Why do we need to take Baghdad? *Update: I may have guessed correctly?

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

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: yowolabi
I edited my first post with some links. We have definitely attempted assassination.

The CIA tried to kill Castro 8 times. As for Noriega, we tried to assassinate him. Just because we call it something else doesn't hide that fact. That's similar to the old trick of smacking somebody on the back of their head and saying you were aiming for the fly.

Link for Castro

Operation Mongoose it was called


Edit: And the whole point of all of this is that there is nothing to stop us from doing what lowtech suggested and using the billions we're spending on an assassination attempt on Saddam. We have tried similar things many times in the past and it's not a break from tradition.

While we could, it would probably be a waste to attempt assassination, since apparently we're just really bad at it. Everyone from Castro to Osama to Noriega to Qadafi seem to be in remarkably good health considering they're supposed to be dead.
I get the point lowtech and yourself are making. The trouble is, Saddam is very well protected (if still alive). Another big problem is his sons. They are just as ruthless if not more so and need to be removed from power, as well. And, toss in some very high-up members of the military/government and you have something that would be hard to pull off with a simple assassination attempt.

Also, having a military force in place will help to subdue any in-fighting that may occur between the various Muslim sects and allow a chance at a stable, organized government in place of Saddam's regime. That last bit will take some doing and will necessitate an international effort to work with the Iraqi people.

Also, the attempts on Castro were before the executive order was created. That was done in 1976 with the Ford administration.
 

Jolyon33

Member
Oct 27, 2002
153
0
0
Unfortunately we have to take Baghdad because that is where the government is. Even forgetting Saddam for the moment, the fact that the government resists us demands that we remove it. Our overthrow of the regime will not be effective unless the existing government is toppled. The people of Iraq are too afraid of the regime to cooperate with us, ergo it must go.

Now, if the government were to run somewhere else then we could leave Baghdad relatively untouched (at least we wouldn't have to bomb it anymore) and chase the government down somewhere else. However, Baghdad is the capital so the government is unlikely to leave since it would effectively delegitimize them.

A siege would be a disaster for the U.S. from a PR standpoint, and a disaster for the population from ANY standpoint. Even forgetting about starving the population, the inevitable outbreak of disease in a weakened populace of 5 million people would be horrendous beyond imagining and to be avoided at ANY cost.

The best way into Baghdad is a quick strike into the heart of the city to take out the government bunkers and divide the city's defenders into isolated groups. Once the government and Saddam are taken or killed resistance should collapse quickly as the defenders will have no reason to continue.

Just my opinion. ;)
 

KevinH

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2000
3,110
7
81
Originally posted by: lowtech
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech

Sure why not?
Hasn't the US have done that serveral times in the past already?
No.

It would be nice if the government put more money into the Canadian educational system so more Canadian & dual CA/US citizens can have cheap schooling.

rolleye.gif

I meant so that its citizens would learn how to spell properly ;)
That would be nice since the English language isn?t the most logical language in the world. My prefer language is Vietnamese & French that learned when I grew up in Vietnam, and am still struggling with English since I only started to learn it much latter in my adult life.

I'm Viet too. Hi :). That said, stop it you're embaressing me...J/k. Seriously though, who's to say the US hasn't tried to assassinate him.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: rickn
the Iraqi's have resorted to using asymmetrical warfare, which is a real challenge, even for the US.

Not really when you think about it,

Although we have lost about 25 soldiers and more than 20 captured...This is a WAR. Hopefully everyone keeps the troops in there thoughts...

Reguardless, it have been 13 days, we have at least 8000 Iraqi prisoners, more submitting, and we are right on baghdads door step...

 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
you should read the book Asymmetrical Warfare: Today's Challenge to US Military Power by Roger W. Barnett.

from amazon.com

Editorial Reviews
Book Description
In this concise and penetrating study, Roger Barnett illuminates the effect of operational, organizational, legal, and moral constraints on the ability of the United States to use military force. As the tragic events of September 11 demonstrated, potential adversaries can take advantage of these limitations, thus spawning "asymmetrical warfare." Barnett defines asymmetrical warfare as not simply a case of pitting one?s strength against another?s weakness but rather of taking the calculated risk to exploit an adversary?s inability or unwillingness to prevent, or defend against, certain actions. For instance, launching chemical, biological, or suicide attacks; taking indiscriminate actions against critical infrastructure; using hostages or human shields; deliberately destroying the environment; and targeting noncombatants all constitute possible asymmetrical warfare scenarios. Against these acts, the United States has not prepared any response in kind?indeed the United States either cannot or will not undertake such responses?thus making these attacks especially difficult to counter. This refusal to retaliate in "an eye for an eye" fashion complicates the dilemma of American policymakers who seek to wield power and influence on the world stage while simultaneously projecting a peaceful and benign image. Barnett concludes that the United States must create a formal system of selectively eliminating the constraints that dictate our response to certain situations or scenarios. Failure to make such changes will only increase paralysis and, when the use of force is required, contribute to the already heightened risks
 

michaelh20

Senior member
Sep 4, 2000
482
0
0
Originally posted by: datalink7
Couldn't we just surround the city and let it fall on it's own? I doubt it could last very long.


Could only hope for this, but these could easily become famous last words. It could takes months or years to take Baghdad. Not that I'm an expert, but geez a city of 5 million, many of whom it seems rather do not want us present, versus a fighting force of a hundred thousand (so far)? If nothing else, it will be a blood bath and we'll kill tens of thousands of civillians and have pretty severe losses ourselves. Hope it doesn't become Grozny II. I really have little faith in the idea of the "new war" in the face of urban combat.
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
All we really need to do is drop leaflets that say... "hey iraqis, the US Congress wants to give you $80 BILLION (ok, a slight overstatement), but you can't have it until you all stop fighting. We have food and water for you, and we'll give you free MTV when we rebuild the TV station."

That should do it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Jane's thinks that Baghdad could hold out until next year under the right circumstances. Doesnt mean it will, but if Baghdad was provisioned properly, this could be ugly. I get the impression that people think Baghdad is some podunk town. If it were in the US, it would be the second largest city. I think it comes down to the fighters resolve. I can only hope it isnt strong.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: lowtech
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech
Siege doesn't work, because 12 years of embargo only hurts the civilians. And, civilians will also hurts if the city/country is taken by force.

Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.

uuhh....then what is your solution?
As if the US hasn't found other methods to throw non-pro American government out of power.

For serveral billions of dollars I'm sure your CIA people can find a few hitmen/mercenaries to take out Saddam. And, the money that the US is puting into this war is more than enought to buy Saddam generals for a coup.

With enought money you can buy anything....isn't that is the America way?

rolleye.gif

no thats just the Canadian perspective...