Gautam, I too have far less expertise then Damon , however as you put it, the army of today are better tehn teh army that fought in the Gulf war, Wrong IMO. The Gulf War army was teh WW3 army of europe that had been training for the ultimate show down between the Allies and the Commies.
on the other foot...if the US had to deploy a much larger force and make a slow march to the capital , instead of tring to cut off teh head of the snake,imo the war would be over now with much less resistance then what is currently being seen throughout Iraq Nick __________________________________________ I stand on the threshold of tommorow, atop the stairway of yesterday, holding the key to today, staring through the door into the future. -Nick Lidster 26 May 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 5:14 PM Subject: Defense Reform > --- Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gautam, > > > > I don't have the time to adress this in full (I just > > got a teaching job on the side, and its proving more > > challenging than I had anticipated), but let me ask > > you this: what do you think would have happened if > > the > > Iraqi army proved to HAVE some spine, and decided to > > turn their cities into fortresses and engage Allied > > troops at every turn, and contest every shopfront, > > every street intersection? While I don't > > neccessarily > > want to denigrate the achievements of our troops in > > the field, but a big part of our success, and why > > casualties during the actual offensive were so low, > > is > > in a certain extent because the Iraqis chose not to > > challenge us so stiffly, and a large segment of > > their > > army abandoned their duty. > > > > Damon. > > Hi Damon. Obviously you have far more expertise on > this subject than I do. My sense is twofold. First, > the Iraqi army could had shown some spine without > fighting in the cities. Had it done so and attempted > to fight in the open field, I think the results would > have been essentially the same. The battles of the > first Gulf War suggest that, to first order, the > numerical ratio between American and Third > World-caliber forces (like the Iraqis, who are > probably much better than Third World average) is > irrelevant to the outcome of the battle. And American > forces now are far more capable than their > counterparts in the first Gulf War. > > Second, I would say that the fact that the Iraqi army > folded the way it did (and it did, after all, fight > hard in several battles) was not an accident. The > first reason for this is that American intelligence > seems (for once!) to have been remarkably successful > in persuading large sections of the Iraqi army to not > fight. At least in the first Gulf War, they showed no > lack of fighting spirit - not a lot of skill, but they > didn't lack spirit. The second is that the sheer > speed of the American advance seems to have stunned > Iraqi forces. They might well have intended to drop > back into the cities and fight - but we moved so fast > that they didn't have time to do it. > > Finally, if neither of those two things had happened, > many of the same factors that make us so effective in > the open field might have helped in cities as well. > The Israeli experience in Jenin suggests that First > World caliber forces fighting Third World caliber ones > in cities actually do quite well. Much of our mental > model of city fighting is based on Western, Russian, > and German forces fighting in the European Theatre in > the Eastern Front. But all of those armies were > extraordinary - well trained, well equipped, and > highly experienced. The Iraqis were none of those. > Meanwhile our soldiers (as you know, and were part of, > of course) are better than any other such group since > at least the pre-WW1 British Army, and quite possibly > since the Roman Legions. > > So, if the opposition had fought more effectively, > would there have been more casualties and would the > war have taken longer? Of course there would have > been. Would it have been any less decisive a victory? > I doubt it. > > So that's my non-professional and unexpert opinion. > > ===== > Gautam Mukunda > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Freedom is not free" > http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
