Iraq=Japan?

That's exactly the impression I'm getting from all this "official" speculation about abused/murdered POWs and alleged plans for chemical weapons attacks. It's all starting to sound to me like stuff being presented as good excuses for removing whatever safeguards are in place for minimizing civilian casualties.

That is, of course, assuming that these methods have been mostly successful in minimizing such casualties. God knows what the hell has been going on. This "embedded journalism" has only further distanced us from the ugly reality of what's happening over there.

The culture of 1945 Japan and 2003 Iraq are totally different; in Japan, the mindset was almost that of a collective, and I believe that even the civilians would have fought to the death if we had invaded. In Iraq, we are facing stiffer resistance than expected, but it is from a relativly small number of fanatics, not the population in general.

I believe that US propaganda was that Japanese civilians would have fought to the death. And I believe that US propaganda is that civilians are not fighting us in Iraq.

It's been like a week & we're already near Baghdad. It took years before we could reach Okinowa. If the Bush heads use the pretty small number of American deaths (especially when compared to the Pacific in WWII) to justify a mass bombing by comparing it to Japan, they are even bigger pieces of shit that I already think they are.

Well, what's interesting is that you're starting to see ex-military types on the news getting jittery about the forward advance of the coalition. They're blowing PAST the enemy, avoiding some urban centers. They're ending up with enemy forces in front and in back of them, leaving long and vulnerable supply lines.

I think this strategy was based on the idea that the Iraqis would fold like a bad hand of poker - an idea that seemed to be correct in the first three days. But now it looks like they were picking their fights and that the Iraqis have more resolve than we thought. To quote CNN's headlines: "Official tells CNN Pentagon may have underestimated strength of Saddam Fedayeen, other paramilitary groups."

The other thing that is a potential fly in the ointment - if this goes on for more than 2 more weeks I think we begin to see other countries, locally as well as internationally, getting involved. I think Russia is just waiting...

The only reason people will get nervous at all is because we are currently living in a time when there is not a "generation" that really remembers Viet Nam, Korea, WW 2, etc....

What the US thinks of now as war, is Playstation 2 SOCOM, Navy SEALS.

They forget one MAJOR focus of the military. ANY military.

The job of any standing military on the planet is to kill people and break things.

Screw "police action", screw "peacekeeping".

Want peace? Get a better weapon system.

There should be no reason to get nervous at all. We are the best in the world at what we do. Hands down. Let them do it.

Just remember this whole process involves PEOPLE with guns, and boots, and 100 pound ruck sacks on their backs, physically walking, at times, to engage the enemy.

Tell you what. Strap on a 100 pound ruck sack, grab an 8.6 pound piece of steel, and see how long it takes you to walk 60 miles while stopping to kick the crap EVERYONE you meet between here and there.

THEN, keep in mind that you've got 300,000 of your closest friends with you, and you'll get some vague idea of how long this could actually take.

Ladies and Gentleman, that is their job. That is what we pay them to do.

Let them do their job, for as long as they need to.

So this IS going to be another Vietnam, then? Joy to the world...

Oh, and welcome to CHUD, Grifter...

I actually agree with Devin in respect to the quick forward advance of the U.S. infantry towards Baghdad. We've certainly appeared to have blown right through there so quickly and effortlessly that we've left our rear flanks exposed. The Logistics crews bring up the rear of the cavalry and they are obviously not as armed or specialized in combat. At the very back is the heavy artillery, which is not for close range use. This is why and how several of our troops have wound up as POWs or casualties. A wrong turn in a Humvee (as has happened) and you're screwed.

But there simply most be a tactical reason behind all of this. Indeed there is some gross overconfidence involved, but the military leadership is NOT stupid.

Personally, I think we expected to be in Baghdad by now no matter what is said publically.

By the way, we DO have special ops all over Iraq, including Baghdad, and they have been there for quite some time.

Greetings to you as well! Thank you my friend!

Actually, that is a quite common misconception.

Totally different missions. Keep in mind that Viet Nam was never officially declared a "war". It began as "police action", and escalated into a "conflict". Different political agenda totally.

In Viet Nam, they would not allow us to win. That was not the agenda. (Same thing with the Russians in the 'Stans).

That was the major downfall of the entire thing.

Here, we have a clearly defined goal, and an achievable agenda.

We are set out to do it, and we shall.

Now, granted, when we get done, THEN all the "peacekeeping" crap starts up. With the US being the good guys that we are, we will supply troops, food, etc.... (See Bosnia). Instead of letting the UN deal with it.

But, that's a whole new thing.

On October 28 1940, Italy presented an ultimatum to Greece: You either allow our armed forces passage through your country, or we attack you. Greece answered no and the very next day war broke out.

Greece was under a dictatorship at the time. Admittedly, this dictator was a care bear compared to the likes of Saddam Hussein, yet no one really liked him or his regime. The Greeks resisted en masse and drove the Italians out.

My point is that when a people face an invasion, they very quickly put aside politics and concentrate on defending their country. They look at the large picture. This is what happens in Iraq right now. They might hate Saddam, but they also hate the idea of a foreign army occupying their territory.

The US has severely understimated Iraqi patriotism and is now facing a situation that could very easily turn into a catch-22. They can either end up in a very long siege against guerilla tactics, losing thousands of troops and public support, or they can carpet bomb Baghdad, killing thousands of civilians and again losing public support and any international support they still have. Middle ground is covered by the whims of lady luck.

This reminds me of what soddy job US government advisors and analysts have done throughout the ages. In Vietnam, it was the domino theory, which turned out to be a load of hogwash and caused the death of over 600,000 people. In Iraq it was the αssurance that the Iraqis would offer minimum resistance and accept US forces as liberators.

I don't think we're going to declare war here, either.

and who is the 'They' that wouldn't let us win vietnam?

but you got admit that, from a miltary POV, this "awe and shock" has been pants to say the least (I've seen more shock and awe in an action movie). As Ralph Peters wrote in a Washington Post op-ed article: "Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him. American war planners were privately experiencing some shock and awe at Iraqi obliviousness to shock and awe, which we can see on TV, as Iraqis crowd into restaurants and onto roofs to watch the bombing."

That's because most Iraqis could care less whether we blow Saddam's miles of palaces and defense ministries into kingdom come. "Shock and Awe" was indeed a wash.

Oh, don't get me wrong.

I am the first to admit that this is all pretty, sleight of hand pandering to play to the media's of the world. With the initial dismal support levels of the world for this action, it has to be.

I also think that what is being said, and broadcast to every home that has CNN in the world, is also, maybe, about 1/10th of what is actually going on.

And oh yeah, to this:

The left coast has better set builders and producers than the average Iraqi.

Not that I agree with this opinion, but I've seen books that state that Vietnam was actually a "success", regarding the domino theory. The 20 years (mid-50s to mid-70s) we spent in trying to derail Ho Chi Minh's attempt to unite Vietnam under a single Communist state, was enough time for the fledging democracies in the Pacific to establish themselves and prevent Communism from spreading.

It's a stretch, but you have to admire the attempted spin on the events.

You know, I've been wondering about these same things myself. Right now we are being real careful to not hurt any civilians with these bombings, essentially turning these bombings into just a "pain in the ass" to Saddam. He knows we are not going to drop an ass-load of bombs on Iraq, so fuck it, just deal with these bombs and keep moving. I am not saying that civilians should be killed, but eventually someone will have to make the decision about who is more important, the civilians of Iraq or the lives of the coalition forces. At what point does the dead coalition bodies equal too much? When we hit that point, someone is going to be faced with the question of either bombing the hell out of Iraq until nothing is left, or keep sending our guys in there to die. This could very well turn into something like Viet Nam. The current political climate is too worried about what everyone else thinks about it to do anything big.

The "shock and awe" that everybody has is why isn't this over in a few days like the movies at the local cineplex. Wars last for years, with the cost of many lives, yet people are trying to pinpoint when this will be over. I think we need to sit back and get comfortable, because this isn't ending soon.

"At what point does the dead coalition bodies equal too much?"

Let's wait until at least a hundred guys are killed before we even think about that.

Calm down, people. We are a week into this conflict and it's not going bad by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I do think we were underprepared to deal with Saddam's goon squad, the Fedayeen.

The truth of the matter is we have seen virtually no civilian resistance in Iraq. It has been almost exclusivly conscripts and the Fedayeen. Let's also not forget the reports of women and children being held hostage to give men incentive to fight, soldiers being executed for surrendering to Iraqi's dressed in US uniforms, and civilians being shelled while fleeing Basra by Saddam's forces.

I'm not going to be dense and say that the Iraqi people love us. I'm sure some want us there and others hate us being there. But I would venture to guess that most hate us being there less than they hate Saddam, and won't pick up arms against Coalition forces unless forced to by Saddam's forces.

I could be wrong, of course, but I sincerely hope that I am not.

And as for the point of the thread, Iraq and 1940's Japan are very very different situations. In Baghdad, there are 3 options. 1) A seige that would be a humanitarian nightmare. 2) Sending forces into Baghdad and fighting house to house, which would be a nightmare for coalition troops. 3) Heavy air support on Republican guard positions for a week or two followed by small tactical units taking Shi'ite sections of the city occumpanied by members the Iraqi National Congress. The third is obviously the way to go and would minimalize civilian and coalition casualties, but would take a month or more.

I understand your point Devin. I don't mean the costs of coalition lives as of today, I just mean that eventually there will be many dead soldiers if this keeps going. Somewhere along that line, the supporters that Bush "does" have will dwindle, and Bush/Blair will be faced with a hard decision to make. One that could end both of their political careers, and unfortunatly, they may let this sway their decisions.

It's too late for Bush or Blair. Their political careers, for better or worse, ride on the success or failure of this operation. I think they know that, and I think they know they can't "sweep it under the rug" if things go tits-up. Whatever you think of the war, I think that's pretty ballsy and definitely un-politician like.

I don't think they believe things can go tits up. That's not ballsy.

I think they are very aware that things could go "tits-up". No matter what you think neither of these guys or their advisors are stupid. In any military conflict, there is a possibility of failure.

The possibility exists that Iraq could turn into a quagmire (although it hasn't yet, and is doubtful) and as coalition casualties pile up, their positions become politically suicidal domestically.

The possibility also exists that we won't find any signs of WMD's (which very arguably we already have with the thousands of chemical suits and antidotes). If we don't we could be fucked and coalition forces could face sanctions (doubtful), or at the very least becoming world pariahs (which no matter what you say hasn't reached that level yet...politcally unpopular yes, pariahs, no).

So yes, they rest their polical careers on this and they know it. In politics, any stand that destroy your political career is ballsy.

Now, granted, when we get done, THEN all the "peacekeeping" crap starts up. With the US being the good guys that we are, we will supply troops, food, etc.... (See Bosnia). Instead of letting the UN deal with it.

Um, you do know that the U.S. did very little in that region, right? That they pretty much had to be coerced into sending troops to avoid the embarrasment of unpaid UN dues? You know, back when the U.S. was actually concerned with world opinion?

That statement is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've read yet. That so many here can not only support this war but feel good about it sickens me.

"I think they are very aware that things could go "tits-up". No matter what you think neither of these guys or their advisors are stupid. In any military conflict, there is a possibility of failure."

As reported elsewhere in this forum, Tommy Franks has said that he would need 400,000 troops in Iraq. He has gotten 250,000. The Pentagon has underestimated the FUCK out of this, and it is getting more apparent every day.

And the funny thing is watching everyone play "cover your ass." Today the CIA announced that they had warned about "irregular" forces months ago!