Some questions/comments: "d.brin" wrote:
> Baloney. We needed one thing. Basra. We needed to go in there with > sudden, overwhelming force and free the people quickly, so they would > be seen worldwide cheering us in the streets. Do you really think we could have been *sure* of taking Basra that quickly, easily, and bloodlessly, right on day 1? Taking Basra that way certainly would have been a political coup for the Coalition. Personally, though, I think the British forces alone were/are more than capable of taking the city at will, and the only thing holding them back is concern for civilian casualties. What if the sudden all-out attack on Basra got bogged down in street fighting (due to that need to avoid civilian deaths), which would start mounting in any case? This would give Iraq a propaganda victory, time to organize more defense, send in support, and start lobbing missiles at Israel and Jordan. Also, from what I've been reading, the cheering in the streets where we have taken towns, has been somewhat minimal. The Iraqis don't quite trust us (somewhat deservedly as you've said), and aren't sure if we're going to follow through and eliminate Saddam. It may take the actual end of the regime before people begin to stop fearing. > Then gently capture a > few regular army divisions, cull out the bad officers and send those > divisions marching to Baghdad. Would the US Army ever really consider doing this? Arming POW's and asking them to fight on our side? We might expect/count on Iraqis fleeing/surrendering, but I think expecting that we'd be able to arm a few divisions worth of POW's and get them to fight against their government in short order is a whole vastly different thing. > That would have sufficed. Taking away Saddam's victims and his oil > wells - north and south. Charging to Baghdad was the stupidest > imaginable plan. If it works (and I now hope it does) it will be > thanks to toweringly skillful US Arrmy & Marine noncoms, saving the > generals' hash I don't think charging to Bagdad was all that stupid an idea, and in fact, I think it was rather clever. The benefits I see of going straight for Bagdad: - we quickly gain control of a majority of Iraq for ourselves, making it easier to prevent a repeat of the "Peekaboo scud attacks" on Israel during the Gulf War. - the direct threat against Bagdad was more likely to keep Saddam's forces stationed there to defend that threat, rather than allowing him to use them more strategically. - we avoid getting bogged down in city street fighting in all the towns and cities along the way. As I see it. there's little to be gained by taking all these smaller cities first, risking the civilian and military casualites, when it's quite likely they won't fight at all once Bagdad falls. -I do agree that it left our rear and supply lines exposed to the guerilla-type stuff we've seen, but that was never any real strategic threat to us, and I think the above benefits outweighed those risks. -Bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
