Salients and pockets of resistance.

[Reginald]

Something is bugging me.

We are making the fast progress up Iraq, but I'm not happy we are covering our backsides sufficiently here.

Can any forum members who have military experience reassure me that the towns that we are saying are "secure" are just that?

Despite our painting a picture of the Iraqis being a spent force etc I worry that we are still having problems at Umm Qsar, a place we were told was secure many days ago, the town of Nasiriya again was supposed to have been secured and now there is a battle involving 500 Iraqi troops.

I admit that my "knowledge" is WW2 history and that warfare today is a different beastie altogether but why leave ANY units capable of causing trouble behind you???

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

If we believe that Iraq harbors terrorists then it is obvious. We cannot NOT leave people behind who want to harm the troops. They will hide amongst the population and attack from cover of darkness or use the element of surprise. They won't wear a uniform and declare their intent in the open.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Reginald
I worry that we are still having problems at Umm Qsar, a place we were told was secure many days ago,


Cant trust these American troops. Better of leaving it all to us. at least that way there will be fewer casualties. :p

*yes, I am winding you Americans up and its working isnt it?*

[DrBenway]

From what I've read, "secure" means that obvious enemy resistance has been delt with and a base camp has been set up just outside the city. It does not mean that a city has been thoroughly swept of resistance.

A decision was made to avoid going into the towns, to avoid the kind of fighting that can happen there. So it's understandable that some enemy fighters are in the cities waiting for an opportunity to shoot the invaders. Hopefully, they'll come out at some point and fight in the open.

The race is on to Baghdad. Once Saddam is gone, the problem of local resistance ought to melt.

My worry is, the assault from the north has been greatly delayed. The base camps to the rear will have to tough things out a little longer than planned.

[Rose]

I think secure in this context means we can now move men and material through the area with the assurance that there will be no large scale or significant threat to them. Doesn't rule out sabatours or would be terrorists. But occupation forces will move in and continue the process of 'pacifying' the area. Not to mention beginning or continuing the search for WMD or other armaments caches.

The big factor is how dedicated are any would be partisans? They are being cut off from a regime that appears to be doomed. I don't see that there will be any organized or effective acts of sabatoge carried out against us. Not that there won't be the odd suicidal type with nothing to lose. At the moment though, the irony is that we have more to worry about the odd disgruntled trooper than we do the enemy...