The Battle of Baghdad

[GePap]

He'll bite our ankles off!

RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY! [/clatter of coconuts]

[Frogman]

Where did you get those coconuts?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre




Commander, our troops have destroyed the Colossus!

I think its still to early to declare a brilliant success. The attack on baghdada last night, from what i can tell was brilliant, but there is A LOT of fighting to do in that city before it is fully pacified. This part is the scary one, when soldiers and marines must go house to house, and our tanks and AFVs and air supperiority are all but nullified.

Kman

[spiritof1202]

Basrah has shown you can 'siege' with low casualties. You just need to be surgical and be able to employ massive force, in a precise manner.

City fighting doesn't mean you cannot use airpower, just that you need to be a bit more careful about it.

You divide and conquer.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Basrah has shown you can 'siege' with low casualties. You just need to be surgical and be able to employ massive force, in a precise manner.

City fighting doesn't mean you cannot use airpower, just that you need to be a bit more careful about it.

You divide and conquer.

I think Basra was a whole different ball game tho.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Frogman


Part of being brilliant is how easy you make it look. We took a risk with the early movement of what some said were not enough ground troops. The bee line to Baghdad, securing the oil fields, the targeted attacks, all were well planned and exectued. Sure we kicked them around like second graders, but only because we did a good job.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not finding fault with the plan, I'm just pointing out that it was far from "brilliant". Do you honestly think that any top-level NATO commander, or from one of several other countries, given their training, education, experience and expertise could not have devised an equally successful plan?

To be a "brilliant" plan in my books, it would have had to have some unexpected successes against a truly challenging foe. Franks is obviously a solid, reliable commander, but is he to be called "brilliant" because he put together and executed a plan that any one of hundreds of other generals could have pulled off? No.

[Frogman]

I agree, fighting an enemy that doesn't have an air force really is picking on a second grader. Brilliant is probably too high a praise. It was mearly a good solid plan.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Kontiki

Don't get me wrong, I'm not finding fault with the plan, I'm just pointing out that it was far from "brilliant". Do you honestly think that any top-level NATO commander, or from one of several other countries, given their training, education, experience and expertise could not have devised an equally successful plan?

To be a "brilliant" plan in my books, it would have had to have some unexpected successes against a truly challenging foe. Franks is obviously a solid, reliable commander, but is he to be called "brilliant" because he put together and executed a plan that any one of hundreds of other generals could have pulled off? No.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The one maxim vital in planning, above all else, is that it doesn't survive contact with the opposition. Plans have to be flexible, reserves ready to counter unexpected moves and exploit an unexpected advantage. Brilliance only comes into it when one does take advantage of said opportunities.
If he has been a 'brilliant' general it's manifested by how well he's reacted rather than how well he's acted.

[DanS]

No, success isn't reaction. Rather, it's taking advantage of opportunities that are presented. Maybe a distinction without a difference, but there you are.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Franks has been aggressive in following up on opportunities.

[GePap]

That makes him a good commander. A brilliant commander can take anyting given to him, good or bad, and make somehting out of it.

[DanS]

This article is stunning. It appears that MtG was right on the money (by force of sh!t sticking to the wall ) -- Saddam is being told by his commanders exactly what the information minister is saying on TV.

U.S. Military Says It Hears Hussein Son Calling Shots
By BERNARD WEINRAUB

WITH V CORPS HEADQUARTERS, near the Kuwait border, April 7 — American military officials said today that they believed that Saddam Hussein's younger son, Qusay, was still alive and leading Iraq's security forces.

The officials based their conclusions on intercepted communications of top Iraqi military officials, including conversations among officers who said that the younger Mr. Hussein had given them orders.

For nearly three weeks, the fate and whereabouts of Saddam Hussein, and his two sons, Qusay and Uday, have been uncertain. All three may have been in a bunker in Baghdad that was targeted by cruise missiles and bunker-busting bombs on March 19, the opening night of the military campaign.

Since then, it has been unclear whether senior members of Iraq's leadership were injured or killed in the attack.

The latest information, based on monitored conversations in the last few days, has led officers to conclude that Qusay, his father's heir apparent, is most likely alive. "If he's not, then there's a very good imposter out there," one official said.

In addition, the communications reveal the same defiant optimism that Baghdad's information minister presents to listening Iraqis and foreign journalists, these officer said.

As American infantry troops encircle Baghdad and make thrusts into the city itself, top Iraqi military commanders are apparently still conveying positive messages to the younger Mr. Hussein, who was appointed leader of the security forces by his father before the war began and who is reputed to be a cunning and brutal officer.

The American officials who monitor the conversations of the Iraqi military and listen to the command-and-control systems said that Iraqi generals speaking to Qusay over satellite phones and other communications devices generally talk about high American casualties and defeats of the allied forces in various cities.

They have also claimed, the officials said, that American forces were turned back at the international airport on the edge of Baghdad.

"He's being told by his cronies, by military officers, by political appointees, they have control of the airport," said one American officer who has listened to the transmissions. "They say, `We're ready, we're fighting, we're moving to attack.' He's being told lies."

Intelligence officers said the Saddam Hussein government had so intimidated and brutalized its military leadership that officers might be fearful of passing on accurate information that could infuriate the Iraqi leader, if he is still alive, or his son.

The flow of inaccurate information from Iraqi officials to the public has also grown in recent days. Today, for example, Iraq's information minister, Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, held a news conference in Baghdad in which he said that "Baghdad is safe," that there were no American troops in the city and that the Americans were lying when they said Baghdad was under siege.

Mr. Sahhaf also said American soldiers were committing suicide and were "sick in their minds." He said the sound of gunfire in Baghdad came from the killing of Americans troops.

Qusay, who is 36, is believed to be the closest family member in Saddam's inner circle.

"Qusay has emerged as the star of the family," wrote Kenneth M. Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, in "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." "Quiet, dependable and ruthless, he heads the Special Security Organization, which has become Iraq's pre-eminent internal security organization, with far greater responsibilities than Saddam had previously allowed any other security agency to possess."

More recently, Qusay took control of the Republican Guard, Iraq's best-trained force. Several divisions in the guard have been overwhelmed by the American-led advance on Baghdad.

Qusay has apparently outmaneuvered his older brother, Uday, to become his father's heir apparent. Uday, considered by experts on Iraq to be unstable, survived an assassination attempt in 1996 and is partly paralyzed. The brothers are believed by Iraq experts to be bitter rivals.

American officials say Qusay has also developed ties to extremist groups in the Middle East. In recent weeks, officials said, an undisclosed number of Syrians, Sudanese, Egyptians and Palestinians have slipped into Iraq to join the fight against the Americans and British.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I think Basra was a whole different ball game tho.

How is Basrah tactically different from Baghdad?

[Az]

Originally posted by Andrew1999


Military Advisor: Commander, our troops have captured Sun Tzu's Art of War!

Am I the only one thinking that this somewhat resembles the German march through the Arc in Paris?

[Az]

and no, USA are not the new nazis.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by GePap
That makes him a good commander. A brilliant commander can take anyting given to him, good or bad, and make somehting out of it.

truly brilliant commanders = robert e. lee, heinrizi, chuikov. they were given BS and made something out of it

[Kontiki]

Again, I'm not knocking Franks, I'm just saying that I would expect anyone (meaning someone who climbs to the highest ranks of a first-world military) in his position to do just as well. It's pretty easy to react to things well when you have just about every conceivable advantage from the get go, most of which is so heavily skewed in your favor as to be completely rediculous.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel


Am I the only one thinking that this somewhat resembles the German march through the Arc in Paris?

Nah. rumbling through with tanks means you still have to go plated in armor not to get shot. Staging a big huge parade with troops marching by is a much more impressive display of "We beat you". Pus they are going through, not in front.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by LaRusso


truly brilliant commanders = robert e. lee, heinrizi, chuikov. they were given BS and made something out of it

I would include Rommel in there as well.

[TheStinger]

Rommel is completely overated

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


How is Basrah tactically different from Baghdad?

There's a huge number of differences, from terrain, to avenues of approach, to enemy reinforceability, "center of gravity" within the regime, support of the locals for the regime, etc.

Dan - that's ok, I'll handle it with my usual humility.

[The Mad Monk]

He was undermanned and undersupplied and had to deal with a central command that had no real idea what was going on, and he still managed to make a good show of it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Again, I'm not knocking Franks, I'm just saying that I would expect anyone (meaning someone who climbs to the highest ranks of a first-world military) in his position to do just as well. It's pretty easy to react to things well when you have just about every conceivable advantage from the get go, most of which is so heavily skewed in your favor as to be completely rediculous.

Hah, Compare Montgomery to Patton. Compare McClellan to Grant.

There are those who take overwhelming superiority and turn it into a draw. McClellan. There are those who take an inferior positon and win by craft. Lee, Rommel, Hannibal. There are those who take overwhelming superioty, like the US over Iraq, and perform way beyond expectations.

Tommy Frank's campaign is already stuff of legend.

[Sten Sture]

All last evening CNN (I know, consider the source) was running a scroll that F-14s (and A-10s) were bombing downtown Baghdad.

F-14s!! Did they drive the KittyHawk up the Tigris??


I'm sure they have the range to do a round trip, but tell me there is almost 0% chance that F-14s are that far north.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Tommy Frank's campaign is already stuff of legend.

(a) It ain't over yet. Knocking over a third world country disfunctional as a result of twelve years of sanctions and a wacky dictator isn't much of a challenge. It's turning it to a functional country afterwards that's the problem.

This campaign is about as "legendary" as knocking over Grenada or Panama. The whole notion of the Iraqis anytime soon comprising a credible threat to the region or to the US is a joke.

Sten: Yeah, if they refuel, F-14's can easily get up there. They launch light, and refuel shortly after takeoff, then proceed at cruise, top off at the local KC-10 filling station, and then go do their thing.

[Sten Sture]

MtG - but would they be sending F-14s on bombing runs to Baghdad? Seems like round peg/square hole...

They were linking footage of B-1Bs at the time so I assumed they just got a bad ID.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Hah, Compare Montgomery to Patton. Compare McClellan to Grant.

There are those who take overwhelming superioty and turn into a draw. There are those who take an inferior positon and win by craft. Lee, Rommel, Hannibal. There are those who take overwhelming superioty, like the US over Iraq, and perform way beyond expectations.

Tommy Frank's campaign is already stuff of legend.

Maybe at the Frank's holiday home..but out here in the real world, it is not. In the Gulf War the US army performed way beyond expectations, and today what people remember is the cool bomb footage.

Had the RG put up a fight then we would not be here with someone calling Frank's attack brilliant..if it was airstrikes that broke the Rg then its the guy who put otgether the airwar that should get kudos, but the fact is that someone does not become "legendary" becuase the enemy turned out to be weaker than anyone expected.

[Alexander's Horse]

Oh come on - this isn't brilliant. You get no laurels for defeating a third rate enemy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
MtG - but would they be sending F-14s on bombing runs to Baghdad? Seems like round peg/square hole...

They were linking footage of B-1Bs at the time so I assumed they just got a bad ID.

Sten - welcome to the Pentagon, and everyone has to get in on the action, so they individually and their units will get credit for combat.

We jumped lots of troops in Panama that we could have just landed. A lot of the FUBARs in Grenada were a result of interservice BS, in both directions.

The USMC was operating in reinforced regimental force in Nasiriyah, but we had to use USAF air commandos and spec ops people, we had to have the Marines make their diversion, and make sure Rangers, Special Forces and SEALs each had their role to play. Tactical or operational necessity? Hell no, but a live POW rescue is the biggest thing since Son Tay, so all the SOCOM operators had to get a little piece of that action.

[Alexander's Horse]

"we"? somtimes you sound like you're directing ops

[grumbler]

Originally posted by obiwan18
GRUMBLER

Don't use a quote box in your sig.

It's much easier if you just use quotation marks.

Sorry. The system must have added those quote marks in the.. what.. eighteen months since I lasy posted here?

Fixed, now, though. Thanks for the tip!