Fighting the war correctly...what the Coalition is doing right

[ShowMe]

I’ve read an awful lot on this board about the war in Iraq. As with anything of this magnitude some are for it, some are against, some just aren’t sure. In this message I’m going to try and avoid either side, and concentrate solely on how the Coalition is fighting the war. Whether you’re for or against the fact remains that the Coalition is currently engaged in Iraq, and won’t be leaving until the current regime is toppled.

With that in mind there are many things that I think the Coalition is doing correctly. If this truly was a “blood for oil” campaign, and if the current administration didn’t care about the loss of life then Baghdad would be a smoking crater. As would any town between the Coalition and the oil fields, or the harbors, or anything of military value. Obviously total destruction is not the goal; Baghdad still has electric and water, and the live pictures often show people milling around the streets.

There will be civilian casualties; there always will be during war time. The Coalition is using a strategy to keep those to a minimum. This strategy is quite possibly costing Coalition soldier’s lives but is saving Iraqi civilian lives.

The Coalition is giving the press free reign. Most cable news channels have a reporter or two traveling with carious armor divisions; it would be very difficult to cover anything up. The press in the US is a free press, and anyone who doesn’t believe that a cable news reporter wouldn’t jump at the chance to expose any type of corruption or wrong doing hasn’t been paying attention. While a lot of the reporting may be somewhat slanted (duh!) the fact that they are allowing reporters at all speaks volumes. Couple this with the fact that British reporters are also all over the scene and you leave very little room for any type of massive cover-up.

Pamphlets have been dropped explaining what the Coalition is trying to do; last I heard it was something like 23 million pamphlets, more than 1 per person in Iraq. Coalition radio has been broadcasting the news. The latest I’ve heard is that the television station was bombed last night; let’s hope that the Coalition takes over the station and allows the truth to come through. While some on this board may not believe that the US and British press can report the truth, those reports are probably going to be far closer to what is actually happening than any government run station in Iraq.

Leaving the thoughts of "for" or "against" behind, I have to say that the actual strategy used to fight the war is about the best one could hope for.

[Marc]

One thing I heard of was after taking over that port town someone raised an american flag over the Iraqi flag. Then an officer told the person to take it down, they are not there to conquer. Raising a flag anywhere could give the wrong message.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Marc
One thing I heard of was after taking over that port town someone raised an american flag over the Iraqi flag. Then an officer told the person to take it down, they are not there to conquer. Raising a flag anywhere could give the wrong message.

Yes, that happened. From the reports I heard it happened pretty much the way you explain it; some people have tried to use this as an example of how the Coalition is screwing things up.

To me this is an excellent example; first, the mistake was corrected rather quickly. Second, *we heard about it*. Which makes my point about the press being there; even a small mistake was reported, warts and all.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Gee isn't it the height of American arrogance that we're actually wondering why the hell the Irqai's aren't greeting us like the French in '44. How typical of us... or or least the knee-jerk reactionary right who can't seem to understand that getting your house blown apart doesn't exactly ingratiate you to the locals. Oh, that a ***** them over in '91.

That said...

If anyone questions the moral superiority of America, Britain and our allies.. look at the efforts being taked to avoid.. and note we're not using the BS euphamism "collateral damage"... but civilian casualties. If this war was about conquest we'd have bombed the heck out of cities that dared to resist. We've tried our best to preserve the lives and livliehoods of Iraqi civilians.

Please.. feel free to flame me for being a fence sitter 7 days in.. I'd love to hear it. :)

[Psi Baba]

Good report, ShowMe. I think the fact that power grid in Baghdad is still operational in a place where the power might be shaky to begin with says a lot about the precision shelling. I've heard that Iraqi people have been able to stand around in parking lots and watch the bombing.

It was also being said that the expected surrenders and welcoming by civilians is not happening, and that soldiers were feigning surrender and then opening fire on coalition troops. It has now come out that the regular Iraqi soldiers were genuinely surrendering, but the Feyadeen hidden nearby are the ones opening fire, either on the coalition to make them think the regular soldiers had fired on them, or even on the Iraqi regular soldiers themselves to make them think that the coalition was shooting at them, which in turn caused the previously surrendering soldiers to defend themselves. The Feyadeen have also been shooting civilians who attempt to uprise against the regime. I do have to wonder, though, if the coalition will have to loosen up their tactics in order to overcome the treachery of the Feyadeen.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Please.. feel free to flame me for being a fence sitter 7 days in.. I'd love to hear it. :)
Nope. I , too, don't like war. It could have been avoided. But, if we're doing it, I';m thankful we're doing it right.

The above statements are from a real person who refuses to be categorized into pro- or anti- war camps. It is not, nor has it ever, been a black-or-white issue.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
It has now come out that the regular Iraqi soldiers were genuinely surrendering, but the Feyadeen hidden nearby are the ones opening fire, either on the coalition to make them think the regular soldiers had fired on them, or even on the Iraqi regular soldiers themselves to make them think that the coalition was shooting at them, which in turn caused the previously surrendering soldiers to defend themselves.

There was an unconfirmed intelligence report this morning that some Iraqi troops were dressing in US uniforms, and when other Iraqi forces would surrender they would shoot them.

Should be interesting to see how the Coalition handles this.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Keneke

Nope. I , too, don't like war. It could have been avoided. But, if we're doing it, I';m thankful we're doing it right.

The above statements are from a real person who refuses to be categorized into pro- or anti- war camps. It is not, nor has it ever, been a black-or-white issue.

If I had the $17.50 to spare I really wanted to get a T-shirt made.

"No blood for Oil" on the front.

"Support our Troops" on the back.

I have tried to avoid the use of "oppose" in my conversations regarding this military activity. I've been using "ambivalent" and to this day it remains my preferred appellation.

In another thread I asked if it was schizophrenic or at the very least "wrong" for me to oppose the (what I consider to be flimsy) premise of the war and to cheer the positive outcomes of our battles? If anyone gave me a satisfactory answer, I must have missed it. :confused:

[Larry Barrieau]

I disagree. You are right when you say that these tactics are costing American boys their lives. We should be doing everything we can to spare any American deaths. Does that mean that Iraqi civilians will die? Yes it does. This is war, not a game. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam, we were afraid of world opinion so we did not wage war to win decisively and quickly and over 50,000 Americans were lost.

Political correctness is a disease which makes society sick. In the armed services, it is lethal.

Our servicemen have volunteered to protect you and me. They don't deserve to be slaughtered because some people think that we should "play nice" in this war.

And the flag? Our troops should fly it proudly everywhere.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Larry Barrieau
I disagree. You are right when you say that these tactics are costing American boys their lives. We should be doing everything we can to spare any American deaths. Does that mean that Iraqi civilians will die? Yes it does. This is war, not a game. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam, we were afraid of world opinion so we did not wage war to win decisively and quickly and over 50,000 Americans were lost.

Political correctness is a disease which makes society sick. In the armed services, it is lethal.

Our servicemen have volunteered to protect you and me. They don't deserve to be slaughtered because some people think that we should "play nice" in this war.

And the flag? Our troops should fly it proudly everywhere.

If the coalition forces were to take that sort of attitude, they might as well not have gone in the first place.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Larry Barrieau
I disagree. You are right when you say that these tactics are costing American boys their lives. We should be doing everything we can to spare any American deaths. Does that mean that Iraqi civilians will die? Yes it does. This is war, not a game.


Yes, but the mission is not to occupy and defeat Iraq, but to topple the current regime. Local uprisings will make that considerably easier; going in as conquerers will not engender the population to the Coalition.

As things move closer to Baghgdad tha may change. If the ellite guard begins using civilians as human shields then some of those civilians are going to die. I think the Coalition is doing everything they can to minimize such deaths, but there isn't anything that can be done to eliminate them.

[loCAtek]

What else we're doing right; the Humanitarian aid started going in today. (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-wohuma0327.story)