It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. Orders 4-6 Day Pause in Iraq Advance

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:07 PM

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.

posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:12 PM
The fact that they are snaking resupply routes through territory that we dont actually "own" (IE, not totally secured yet), and around cities that we havent fully taken does not lend itself to making secure safe headway...

I keep asking myself, why are we fighting this war like WWII against Rommel? We have the technology, airpower, and ability to bring the entire country to its knees (we did it in GW1).... why not back up the ground troops, rain explosives from B-52s for the next couple of months, at which point the Iraqis will be more than read to surrender to us, including the fedayeen....

posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:19 PM
Well, they are emphasizing that the air strikes will continue, even right now.

posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:27 PM
drop phamplets for 48 hours
then level baghdad... game over

posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:30 PM
Sun Tzu: When strong, feign weakness.

[Edited on 29-3-2003 by Never Sleeps]

posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:52 PM
a regrouping of our forces, and giving the additional troops coming in som time to prepare for their flight. maybe also to beef up supply lines. cnn already said that the troops are down to one mre a day. that's messed up. also, ammunition on the frigates and warships in the gulfs are becoming depeleted. soon they will be out of shells. the final assault on baghdad will require more than the 120ooo reinforcements coming by the end of may or whenever.

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:32 AM
Its amazing that this was reported to the news in the first place, that makes little military sense to me. Why tell the enemy that surrounds you that you will not be advancing, but remaining stationary for 4 6 days? If thats the plan, why not keep it secret and just get the fresh supplies and reinforcements in place?

I agree with dragonrider, the way that this war is being run makes little sense. The use of airpower to continually bombard enemy positions and supply depots before committing any troops on the ground is a basic modern warfare tactic.

The continuing reports that U.S. military planners have seriously underestimated the level of Iraqi resistance and are finding the war much harder than expected, is disheartening to me.


posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by deepwaters Wheres Stormin Norman when we need him?

...Officially, he's retired...

Originally posted by deepwaters Its amazing that this was reported to the news in the first place, that makes little military sense to me. Why tell the enemy that surrounds you that you will not be advancing, but remaining stationary for 4 6 days? If thats the plan, why not keep it secret and just get the fresh supplies and reinforcements in place?

Evidently, you haven't read the quote from SunTzu posted above...At this point it does sound wise to strengthen the current position, yet feign the weakness of "inadequite supplies" to draw the hidden enemies out to the open where they can be dealt with & thereby strengthen the current position better. Even if there's some truth to the "inadequite supplies" info, it would still be better to consolidate positions in order to strengthen the supply lines as well.

Besides that, have you already forgotten that the government admitted *weeks* before the start of the war that they'd be performing a "disinformation campaign" to keep US-based terrorist cells guessing?

Here is the only complete *online* version of Sun Tzu's works that I've ever seen:

[Edited on 29-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 01:46 AM
looks like people are utilizing my link to that site with sun tzu's stuff, glad to help.

anyway here is more of his guidance...

"Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease;
the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. ?

Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy. ?

Getting the enemy to approach on his own accord is a matter of showing him advantage;

stopping him from approaching is a matter of showing him harm. ?

Therefore, if the enemy is at ease, be able to exhaust him;

if the enemy is well fed, be able to starve him;

if the enemy is settled, be able to move him;

appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects. ?

To march over a thousand li without becoming distressed, march over where the enemy is not present. ?

To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend. ?

To be certain of safety when defending, defend where the enemy cannot attack. ?

Therefore, against those skilled in attack, the enemy does not know where to defend; ?

against those skilled in defense, the enemy does not know where to attack. ?

Subtle! Subtle!

They become formless.

Mysterious! Mysterious!

They become soundless.

Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate. ?

To achieve an advance that cannot be hampered, rush to his weak points.

To achieve a withdrawal that cannot be pursued, depart with superior speed. ?

Therefore, if we want to do battle, even if the enemy is protected by high walls and deep moats, he cannot but do battle, because we attack what he must rescue.

If we do not want to do battle, even if we merely draw a line on the ground, he will not do battle, because we divert his movements. ?

Therefore, if we can make the enemy show his position while we are formless, we will be at full force while the enemy is divided. ?

If our army is at full force and the enemy is divided, then we will attack him at ten times his strength. ?

Therefore, we are many and the enemy few.

If we attack our many against his few, the enemy will be in dire straits. ?

The place of battle must not be made known to the enemy.

If it is not known, then the enemy must prepare to defend many places. ?

If he prepares to defend many places, then the forces will be few in number. ?

Therefore, if he prepares to defend the front, the back will be weak.

If he prepares to defend the back, the front will be weak.

If he prepares to defend the left, the right will be weak.

If he prepares to defend the right, the left will be weak.

If he prepares to defend everywhere, everywhere will be weak. ?

The few are those preparing to defend against others, the many are those who make others prepare to defend against them. ?

Therefore, if one knows the place of battle and the day of battle, he can march a thousand li and do battle. ?

If one does not know the place of battle and the day of battle, then his left cannot aid his right, and his right cannot aid his left;

his front cannot aid his back, and his back cannot aid his front. ?

How much less so if he is separated by tens of li, or even a few li. ?

Based on my calculations, though Yueh's troops were many, what advantage was this to them in respect to victory?

Therefore I say, victory can be achieved. ?

Though the enemy is many, he can be prevented from doing battle.

Therefore, know the enemy's plans and calculate their strengths and weaknesses. ?

Provoke him, to know his patterns of movement. ?

Determine his position, to know the ground of death and of life. ?

Probe him, to know where he is strong and where he is weak. ?

The ultimate skill is to take up a position where you are formless. ?

If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you. ?

With formation, the army achieves victories yet they do not understand how.

Everyone knows the formation by which you achieved victory, yet no one knows the formations by which you were able to create victory. ?

Therefore, your strategy for victories in battle is not repetitious, and your formations in response to the enemy are endless. ?

The army's formation is like water.

The water's formation avoids the high and rushes to the low. ?

So an army's formation avoids the strong and rushes to the weak. ?

Water's formation adapts to the ground when flowing.

So then an army's formation adapts to the enemy to achieve victory. ?

Therefore, an army does not have constant force, or have constant formation.

Those who are able to adapt and change in accord with the enemy and achieve victory are called divine. ?

Therefore, of the five elements, none a constant victor, of the four seasons, none has constant position;

the sun has short and long spans, and the moon waxes and wanes."

what he is saying is, the defender is stronger than the attacker. the us positioning itself in a defensive mode, and giving bait for iraq to try to take us, gives us an advantage militarily. by now we know how to defend where our camps will be. we know the dangerous and safe ground.

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 01:52 AM
Besides that, my comment about the US's "disinformation campaign" causes me to bypass much of the news-bits that get posted here...

...This is supposes to be a topic for *conspiracies* of the war, not a clearing house for news reports...

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 02:31 AM
MDS, you're assessment sounds good and would make a clever strategy - I hope you're correct. If Tommy Franks is using this as a ploy to draw Iraqi forces into a battle on open ground, then I hope it works.

I know that a certain amount of the military related information must actually be dis-information.

top topics


log in