Iraq to dig trenches around Baghdad

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Iraqi security forces will dig trenches around Baghdad and set up checkpoints along all roads leading into the city to try to reduce some of the violence plaguing the capital, the Interior Ministry said Friday.

A U.S. Marine was killed Friday in Anbar province, and an American soldier was killed Thursday evening by a roadside bomb northwest of Baghdad, the military said. Five American soldiers died Thursday, making it an especially bloody day for U.S. forces.

The security plan, known as Operation Together Forward, began June 15 and is being implemented in three phases. The first phase included setting up random checkpoints around the city, phase two began Aug. 7 and focused on the most violence-prone areas of Baghdad ? mostly the Sunni Arab southern districts. Phase three reportedly includes cordoning off and searching other parts of Baghdad, including predominantly Shiite areas.

Khalaf said that except for the trenches, vehicle and pedestrian traffic would be restricted to just 28 entry points with manned checkpoints.

"We will leave only 28 inlets to Baghdad while all other inlets will be blocked. Supports will be added to the trenches to hinder the movements of people and vehicles. The trenches will be under our watch," he said.

He did not have any details, but did say that there would be no concrete walls or razor wire. Khalaf also did not know how deep or wide the trenches would be.

"They will surround Baghdad," he said of the trenches.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told the Security Council on Thursday that the average number of weekly attacks increased 15 percent and Iraqi casualties increased by 51 percent, compared with the previous three months.



The Soviets did the same thing with Kabul in Afghanistan, effectively conceding the rest of the country to the rebels. It also is the same tactic the US used in Viet Nam. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the population hole up in secure areas. Until you can't afford the lives or treasure anymore and then leave. It looks like a shift in US tactics. And an admission of failure.

 

[feralkid]

It's called "Making Progress"

 

[ayabe]

I don't see what that is going to do. I think most of the weapons that are there are in the city itself, Sadr City, held by the militias, I'm sure they have a nearly inexhaustible supply of munitions since we failed to secure the military depots during the invasion and instead chose to secure the oil wells, all of which were completely looted.

It also doesn't help that AFAIK it's still legal for every household to have an AK.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: feralkid
It's called "Making Progress"

CORRECTION: Mission Accomplished

 

[jackschmittusa]

Kind of bad when your capitol city has to rely on rings of defensive perimeters. If you think of the Green Zone as the castle, and the trench as the moat, it would seem like a siege defence mentality of old.

One problem with creating a very limited number of access points is that the bad guys only have to cover the same limited number to have a crack at anybody they want who may come or go. It simplifies things a lot for them.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Kind of bad when your capitol city has to rely on rings of defensive perimeters. If you think of the Green Zone as the castle, and the trench as the moat, it would seem like a siege defence mentality of old.

One problem with creating a very limited number of access points is that the bad guys only have to cover the same limited number to have a crack at anybody they want who may come or go. It simplifies things a lot for them.

Ok I've changed my mind, if they fill the moat with water and drop in sharks with freakin' lasers beams then I think it would work.

 

[Pens1566]

So our exit strategy revolves around moats?????

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So our exit strategy revolves around moats?????

Filled with sharks with laser beams on their heads!

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So our exit strategy revolves around moats?????

Filled with sharks with laser beams on their heads!

Actually, they couldn't get haliburton to provide sharks, so they ended up with sea-bass. And yes, they are very ill tempered.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So our exit strategy revolves around moats?????

Filled with sharks with laser beams on their heads!

Actually, they couldn't get haliburton to provide sharks, so they ended up with sea-bass. And yes, they are very ill tempered.

Or stingrays, one shot one kill.

 

[straightalker]

A slam dunk.

Bring'em on!

Seriously, ...some of the other comments made on this thread were some very excellent observations.

The concept of trenching the perimeter of a city in recent history is no different in principle than in ancient history. It's a defensive measure taken to fortify a position against an enemy seige.

So in Iraq now we have some morphing of the Order of Battle going on along with a simultaneous morphing of the enemies attack stratagies and capabilities. If you've been reading about the sad situation in another Bush Hunta Corporate Empire warzone, Afghanistan, ...then you are up to date on the situation with the Taliban's morphing. Basicly, they are learning how to fight the USA and defeat high tech using basic stealth and rush tactics. Combined with upgrades in weapons and various stealth-op explosives.

What's so important to realize is that our USA Soldiers will be repeatedly tasked with venturing out into the areas outside Fortress Bagdad and Fortress Kasbul. And when they do they will be shoved into a radical Islamic meat-grinder of spinning Scimitar blades.

Forcing our Generals in Central Command bunkers to reel in angst and devise a counter strategy. I'm guessing heavy carpet bombing and artilery barrages preceeding our troop movements across the enemy re-patriated hostile frontiers. 90% of Iraq pretty soon will probably get overun by Islamic volunteers moving in from all around the world.

I'd like to be optimistic but their just is no basis for it. Reality rules. And mass bombing more Iraqis has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. That creates only hatred and more lifelong enemies. Many of whom will someday cross into Fortress America. Which, thanks to current North American Union goals, is not a Fortress but an open invitation to cross at our open borders at the Mexico line..

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: straightalker
A slam dunk.

Bring'em on!

Dead or alive

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
.....It looks like a shift in US tactics.........

It might be. Many critics of the "war", not the Cindy Shehan-types but those who question the methods employed, have long argued for a shift in operational tactics.

The military was employing the tactic of swooping in, clearing out the "terrorists", then leaving only to have the "terrorists" drift back in later. Many critics have long argued that the military should move in to a location/city, clean it out and remain there. Creating an "island of safe haven", then spreading out from there, creating a even larger zone of safety for civilian non-combatants.

Fern

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

ROFL, wasn't Falujah supposed to be a safe haven once we cleared it out? I thought we already 'took' Baghdad, but I guess when you've got 3 factions fighting 1 force, it's gonna be ugly in every possible way.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: straightalker
A slam dunk.

Bring'em on!

Dead or alive

I added some stuff. I was being sarcastic and had to add some appropriate reality. Check out my post above now.

 

[Martin]

They've been taking lessons from Family Guy, trying to keep the Black Knight at bay...

Seriously, this will be absurdly ineffectual. The Vietnamese smuggled everything through narrow jungle trails and they think an 80km long trench will stop Iraqis?

 

[Pens1566]

Didn't king george say our oceans aren't enough to protect us? And we're supposed to believe a moat (albeit with ill-tempered sea-bass sporting freakin' lasers on their heads) will be able to protect Baghdad?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Didn't king george say our oceans aren't enough to protect us? And we're supposed to believe a moat (albeit with ill-tempered sea-bass sporting freakin' lasers on their heads) will be able to protect Baghdad?

Well some people think that building a 4000 mile wall will keep out Mexicans. If we were dealing with g'damn Mongowians, then maybe, we could drop da sweet and sour sauce on dey heads.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The Soviets did the same thing with Kabul in Afghanistan, effectively conceding the rest of the country to the rebels. It also is the same tactic the US used in Viet Nam. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the population hole up in secure areas. Until you can't afford the lives or treasure anymore and then leave. It looks like a shift in US tactics. And an admission of failure.

Different dynamic at play here.

The insurgents are being successful because they have infiltrated urban areas, such as Bagdad, and are free to engage in IED and other such bombings on innocent civilians.

Establishing controlled zones for entry will hopefully reduce the mobility of insurgents.

Unlike Vietnam and even Afghanistan for the Soviets, this war is being fought in urban areas...and will be won if America and Iraqi security forces can find a way to secure said urban areas.

If America is able to isolate the ability of insurgents to use hit and run tactics in urban areas, it will neutralize their combat effectiveness.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The Soviets did the same thing with Kabul in Afghanistan, effectively conceding the rest of the country to the rebels. It also is the same tactic the US used in Viet Nam. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the population hole up in secure areas. Until you can't afford the lives or treasure anymore and then leave. It looks like a shift in US tactics. And an admission of failure.

Different dynamic at play here.

The insurgents are being successful because they have infiltrated urban areas, such as Bagdad, and are free to engage in IED and other such bombings on innocent civilians.

Establishing controlled zones for entry will hopefully reduce the mobility of insurgents.

Unlike Vietnam and even Afghanistan for the Soviets, this war is being fought in urban areas...and will be won if America and Iraqi security forces can find a way to secure said urban areas.

If America is able to isolate the ability of insurgents to use hit and run tactics in urban areas, it will neutralize their combat effectiveness.

I don't think the problem is that they hit us then flee Baghdad, they hit us and then go to areas areas we don't patrol, like Sadr city, we aren't welcome there and don't do much. These are the guys we need to shut down, the militias. They are the ones dumping 100 bodies a week around the city with screw holes drilled in their heads.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think the problem is that they hit us then flee Baghdad, they hit us and then go to areas areas we don't patrol, like Sadr city, we aren't welcome there and don't do much. These are the guys we need to shut down, the militias. They are the ones dumping 100 bodies a week around the city with screw holes drilled in their heads.

I don't think it necessarily matters where they flee to...what does matter is that weapons and munitions are flowing from outside urban areas into the hands of these militias and insurgents.

Cut off their supply lines...the first rule of modern military strategy.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't think the problem is that they hit us then flee Baghdad, they hit us and then go to areas areas we don't patrol, like Sadr city, we aren't welcome there and don't do much. These are the guys we need to shut down, the militias. They are the ones dumping 100 bodies a week around the city with screw holes drilled in their heads.

I don't think it necessarily matters where they flee to...what does matter is that weapons and munitions are flowing from outside urban areas into the hands of these militias and insurgents.

Cut off their supply lines...the first rule of modern military strategy.

Maybe but as I said earlier, I think much of the munitions being used are already in the city, in said areas. If our current mission is to bring stability, we have to end the sectarian garbage, that is our biggest problem right now, and building a trench and locking the city down isn't going to stop these kidnappings and revenge killings. There are perpetrated by regular people with regular weapons. Many of these crimes are being committed by members of the police, which are absolutely overrun with militiamen, and who supplies their ammo? We do.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's a complicated situation...no question about that...maybe we trench them in, leave the city, let them have at it for a few months, and then come back when they grow tired of killing each other.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It's a complicated situation...no question about that...maybe we trench them in, leave the city, let them have at it for a few months, and then come back when they grow tired of killing each other.

Months is a little optomistic. Going by history in the region, hundreds of years might be more likely, if at all.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It's a complicated situation...no question about that...maybe we trench them in, leave the city, let them have at it for a few months, and then come back when they grow tired of killing each other.

Hey, that's the famous Condi Rice "give war a chance" strategy that proved successful in Lebanon.

:thumbsup: