|
|
April 08, 2003
No Little Big Horn
The 3/7th Cavalry was outnumbered by over 2:1 in a battle on the 4th. Comments
Not all was so rosy. They talk big about the "A" troop but no word at all of "F" Troop. Word is Captain Parminter screwed up again, Jane was captured, and the Heckawees are on the warpath. Posted by: jerry at April 9, 2003 12:01 AMFreakin' amazing. OK, so the Iraqis are barely an armed force nowadays, but still, the US troops and equipment are just completely awesome. Posted by: Steve in BDA at April 9, 2003 12:09 AMSo far the war has demonstrated to me how incredibly weak Saddam's regime is, and how this weakness was reinforced by what appears to be a fairly effective embargo. Oh, and how poorly trained even the best elements of the Iraqi military are, and how crappy their C&C was from the start (think about their inability to blow-up those oil fields for example). Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 9, 2003 12:09 AMSteve, Its a war between a third world country by a first world country. One would hope that it would, dare we say the phrase, a "cake walk." Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 9, 2003 12:11 AMCrazy Cat, the Heckawee Information Minister stated "We have driven the invaders back across the great waters" > Its a war between a third world country by a first world country. One would hope that it would, dare we say the phrase, a "cake walk." Oh yeah? I remember lots of people and specially from other countries predicting a disaster for the US. I can list a bunch of "first world countries" who would not have had a "cakewalk" at all. We can start with France, if you want :-) Posted by: ElCapitanAmerica at April 9, 2003 12:26 AMIt's training (and better people - our armed forces seem to attract some of our best people, while the Republican Guards seem to be full of lackeys). They were up against T-72s, so don't say this is a case of 1st world vs. a 3rd world country. T-72s might not be as good as M1s, but they can be deadly. What's amazing is that M2 Bradleys took out some of the T-72s Posted by: Jeremy at April 9, 2003 12:28 AMWe don't try to make those kind of predictions anymore, after Vietnam turned out to be a huge mess, yet was a 1st world country vs a third world country. And I don't think it was a cake walk. I remember (and posted) feeling nervous back when our supply lines seemed overextended, and it seemed like Baghdad RG and Medina RG started a synchronized attack to pin down 3ID (medina) and cute off the marines and army supply lines (baghdad RG). The Iraqis fought the first Gulf War without the disadvantage of an embargo, and didn't perform much better. Lets not be too quick to credit the embargo yet. And, dare I even bring this up: the war is not over yet. What might be the tougher part, establishing a democracy in Iraq and rebuilding its economy, has yet to be done. Until that is done, there are going to be a lot of discontented Iraqis around, even if they're happy about Saddam being a thing of the past. Posted by: spin at April 9, 2003 12:30 AMThe Iraqis are still using old Soviet equipment and old Soviet doctrine. That didn't work any better the last time. Posted by: Fred Boness at April 9, 2003 12:30 AMWe can break a country. We have yet to prove we can fix one. Gotta win the peace before we can declare victory, and for that we're going to have to be willing to pay big bucks. That will be the real test of American will. We were up to it after WW II. That was then. I doubt we have the leadership to follow through in Afghanistan or Iraq. I hope I'm wrong, but Americans have grown soft when it comes to making sacrifices that don't involve loud noises. Posted by: Bruce H R at April 9, 2003 12:40 AMThe entire point of the invasion is lost if Iraq doesn't end up with a progressive, moderate democracy. We have to be up to it. I think the American public is up to it. It's certainly worth it in the long run. Bruce, you are so wrong. A lot of us come from a generation that was told that all the good things had been done, all the battles won, and we're just riding our parents coat-tails. Give us a goal, and like all the generations before us we'll do it. I agree, only time will tell, but I've got a pretty good feeling about it. BTW, I think the performance of the Iraqi army can be considered at least partial validation of the value of a volunteer army. Posted by: datarat at April 9, 2003 12:49 AMGuys, don't call this cakewalk, and don't put down the tenacity of the Iraqis who chose to fight. They lack the same training, discipline, and equipment of US troops, but they've fought bravely and hard. Cakewalk? We have dozens of dead people whose families deserve better than to be told they lost their husbands and sons in a cakewalk. We have men and women out there even now getting shot at, walking into an unknown city where you can't tell who is friend or foe. I hate going to parts of my own city after dark, and it's not a war zone. Did we kick ass? Hell yes. Don't understate the effort. This is hard, dangerous work, and I fear we will lose more of Americas very best before this one goes into the history books. Posted by: phred at April 9, 2003 12:51 AMYeah, we have forgotten so much about Afghanistan that now there's a guy setting up an internet cafe in Kabul. And we still have troups there securing the country and performing humanitarian work. Oh, but we can always do more, so I guess we are not following through. Posted by: ElCapitanAmerica at April 9, 2003 12:52 AMI think so far we're doing a good job in Afghanistan. We just can't forget about it, and as always we could do more. We're following through. I'm just pointing out that sometimes the hard part is the "nation building". The situation in afghanistan is deteriorating. The UN has had to suspend movement in the south, Taliban are coming back, attacks are up, corruption rife, warlords refuse to give up power, estimates are we need to be dumping twice as much money there as we are. We're doing a good job in Afghanistan? Magic 8 Ball suggests unlikely. Posted by: jerry at April 9, 2003 01:06 AMThe amusing thing is I clicked on the situation ... deteriorating link and the first four or five referneces indicated that the situation was improving - UN lifts curb on movements in the south, tribal leaders helping reduce corruption... Posted by: spin at April 9, 2003 01:11 AM> The UN has had to suspend movement in the south Nice, returning a search for "deteriorating". Did you read the articles? The first 2 hits; "AFGHANISTAN: UN lifts suspension of movements in the south" LOL, spin that's what I saw. Many of the other articles are really about Iraq, one good example is "Tribal leader to help curb looting". Where? In Iraq. Next time add to your search "US sucks evil imperialist" and you'll get better results. Posted by: ElCapitanAmerica at April 9, 2003 01:13 AMThere was a six day suspension that was just lifted due to deteriorating security. A blind optimist says, "suspension lifted so things must be grand!" A realist understands the situation there is very unstable. Posted by: jerry at April 9, 2003 01:15 AMI think we're all in agreement that we need to stay on and support afghanistan. A realist would understand that taming such a country will take a long time, and that it's a good sign that the US has mobilized US resources (soldiers) and the newly formed army to help with the situation. If the US and new government were failing they wouldn't be able to respond and the UN would just leave the suspencion in place. FYI, fighting and winning outnumbered seems to be an Armored Cavalry tradition. Look up the Battle of 73 Easting from the last Gulf War. I was there. "Despite having to fight in almost zero visibility due to dust storms and nightfall, the regiments' M2A2, M3A2 Bradleys, and M1A1 Abrams decimated the opposing elements of the Iraqi crack Tawakalna Republican Guard Division and 12th Armoured Division. By the end of its covering force mission, the Regiment had broken the defensive line of the Republican Guard's Tawakalna Division and led three heavy divisions into the fight. During the 100-hour war, the Regiment moved over 250 kilometers, captured over 2000 prisoners, and destroyed 159 enemy tanks and 260 other fighting vehicles. Its actions against the Iraqi divisions have become textbook examples of modern tank warfare."
“I started the war with 39 tanks (T72s). After 38 days of aerial bombardment, I had a total of 32. But, after 20 minutes against the 2ACR, I had zero.” -Tank Battalion Commander, Iraqi Republican Guards, The Battle of 73 Easting Seems the 3/7 has kept the Cavalry tradition & honors alive. Posted by: OldSpook at April 9, 2003 01:25 AMNo need to look up 73 Easting. It's famous, even among those of us who never served. Excellent work, OldSpook. Hmmmmm.... it begins The situation in afghanistan is deteriorating.and after a small dose of reality it becomes the situation there is very unstableGive him another shot, guys, and he'll be saying "well, it's actually improving but I'm not at all happy with that!" Posted by: Troy at April 9, 2003 02:41 AM OldSpook : I dips me lid to you, Sir. Posted by: Alan E Brain at April 9, 2003 02:54 AMI hate to sound unpatriotic but I don't think there is anything "awesome" or "amazing" about the US military destroying a vastly inferior force. I guess by extension it was similarly awesome and amazing when we killed ~700,000 vietcong in vietnam. To say things like "we kicked their ass" seems to trivialize the fact that we are killing thousands of iraqi troops. They may be fighting for a corrupt and autocratic regime but they are human beings nonetheless. Posted by: mdwood at April 9, 2003 03:32 AMMidwood, all they have to do is stop fighting and surrender. This is not Vietnam. Why is it the whiners always reference that? As for the "inferior" - go do some reading on 73 Easting. They were brave soldiers that faced our fire. They were the only Iraqis not to cut and run. Their dismounts (infantry) even let us drive by before popping out to take shots at the more vulnerable rear armor of our AFVs and tanks. I'd like to see you pull that downplaying in person with the guys who rode throght that enemy fire, to the causalties we suffered, and to the people who saw battle. You'd be singing a different tune, not nearly as snotty. Yes, we are killing thousands of them. All they have to do is stop being stupid, stop charging tanks with pickup trucks. Surrender, get 3 good meals, water and shelter as a POW for a while, then return home to help rebuild their country. Its not like we are gunning down surrendering soldiers, like the Iraqi do to their own and ours. All they need to do is simply quit. They have the leaflets, they have heard the broadcasts, they have seen what happens if they do not surrender. And aside from that, it looks like the main resisters now are radical Arabs from other nations, acting like the Waffen SS. If they want to "come to Jesus", they need to do so post haste, before they do stupid stuff that will get them killed. Posted by: OldSpook at April 9, 2003 03:52 AMYou just knew this line about an "unfair fight" would come out of war opponents when they lost all their other arguments...and this one is fallacious too. Read Victor Davis Hanson's "Culture and Carnage." Western nations, even when way outnumbered and outgunned very rarely, will win and most especially in conflicts where the opposing force has a tyrant at the top and conscripts on the ground. Conscript may fight extremely hard, and for lots of reasons which I won't elaborate on here, but they almost always get whipped badly by true "citizen-armies." I'll say it right here: if the every Arab nation in the region had thrown ALL of their armed forces against us and used every weapon in their arsenal we would have defeated them and probably maintained a 1000:1 kill ratio. It is the underlying CULTURE that matters in war. Not all the time, but most of the time. And, sorry to be un-PC, but western culture is superior to all others by virtually any standard. The thing you NEVER want is a war pitting western nations against each other...as we know. Posted by: R. McLeod at April 9, 2003 05:28 AMPost a comment
|