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.

 

Tactical discussion on "The fight for Bagdad."

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I would first like to say thank you for the soldiers that are risking their lives in the face of danger.
I can't fit all the frames of reference it takes to completely understand all the intricacies of tactical warfare but I am pretty intelligent and get paid for my logical mind. That said, what should we think of our defense intelligence department (generals, officers, president) when they tell us that their "new plan," (which btw way isn't new, they have had troop increases (I pretty sure) five times since it started) is to increase troop levels?

I would wonder why they wouldn't creatively stumble upon that obvious reality of the terrorist leaving their scavvels for as long as it takes for US soldiers to clear that town? Wouldn't they assume that would be the optimal strategy for the terrorist? Wouldn't that seem obvious?

It's like chaising your tail, except for people die. I'm sorry but this makes me feel uncertain about the smarts of the field commanders. I also, don't exept the statement that they left it for the iraqis and they gave it up to be credible. I mean who is evaluating these native soldiers.

That said, I wonder if the smart people here could share their own strategies. Perhaps some dissiformation chump may stumble upon it and tell his boss (cheney
)

What says you guys?

AAC

[edit on 23-1-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
We need to get baghdad under control first. The forces of Iraq need to start doing the job they are supposed to and secure the borders. Next step would be the rebiulding of their military so they can fight. We need to reach a solution that each the Sunni Shi'a and Kyrds can agree upon whatever it may be I think this one will be the hardest.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Getting Baghdad under control... 3/4 years in and it's not happened yet. There's definitely a flaw in the plan or the coalition forces are just not serious about getting it under control. It's taking too long.

The West is all into getting Biometric IDs for it's passports why not start in Baghdad? It seems the insurgents have free movement throughout the city and the wider country at large. Bombs are going off every single day killing approx 100 people a day. In this kind of environ how many maddened, angry and dispossessed people who lose friends, family in these blasts are likely to turn militant and join a faction? It's a monster feeding itself in a similar way to Palestinian / Israeli issues and doesn't provide solutions.

Serious efforts need to be made to sniff out, locate and secure all the explosives that are being used. With so many bombings every week the amount of explosives in circulation must be tremendous indeed. If the situation remains the same then more of the same will occur.

The issue with the Baghdad military is the same as the wider sectarian issue across the country. It's a fact that these factions were kept largely in check under Saddam (Kurds, Marsh Arabs - now pretty much wiped out, Shia and Sunni) it was no solution either but now they are all vying for power and we have unleashed, unwittingly perhaps a civil war.

You can't control the borders of Iraq, not in anyway effectively. Look at the US / Mexican border? That's not secure at all and has much more superior tools, technology and manpower.

Dividing up the country for Shia, Sunni and Kurd won't solve all the issues and there will still be violence as the fledgling nations come into contact with each other. Plus Iran, Turkey, Saudi all have their interests.

Afghanistan is another example of what doesn't work and essentially the same scenario is being played there. The borders cannot be controlled and insurgents can move fairly freely and gain support.

So where is the model occupation from history where an invading force has pacified a hostile country and population? Does it even exist?

Maybe just maybe a UN force could move in and the US, Brits and others move out. That could be successful and it's at least worth a try. A mandated force that acts as a buffer towards self-government. The Serbian / Bosnian crisis was lessened and returned to a more peaceful environ. Would it work in the middle east?

A significant part of the country is still with less power, water and utilities than it had under Saddam. This must be an issue 3/4 years later and indicates to the population that their priorities (some of them basic indeed) are not part of the new Iraq. It's a fundamental hearts and minds issue that has not been addressed.

Adding more troops is only gonna turn it into the Nam.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
What do you mean that water and power are not part of the new Iraq have you been there give me something to change my mind on that one. We are building schools and hospitals and other essential buildings but the people just keep going and blowing them up. Like I said get the police and military over there working so allied forces do not have to patrol the border fight day in and day out and be the police force.

The sooner there stuff gets going the sooner we can start to lighten the load on our troops and start to pull out without the risk of them coming here right behind us.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
The reason Bagdhad isn't under control is because the troops were kept from going into certain neighborhoods, or areas for so long so they could try to win the hearts and minds of the people in them. All that did was let the insurgents have a known safe area to hide in. That changed recently though with this new crackdown.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
We never had adequate man power to do the job right, we did not actually "take" the city. We are occupiers (spl ? sorry its late) not conquerers.

We should have entered the city dispatched any of the remaining Saddam army units, fighters etc, in the relative calm after the fall of Saddam we screwed up by not immediately policing the area a block at a time.

Physically remove every non military coalition person in the block and sweep every house every yard for weapons. Take control of strategic corners and build fortifications, barricade the streets to re-route traffic and control the in and out points on each block.

Once satisfied its properly controlled, let the populance back in once they have all been ID'd. Enforce random ID control check points in all zones. Add more and more blocks this way until you have swept and put control points in the entire city.

Ruthlessly dispatch anyone violating the terms of hostilities towards coalition forces. They shot you with an AK you shoot them with an AT rocket.

Sniper shots at you from a rooftop, you drop a 500lb bomb on them.

They shoot a mortar at you, you fire a volley of 150mm arty shells on them.

Our only tactic now is to hold in place and wait to see if we have to hop the other border for more combat action.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Pitty they can't do what they did with Fallujah except this time drop a neutron bomb...game over
Last time they told the entire city to leave and that only people left behind are there to fight...no civilians

The terrorists say that the violence will stop when the occupiers leave but we all know that isn't true. They will just find another excuse to kill random people. As they do.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Agree with you zenem. Though it is hard unless you been there its hard to know whats going on. They use kids to fight so its hard to know when everyone is gone and who is fighting.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join