Bremer Pulling a Sharon?

Ramo · November 18, 2003, 15:51

http://www.news-leader.com/today/111...ro-218928.html

The army in Tikrit has started destroying the houses of suspected militants. In other words, leaving destitute wives, children, and parents of people who haven't even been proven to be in armed rebellion.

Yeah, copying Israeli policies - that's the way to run an occupation.

chequita guevara · November 18, 2003, 15:56

Kropotkin · November 18, 2003, 16:24

Well, it doesn't exacly sound as if Gauleiter Bremer latest tactic is a good one to me. But it all depends on how they do it. It's one thing if they focus the destruction on houses used by the enemies for purposes of fighting the coalition. That might be a sound strategy. It's a whole different thing if they focus on destroying homes of people that are mere suspects and witch are occupied by innocent residents, like neighbours and familiy members. However, it's probably hard to tell the two appart.

Ramo · November 18, 2003, 16:28

I think it was pretty clear in a lot of these cases (according to this article). First couple paragraphs:

Quote:

Tikrit, Iraq — In a tactic reminiscent of Israeli crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza, the U.S. military has begun destroying the homes of suspected guerrilla fighters in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, evacuating women and children, then leveling their houses with heavy weaponry.
At least 15 homes have been destroyed in Tikrit as part of what has been dubbed Operation Ivy Cyclone II, including four leveled on Sunday by tanks and Apache helicopters that allegedly belonged to suspects in the Nov. 7 downing of a Black Hawk helicopter that killed six Americans.

Family members at one of the houses, in the village of al Haweda, said they were given five minutes to evacuate before soldiers opened fire.

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 00:40

Hmmm.. figured this would raise a few more eyebrows than this...

Nubclear · November 19, 2003, 02:54

This is, of course, completly justified.

Ned · November 19, 2003, 03:22

The only problem is that they let everyone, including the bad guys, leave before they use the bombs.

I don't get it.

Ned · November 19, 2003, 03:28

dp

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 03:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Hmmm.. figured this would raise a few more eyebrows than this...

So what do you want? It's a dubious tactic, depending on what's really going on. Are these houses containing weapons caches, or anything else of use? Or are they simply where one ******* lived, or where a group of *******s invited themselves in and met as a temporary staging area? Or what, exactly?

As a general rule, since there's no major shortages of buildings for people to live/meet in (including both *******s and innocents amd the whole range in between), it's pretty counterproductive to just flatten houses. The innocent get displaced, and the guilty meet at another house.

I think the problem is that US forces have been passive too long, (and were sent into the war with inadequate manpower in some sort of delusion that the Iraqis who are inconvenient would get killed in a standup fight, and the rest would be overjoyed), and mounting casualties and mounting frustration with being unable to operate aggressively are leading to overreaction.

I read in the news somewhere today where the commander of 82ABD used the old line about using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut

but people need to keep in mind it's the meat in the walnut, not the shell the walnut used to be in, that you have to pound with the sledge.

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 03:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The only problem is that they let everyone, including the bad guys, leave before they use the bombs.

I don't get it.

As a rule, we try not to just hose the neighborhood.

Ned · November 19, 2003, 03:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

As a rule, we try not to just hose the neighborhood.

Of course!

But, if the bad guys are not there, all we do is blow things up, potentially creating ill will. The bad guys get away.

Why not surround the places first, capture or kill the bad guys, and THEN blow up the buildings.

Sikander · November 19, 2003, 04:02

Why do they warn and evacuate the women and children? Wouldn't it make more sense to kill them?

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:05

Quote:

So what do you want?

I'd like to see a policy that doesn't:
1. Leave innocent people homeless.
2. Piss of the Iraqis some more. There's nothing like modeling our occupation policies after Israel to unite Arab Sunnis, Arab Shia, and Kurds together in violent resistance to the American occupation. This ain't exactly a victory in winning their hearts and minds.

Like a lot of things the US gov't is involved in, it looks like a totally idiotic and morally reprehensible policy. I don't see any redeeming sides.

Quote:

It's a dubious tactic, depending on what's really going on. Are these houses containing weapons caches, or anything else of use? Or are they simply where one ******* lived, or where a group of *******s invited themselves in and met as a temporary staging area? Or what, exactly?

Just where they lived, according to the article (I skimmed through google news, and other sources explaining the reason seem to agree).

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:06

And naturally, reasonable input from Ned.

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 04:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Why do they warn and evacuate the women and children? Wouldn't it make more sense to kill them?

If I was a recruiter for jihadi, yes, by all means, that would be some great video footage.

If I was anyone else, no.

Ned · November 19, 2003, 04:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

And naturally, reasonable input from Ned.

I guess you didn't read the part where I agreed with you about creating ill will.

I don't understand blowing the buildings up at all.

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 04:34

Accumulated frustration.

What I don't understand is how we can spare the resources to flatten houses with AC130's, but we can't just blow existing unsecured ammo and ordnance dumps.

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:37

Gotta find the WMD's. Obviously, Shrub's political career is more important than the safety of Iraqis and US soldiers.

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:38

Ned, I'm referring to this:
"Why not surround the places first, capture or kill the bad guys, and THEN blow up the buildings."

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:40

Oh, and thanks for fixing the typo.

Ned · November 19, 2003, 04:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Ned, I'm referring to this:
"Why not surround the places first, capture or kill the bad guys, and THEN blow up the buildings."

I know. But reference my first post. I was not advocating blowing up the buildings, but if they had to do so, why not get the bad guys first.

I still think the potential for creating ill will outweighs any benefit of a fireworks display.

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:43

The major sticking point to me is making lots of people homeless. For absolutely no reason whatsoever.

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 04:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Gotta find the WMD's. Obviously, Shrub's political career is more important than the safety of Iraqis and US soldiers.

So we set NBC detectors around the perimeter, have the grunts securing the perimeter in their MOPP-4s and then blow the ****ing dumps. We'll detect the WMD remnants as their molecules head for the stratosphere.

When we blew Khamisiyah it set off every NBC detector in the area.

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 04:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
The major sticking point to me is making lots of people homeless. For absolutely no reason whatsoever.

15 buildings isn't "lots of people" - I'd still like a real idea what the hell is going on.

MichaeltheGreat · November 19, 2003, 04:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Oh, and thanks for fixing the typo.

You're welcome.

Ramo · November 19, 2003, 04:55

True, maybe 45 or so people isn't a huge number. But then again, it isn't all that significant either with regards to pissing off the Iraqis relative to everything else we've done so far (with regards to recent events I think they're - at least the Shia - much more pissed off about the lack of democracy in the post-occupation gov't).

But I'd be very worried if this becomes a consistent policy.

Az · November 19, 2003, 08:08

copycats.

Ted Striker · November 20, 2003, 06:35

bottom line is that this sh1t is working

about damn time they took the leash off instead of waiting around to get shot at

if the tactics stayed the way they were going the terrorists would just get bolder and bolder

Kropotkin · November 20, 2003, 06:46

How do we know it's working? It seems a bit to early for such statements.

Tripledoc · November 20, 2003, 06:54

I don't get the headline. Bremer pulling a Sharon. Is Bremer the one who is actually making the decisions in the military sphere? I thought he was in control of the civil administration only.

What is the exact chain of command there? Presumably Bush is the overall commander, he then hands down civil authority to Central command who hands it to a local military authority, 'Field Marshal' (Tommy Franks?). Bremer takes his orders form Bush, or maybe from the some other office. Is Franks over or under Bremer? Is the jurisdiction under military or civilian control? What happens if Franks and Bremer disagree?

Also presumably Condy Rice is now the one who is to co-ordinate all things concerning the war effort. Maybe she is the one who solves any differences beween the people under her. However, where does that leave Rumsfeld or the Pentagon in the chain of command?