Basra under siege

[armageddonman]

Basra is under siege now. Contrary to what the US propaganda tried to make us believe (and contrary to what said propaganda made people like Jedi Knight believe, who boasted that 50 marines where enough to take Basra), Basra is not an easy prey.
The result is, as could have been expected, a siege and everyone who has even a small understanding of history knows what that means: lots of casualities, especially among the civilians.

Seems like this war isn't taking the direction the US said it would. I wonder were else they have been wrong.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Seems like this war isn't taking the direction the US said it would. I wonder were else they have been wrong.

3/4 of the country is under our control, we are at the gates of baghdad. We have a pocketful of casualties. The Iraqi's are surrendering and deserting at a high rate.

As for the resistance pockets in southern Iraq, I do remember the military mentioning many times that we should not over-confident and that there are many unknowns that could hurt us.

Why then does this Basra resistance counter that?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Basra is not an easy prey.

I believe I read somewhere that Basra is a city of 2 million people. It's not a city the coalition wishes to occupy. Rather, they need control over transportation routes through Basra. So, we can expect troops to hunker down to protect the supply route, with sporadic attacks from the city, until Saddam has fallen.

[Skeptic]

Basra is under siege now. Contrary to what the US propaganda tried to make us believe (and contrary to what said propaganda made people like Jedi Knight believe, who boasted that 50 marines where enough to take Basra), Basra is not an easy prey.

The coalition forces have already occupied more than 2/3rds of Iraq and are advancing on the capital, Baghdad, which is under bombardment. The US obviously does not plan to fight a pitched battle for Basra--only to secure it so that it will no longer be a useful base for the enemy. The main target is clearly Baghdad. Anything else is secondary.

As for the war "not going according to plan", out of the 300,000 or so coalition troops involved, there are altogether about 50 POWs, KIAs, and MIAs combined, with a similar number of wounded. When an army of 100 DIVISIONS or so is fighting a war for a week and its total casualties number less than ONE COMPANY, this is not only a success, it is a phenomenal one.

Seems like this war isn't taking the direction the US said it would.

You mean that not EVERYTHING in war goes according to the MOST OPTIMISTIC POSSIBLE PLANS? I'm shocked. What a horrible act of deception.

[Bjorn]

March 19, 2003
Basra is up first. Just 35 miles from the Kuwaiti border, the city of about 1.3 million is Iraq’s main seaport and a key center for its oil industry. The city was devastated by fighting — including Iraqi chemical weapons attacks — during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, which was fought mainly over the Shatt al-Arab waterway that connects Basra to the Persian Gulf.

Pentagon officials say Saddam does not appear to be planning to put up much of a fight for Basra. Two regular army divisions protect the city, not Saddam’s relatively well equipped, trained and trusted Republican Guards.

The regular army troops are unlikely to fight hard, if at all, Pentagon intelligence officials say. Most of the city’s population is Shiite Muslim — a group that rebelled against Sunni Muslim Saddam and his Sunni-dominated government in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War.March 25, 2003
Military officials admitted they had vastly underestimated the strength of Iraqi resistance and the loyalty of Basra's population to the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "We're currently taking stock of the situation. We were expecting a lot of hands up from Iraqi soldiers and for the humanitarian operation in Basra to begin fairly quickly behind us, with aid organisations providing food and water to the locals," Captain Patrick Trueman said."But it hasn't quite worked out that way. I think this is, at the moment, about being a SKEPTIC.

When someone discovers a chemical factory (producing WMDs) and some others, 24 hours later, find out it wasn't quite true, I would have expected most members here to have been 'waiting to see' in the meantime.

When someone accuses the US or Iraq about torture, I expect skeptics to 'wait and see'. Or provide evidence, for or against. :(

And so on. Aren't we supposed to be skeptical? :rolleyes:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Bjorn:
And so on. Aren't we supposed to be skeptical? :rolleyes:

Give me a source on those Basra claims and I'll try.

[armageddonman]

Basra fighting intensifies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882967.stm)

[richardm]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Basra fighting intensifies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882967.stm)

... because the British soldiers outside it have realised that there is a growing humanitarian problem in there. The Republican Guard have been setting up artillery in the middle of civilian areas, and attacks on them have consequently caused problems for the civilians who live there. Rather than sitting on the outside as they originally intended to do, they're now pushing hard to clear the city of fighting Iraqis so that humanitarian aid can get in.

The intensification is this push to get in.

[armageddonman]

US/UK are the agressors. Therefore they are responsible for any hardship the civilians have to endure due to the invasion.

As much as I dispise the Iraqi government, you can't blame the Iraqis for defending their country.

[armageddonman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2883043.stm

quote from this article:

"Another interviewee, Nicholas Anton of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, said it was naive to think that the Iraqis would be "flag-waving and welcoming".

"That crazy euphoria everyone had in the beginning was very short-lived, and now people have to deal with the consequences of a real war," he said."


"Crazy Euphoria", that's what I was referring to.

[Drooper]

There are various reasons why there is resistance in these cities and why there is not widespread evidence of pupular uprising - not the least, the experience of 1991 when Saddam took severe retribution on the people of the Southern cities of Iraq, especially Basra.

Look at other Iraqi accounts of what is going on and remain a little more sceptical for now.

The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/25/1048354593704.html)

At another checkpoint, Iraqis with blankets and pots piled in the back of pick-up trucks streamed out of the town of al-Zubayr. They said armed members of the ruling Baath party were intimidating the civilians in the town which was why many were leaving.

"They took my three sons and executed them this morning behind the hospital in al-Zubayr," said Adil Sughayar, waving his hands in the air.



The southern port city of Umm Qasr has been pounded by shells for days. But according to at least some citizens it is the Baath Party members who have paralysed the town with fear.

"The Americans think there are Republican Guards in the city. It's only ten men with old rifles who are resisting," said Ali Muhammed, an army deserter.

"Everyone else wants the Americans to free Umm Qasr. We would like to kill the 10 men but we are afraid that if the Americans don't win Saddam will slit our throats."

[richardm]

Originally posted by armageddonman
US/UK are the agressors. Therefore they are responsible for any hardship the civilians have to endure due to the invasion.

As much as I dispise the Iraqi government, you can't blame the Iraqis for defending their country.

I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just explaining why there has been an intensification of the fighting in and around Basra. It is not, as might have been implied, because the coalition troops are struggling to make headway.

[Mike B.]

Sure the coalition forces could turn Basra into rubble if they wanted to...But that is not the point. Resistance is hard to overcome in a city where you don't want to pile on the civilian casualties.

The UK soldiers are doing the best they can, but they are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

BTW...They are trying to get humanitarian aid to the city. Has there ever been a war fought like this? Years ago the city would be on fire from bombs and the hell with the civilians.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx


3/4 of the country is under our control,

That's a lot of empty desert we are controlling there, right?

This is like those electorial maps that show how Bush won 90% of the country's land mass in the 2000 election. It's straight out of Huff's book "How to Lie with Statistics."

[Skeptic]

That's a lot of empty desert we are controlling there, right?

And cities, and oil wells, and airfields, and... you get the point.

This is like those electorial maps that show how Bush won 90% of the country's land mass in the 2000 election.

But he did. Gore won a few populous states that are traditionally democractic, but the hearland sided with Bush almost completely. But I keep forgetting that the votes of those unsophisticated people who don't even live NEAR New York or San Fransisco don't count.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


That's a lot of empty desert we are controlling there, right?


Yes. A better measure would be how many tactical locations we control versus what we still have to capture. However, getting that measure is not easy.

[subgenius]

Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S.-led force in Iraq risks as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad and Washington has underestimated the number of troops needed, a top former commander from the 1991 Gulf War said on Monday.

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital.
....
McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that."

"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Mar24.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's a lot of empty desert we are controlling there, right?

And cities, and oil wells, and airfields, and... you get the point.

And exactly how many of these do we control?

We control 75% of the land mass, but maybe, what, 10% of the cities?

What percentage of the oil wells and airfields do we control?

As corplinx notes, a more useful measure would be how many of the key strategic points do we control? Considering that most of them are in areas where they are people, it is far lower than 75%.


This is like those electorial maps that show how Bush won 90% of the country's land mass in the 2000 election.

But he did. Gore won a few populous states that are traditionally democractic, but the hearland sided with Bush almost completely. But I keep forgetting that the votes of those unsophisticated people who don't even live NEAR New York or San Fransisco don't count.

Conversely, the votes of the people in Montana do not mean more just because the population is spread out over a larger land mass.

Unfortunately, that is the impression that these maps tend to give.

Like I said, it's a tactic straight out of Huff's book.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by armageddonman
US/UK are the agressors. Therefore they are responsible for any hardship the civilians have to endure due to the invasion.


It is against the rules of engagement to endanger your own population by placing military targets next to civilian populations. By forcing Iraqi civilians to be human sheilds, Saddam should take a large amount (if not all) of the blame.

[headscratcher4]

Conversely, the votes of the people in Montana do not mean more just because the population is spread out over a larger land mass.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but Bush lost the popular vote...so before complaining about the intelectual disenfranchisement of the people of the heartland, maybe you should also worry about the disenfranchisment of the majority of voters....even if they live in populated states.

I voted with the majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, the man I voted for did not get "elected." Whether you think this is a good thing or not (i.e. whether Bush is the better man to manage this current situation), it leaves me feeling like my vote -- a vote that was in the majority, didn't count.

BTW, I am not arguing the invalidity of Bush's election. The rules were in place and I accept them, just as I accept that Bush is the President and won the election by virtue of the rules of the game and how the Supreme Court interpreted them.

[Troll]

Both CNN and SKY news through Fox News are reporting that the Shia are uprising and in Basra and fighting against the soldiers loyal to Hussein.

The Brits, via Army spokesman Chris Vernon on Cnn, has stated that they moved in at one point and killed and captured a few including the capture of a "high ranking political figure".

They don't want to shoot up the city, so it's one of those things that takes a little time.

Now we wait about 24 hours and see what the adjusted facts are.

[Jedi Knight]

The Basra citizens want their Big Macs, Rap music and DVD's. They are gunning down the Iraqi soldiers loyal to Saddam and the city is in full revolt!

It is the will of Allah!

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Also, not to beat a dead horse, but Bush lost the popular vote...so before complaining about the intelectual disenfranchisement of the people of the heartland, maybe you should also worry about the disenfranchisment of the majority of voters....even if they live in populated states.

Gore lost his own home state. Gosh, that is impressive.

Also, our Presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College, not popularity.

Haven't we had 50 page threads on this already?

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Gore lost his own home state. Gosh, that is impressive.

Also, our Presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College, not popularity.

Haven't we had 50 page threads on this already?

JK

Yeah, we've talked about the JEB election before.

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, and I apologize for bringing this up in this thread...though it was in response to another coment. ALso, I do point out, JK, the following statement:

BTW, I am not arguing the invalidity of Bush's election. The rules were in place and I accept them, just as I accept that Bush is the President and won the election by virtue of the rules of the game and how the Supreme Court interpreted them.

In other words, Bush won. He gets to make the decisions.

I will not belabor the point anymore, again, sorry for taking things off point. :o

[subgenius]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Indeed, and I apologize for bringing this up in this thread...though it was in response to another coment. ALso, I do point out, JK, the following statement:



In other words, Bush won. He gets to make the decisions.

I will not belabor the point anymore, again, sorry for taking things off point. :o
You have made a good and relevent point.
Regardless of the "legality" of the (s)election it is boneheaded to not fathom the political ramifications, and to ignore the majority.
Our boy sounds so much like those he hates, in rhetoric and substance.

[arcticpenguin]

Back to topic: Basra

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2886235.stm

As reported by the BBC, British military intelligence officials are reporting a civilian uprising in Basra.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The Basra citizens want their Big Macs, Rap music and DVD's.
They won't be allowed to have region 1 dvd's, though.
:)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by mbp

They won't be allowed to have region 1 dvd's, though.
:)

lol, true, true.

JK

[Jocko]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Basra is under siege now. Contrary to what the US propaganda tried to make us believe (and contrary to what said propaganda made people like Jedi Knight believe, who boasted that 50 marines where enough to take Basra), Basra is not an easy prey.

I never head any such claims. Basra is a city of almost 2 million. What kind of idiot would believe such a thing as 50 marines taking it?

The result is, as could have been expected, a siege and everyone who has even a small understanding of history knows what that means: lots of casualities, especially among the civilians.

The only civilian casualties to be found in Basra are being inflicted by Hussein's own men as they rebel against them. This has nothing to do with the coalition seige of the city, as you suggest, but an outraged Shiite population seizing an opportunity to kick those motherf*ckers out of their city.

Seems like this war isn't taking the direction the US said it would. I wonder were else they have been wrong.

Actually, strong local support like this, coupled with infighting among Iraqi government troops (who are now shooting any of their number who attempts to surrender or flee, like any half-witted person would do) seems to indicate that things are going PRECISELY as predicted.

Never believe first reports. There will be months of this ahead. I sincerely hope the Shiites string those sons of bitches up on every light pole in town and toss flowers in the path of the brave Brits who are about to move in.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Basra is under siege now. Contrary to what the US propaganda tried to make us believe (and contrary to what said propaganda made people like Jedi Knight believe, who boasted that 50 marines where enough to take Basra), Basra is not an easy prey.
The result is, as could have been expected, a siege and everyone who has even a small understanding of history knows what that means: lots of casualities, especially among the civilians.

Seems like this war isn't taking the direction the US said it would. I wonder were else they have been wrong.

Yeah,

You'll take even more civilian casualties if your "defensive" force fires mortars into crowds of protesting and uprising civilians.

Your "heroes" the fedayeen fighters of Basrah now have an enemy behind as well as in front of them....sounds to me you will have to find a different enemy force to cheerlead for soon....these guys in Basrah are about to become a footnote of history.

-zilla

[subgenius]

Our hearts, hopes, and admiration go out to the unbelievably brave insurgents in Basra. It is impossible to imagine the courage it takes to do what they're doing.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by subgenius
Our hearts, hopes, and admiration go out to the unbelievably brave insurgents in Basra. It is impossible to imagine the courage it takes to do what they're doing.

Hear Hear!!!

[Doubt]

Originally posted by subgenius
Our hearts, hopes, and admiration go out to the unbelievably brave insurgents in Basra. It is impossible to imagine the courage it takes to do what they're doing.

I don't think the insurgents are alone. The BBC reports say that the British are using artillery in support of the uprising. Howitzers need target information. I would suspect that either US or British troops are working with some segment of the population. Any bets on the SAS being inside the city?

The story refers to the use of counter battery radar, but that tells you the what, when and where of the shooting, not who.

The other option is that aircraft are being used to call in fire, which is a bit more likely to attack the wrong targets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2886235.stm

[Skeptic]

If this is correct, it's clarifies why many Iraqis, despite hating Hussein, have not yet openly revolted: they rememeber all too well what happened to those who revolted prematurely last time (in 1991), and for that matter what often happened to people who revolted prematurely anywhere.

Rumsfeld, in the latest briefing a few minutes ago, said that the US will NOT call on the Iraqis, or any particular groups of same, to openly rebel against Hussein now, and is NOT behind the (rumored) uprising in Basra, athough the coalition will support it if it's in fact happening. Rumsfeld specifically mentioned the hopeful, yet ultimately futile, uprisings in the 1950s in the eastern bloc--saying he remembers well how dangerous such uprisings are, no matter how just their cause. The US, quite rightly, does not want the moral responsiblity of encouraging unarmed civilians to rise against armed death squads.

Just like the pictures of American POWs on Iraqi TV, the lack of instant Iraqi uprising against Hussein the moment Americans stepped on its soil hardly "proves" the US is "losing" the war or that the Iraqis "support" Saddam Hussein. It is simply what one would expect in the first place.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jocko
[B]

I never head any such claims. Basra is a city of almost 2 million. What kind of idiot would believe such a thing as 50 marines taking it?

[B]


Guess who? :)




The only civilian casualties to be found in Basra are being inflicted by Hussein's own men as they rebel against them.


Sources for that?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Your "heroes" the fedayeen fighters of Basrah now have an enemy behind as well as in front of them....sounds to me you will have to find a different enemy force to cheerlead for soon....these guys in Basrah are about to become a footnote of history.

-zilla [/B]

Very cheap shot. I don't support the attack on Iraq, therefore I support the Iraqi regime?

On thing you should have learned in this forum is that you cannot divide the world into black and white.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If this is correct, it's clarifies why many Iraqis, despite hating Hussein, have not yet openly revolted: they rememeber all too well what happened to those who revolted prematurely last time (in 1991), and for that matter what often happened to people who revolted prematurely anywhere.

Rumsfeld, in the latest briefing a few minutes ago, said that the US will NOT call on the Iraqis, or any particular groups of same, to openly rebel against Hussein now, and is NOT behind the (rumored) uprising in Basra, athough the coalition will support it if it's in fact happening. Rumsfeld specifically mentioned the hopeful, yet ultimately futile, uprisings in the 1950s in the eastern bloc--saying he remembers well how dangerous such uprisings are, no matter how just their cause. The US, quite rightly, does not want the moral responsiblity of encouraging unarmed civilians to rise against armed death squads.

Just like the pictures of American POWs on Iraqi TV, the lack of instant Iraqi uprising against Hussein the moment Americans stepped on its soil hardly "proves" the US is "losing" the war or that the Iraqis "support" Saddam Hussein. It is simply what one would expect in the first place.
That's funny that Rumsfeld would refer to the 50's rather than when his boss in 91 let those folks be massacred after promising them support.
That's why its even more courageous for anyone to take a stand in Iraq, not knowing if the US will actually back them.
Many, unlike us, choose to remember history, rather than ignorantly repeat it.

[Nately]

It seems like a "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont" situation to me. Moving into the city means urban fighting and the certainty of increased civilian casualties. But if there is a civilian uprising going on and the British just wait outside, the uprising might get crushed by the Fedayeen and Ba'ath Party loyalists. And then the Brits would get compared to the Soviets waiting around for the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to get stomped out. Not an easy decision.

[richardm]

Latest report is that something like 120 Iraqi armoured vehicles are having it away on their heels from Basra.

Hopefully that means that the siege will soon be lifted.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by richardm
Latest report is that something like 120 Iraqi armoured vehicles are having it away on their heels from Basra.

Hopefully that means that the siege will soon be lifted.

The BBC reports 70-120 of them heading south east (?). What would be the point of that then, apart from attacking the arrival of aid?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Very cheap shot. I don't support the attack on Iraq, therefore I support the Iraqi regime?

On thing you should have learned in this forum is that you cannot divide the world into black and white.

This is war....the gray areas are all filled in....you are sympathetic to the enemy. There is no gray there. You are rooting for the forces of the tyrant.

-zilla

"Sic Semper Tyranis"

[richardm]

What would be the point of that then, apart from attacking the arrival of aid?

Must be that, I suppose. It seems an odd sort of thing to do, though, since presumably they'll now be heavily stomped by the aircraft who couldn't reach them when they were in the city.

The only other thing that is out that way is Iran, and I can't believe they're making for there.

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by Drooper


The BBC reports 70-120 of them heading south east (?). What would be the point of that then, apart from attacking the arrival of aid?

Maybe that was just the fastest way out of the city.

I find myself falling into the mental trap of thinking of places long away as smaller than they really are. But a city of a million population is a big place - comparable with (for example) Dallas, or Birmingham (the UK one). They sprawl.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Thumbo


Maybe that was just the fastest way out of the city.

I find myself falling into the mental trap of thinking of places long away as smaller than they really are. But a city of a million population is a big place - comparable with (for example) Dallas, or Birmingham (the UK one). They sprawl.

Problem is, if they heading "out of Basra" to the southe east. After about 20km they end up in the Gulf. Simply, there is nowhere to go that way.

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by Drooper


Problem is, if they heading "out of Basra" to the southe east. After about 20km they end up in the Gulf. Simply, there is nowhere to go that way.
True (well, I'll take your word for it :) ). But if I was in deep doodoo while happening to be on the SE edge of a city, my first move would be towards the nearest open country and then think again once I'd reached it.

Just speculation.

[rikzilla]

Open country just makes these guys more of a target. Kinda like jumping from frying pan to fire. Fox just interviewed a Navy pilot involved in close air support for the ground troops...he described his mission as "putting warheads on foreheads"...and that the missions so far has been a complete success.

-zilla

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by armageddonman
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2883043.stm

quote from this article:

"Another interviewee, Nicholas Anton of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, said it was naive to think that the Iraqis would be "flag-waving and welcoming".

"That crazy euphoria everyone had in the beginning was very short-lived, and now people have to deal with the consequences of a real war," he said."


"Crazy Euphoria", that's what I was referring to.

O.K.. You were referring to someone's claim about:
"That crazy euphoria everyone had in the beginning ..."

Who were " they " referring to?

F117, B2, etc. pilots don't count.. they are probably still feeling pretty euphoric..


P.S.

Who TF is ' Nicholas Anton ' ? Is he(?) supposed to be ' everyone ' ?