[Iraq] 'air assualt'
Im a little thick on military matters, but erm instead of using the biggest air assualt with the most helicopters in 3 years to attack the 'insurgents', wouldn't it be easier to get in tanks and armoured personnel carriers and simply drive there? I mean ok fair play theres more surprise involved with an air assualt...unless you tell everyone what you're doing why you're doing it and invite the press along on day one.
Anyway so far not a lot seems to have happened http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4816710.stm |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
It is easier and safer to move in with ground troops if you have completely decimated the enemy from the air first. Bomb, bomb again, bomb some more; and when you are fairly sure everyone is dead, move in and try to "ask some questions".
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
hehe, remember when US tank rolled into Bagdhad. there was hardly a house left standing along their route as F-16s had bombed it constantly for 24 hours |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Id imagine it would actually take place as follows: Special ops units move into forward positions and 'paint' insurgent targets (most likely spotted via satellite or other intelligence resources). Airstrike takes place against target killing as many hostiles as possible. Ground units then move in and mop up the mess with close air support. I doubt very much its a case of 'bomb the crap out of this general area and hope we get em all'. Oh and the press wont be told diddly squat about where the attacks are happening except a really broad area. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
If only those weps were as precise in reality as they are on paper....
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Marry me |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
It is an air assault not an air strike. There has been little, if any bombing. The air part of the assault is helicopters. Troops are being moved in quickly in this fashion.
I believe that one of the reasons for the exercise is that it is the first major air assault using fairly large amounts of Iraqi troops. It means that their training is getting more sophisticated. Whether or not anything of value will be accomplished is sort of a side issue when we are trying so hard to prove that the Iraqis themselves are increasing their capabilities. I just hope it's true and not just smoke and mirrors. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
In honor of St. Patrick's Day, I hear that the military has agreed not to kill anybody wearing green.
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
I didnt say exclusively satellite coverage dude. Usually pinpointing potential targets is a combination of ELINT HUMINT and various other 'INT's. Satellites just give the precise location of both the 'place' and the people around it. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
As i read the news website it seems it really is 'close air support' as opposed to 'ZOMG BOMB TEH PEOPLE WITH TOWELS ON THEIR HEADS FROM 42,000 FEET'
isnt that 'military speak' for ground unit assault with choppers and strike fighters in support? |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Helicopters are faster than ground based. They can also insert troops in a variety of areas - such as on the roof of a building and the likes.
Using helicopters to deploy troops, in much the same way as parachutes, allows the attacking force to saturate the area with troops whilst maintaining the greatest amount of suprise. Armour will be spotted and will always be lower than the defending force, who will usually be on the roof or in windows. Paratroopers are too imprecise for exact building insertions and can be attacked whilst they are descending. Helo's with mounted weapons allow for a rapid and precise insertion whilst attacking the insertion area. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
I doubt very much the US military is going in there 'on a hunch' that there might 'possibly' be some bad guys who are creating a bit of a fuss. There would have to be far more intelligence than that otherwise it would just be a giant mess with noone really knowing what the objectives are. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thats the problem with urban combat. I fail to see your point. Everyone knows its unfair and everyone knows its unfortunate. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Hey. I listened to what you had to say and understood it. I just don't care about how they are deciding who to shoot and who not to shoot - nor do I care about the reasons for shooting them. I was simply addressing the question which had been asked - why are they using helicopters and not an armoured advance. So yes, I was listening to you. You care about the human casualty side of the operation. I don't. I care about the tactical side of the operation. You don't. We all have our areas of interest. Not caring does not mean ignoring. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
5 cents that its a combined PR / training exercise (lets see what the "iraqi" troops can do now)
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops. Heh. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
You're not a pacificst are you?
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
This is a counter-insurgency in an occupied country. The human side of the operation IS part of the tactical side. Every military operation in this kind of war HAS to be combined with a consideration of 'hearts and minds', let you create more insurgents than you have killed. Set showpiece battle like this are only vluable in two cases: 1- The Occupying power needs to be SEEN to be doing something impressive for whatever reason, 2- The insurgents, hit by a Get-Smart-esqe wave of baffling stupidity, decided to have a get-toegther in an isolated area away from serious collateral damage, where they could all relax, hang out, count the weapons in their arms cache, and generally be a target. Seeing as in any cell-based insurgency the various organising members across the city likely do not even know each other, the second option is more than unlikely, it is impossible. The only other option I can imagine is if Insurgents, waging their own 'hearts and minds' campaign, have had a great deal of success in a small region or community, the US military might feel the entire place is compromised or unrecoverable, and act accordingly. However in the post-Vietnam world the US doesn't really think like that any more, or at least they didn't until about 4 years ago, and I rather hope that has not changed. Perhps this operation will be a success, they will kill insurgents, capture some weapons, and make good with the PR, but I think even people like Rumsfeld have come to realise that there is no strictly military solution to the deepening quagmire that is Central Iraq. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
T&F stating that I was not listening to his side discussion about the probablility of civilan casualties is slightly poor play, as had he read my posts correctly he will realise that I at no point even attempted to enter his side of the discussion. Granted, in my reply at 01:33 I stated that his area of discussion wasn't my concern as I hold interest only in the tactical question of this thread. Vermillion is correct, the collateral damage assessments and tactical decisions on how to minimise this damage are very much part of the tactical part of an operation - however, there are a great many areas which must be covered when planning an assault of any kind. Collateral damage is one. Target control is another. Insertion and extraction planning is another. There are, as I say, many more parts to the planning, however in my initial replies I chose to limit my input only to the insertion and extraction planning. Hence my initial replies having no bearing on civilian casualties or target control. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
...so now they're in the villages with the helicopters why not bring in the tanks? or are they helicoptering people from house to house? i don't suppose it matters, its probably just a pr-look-iraqis-firing-guns-thing.
I stumbled across this site, i can't comment about the authors authority in his opinions but his articles are an interesting read, also quite funny in places. http://www.exile.ru/archive/by_author/gary_brecher.html incidently verm, mr brecher is of the opinion that the only historically reliable military solution to a guerilla insurgency is genocide, but since thats not looked upon kindly in the 21st century there is no military solution to an insurgency supported by the local populous. Even the malay business was by an ethnic minority. Would you agree? If the US isn't going to get a decisive victory, why not just leave? ofc iraq will decend into a shithole, but public opinon aside (its never really mattered) vietnam was as t&f once pointed out an american victory, especially as all other nations realised they would be ****ed up the arse if anything similar happened. Wouldn't it be 'logical'* for america to do likewise now? just leave iraq but with nations like syria/iran under the impression that you're prepared to invade, stay a bit with everything messed up then simply up and leave. * lol |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
-if you suspect that a village might be supporting the rebels, enter the village with some troops. Kill/torture enough off the people so that they think its to costly to support the rebels. -if the damn commies (everyone who supports the rebels are ofc commies)havent learned, visit the village again. Kill and/or torture more people. -When done a few times, it should be enough to make even the hardest rebel sympathisers quit supporting the rebels. -force people to move into large cities from the countryside -in this way you have removed the lake, so its easier to catch the fish (the rebels). -Try to divide society by playing ethnic/religious groups against each other, or use the fedual structures. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Worked like a charm in Germany and Japan, it just takes an enormous military and civilian force, about 30-odd years and several trillion dollars. It also helps if you have a terrifying military enemy next-door to convince the locals your presence is necessary for their security. Easy as pie. Quote:
The whole 'making the world safer for the US' thing would be a bit silly at that point. Not to mention Israel would be warming up their silos.The US has got itself into a state of worse or worserer (Its a word, Damnit!) in Iraq in that the only thing worse than the US being there would be the US not being there. Quote:
Not if the reason you left was due to financial cost, human cost, and lack of desire (or understanding) on the home front. Remember there are two 'powers' in the Middle East, and I don't mean Shia and Sunni. I mean secular(ish) governments and Islamicism. Even ultra religious Saudi Arabian government is waging a constant internal struggle at maintaining the trappings of secular authority in the face of its Wahabbist Clerics. In Iraq, a secular dictator nobody liked had been deposed, and one way or another (unless the current government can maintain control; unlikely as that would involve them actually trying) the winner will be Islamicism. Hussein was a brutal, savage, murdering dictator, but the irony is he was probably in charge of the nation LEAST likely to form a clear and present danger to the US itself under his control. Nobody hated Islamicism more than Hussein himself. Faces with a struggle against the same extremist powers, the house of Saud among others is desperate to keep the US 'in situ' as a brake on the more extreme elements of these radicals, who might otherwise turn against local governments. Keep in mind, that terrorist organisations like Hamas, the PLO, islamic Jihad and a dozen others you have never heard of all get more funding from Saudi Arabia than EVERY OTHER country in the Middle East put together. Oh, and they created and funded Al Qaida, created and sponsored the Taliban, Bin Laden is Saudi, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi... ...ok, where was I going with this? ...Right, the US would not want to do anything to damage relations with its good friend and ally Saudi Arabia. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
No, No, No, the standard US tactic is to play for the hearts and minds of the local population (build electrical grids, feed the homeless, fund hospitals (but only ones that do not promote abortion)) AND Kill/torture enough off the people so that they think its to costly to support the rebels. And should some of the locals protest that these two goals seem mutually exclusive, well the campaign to win hearts and minds has obviously failed on these people, and they must be rebels. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
In theory perhaps. But I never read about any "hearts & minds" efforts towards the Guatemalians or the kurds by the goverment of Guatemalia or Turkey.. Nor seems the mexican goverment seems to persue such things in the Chiapas-region.
Btw, the US Army has something called Military Review. Now they even have a contest! " The Combined Arms Center (CAC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is pleased to announce its first annual Commanding General’s Special Topics Writing Competition. This year’s focus is counterinsurgency operations. (..) Enclosure 3 (Possible Topics) (..) - CORDS/Phoenix operations in Vietnam – Lessons learned: “What worked? What didn’t work?” - The “55” rule: Lessons from counterinsurgency in El Salvador applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan." http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/C...ntestrules.asp |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
As far as I know , the 'Hearts and minds' operations of the Turks is to pull out your heart and show it to you so you mind has time to realise what it is before you die... |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
I am pleased by this thread.
It has allowed vermillion himself to shatter any illusion that he is rational or 'bright'. Vindictively this display pleases me. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
but none so succinct as this. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Ah Yahwe, its good to see that you have not changed at all. Your self-destructive consistency is a bastion for all of us. I'd ask how have you been, but your response would just be an infamous Yahwe one-line insult with no foundation or explanation, so I shall not bother... God forbid you would lower yourself to making a constructive point, or 'explaining yourself to your lessers', as I'm certain you see it... |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
I think that this operation will be a failure whatever happens.
I was told about a news story by a lecturer whereby some american soldiers found and kill two Iraqi insurgents, and as a warning to other insurgents, the sargent in charge of the platoon told his men to strap the two bodies onto their humvees while they drive around to show what happens to other dissidents in Iraq. People seeing that the Americans could do this to people is bad enough. There will be people that actually see it, then there will be people see it by proxy. For example, Al-Jazeera showed these two bodies on the bonnets of the humvees. This sort of thing not only creates unrest and disgust in Iraq, maybe leading to more insurgents fighting in protest, but it also creates more supporters of insurgents, presumably in the Arab world, who are equally disgusted by the treatment their people, being Muslims I suppose, are treated in death. Even in incidents like there, in this sort of situation, its Iraqi people being killed, or Muslim people being killed, either way, one of these is likely to appeal to some sort of nationhood that people hold and so more people feel they need to fight against it because next time it could be an Iraqi or Muslim person they know getting killed by friendly fire or whatever. It seems its a vicious circle in terms of the insurgents. You fight to get rid of the insurgents, but in fighting and killing more insurgents pop up in protest. I'm not even sure the Americans realise this :/ (btw Al-Queda is not real, its just an imagined community of Arabic terrorist groups made up by America so they could prosecute someone, but I can't remember who) |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Now the average GI faces a situation of escalating hatred and dislike, and no real I dea of how to handle it, except to revert to their military training, and kill their opposition. It is a brutal cycle, and the average PFC American is as much a victim of the idiocy of the administration as the average Iraqi, the US soldier just gets far better benefits when his legs get blown off in a conflict he neither desires nor understands. Acts like the one you list above, while horrific and I certainly do not condone it, are the act of desperate men trying to try and figure out how to improve a deteriorating situation, with no guidance from the chain of command. Brig. Gen Mark Kimmitt came and lectured at the IISS and at Oxford recently and I was fortunate enough to hear him and speak to him at some length afterwards, and he readily admitted that the troops went into Iraq trained to depose Husein, and utterly unprepared for what came next... Now the US military is finally trying to retask and reorient, but entirely on its own, with no guidance from above... Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
I completely agree with the idea that the soldiers in Iraq weren't prepared to deal with this, but on a grander scale, I don't think the strategists really about it either.
I'm not sure what the situation is really like but its clear that they aren't sure how to deal with the insurgents and the creation of insurgents through their actions. Clearly they hope to kill the insurgents, but this strategy does not take into account the effects that it has on the Iraqi people. There is clearly a concern for the hearts and minds of the campaign, but it seems to be lacking in its operations. I think the problem they came across in Iraq is simply assuming that the Iraqi people would be happy to be free from the rule of a dictatorship. Being free of a dictator is, I suppose, within a Western paradigm of how society should be. It seems that those that were not mistreated or abused by Saddam had few objections on the way Iraq was run during his time. But America seems to have dismissed this, and not viewed the situation from a Middle Eastern view, where the culture is so very different from the west. Maybe in order to make peace in Iraq, there needs to be more thinking of Iraq from a Middle Eastern perspective than from a Western one, because attitudes and values are so very different between the two and devising a strategy that adheres to one set but in the context of the other doesn't seem at all sensible. With regard to the Al-Queda thing, yes it was the documentary. But I've done reading on it and it seems to be more cell like and amorphous than having them all under one name suggests. Mayeb they do report to Bin Laden or something and he considers them to be under his banner. However having thought about it, if it was a large scale organisation and wrre all part of the same gorup, I guess that having separate cells is a more secure way of operating. Anyway, to me it seems that strategy should be made with a Middle eastern paradigm in mind, if that makes any sense? |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
ok <3
I'd carry on but I have nothign to dispute or add now :O Although I do wonder how much trouble there would be in Iraq if the coalition just left. Obviously there are still Sunni and Shiite tensions, but it could be that they're just intensified by their general annoyance of their country being invaded and occupied by other countries. Maybe thats the best way forward for regional stability. I think I'll send George a letter about it. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
A major problem, and especially with the american soldiers, is that what they are trained/brainwashed to do crashes bigtime with what their current task is.
After the second world war, there was concern in the military ranks as there had been lots of problems with soldiers hesitating to fire at the enemy, seeing it as another human beeing rather than a target. This lead to a major revamp of training methods, employing behavioural psychologists to help design the programs and make sure that the soldiers would perform as effectively as possible. As a result of such behavioural conditioning, soldiers are more like robots when a situation occurs, they act according to the training they have received rather than rational thought; and in a conventional battle situation, this is generally good. The soldier hestitates less, and is more likely to get out alive. This training is not so beneficial however, when the time has come for peacekeeping, as their behavioural conditioning still tells them that this is the enemy, in essence "kill, kill, kill". Now they are supposed to ignore their "instincts" and the deeply embedded behavioural conditioning! Those soldiers should never have been set guard the peace, or the prisoners of the war. The results, which have surfaced through the media, were unavoidable. |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
I don't think you can call the operations in Iraq peacekeeping operations
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
What I meant was that on a day to day basis, the soldiers now perform alot of the same duties that the police would normally do, and as it is generally urban areas, they can/should not just rely on shooting anything suspicious.
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
But they are americans, Kaisto. They are born to be trigger happy!
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
They're born with their fingers on the triggers!
|
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
Quote:
Yes, that is another part of the problem, a bigger one. This sickly fixation with guns. "guns don't kill people, people kill people"....bah, bullshit, guns bloody help ALOT |
Re: [Iraq] 'air assualt'
No, rappers do.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:44. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018