• 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."

U.S. Orders 4-6 Day Pause in Iraq Advance (because of supply shortages) Dems this is your chance..

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
U.S. Orders 4-6 Day Pause in Iraq Advance-Officers
Sat March 29, 2003 12:02 AM ET
CENTRAL IRAQ (Reuters) - U.S. commanders have ordered a pause of between four to six days in a northwards push toward Baghdad because of supply shortages and stiff Iraqi resistance, U.S. military officers said on Saturday.
They said the "operational pause," ordered on Friday, meant that advances would be put on hold while the military sorted out logistics problems with long supply lines from Kuwait.

The invasion force would continue to attack Iraqi forces ahead of them with heavy air strikes during the pause, softening them up ahead of any eventual attack on Baghdad, said the officers, declining to be named.

Use of gas-guzzling armored vehicles has been restricted to save fuel and food is also in short supply. In one frontline infantry unit, for instance, soldiers have had their rations cut to one meal packet a day from three.

Resistance from Iraqi militias fighting in towns along the advance lines has hampered the stretched supply convoys.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2470050
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
give it a break, democrats are not out to get you, lol. I think it's good that we're taking a break, shows there is no political pressure by the white house and franks can do as he pleases. plus hopefully the 4id can come in and hopefully take over control of basra.

that's really sad piano man, if you're an American to hope our forces screw up. also more forces will not mean more get killed, on the contrary more forces means less get killed.
 

Jani

Senior member
Dec 24, 1999
405
0
0
Good tactics from Iraq side. They let coaliton troops take giant strides and now they fighting guerilla war against service corps. Terrible situation for those troops near Baghdad and don't know how long it takes when next supply column arrives.
 

Tates

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 25, 2000
9,079
10
81
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Eh....no big deal. To try and take this as some huge problem is wrong and mostly being done by those who don't understand military operations. So they are pausing the advance in order to get reinforcements into the region, secure the areas they now have influence over, and insure that supplies are plentiful....big deal. Would you rather have them keep rushing the operation and cause a REAL problem? You have to remember that in Desert Storm there were weeks worth of bombing before the ground war began. For our forces to have moved as far and as fast as they have is amazing. Even under the best of conditions doing what they have done is not easy. This pause is nothing and will give the troops time to rest up while the bombing campaign continues and additional troops can arrive. Just because the advance has been paused doesn't mean the war will not continue.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
A good 4-6 days of 24hrs bombing, and maybe they can reduce the Medina division to 30%, and knock out the reinforcing Hammurabi's & Baghdad's to 60-70%. I'm all for it if they can just wipe out the whole divisions from air. It also gives time to ferry more troops to open a Northern front.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: Piano Man
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
Ok General Patton....tell me how they are f*cking it up and what you would do. You obviously have no clue about military operations.

 

steell

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2001
1,569
0
76
Attacking your enemies supply line is standard tactics in warfare. I am sure that the probability of attacks figured into the planning, but I suspect that the leading units were not expected to go so far, so fast.
Just think about the difficulties of supplying the enormous amount of food/ammo/water/parts, over such a distance. Not surprising at all, that they had to stop an advance to let the logistical side catch up.
It has been pretty obvious in the last couple of days, that a halt was going to have to be called.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Tanks won't move without gas. Soliders can't fight without food. So what do you do? Give tanks gas and soliders food. Then resume the fighting. Pretty standard really.
 

Tates

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 25, 2000
9,079
10
81
I forgot to mention....of the 8 days, our guys & gals were pinned downed for 2 1/2 days due to the worst sand storms the region had experienced in 30+ years.

So now the troops get a chance to regroup, shake off some battle fatigue, maybe even freshen up, while the fly boys pound the holy bejeezus out of the republican guard.

Isn't that what the armchair generals were whining about....having the Air Force pound away then advance the ground troops?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Iraq set for more sandstorms

Print Email
Posted: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 9:30 AEDT

Iraq set for more sandstorms
Weather experts are forecasting more sandstorms in Iraq next week, with temperatures starting their climb towards unbearable summer highs.

After swirling sandstorms struck southern Iraq during the week, German forecasters are predicting more high winds in the coming week.

"In southern Iraq and in Kuwait there could again be sandstorms because the wind will be strong," German independent weather service Wetter.com said.

The forecasters, using data from Germany's national forecasting service DWD, say conditions will improve in Baghdad over the weekend but next week will be changeable.



Searing heat


Meteorologists in the United States say temperatures could soar to an above-average 32.22 degrees Celsius next Wednesday, overshadowing fears of more storms that can reduce visibility to zero and damage high-tech military equipment.

"The next big story you are going to hear about is the warmth, it's going to start getting very warm there, by the middle part of next week," senior meteorologist with Pennsylvania-based AccuWeather, Bernie Rayno, said.

"We are going to start hearing less and less about the sandstorms and more and more about the intense heat."

Wetter.com predicts temperatures will reach 29 degrees Celsius in Basra on Wednesday and 27 degrees Celsius in Baghdad.

Earlier this week, a US General in Qatar said high winds, sandstorms and thunderstorms have had an impact on the battlefield in Iraq but the invasion of Iraq remained on track.

Mr Rayno says sandstorms could die out as the Middle East's storm season ends but with that comes the challenge of unpredictability.

Up to 30 sandstorms are expected in Iraq's January to March wet season every year, when storm systems bring not only rain but sustained high winds.

From April onwards, storms became almost impossible to predict because high winds can no longer be linked to patterns but to subtle pressure differences instead.
 

Heisenberg

Lifer
Dec 21, 2001
10,621
0
0
Sandstorms shouldn't effect aircraft operations (other than helicopters obviously). Gonna make it real fun for the people on the ground though.
 

seawolf21

Member
Feb 27, 2003
199
0
0
I'm against the war but I don't think the current military situation is a SNAFU. War is never a walk in the park.

However, to those who say we control a good portion of the country...we control a whole lot of nothing but sand. Iraq never contested what we are currently holding to begin with; they learned from GWI not to face the USAF in the open desert. This first week is just the opening stages. The war will be won or lost depending on the views of the Iraqi public. If they view us as liberators, then victory is assured. If otherwise, then we don't have enough troops in the region. But one thing is certain....don't let Rumsfield or any civilian decide on how many troops we really needed for a miltary operation.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
This thread will just do like most of the others and come down to a Liberal vs Consertive word battle.

To the poster that claimed that the Dem's somehow are wimps and not patrotic should have their mouth washed out with soap. Tell that to a Marine or Airborn over there that is a Democrat. Every time that something like this is stated dont forget that both parties are represented among the fighting men and to suggest that a lot of them are not partiots is unamerican and not in the best interest of the war our your party.

Bleep
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Tell that to a Marine or Airborn over there that is a Democrat.
Good luck finding one.

I think there have been a few fvck-ups in this war, all of which can be attributed to the civilian leadership and most having to do with a massive undermanning of the effort.
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
This doesnt surprise me.

I figured after the initial hard and fast push the front lines would gel for a bit while we assess the situation, resuply, and rest before the next big push.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Tanks won't move without gas. Soliders can't fight without food. So what do you do? Give tanks gas and soliders food. Then resume the fighting. Pretty standard really.
Our troops probably need to catch up a little sleep as well...
NOt mention this gives maintance crews a chance to get everything 100% again.
 

jaeger66

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

You obviously have no clue about military operations.
And you do...why? Becasue you have a flag as your avatar? The Coalition both underestimated the ability of non traditional warfare to bog things down and have overextended the supply lines. They were in such a damned hurry to get to Baghdad and now they have to stop in the middle. Not good.
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Originally posted by: jaeger66
The Coalition both underestimated the ability of non traditional warfare to bog things down and have overextended the supply lines.
I disagree. We did have an optimistic view, but I would hardly call the current situation bogged down. Its not as if every day we are loosing supply trucks and crew in large numbers. There have been a few losses but nothing that will stop us.

They were in such a damned hurry to get to Baghdad and now they have to stop in the middle. Not good.
Once again I disagree.

They werent in any real hurry to get to Baghdad that hurt the operations. However they did want to secure as much ground as they could as fast as they could, now they will secure up what they bypassed while forming a front of sorts around Baghdad to lay a seige of some sort on it.

What is the danger if allied forces "stop in the middle"? Its not like we are the Iraqis and easy pickings out in the open. Infact we do better in the open because of the longer ranges our weapons our good too, and our nightvisision and infrared technology. Our forces are certainly safer out in the open than they would be fighting house to house in Baghdad.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: shinerburke

You obviously have no clue about military operations.
And you do...why? Becasue you have a flag as your avatar? The Coalition both underestimated the ability of non traditional warfare to bog things down and have overextended the supply lines. They were in such a damned hurry to get to Baghdad and now they have to stop in the middle. Not good.
Are they overextended? Or is that just misinformation to mislead the enemy? I dont anyone here is capable of knowing this.
 

jaeger66

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


Are they overextended? Or is that just misinformation to mislead the enemy? I dont anyone here is capable of knowing this.
It would seem that the very fact that they need to stop indicates it. Instead of a more systematic, steady approach they tried the rush despite having no northern front until things were well underway.

Of course we're all just BSing, nobody really knows anything over here. Educated guesses are the best we can do.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: charrison


Are they overextended? Or is that just misinformation to mislead the enemy? I dont anyone here is capable of knowing this.
It would seem that the very fact that they need to stop indicates it. Instead of a more systematic, steady approach they tried the rush despite having no northern front until things were well underway.

Of course we're all just BSing, nobody really knows anything over here. Educated guesses are the best we can do.
That is my point. No on knows, this could be real, it could misinformation. Eitherway Iraq has a few divisions that need to be weakened, troops need to rest, equipment needs to be repairs and supplies need to be topped off. After going 300 miles it makes sense to have an operational pause if it is needed. This is far from a disaster.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Jani
Good tactics from Iraq side. They let coaliton troops take giant strides and now they fighting guerilla war against service corps. Terrible situation for those troops near Baghdad and don't know how long it takes when next supply column arrives.
Not to mention that the Arab world is getting completely disgusted and angry with the Iraqi civilian deaths (which they believe is caused by US bombs) and some are crossing the border to attack AmBush Alley.
 

jaeger66

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

What is the danger if allied forces "stop in the middle"? Its not like we are the Iraqis and easy pickings out in the open. Infact we do better in the open because of the longer ranges our weapons our good too, and our nightvisision and infrared technology. Our forces are certainly safer out in the open than they would be fighting house to house in Baghdad.
That is true. But we will need to fight in Bagdhad and it will be messy, as urban war always is. Now if the Iraqis decide to fall back into the city there isn't a whole lot we can do about it if we're in pause mode.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY