The Battle for Baghdad

[Bee]

I found this quote from an article at yahoo.com interesting:

U.S. military doctrine on urban combat focuses not on the street-by-street fighting that Iraq hopes to bring about but instead on grabbing and holding key areas such as government buildings and military compounds.

It's the first time I've seen any indication of possible strategy that could be used in Baghdad. Mostly I've seen "military experts" talk about a street-by-street battle likely being bloody, but it doesn't look like that's the way we're going to approach Baghdad.

[GrantDawg]

It will be interesting to see how this goes down. By the way, did you see that they were reporting small arms fire in central Baghdad recently?

[John Galt]

I saw this article recently on the dark side of US's urban warfare strategy from the perspective of British military planners:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...926957,00.html

[Bee]

No offense John, but even I wouldn't post a link to the Guardian.

They have a reputation similar to the National Enquirer.

[John Galt]

I'm no defender of the Guardian, but there rep isn't that bad. Either way, I thought that quotes in the article (assuming they are right) were interesting.

[AgPete]

I don't know, it's one of those things that looks good on paper but can go horribly wrong. Look what happened to our troops in Mogadishu and those people weren't equipped and trained nearly as much as the the Iraqis. One of my main worries is that we're putting a lot of faith in our intelligence for this strategy. I hope it's as good as we think it is. And of course, the biggest worry is when will Iraq decide to launch its biological weapons. I'm encouraged though by the recent POW rescue and the diversionary tactics the military used to enable the hospital raid. I wouldn't mind watching the military wait outside of Baghdad while we continue to bomb it and wait for reinforcements.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by John Galt
I saw this article recently on the dark side of US's urban warfare strategy from the perspective of British military planners:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...926957,00.html

Oh, I thought this was a Star Wars reference but then I saw who posted it.

Tarkus

[Swaggs]

Good idea for us to make that public knowledge. If we take key buildings, what keeps them from identifying the buildings and hiding/placing explosives or bio-weapons in them and detonating/releasing them once they are lost?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Swaggs
Good idea for us to make that public knowledge. If we take key buildings, what keeps them from identifying the buildings and hiding/placing explosives or bio-weapons in them and detonating/releasing them once they are lost?

Excellent point but if the Iraqis were going to do that they've probably already thought of it on their own. Also, is there a source for that information?

Tarkus

[Bee]

They keep wiring bridges with explosives, but haven't had too much success. I doubt buildings in Baghdad would be much easier.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm no defender of the Guardian, but there rep isn't that bad. Either way, I thought that quotes in the article (assuming they are right) were interesting.

I agree their rep isn't quite that back, but unfortunately any opinion piece they write tend to be from a position slightly left of Lenin.
Factual stuff they are quite good at - however I have serious trouble trusting any newspaper that has 20-30 spelling mistakes in each issue.

There was a great joke about who reads what english newspapers, I will see if I can find a copy, as with most great jokes there is an element of truth in it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Tarkus
Oh, I thought this was a Star Wars reference but then I saw who posted it.

Tarkus

Quit following me around to make meaningless and/or rude comments.

Go away troll!

[CAsterling]

As previously mentioned, below is the joke about the english newspaper references - i think it came from the TV program 'Yes Minister'.
----------
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it still is.
And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country provided she has big tits.
-----------

[heybrad]

Originally posted by John Galt
Go away troll!