It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Invade Iraq?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Nearly 200,000 views and over 3,000 posts later, I'm still fascinated by this active discussion: Can China Invade Taiwan?

So I'm requesting some ATS brain power from my fellow RISK and Stratego enthusiasts on this topical noodle scratcher...

Can the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Invade Iraq?

Since this week's latest revelation from US General George Casey that the number of combat-ready Iraqi battalions has now dropped to one, it's suddenly an interesting hypothetical match up of compatible forces.

Top U.S. General Says Number of Capable Iraqi Battalions Drops to One
AP.com
By Liz Sidoti Associated Press Writer
Published: Sep 29, 2005


WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one, the top American commander in Iraq told Congress Thursday, prompting Republicans to question whether U.S. troops will be able to withdraw next year.

Gen. George Casey, softening his previous comments that a "fairly substantial" pull out could begin next spring and summer, told lawmakers that troops could begin coming home from Iraq next year depending on conditions during and after the upcoming elections there.

"The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens," Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Bush administration says training Iraqi security forces to defend their own country is the key to bringing home U.S. troops. But Republicans pressed Casey on whether the United States was backsliding in its efforts to train Iraqis.

In June, the Pentagon told lawmakers that three Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped and capable of operating independently. On Thursday, Casey said only one battalion is ready.

"It doesn't feel like progress," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.


With the substantial US taxpayer investment now in the hundreds of billions for this important force of 300 to 1,000 combat-ready Iraqis, how would these $300 million to $1 billion per head super soldiers "soon" to be guarding our strategic interests and spreading democracy in the middle east fair against a hypothetical hostile invasion force from a compatibly equipped aggressor like the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?

DEFENSE

The Luxembourg Army is under civilian control. The country has no navy or air force. A 1967 law made the army an all-volunteer force with current strength of approximately 430 professional soldiers, about 340 enlisted recruits, and 110 civilians. A 2002 law now allows EU citizens, under certain conditions, to join the Luxembourg Army.


Terrifying as the thought of nearly 900 angry Luxembourgers with no navy or air force descending on all that oil may sound, I'm just trying to find the most reasonably balanced match up on the planet for after the promised forthcoming US troop withdrawal. Let's leave Iran, Syria and all the other baddies out of it for now. We know exactly how that will fair. As soon as they see a democratic Iraq in action, they'll simply surrender and get with the program. But let's say Luxembourg is stubborn. Or better yet, they "hate freedom."

Run the scenarios. This could be good. Could Iraq's single battalion hold them off? Or would the grand experiment of a democratic middle east fail with the first Luxembourgish assault of catapult launched smelly cheeses?

[edit on 1-10-2005 by RANT]




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
There is no way no way that the Lux soilders will be able to stand up to a mechanized US Army force. The M1A2 alone can wreak havoc. However due to the narrow streets, I would expect much of the dirty work to be done by the Bradleys and HUMMVEES etc. I would expect the invasion to go a little bit like this:

Know The Enemy



The Time Line:

January 2006: President George Bush, alarmed by the potential for cheeses of mass destruction issues the following during the state of the union address.

"Luxembourg continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Luxembourg regime has plotted to develop weaponized gouda, cheddar, and god help us limberger for over a decade."

The next day during an adress to the UN General assembly Secretary of State Rice had this to say

"Grand Duke HENRI's regime is a grave and gathering danger. … The first time we may be completely certain he has -- Weaponized Cheese is when, God forbids, he uses one."


Secretary of Defence Rumsfield

"They have weaponized cheese, we know that. They've had an active program to develop cheese based weapons."


Colin Powell comes out of retirement and addresses the UN

"We have first-hand descriptions of cheese factories on wheels and on rails. …

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of weaponized cheese. …

He remains determined to acquire cheese based weapons. … He is so determined that has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification curds and whey from 11 different countries. …"


UNESCO can find no evidence of weaponized cheese in the country. Following France's refusal to bring Cheese related" sanctions before the Security Council, the US and the UK invade.

The country is overrun, and, the Duke placed in jail, and the hunt for weaponized cheese is on.

Some quotes:


BUSH

It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Grand Duke HENRI no longer threatens America with weapons of cheese.


WOLFOWITZ

There has been a tendency to emphasize the weaponized cheese issue. But … the real thing that has concerned the President from the beginning … is the connection between terrorism and weaoinzed Cheese. So in a way, that's always been the main thing.


Mission Accomplished

However winning the war and pacifing Luxembourg has proven a different story. Drive by cheesings are taking thier toll on troops stationed there.






[edit on 10/1/05 by FredT]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I see you pulled a "Capt. Kirk" on the scenario which I applaud.

Rather than merely accept the conditions of thwarting a ruthless Luxembourger invasion, you took the fight to Luxembourg!


Fighting the Luxembourgers there, so the Iraqis don't have to fight them at home!

BRILLIANT!



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
You know, it really wasn't about the CMD's (Cheeses of Mass Destruction) in the first place. It was about freeing the formerly supressed lactose-intolerent masses and allowing them to have choice when it comes to cheese.

President Bush said these words about the new Lux Cheese freedom in a televised speech last night.


"For the first time in history, these persecuted Luxemborgians now have the freedom to buy non-dairy cheese foods, like Kraft-brand Cheddar-flavored Cheez Whiz and Hint o' Jalapeno Velveeta. This is a banner day in Luxemborger history as they can literally taste freedom.

American contractors from General Mills have been building permanent concessions throughout Luxemborg to educate the lactose-intolerant Luxemburgadian masses on accurate Cheese Whiz deployment on not only traditional crackers, but as a chili topper, on pigs in a blanket, nachos and yes--even straight out of the can. Freedom is truly on the spread in Luxembourg."


Obviously, millions of lactose intolerant Lux would have never had the chance to experience cheese food and would have continued to either go without or live with gastrointestinal distress. Clearly, the right choice was to spread our way of life on these poor tortured people.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Don't forget about Rumsfeld asking and then answering his own questions.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Let them invade! Let them win the hearts and minds!

With cheese and fine wines y'all!



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Since this week's latest revelation from US General George Casey that the number of combat-ready Iraqi battalions has now dropped to one, it's suddenly an interesting hypothetical match up of compatible forces.


Umm... RANT I think you meant to say “number of combat-ready Iraqi battalions capable of performing without US support has now dropped to one.”



[edit on 1-10-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
These quotes were heard from the Luxembougan Minister of Information...

"There are no Iraq troops in Luxembourg."

"There are no US troops in Luxembourg."

"There are no Luxembourgian troops in Iraq, the US or Luxembourg."

"We promised the mother of all battles and tomorrow my mother will go into battle."

"There are no reports of foreign troops anywhere in Luxembourg. I have searched all of our offices at the Ministry and have found no such reports."



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
First, it's not "Luxembourgers." That sound like advanced sinusitis. Nor is it Luxembourgians. The preferred nomenclature is Luxembourgeoisie. After all, they are capitalists, dude.

Second, Risk and Stratego will not allow for the correct permutations. I would suggest Diplomacy, which allows for the "Luxembourg/Andorra Variant:"

Spring 2006: US Fleet Indian Ocean to hold. US Army Iraq support Iraq militia to hold. Countered by Lux Army to hold Luxembourg.

Which results in stalemate within 17 turns. . . .

Unless Spring 2006: Lux Army outbid US to support Blackwater Security force to invade Baghdad and declare it a duty-free zone.

Good luck.

How about a nice game of Chess?



[edit on 2-10-2005 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... RANT I think you meant to say “number of combat-ready Iraqi battalions capable of performing without US support has now dropped to one.”


If that wasn't clear.


This is certainly a tongue in cheek exercise, but my interest is sincerely peaked. In the subject of "weaponry" which would include a viable, trained and loyal force, what would it take for Iraq to be truly independent as is the stated goal?

Meaning, while I think the pressure for US troop withdrawal being applied from peaceniks, Buchannon-styled isolationists and Internet Libertarians alike is warranted, obviously to do so now would constitute the colossal failure of Iraq. Seriously, I think the Lux could take them. Obviously Iran could.

So what's the reasonable goal? A force equivalent to Irans? Is the model "as strong as Saddam" at least appeared to be? I can't begin to tell you how much that pisses me off if it is. We built that saber rattling paper tiger up for decades just for that purpose... to have a secular foothold opposing Iran. Now we have to do it again?

Sorry, but "containing" him (which was our foothold and rationale for same) was a lot easier than being him. Grumble. Grumble.

But I'm seriously not looking for a political debate here. Just a knowledgeable debate on what it will take. I see the protests and counter protests where one side says "Troops home now" and the other screams "As long as it takes" but let's be somewhat reasonable with both the pressure and accountability.

Obviously, the Generals want to be more honest than the politicians but even they have to slip on the rose colored glasses for the camera.

What is the force required for a truly independent Iraq? Or are my suspicions correct that that's never going to happen?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Luxembourg is a very interesting place..

When I was in Europe in 1991-1993.. it was a very friendly place to Americans..

But their Army is a joke compared to other nations.

But if you go there... there are hills and sutch that would make the M1A2 pause...

But thats ok.. General George S. Pattons Grave is in Luxembourg.. its very popular with their tourist industry.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Seeing as the US government's "diplomat" to Afganistan uttered the phrase "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" , after strong arming pipeline politics that opened with a sugar cash sac jab which amounted to about $4 MILLION per capita, BILLION dollar soldiers sounds on par.....at least it's consistent and does account for inflation and standard of living.

Que the Bush syncophancy.....NOW!



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Advance elements have captured one of the many palaces belonging to the Duke. Among the items found were solid gold fondue sets, solid gold cheese knives, one really big round of gouda, and the they have liberated the Laughing Cow (Of the Laughing Cow Cheese brand) from the dairy/torture room.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Preliminary combat simulations say yes.

But then, that is not the real question, is it?

Sure, they would be welcomed with flowers and parades.

The real question is, can they hold it in the face of a unifying, anti-western, pan-islamic fascist superstate in the making, as their invasion drives the "insurgents" into a semblance of some kind of unity against the Frankish Crusading infidel invaders.

There. That's the REAL question Rant wants to pose on this thread.




posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

What is the force required for a truly independent Iraq? Or are my suspicions correct that that's never going to happen?


Follow Jack Murtha's plan and it'll be free cheese for everyone!




top topics



 
0

log in

join