It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
After the fall of Germany in WWII, nazi insurgents would run wire across roads that were traveled by American soldiers on jeeps. If you remember the old Whellis jeeps had windshields that would fold down on the hood.
Originally posted by microcosm
Saint4God isn't the only one that enjoys your posts. I love reading your posts. They're very well written, easily understood, and dispel alot of the myths, and rumors that are thrown around as solid fact. Your posts also give an alternate detailed analysis towards the current situation in Iraq. Great work, keep it up. W.A.T.S. for sure.
Originally posted by MajorCee
It's kind of interesting the attempts to rebut what
I have said. It must be pretty hard to rebut, because
I have not heard one rebuttal that has any merit.
[edit on 5-11-2005 by MajorCee]
In other words, the United States reversed the process by trying to drive a wedge between the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia. And it appeared to be working, with al-Sistani and al-Sadr seeming to shift positions so as not to be excluded.
The Iranians and al-Sistani -- seeing the situation slipping out of control -- tried to convince the Americans that they were willing to send Iraq up in flames.
In any generalized conflict between Sunnis and Shia, the Saudis are vulnerable to both direct military action from Iran and indirect subversion from their own Shiite population.
Originally posted by MajorCee
Here are some of those beneficial things that I came up
with when I made this presentation on Oct 11. These are
mostly my thoughts based on various sources, like FoxNews,
CNN, and Stratfor.
(1) It moved Al Qaeda from Afghanistan where they
are very difficult to find or fight and they have
moved operations to Iraq, where their guerrilla
strategy is much more difficult to implement and
also where they have to defeat the Shia (80%) of
Iraq, along with the US.
(2) It enlisted the help of a very good portion of
the Shia population of Islam to fight Al Qaeda for
(3) It threw Al Qaeda off balance and has given
them incentive to redirect their attack against
the US, to now attacking Shiite targets in
Iraq, thus making more and more enemies among
their own Islamic world, who they had hoped to
recruit and rule.
(4) It brought about the resolve to stop the proliferation
of nuclear weapons within dangerous hands.
(5) It brought Saudi Arabia fully into the effort to
stop Al Qaeda.
(6) It gave us an operating base in the area. Before
the attack, the only country in the area that would
allow US troops to deploy from was Kuwait.
(7) Iraq has given a partial financial resource to help
finance the war. Along with getting the Shiites of
Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, some of the bill can be paid
by Iraqi oil which has been flowing for some time now
and much of this money is going to finance the new Iraqi
army and police, and these forces are becoming the front
line of the war, actually taking about 95% of the casualties.
(1) USA would attack Afghanistan in response to 9-11 and
try to weed out Al Qaeda from the country.
(2) Al Qaeda would remain hidden away in remote areas
of Afghanistan and conduct a war of attrition over
many years just as they did with the Russians....
Afghanistan was and is a perfect
place for them to conduct the guerrilla war that they
The terrain is so rough and hard to move
in that military movements are very difficult. There
are also thousands of natural hiding places and cover.
This cover is necessary for a guerrilla war for several
reasons. It gives a sanctuary where the guerrillas can
safely hide and just as important it gives transportation
routes that are hidden whereby supplies can be carried
to the guerrillas.
This transportation network is all
important to a guerrilla war. During Afghanistan's
war with Russia, there was a constant flow of food
and munitions to the guerrillas. This amounted to
many tons of supplies daily being moved over six main
supply routes into Afghanistan.
If the US had sent a
major army into Afghanistan, they could have got
bogged down into a long unwinnable quagmire.
They needed one badly after
having lost their first one, Afghanistan. To add
embarrassment to losing their first jihadist state,
they had lost it while only killing 2 Americans.
As I said, Iraq was a master stroke from a military
point of view.
Originally posted by MajorCee
You make some good points and you could well be right
in some of those areas that you disagree with me.
First, yes I do have a military background but I
am retired. Also I want to point out that my opinions
expressed here are my own, not anything from official
History might give a better answer to whose opinion,
yours or mine is more correct on this Iraq thing.
The book "Afghanistan The Bear Trap" gives the best blow by
blow description of how the war between Russia and Afghanistan
was carried out.
It pointed out the fact that the terrain was so rough, tanks and helicopters met some grave limitations in operation, and it also pointed
out how transportation was reduced to horses, mules, camels,
etc because trucks could not even be used in most of the
A basic need in any guerilla war is sanctuary. A successful
guerilla war cannot be undertaken without it.
A similar situation arose in Afghanistan for the Russians.
The sanctuary there was the really rough mountain terrain
I would point out this perfect example of the sanctuary of
Afghanistan/Pakistan being better than Iraq. We caught
Saddam in his poor sanctuary of Iraq. Osama is still hid
in his superior sanctuary.
Of course you pointed out to get Pakistan to help and clear
that in their country.
(some text remove quote)
Of course a solution there would be to run US troops into Pakistan. This is not a move the US wants to make. There is the belief that this would really increase Pakistani militants to join Al Qaeda.
I would argue that this was their strategy and you should never play into the enemy's strategy if it looks solid. Since their strategy was modeled on a proven successful one, who is to say they could not do it again?
Also this whole idea of going into Afghanistan still would not have solved the problem that surfaced where the decision was made to insure no nuclear weapons were going to be permitted that could get into Al Qaeda hands.
As was pointed out in George Friedman's book "America's Secret War", Pakistan had cooperated with the US in providing positive assurance that they were keeping their nukes under control.
Remember also that there was no such assurance from Iraq that their nuclear program had been shut down.
That pretty much details what I think in regard to this
specific point you made. Tomorrow I might give 20 minutes
to another point, if the urge hits me.
[edit on 6-11-2005 by MajorCee]
You have voted MajorCee for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
Originally posted by Senser
Major, have you ever thought about the fact that the so called war on terror is a camoflaged excuse to tackle a a far more greater threat to americas world dominance???
You are assuming that war on terror as it is portrayed is real, all your reasoning is based on this.
If it isnt, which i think is the case, than all your well formulated arguments is nothing more then a shallow illusion.
I read the book americas secret war, and wasnt impressed at all, and really think it was written to make the neo con strategy look light brown instead of the truth namely very darkbrown.
Just a little sand in the eyes if you will.....misinformation.
Take away a few pieces in the chain of your arguments , and there is no chain anymore
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Even if this were the case and the war were all about oil (I assume that is your position), the same strategy would be needed.