We Need A Patton

The citizens of Basra have begun an uprising against Hussien's forces and we sit idly by as they get slaughtered, instead of going in to help.

Is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life?

We have made a lot of progress on the ground in Iraq, but the media is already making references to VietNam and throwing words like "quagmire" around, even though the war has been going on for LESS THAN ONE WEEK!

Each and every single American casualty is getting major airplay. Its ridiculous. Every time a bullet is fired at our troops, they slow down to a crawl or stop completely. And in the case of Basra, we skirt around it.

This is stupid. Our commanding generals are acting more like General McClellan than General Patton. It is time to kick some serious Iraqi ass.

The Iraqis don't seem to be as intimidated as they were in 1991. We just haven't shell-shocked them into submission like we did then.

Sure, we have to be cautious about civilian structures and people. Sure, every building we knock down will have to be rebuilt. But the Iraqis troops are already scortching the earth. So they can do it and hold us off longer, or we can do it and get this damn thing over with sooner.

They are now slaughtering their own people. What the hell are we waiting for?

Christ, give me a map, a GPS receiver, and a radio, and I'll crawl into Basra myself and give the artillery coordinates!

George would have already moved in and be holding a lunch buffet in the city square by now.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by LukeT
The citizens of Basra have begun an uprising against Hussien's forces and we sit idly by as they get slaughtered, instead of going in to help.

Is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life?

It's my understanding that there are no Americans on the ground near Basra. (The Marines split off to continue the advance and left Basra to the Brits)

When it comes to deciding when and how to engage in house-to-house fighting, I think it's reasonable to defer to the Brits, as they have more experience at it. It's not clear to me that the Brits would save lives by going in at night in all this chaos.

Is it clear to you?

MattJ

[jj]

I'm sure my half-brother (who was an Lt. Col. in the 3rd army from Italy times to after the Bulge) would agree too.

I think that some tactical brilliance would go a great ways today.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by LukeT
George would have already moved in and be holding a lunch buffet in the city square by now.

As to what Patton would do, I would ask you to refer to this (http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/week_2003_03_23.html#002770).

I have to respectfully disagree, and Patton, Guderian, Rommel, Zhukov, O'Conner, et al would as well. Bypassing of resistance and population centers (i.e., urban areas left for mop-up by follow on forces) is standard armored doctrine around the world. The bypassed troops will be disorganized, disrupted, isolated, and confused. That doesn't mean they won't fight, the Germans found that out when they invaded Russia in 1941. However, it was just such nervousness on the part of Gerd von Rundstedt and Hitler that stopped Guderian's Panzers not once but twice during the May 1940 German invasion of France. The second halt ordered by von Rundstedt (and approved by Hitler) allowed the British Army to escape in the now famous evacuation from Dunkirk. As Patton said, "L'audace, toujours l'audace!" (Audacity, always audacity!) Or rather "Who dares, wins." (Patton also reminded us to not take council of our fears.)

I think Patton would have driven right past Basra.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
The citizens of Basra have begun an uprising against Hussien's forces and we sit idly by as they get slaughtered, instead of going in to help.

Is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life?

We have made a lot of progress on the ground in Iraq, but the media is already making references to VietNam and throwing words like "quagmire" around, even though the war has been going on for LESS THAN ONE WEEK!

Each and every single American casualty is getting major airplay. Its ridiculous. Every time a bullet is fired at our troops, they slow down to a crawl or stop completely. And in the case of Basra, we skirt around it.



i think saddam must have been watching 'black hawk down'. there is no way he is going to commit anything to an open, stand up fight.



This is stupid. Our commanding generals are acting more like General McClellan than General Patton. It is time to kick some serious Iraqi ass.



the mobile war is exactly what was invented in WWII. you skirt around the tough spots, and concentrate more on the command, communications and supply lines. an army without a head or supplies cannot fight.



The Iraqis don't seem to be as intimidated as they were in 1991. We just haven't shell-shocked them into submission like we did then.



they learnt from last time.



Sure, we have to be cautious about civilian structures and people. Sure, every building we knock down will have to be rebuilt. But the Iraqis troops are already scortching the earth. So they can do it and hold us off longer, or we can do it and get this damn thing over with sooner.

They are now slaughtering their own people. What the hell are we waiting for?

Christ, give me a map, a GPS receiver, and a radio, and I'll crawl into Basra myself and give the artillery coordinates!

From what I have read, GPS is getting jammed. apaches, which use state of the art radar and AI for targetting tanks, aren't much use against individuals hiding in cities.

in some ways, this reminds of what often happens to the police being called to a domestic. as soon as they turn up, the husband and wife both turn on the police.

Iraqis may not like saddam, but they don't necessarily like the US either. Which was the one country that insisted on the sanctions being kept in place, even when it was clear it was the women and children who suffered most from them, not saddam.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

From what I have read, GPS is getting jammed.

Source, please? I've heard just the opposite today; they are being destroyed as soon as they are turned on and they aren't affecting operations at all. This was from the daily briefing.

I wondered about that. A GPS jamming device would stick out as a target like a sore thumb.

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It's my understanding that there are no Americans on the ground near Basra. (The Marines split off to continue the advance and left Basra to the Brits)

When it comes to deciding when and how to engage in house-to-house fighting, I think it's reasonable to defer to the Brits, as they have more experience at it. It's not clear to me that the Brits would save lives by going in at night in all this chaos.

Is it clear to you?

MattJ

This is not about just tonight.

We have had troops in the area almost from the first day. Instead of clearing the Iraqi troops out of the city, we skirted it. And now the people there are in this mess.

All eyes are watching. It has been too obvious for too long that we get overly cautious at the sight of our own blood. We need to get over it and realize this is war, and it must be fought with gusto. We must go into total war mode.

The best way to learn how to fight house-to-house is to do it. Basra would be a good preparation for Baghdad.

There is also the matter of how it looks to the Iraqi people if we stand idly by, wetting our pants, afraid to fight at night when we OWN the night, while they are being slaughtered.

Originally posted by aerocontrols


As to what Patton would do, I would ask you to refer to this (http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/week_2003_03_23.html#002770).

I think Patton would have driven right past Basra.

MattJ

Okay. George would be having a lunch buffet in downtown Baghdad by now. :D

And suggesting we take on Saudi Arabia while we are in the neighborhood. "And I can make it look like they started it!"

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by LukeT


This is not about just tonight.

We have had troops in the area almost from the first day. Instead of clearing the Iraqi troops out of the city, we skirted it. And now the people there are in this mess.

All eyes are watching. It has been too obvious for too long that we get overly cautious at the sight of our own blood. We need to get over it and realize this is war, and it must be fought with gusto. We must go into total war mode.

The best way to learn how to fight house-to-house is to do it. Basra would be a good preparation for Baghdad.

There is also the matter of how it looks to the Iraqi people if we stand idly by, wetting our pants, afraid to fight at night when we OWN the night, while they are being slaughtered.

I appreciate the sentiment, I'm just not as sure as you are that lives would be saved by Allied forces 'cleaning out' Basra. That action will also kill civilians.

Of course, if you are correct and Saddam's forces are systematically killing thousands in Basra, of course we should go in. Is that what's happening?

If not, as I said, I believe the British are capable of making the call, and I believe that if they choose to go in, they'll do a better job than our guys would.

MattJ

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I appreciate the sentiment, I'm just not as sure as you are that lives would be saved by Allied forces 'cleaning out' Basra. That action will also kill civilians.

Of course, if you are correct and Saddam's forces are systematically killing thousands in Basra, of course we should go in. Is that what's happening?

If not, as I said, I believe the British are capable of making the call, and I believe that if they choose to go in, they'll do a better job than our guys would.

MattJ

Now you see, George Patton just couldn't abide letting the Brits liberate Basra....

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by sundog


Source, please? I've heard just the opposite today; they are being destroyed as soon as they are turned on and they aren't affecting operations at all. This was from the daily briefing.

I wondered about that. A GPS jamming device would stick out as a target like a sore thumb.

This meshes with what I have heard as well. I think the GPS jamming devices are pretty much a big joke that the Russians have played on the Iraqis.

Some news (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Jamming).

The JDAM's GPS antenna is directional (up) and if you want to jam its signal, you have to get your jammer between the bomb and the sky. That could work if the Iraqi airforce was present on the battlefield, but it isn't. In Basra, you could put a GPS jammer on top of a building filled with civilians (to keep us from targetting it, maybe and have a chance of jamming GPS signals, I would think. Maybe not.

MattJ

[Crossbow]

I think what the military in Iraq wants to do is to use their limited resources to capture as much territory as is possible first, and if that means stationing some troops near the big cities with orders to monitor the situation and to shoot at them if they try to escape, then that is fine.

Later, after most of the country has been secured, these pockets of resistance will be isolated from each other and from re-supply, then at that point the troops that were dispersed in order to take large sections of real estate can be brought back to these areas. Then, when these areas are surrounded by troops, tanks, and aircraft, the military will move in gradually, but with extreme strength, into these areas of strong resistance, dig them out, and destroy them.

This type of strategy is not elegant, nor is it the type to be discussed for the next thousand years in history books; but it is the type that can be readily implemented and it will work.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


This meshes with what I have heard as well. I think the GPS jamming devices are pretty much a big joke that the Russians have played on the Iraqis.

Some news (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Jamming).

The JDAM's GPS antenna is directional (up) and if you want to jam its signal, you have to get your jammer between the bomb and the sky. That could work if the Iraqi airforce was present on the battlefield, but it isn't. In Basra, you could put a GPS jammer on top of a building filled with civilians (to keep us from targetting it, maybe and have a chance of jamming GPS signals, I would think. Maybe not.

MattJ
I agree. The GPS signal is so high in frequency that it's line of sight.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT


Christ, give me a map, a GPS receiver, and a radio, and I'll crawl into Basra myself and give the artillery coordinates!

Do you honestly think 7th Armoured havent bothered to infiltrate an artillery spotter?

Just a bunch of dumb Brits are they?

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=716&e=12&u=/nm/20030325/ts_nm/iraq_gps_dc

"All six Iraqi GPS jammers destroyed, U.S. says"

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Do you honestly think 7th Armoured havent bothered to infiltrate an artillery spotter?

Just a bunch of dumb Brits are they?

Well, it's been a couple of days now.....

[Tmy]

What would the troops do in Basra? Shootthe guys wearing the "I'm with Saddam" t-shirts. How do we know whos friend or foe. (hey that rhymes)

[Ian Osborne]

Forget General Patton. We need a Lee Harvey Oswald or a John Wilkes Booth...

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Forget General Patton. We need a Lee Harvey Oswald of a John Wilkes Booth...

Careful there. The Secret Service has NO sense of humor about comments like that.

[Saturn]

There's a distinct possiblity that the rebels are Iranian-backed Islamists, with no fondness for the United States. Therefore, it makes sense to avoid what could become a three-way shooting match. Also, as was mentioned before, how are we supposed to tell which are Saddam's forces and which are the rebels?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


Okay. George would be having a lunch buffet in downtown Baghdad by now. :D

And suggesting we take on Saudi Arabia while we are in the neighborhood. "And I can make it look like they started it!"
He'd be pissing on Saddam's corpse. That's him pissing in the Rhine, as promised. The anniversary was Feb 24, I believe.
(My dad served under him in the 10th Armored, Bastogne, etc.)

Originally posted by subgenius

He'd be pissing on Saddam's corpse. That's him pissing in the Rhine, as promised. The anniversary was Feb 24, I believe.
(My dad served under him in the 10th Armored, Bastogne, etc.)

My dad flew gasoline to him on his way across Europe.

When my dad died my sister transcribed his service diary to computer text. I was thinking about starting a thread and posting one of his entries a day as a sort of perspective. It's pretty fascinating.

[Agammamon]

One of the reasons we aren't advancing faster is that we didn't deploy a lot of heavy armor. This means every time we counter resistance it has to be laborously cleared by infantry and light vehicles rather than running them over with a tank.

Originally posted by Tmy
What would the troops do in Basra? Shootthe guys wearing the "I'm with Saddam" t-shirts. How do we know whos friend or foe. (hey that rhymes)

You shoot the guys who have the mortars. And the military vehicles. And the uniforms. Those guys.

Originally posted by Saturn
There's a distinct possiblity that the rebels are Iranian-backed Islamists, with no fondness for the United States. Therefore, it makes sense to avoid what could become a three-way shooting match. Also, as was mentioned before, how are we supposed to tell which are Saddam's forces and which are the rebels?

Iranian-backed Islamists in Iraq? You don't think Saddam would have wiped them out a long time ago?

I think the idea of bypassing these cities is a serious mistake. If some of the native factions take control in them, they will set up little fiefdoms that can create all kinds of problems later.

[Jon_in_london]

Were you in the navy Luke?

[Crossbow]

You guys are making this way too hard, Patton is not needed because I have my own plan for getting rid of Sadddam. Here it is:

> Put some dog poop into a paper bag,

> Sneak up to his palace,

> Set the bag on fire,

> Ring the bell and run away.

> Then when he comes out and stomps on the bag to put it out, he will get dog poop on his shoes.

> While he is dealing with that unpleasantness, some marksman can take him down a high-powered rifle.

> Saddam will be dead and he will have dog poop on his shoes!

Pretty cool, huh?

:p

[voidx]

As has been mentioned WWII era Generals likely would have bypassed Basra anyway. This technique worked, at least initially, fantastically for the German Blitzkrieg on the Eastern Front. Push back the main force, and encircle any smaller groups of unarmoured or stationary infantry, and lay siege to smaller less important urban area's. As has been mentioned, they become cut off from supplies, information, and reinforcements. You keep them contained until more armour and infantry can come up from behind to deal with them, or keep them contained until the main force can come back to wipe them out. Pretty common fast armoured warfare techniqe. And quite effective too, assuming you don't over-reach yourself.

A huge mass of Iraqis are moving south, brazenly traveling to meet our troops well south of Baghdad.

Sounds like THEY have a Patton of their own. :o

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Were you in the navy Luke?

Yes. Can't you tell? :D

[Skeptic]

I dunno about the "quagmire" and "vietnam" comments: it has been a week of war with 120 divisions or so, and the coalition forces advanced hundreds of miles, are close to the enemy's capital, and total coalition casualties number less than one platoon.

Patton would have killed for numbers like that; it makes his progress in WWII look like the battle of the Somme by comparison.

Considering insignificant skirmishes with a few irregular troops as some sort of an Iraqi "counterattack" just shows, in my opinion, that many of the correspondents and other "experts" on TV simply have no idea what war is really like. It seems they expect it to literally be like it is in videogames or movies.

For what it's worth, I know many people who are veterans of wars, and many who are not. Those who aren't are all excited and shocked by the POW/KIA/downed copter pictures. The veterans' reaction is mostly, "So? What's the big deal?" It isn't because they don't care, it's just that they know what war is like.

As for Basra, the fact is that NONE of us knows what the hell is going on there--apparently figuring that out is difficult enough for the generals at the scene, so (as civilians 10,000 miles away) perhaps we shouldn't theorize without reliable data.

There are simply too many unkowns in the picture before any of us can have a reliable idea on what is going on, there let alone if the US should or should not help it. For example, we don't even know for sure IF there is a rebellion at all, let alone by WHO, or what the goals of the rebellion is.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by sundog
A huge mass of Iraqis are moving south, brazenly traveling to meet our troops well south of Baghdad.

Sounds like THEY have a Patton of their own. :o

war on an open battlefield is exactly what the US wants. that is where it can't lose. it it has to do is stand back and let the artillery and missiles do the hard work.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT


Yes. Can't you tell? :D

Certainly doesnt sound like you were ever in the army.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Actually the Abrams is much more effective than that Patton. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I dunno about the "quagmire" and "vietnam" comments: it has been a week of war with 120 divisions or so, and the coalition forces advanced hundreds of miles, are close to the enemy's capital, and total coalition casualties number less than one platoon.

I know that this is a quibble as I agree with the sentiment of your post, but isn't 120 a little high? More like 24.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-org.htm

"By most accounts, the regular Army would appear to have somewhere between 280,000 to 350,000 troops serving in 17 divisions. The Republican Guard, which is variously estimated to number between 50,000 to 80,000 men in seven divisions, acts to protect the regime from the Army."

[Troll]

As far as Basra goes, the Brits let the dweebs go and go freely. Hours later the ones that left were nailed by air. It saved many lives on the part of Brit Marines and soldiers and iraqi civilians.

[ahirst]

This Patton ? :)

“Old Blood and Guts – Yeah, his guts…our blood.” - anonymous US Third Army soldier, widely repeated, and picked up by Sergeant Bill Mauldin, US Army ETO cartoonist, 1944.

“We in the 4th Division were not admirers of General Patton. He was an accomplished battlefield commander but more reckless with the lives of his troops than other generals we had served with.” – Jack Capell, US 4th Infantry Division, 1944? (possibly early 1945).

‘…Patton stormed away towards the east and took territory…Unfortunately, having neglected the chronic logistical problem, Patton then ran out of fuel – and this impetuosity cost his army heavy casualties.’

‘Patton’s Lorraine campaign, far from being a mobile advance, rapidly descended to a battle of attrition. By the time it ended, the Lorraine campaign had lasted four months and cost Third Army 97,000 (sic) casualties: 42,000 of these were ‘battle fatigue’ casualties, men worn out by fatigue…men pushed beyond their limits – and it will be recalled Patton did not believe in battle fatigue.’

‘Bradley [who had been on of Patton’s subordinates in Italy] was certainly wary of Patton’s methods before the Third Army became operational [“He had not been my choice for Army Commander…I feared that too much time would be spent curbing his impetuous habits.”], and even Eisenhower had had enough of Patton by the time the war ended.’

Sources:
Neillands, Robin, ‘The Battle of Normandy 1944’,Cassell, London, 2002.
Bradley, Omar, ‘A Soldier’s Story: Tunis to the Elbe’, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1951.
Article by Maj. D. Bolger, ‘Military Review’, USA, May 1991.
National Archives, Department of Defense, Washington, RG 218, JCS Files.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Certainly doesnt sound like you were ever in the army.

Nope. We didn't have all the confusion that takes place in a ground war. But it's getting that way with terrorists in fishing boats and such.

[Michael Redman]

WWII era generals, on any side, would have bombed the crap out of any town in which they met resistance. Had they the overwhelming superiority that the US/UK have here, they would simply have smashed the Iraqis, civilian casualties be damned.

It's hard today to look like such a military genius as those past, after only a week of fighting, when every unintended death is counted and lamented with graphic pictures around the world, and dozens of retired military hot shots are criticizing your every move in real time.

Although I'm starting to have some doubts, I certainly don't know much of the important information about what's going on over there, and I'll give the generals the benefit of the doubt for a while and see how this turns out. Maybe we'll look back and say that they did it exactly right. Maybe we'll call them idiots. Too early to tell.