve the Iraquis while saying you're "liberating" them. They have no choice but to go in and clean up the mess one block at a time.
That is a siege.
No it isn't : SIEGE = "The surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army attempting to capture it. "
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,607
3
76
Originally posted by: Staley8

No it isn't : SIEGE = "The surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army attempting to capture it. "
A siege is to capture.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
From: Merriam Webster

1 obsolete : a seat of distinction : THRONE
2 a : a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender b : a persistent or serious attack (as of illness)
- siege transitive verb
- lay siege to 1 : to besiege militarily 2 : to pursue diligently or persistently
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,324
4
0
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: RossGr


I would say that you should learn to expect the unexpected from this war, so far, from what I can see, the Iraqis have been out manuverd at every turn. Why should we expect that to change?
As one of the generals on CNN put it, when you plan a war you plan for the worst case scenario that is still within the realm of possibility. In his opinion, the coalition did not do that. They thought the Iraqis with throw down their weapons, open their arms to us, and that the regime would just collapse. Well, that didn't happen. And once we enter Baghdad it will come down to good old fashioned hand to hand combat. And the Iraqis will not be bound by any of our political concerns.
That's the problem, I have not heard or seen once where the administration or pentagon has said that the Iraqis would throw down their weapons and open their arms to us. I have only heard the media and war "experts" say this. Now they blame the administration on not having their predictions come true.

 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: Staley8

No it isn't : SIEGE = "The surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army attempting to capture it. "
A siege is to capture.
You laid claim earlier that a siege was "go in and clean up the mess one block at a time", now you say a siege is "to capture". Sigh, I don't want to get into a battle of definitions with you but a Siege is the act of "surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army" in an attempt to capture it. A siege isn't the act of capturing it. Capturing it can be a result or a consequence of the Siege itself.
 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
Originally posted by: Staley8

You laid claim earlier that a siege was "go in and clean up the mess one block at a time", now you say a siege is "to capture". Sigh, I don't want to get into a battle of definitions with you but a Siege is the act of "surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army" in an attempt to capture it. A siege isn't the act of capturing it. Capturing it can be a result or a consequence of the Siege itself.
Uh, I said they would go in and clean up. MadRat is the one arguing what is siege is and is not. A siege means they would seal off the city and wait for the Iraqis to surrender when they run out of supplies. They will not do this.
 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
Originally posted by: MadRat

A siege is to capture.
A siege mans they won't go into the city, they will try to starve them out. And it won't be the army starving first.
 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
Originally posted by: Staley8


Just exactly WHO thought that the Iraqis would throw down their weapons?
Nobody knows for sure what was said, we're just making educated guesses. Leaving vunerable units strung out behind seems to indicate a certain degree of overconfidence.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: RossGr


I would say that you should learn to expect the unexpected from this war, so far, from what I can see, the Iraqis have been out manuverd at every turn. Why should we expect that to change?
As one of the generals on CNN put it, when you plan a war you plan for the worst case scenario that is still within the realm of possibility. In his opinion, the coalition did not do that. They thought the Iraqis with throw down their weapons, open their arms to us, and that the regime would just collapse. Well, that didn't happen. And once we enter Baghdad it will come down to good old fashioned hand to hand combat. And the Iraqis will not be bound by any of our political concerns.
That's the problem, I have not heard or seen once where the administration or pentagon has said that the Iraqis would throw down their weapons and open their arms to us. I have only heard the media and war "experts" say this. Now they blame the administration on not having their predictions come true.
Here are some admin. officials claiming the Iraqis would love us and roll over. There are more juicy quotes by people like Richard Perle who no doubt had an influence on the admin. policy.
Link
? Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

? March 4, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

? March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

? March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

The war begins

? March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

? March 21, Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news briefing: "The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. ... The regime is starting to lose control of their country."

? March 27, Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

? March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

? Sunday, Rumsfeld, on Fox News Sunday, when asked if Iraqis would "celebrate in the streets" when victory is achieved: "We'll see."

Edit:
Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration official who serves on a Pentagon advisory board, said in a Washington Post column in February that the war would be "a cakewalk." Richard Perle, who chaired that board until last week, predicted in July that support for Saddam, even within the Iraqi military, would "collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
Perle and Adelman definatly had an influence on the admin and it shows.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
I am not going to continue the complete message quote, just to messy!

Here are some admin. officials claiming the Iraqis would love us and roll over. There are more juicy quotes by people like Richard Perle who no doubt had an influence on the admin. policy.
Not a single one of those quotes indicates what you are claiming they do. Not a single one of them says that the Iraqis will not fight. Perhaps you are reading more into them then you should.

Further more, how do you connect such quotes with the actual planning of the war? It is clear to me that the army was indeed ready for the event that the Iraqis citizen would not immediately welcome our forces. I do not have a link but have read that there was a CIA report floating around the Pentagon saying exactly that a month before the war started. While the author of the article I read felt that it had been ignored, was it? I cannot see the evidence that it was, simply because while the Calvin Ball tactics of the Iraqis have been a nuisance they have not been very effective in stopping the offence.

I will bet that within the next few week Basra will been cleansed of Soddams forces. As they begin to lose power the citizens will begin to help more, the more the citizens help the faster the pockets of resistance will vanish. Then the celebrations will start.

These celebrations will need to be broadcast worldwide and specifically into Baghdad. My hope is that if we can establish a "Soddam free" zone, perhaps the fears of rest of the Arab world can be quieted. This because we can have testimony from freed Iraqis that the US has actually helped them. Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Basra would be beautiful indeed and there is some early indications that it might actually happen.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,607
3
76
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: MadRat
A siege is to capture.
A siege mans they won't go into the city, they will try to starve them out. And it won't be the army starving first.
No, to siege is to surround the city in an effort to cut off flow of commerce and people. This does not exclude going house to house. Unlike laying siege to a castle, there are no fixed walls from which to lay out a forward edge. Rather the invading force will slowly capture the city piece by piece, squeezing the opposition into an ever smaller corner. Eventually the opposition will crack before the entire city is occupied. Play with semantics how ever you may, but this is the order of a modern siege.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,607
3
76
Originally posted by: RossGr

These celebrations will need to be broadcast worldwide and specifically into Baghdad. My hope is that if we can establish a "Soddam free" zone, perhaps the fears of rest of the Arab world can be quieted. This because we can have testimony from freed Iraqis that the US has actually helped them. Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Basra would be beautiful indeed and there is some early indications that it might actually happen.
You are fully aware of the dual nature of arabs, right? It is okay for them to celebrate a Saddam Free zone only to take up arms against the coalition. Ideally they would govern themselves and the very presence of foreigners creates an easy target of blame for their hardships. I give them less than a month after its all over before the Iraqis begin to whine at the UN for self rule again.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: RossGr

These celebrations will need to be broadcast worldwide and specifically into Baghdad. My hope is that if we can establish a "Soddam free" zone, perhaps the fears of rest of the Arab world can be quieted. This because we can have testimony from freed Iraqis that the US has actually helped them. Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Basra would be beautiful indeed and there is some early indications that it might actually happen.
You are fully aware of the dual nature of arabs, right? It is okay for them to celebrate a Saddam Free zone only to take up arms against the coalition. Ideally they would govern themselves and the very presence of foreigners creates an easy target of blame for their hardships. I give them less than a month after its all over before the Iraqis begin to whine at the UN for self rule again.
They should have the right to self-rule. But I bet when they failed to escape poverty, or if a tyrant rise up again to beat them to submission, they will blame the US for everything thats wrong with their life.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,607
3
76
You missed my point. Arabs in that part of the world are paralized by their beliefs in Allah (God). The Iraqi has an intrinsic need in his culture to blame all failure on someone else. All good, in their mind, comes from Allah (God) and he only recieves it from being in favorable standing with Allah (God). If things are going to happen then Allah (God) will make it so, otherwise someone thwarted his own successes. When Saddam is now certain to lose the Iraqis have swayed to support them. The coalition will be their target of blame as soon as Saddam is no longer a good target. The younger generations of arabs do not necessarily share these sentiments, but it is pervasive throughout the older generations.

You have to understand the nature of friendships in their culture, too. Close friends are akin to family, but friends are merely equivalent to acquaintences in our culture. Notice how the TV shows arabs saying that they are happy now that Saddam is gone and their American friends will help them now. As soon as the aid has run out then the coalition is not likely to remain in good enough standing to be called "friend".
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
It will be interesting to see if such doomsday predictions come to be. I am betting that it is the Saddam Fyedenn (how ever it is spelled) that is driving the current resistance. It is absoulty imperitive that we get out of Dodge when the job is done. I am much more concerned about political inepitude botching the brillent efforts of our miltary after the war is over.

Our nation has a history of picking real t*rds as puppet leaders. I well remember pictures of Dick Nixon with his arm over the shoulders of his good buddy Fidel Castro, yes the US helped Castro into power! This has been a consistent pattern with our government, hopefully we can figure it out.

With Bush at the helm I am very worried.

(oh yeah, I am not a Bush supporter and I fully wish he had never started this war!)
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
I agree, the interm govt is a good start to get stability, but they need to have an election that produces a representative govt QUICKLY. I would much rather our troops be over there helping set up and protect WHAT THEY WANT, than trying to shove our ideas down their throat.

One leader is not the route to take, there are many "clans" who will not trust being ruled by the other, they need to create a body that allows each main group to have input into their Govt.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Gee here's a concept, each tribe/ethinc group elect men to serve in two different govt branchs, one where each region/groupe sends an equal number (say 2) and another where each sends a number based on their population. Then the people as a whole elect a single man to oversee it all.

Naw.... Never work.
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
76
I saw a great special on the History Channel today about the siege of Stalingrad. Although next to impossible it does seem that a city can be defended against a superior enemy if the # of defenders being lost does not matter, and if the city is in bad enough shape that their are hidding spots and forts everywhere.
 

swifty3

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
392
0
0
Make no mistake. It will be a bloodbath on both sides. For all the pro war people out there, u might want to ask yourself what the cost of this war really is. Not in dollars, but in life lost. 2 weeks, and we will all see the carnage. Lets hope its not as ugly as it probably will be.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Basra in a huge city, over a million population, by all rights it should also be a blood bath, by conventional knowledge ANY urban warfare, even in a small town can/should be a blood bath. Where are piles of British dead? It appears that they are making steady head way on gaining control of the city without the blood bath. Perhaps instead of making predictions based on conventional knowledge it would be better to keep your fingers crossed and watch the pros rewrite the book of warfare.

Of course this is a nearly irrationally optimistic view, but for my own mental state I find it preferable to take this course rather the seeing doom and gloom at every corner. No action you, or I, can take will have any meaningful effect on the outcome of this war so why not see it as a learning opertunity and watch as a interested and concerned citizen. It is not worth my while to even to attempt to second guess the pros (read American/British high command). I am contiunally amazed at way this war has progressed.

As for Saddam's apparent strategy of retreating into Baghdad for the mother of all wars (oh yeah that was 10yrs ago! :) Conventional knowledge has it that once an army begins to retreat it is nearly impossable to STOP it.

The single most worrisome factor is how little the forces of Saddam care for the life of the average Iraqi.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,607
3
76
Originally posted by: RossGr
Conventional knowledge has it that once an army begins to retreat it is nearly impossable to STOP it.
Like how only one British soldier survived the retreat from Afghanistan? Retreat during pitched battle is usually the death knell of an army. It is foolish to retreat unless the enemy has disengaged. If the Iraqis had simply dug in and stayed hidden they had a better chance. Bombings, surprisingly, are less effective in soft soils and sand, making it much harder to root out dug in forces. But the Iraqi soldiers didn't have the resolve to hang tough.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY