Who's nervous about this war?

[Trytostaydead]

I'm extremely nervous. Not only this time are entering enemy cities, but last time we did that in Somalia against relatively rag tag militia, we suffered heavily, but now we're going up against Republican guards, a general populace who hates us, and possible WMDs. Plus, all our "allies" are abandoning us, and tensions are heating up all over the world over possible terrorist strikes or other wars, like N. Korea and Iran is even suspicious that they will be targeted next. I'm genuinely worried..

[Enlightenment]

There's a lot to worry about. The geopolitical framework to support Gulf War III has been so ineptly constructed that there is a very real risk of the whole thing blowing up in everyone's face. Saddam Hussain should be removed but this war has been so ineptly constructed that the ultimate costs could far exceed any benefits.

[Darth Wong]

I'm extremely nervous. Not only this time are entering enemy cities, but last time we did that in Somalia against relatively rag tag militia, we suffered heavily

Less than 20 dead, in exchange for an estimated 500 to 1000 dead Somalis. It was arguably a crushing victory, but it was portrayed otherwise because expectations for American military operations are ridiculously high: people seriously expected zero casualties.

but now we're going up against Republican guards, a general populace who hates us, and possible WMDs.

The RG could be dangerous if they're dug into Baghdad and intermingled with the civilians, but do the Iraqis have the will to turn Baghdad into Stalingrad? The Americans are banking on their hope that they don't, and will fold as soon as they come rolling in. If they fight tooth and nail (it wouldn't be the first time people have fought hard for a man they hate; see Stalingrad), it could be pretty messy.

Plus, all our "allies" are abandoning us, and tensions are heating up all over the world over possible terrorist strikes or other wars, like N. Korea and Iran is even suspicious that they will be targeted next. I'm genuinely worried..

I can't see any genuine threat to American citizens in the US as a result of this, but those travelling abroad should get their asses back home right now.

[Shinova]

There's a good chance in-city fighting will occur, which will make things very ugly, most likely (these are republican guards, after all, unlike the main army which can be expected to surrender in droves).

Global relations are definetly going to be screwy in the future, the draft might even come around, and there's going to be a flurry of terrorist attacks most likely.

There will be good things to come out of this too, but strained global relations will be the obvious biggest setback.



And that draft had better not go through.

[Trytostaydead]

Less than 20 dead, in exchange for an estimated 500 to 1000 dead Somalis. It was arguably a crushing victory, but it was portrayed otherwise because expectations for American military operations are ridiculously high: people seriously expected zero casualties.

But over 100 wounded, and etc. Also, those were our SF. Those boys going into cities will be our regular GI Joes. And with the threat of suicide attackers, and even women battalions going up against US forces in the cities.. *shivers*

[Captain tycho]

I'm worried, for one.

[Frank Hipper]

Dubyah's done a fine job of making a hell of a mess. Of course Saddam's gotta go, but on Sept. 12, 2001, the world wept for what had happened to New York.
Today, a sizeable portion wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

[Trytostaydead]

Dubyah's done a fine job of making a hell of a mess. Of course Saddam's gotta go, but on Sept. 12, 2001, the world wept for what had happened to New York.
Today, a sizeable portion wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

For those you who believe in destiny, I've felt something in my bones.. as if there's a great turning point about to occur and it doesn't feel all that good. IMHO, I believe this is just the beginning. One day, I expect to see a draft card in my mailbox, or some other reason for me to join.. maybe I'm just being morbid, but I really don't feel too good about this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Less than 20 dead, in exchange for an estimated 500 to 1000 dead Somalis. It was arguably a crushing victory, but it was portrayed otherwise because expectations for American military operations are ridiculously high: people seriously expected zero casualties.

But over 100 wounded, and etc. Also, those were our SF. Those boys going into cities will be our regular GI Joes. And with the threat of suicide attackers, and even women battalions going up against US forces in the cities.. *shivers*

There are other factors that led to the mission not going as planned, for example the denial of requested close support AC-130 Spectre gunships. Bush has already made it clear that he is going with what the military recommends.

[Frank Hipper]

Dubyah's done a fine job of making a hell of a mess. Of course Saddam's gotta go, but on Sept. 12, 2001, the world wept for what had happened to New York.
Today, a sizeable portion wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

For those you who believe in destiny, I've felt something in my bones.. as if there's a great turning point about to occur and it doesn't feel all that good. IMHO, I believe this is just the beginning. One day, I expect to see a draft card in my mailbox, or some other reason for me to join.. maybe I'm just being morbid, but I really don't feel too good about this.

That's how I felt when he was elected, long before any of these current events.

[Enlightenment]

Bush has already made it clear that he is going with what the military recommends.

Errr, no.

During the early days of war planning there was a major split between the Pentagon brass and Rumpsfelt on troop numbers and strategy. The Pentagon drew up an invasion plan that called for on the order of IIRC 500,000 troops only to have Rumpsfelt throw it back at them with instructions to find some way to invade Iraq with no more than 50,000 troops. Since the current US/UK force totals around 250,000 the Pentagon might have won that round but there's really no telling how much Rumpsfelt and Shrub have screwed over the US armed forces because their plans weren't "transformational" enough.

[generator_g1]

I'm worried about all the families of those foreign workers who live in the Middle East and will their loved ones be able to get home before the war.

[Vympel]

As I recall, some of those surrounding the president were originally pushing for the 'Afghan' model- of course noone in the US military bought such a ridiculous idea, because Iraq is not Afghanistan.

As to the war- well, make no mistake, Baghdad will fall. While urban combat will mean high casualties the situation is not the same Stalingrad.

[Dark Primus]

US forces will probably have to knock on every single door in the city. I suspect low civilian and American troop casulties in the beginning, then as civilians die then more civilians will enter the conflict against US forces and more will die in both sides and in result more civilians will arm themselves and die and the hatred towards US will spread like a plague. (If that is even possible)

[Rubberanvil]

Personnally I'm very concerned about any Scud missiles which may be launched.

Trytostaydead, regular G.I.s tend to operate in large numbers compare to the special forces, and/or with heavy artillary, armor, and air support.

[Alex Moon]

I'm extremely nervous. Not only this time are entering enemy cities, but last time we did that in Somalia against relatively rag tag militia, we suffered heavily,

We suffered because of mismanagement on the part of higher ups. Less than 20 killed, a little more than a hundred wounded, and we managed to kill 500-1000 somolies. This was fighting without armor or much of the support we will have in Iraq.

but now we're going up against Republican guards, a general populace who hates us, and possible WMDs.

The population is likely to surrender along with the Iraqi regular army. The republican guard is a threat, but they are much worse off than 12 years ago, while we have improved weapons and equipment.

Plus, all our "allies" are abandoning us, and tensions are heating up all over the world over possible terrorist strikes or other wars, like N. Korea and Iran is even suspicious that they will be targeted next. I'm genuinely worried..

Evidence that all our allies are abandoning us, please? Last time I looked, we had support from governments in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australia. Hell, even France has offered troops if Iraq uses chemical weapons.

North Korea is a danger, but the Bush administration is trying to deal with the situation in the best way possible considering that there aren't a whole lot of alternatives.

Iran's ruling mullahs have reason to fear an Iraq invasion, but not from us. There population in disproportionally younger generation, who hate their government. If the US changes the regime in Iraq, then this younger generation might decide that they want a change as well. Iran's threat is from within.

It seems to me that you are desperatly trying to find something to worry about. Stop. Yeah, things can go wrong, but the world is not the fucking nightmare that you seem to have convinced yourself that it is.

[Alex Moon]

Dubyah's done a fine job of making a hell of a mess. Of course Saddam's gotta go, but on Sept. 12, 2001, the world wept for what had happened to New York.
Today, a sizeable portion wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

For those you who believe in destiny, I've felt something in my bones.. as if there's a great turning point about to occur and it doesn't feel all that good. IMHO, I believe this is just the beginning. One day, I expect to see a draft card in my mailbox, or some other reason for me to join.. maybe I'm just being morbid, but I really don't feel too good about this.

It'll be a cold day in hell before the draft is reinstated. First off, there would be a huge outcry against it from the public. Second, Bush isn't likely to pass and law reactivating it. It's too politically suicidal for him to do so, or for others to support it.

[Edi]

US forces will probably have to knock on every single door in the city. I suspect low civilian and American troop casulties in the beginning, then as civilians die then more civilians will enter the conflict against US forces and more will die in both sides and in result more civilians will arm themselves and die and the hatred towards US will spread like a plague. (If that is even possible)

What do you consider low American troop casualties? I was trained for urban combat in the Finnish Army, and I tell you, there aren't much shittier prospects for non-specialist soldiers (some specialist jobs are shittier, but there aren't many of them). In order to attack a city, you need a fucking lot of troops, most of the time you won't be able to even see the enemy before he opens fire on you, and he won't unless he is certain to nail some of your guys when he does, and only then will you know where to return fire. When you repeat this ad nauseam for every damned firing position, of which there is a virtually infinite amount in a city the size of Baghdad, you will get casualties in the thousands or tens of thousands unless you just flatten them with air strikes, but if there's lots of civilians...

Of course, that depends on them fighting tooth and nail, but with the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, they just might because they have been involved in so many massacres already that they know they'll be in a bad position no matter what.

Edi

[Edi]

It'll be a cold day in hell before the draft is reinstated. First off, there would be a huge outcry against it from the public. Second, Bush isn't likely to pass and law reactivating it. It's too politically suicidal for him to do so, or for others to support it.

A draft army is not economically viable for a country the size of the US. You wouldn't be able to maintain all the high-tech toys without huge increases in the military budget.
However, if the US were to get into a big, drawn-out war someplace, like it did in Vietnam, you could face draft.

Edi

[Kamakazie Sith]

Bush has already made it clear that he is going with what the military recommends.

Errr, no.

During the early days of war planning there was a major split between the Pentagon brass and Rumpsfelt on troop numbers and strategy. The Pentagon drew up an invasion plan that called for on the order of IIRC 500,000 troops only to have Rumpsfelt throw it back at them with instructions to find some way to invade Iraq with no more than 50,000 troops. Since the current US/UK force totals around 250,000 the Pentagon might have won that round but there's really no telling how much Rumpsfelt and Shrub have screwed over the US armed forces because their plans weren't "transformational" enough.

Well, Bush did make that statement today......

[Alex Moon]

It'll be a cold day in hell before the draft is reinstated. First off, there would be a huge outcry against it from the public. Second, Bush isn't likely to pass and law reactivating it. It's too politically suicidal for him to do so, or for others to support it.

A draft army is not economically viable for a country the size of the US. You wouldn't be able to maintain all the high-tech toys without huge increases in the military budget.
However, if the US were to get into a big, drawn-out war someplace, like it did in Vietnam, you could face draft.

Edi

Yeah, but really the only place I can see that happening is if a war on the Korean pennensula got out of hand, and we found ourselves going toe to toe with China. If that's the case however, it would probably be a life or death situation for the US and China.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm extremely nervous. Not only this time are entering enemy cities, but last time we did that in Somalia against relatively rag tag militia, we suffered heavily, but now we're going up against Republican guards, a general populace who hates us, and possible WMDs. Plus, all our "allies" are abandoning us, and tensions are heating up all over the world over possible terrorist strikes or other wars, like N. Korea and Iran is even suspicious that they will be targeted next. I'm genuinely worried..

You do realize in Somalia that we probably killed combatants at a conservative ratio of 25 to 1? The British at Rorke's Drift didn't do that well. It's really depressing that a glorious victory like that got turned into a defeat, leaving us to retreat from Somalia - And the Somalis to continue starving to death and slaughtering each other. But that's the price of opinion-poll presidency.

It doesn't matter if we're using special forces or not. Here's a little known fact for those of you in this thread: When the Vietnamese took the city of Hue, population 140,000, during the Tet offensive, using our good old draft army we rooted out nearly 12,000 enemy troops who had fortified themselves in the city - including two North Vietnamese regular army regiments - in three weeks. Our casualties included approximately 150 killed - That's it.

Proportionately, I cannot see how the fighting in Baghdad will be any worse than the fighting in Hue, even if the Iraqis use chemical weapons. Our soldiers are far better trained and far better equipped than the ones who stormed Hue, and going up an army - even the Republican Guards - with far less to motivate them than the North Vietnamese.

[Vympel]

What you need in urban combat is stuff the US military simply doesn't have, unfortunately. They have the quality men, but the weapons aren't optimal for the job.

The M1 Abrams is definitely out of it's element (no reactive armor to protect itself, no HEF rounds, engine exhaust way too hot for the infantry to support it closely).

The M2 Bradley has it's 25mm autocannon but it doesn't have any HEF power either to breach walls, destroy buildings, etc- unless you want to use a TOW2A, which is a huge waste of an ATGM, and even it isn't up to the job.

The infantry don't have enough high-explosive firepower either. 40mm grenades and M136 (Bofors AT4) weapons are pretty much it. Carl Gustav recoilless rifles and other similar weapons just aren't common enough- not to mention how many HE rounds they're packing in comparison to the largely uneeded AT rounds.

Of course, the Iraqis are not nearly as well trained, nor in the case of the regulars would their morale be especially high (the RG will though) nor do they have the equipment to take advantage of the American deficiencies- except in the case of the RPG-7. If they took a page out of the Chechens playbook, they'd use this thing like it was white on rice.

The Chechens used it for everything- anti-tank, anti-personnel, artillery (by firing it upwards), anti-aircraft (hello Black Hawk Down). The Russians eventually adopted tactics to deal with the RPG teams though- specialized hunter squads for killing these fuckers, their reactive armor advantage (in 94-96, not initially used because it was deemed a danger to infantry- though really I have never heard a peep of this danger actually materializing). They also had direct fire support from their turreted mortars (2S9 Nona, 2S23 Nona-SVK). The Russians also had their vaunted thermobaric weapons- the infantry use RPO-A Shmel, thermobaric warheads for their own RPG-7s, ATGMs, and thermobaric fire support (TOS-1) to reduce enemy fortifications, and have developed specialized vehicles (BTR-T APC, BMPT escort vehicle, BMO-1 flamethrower troops ammo vehicle) based on tank chassis to protect their men. Put US troops in there with a helping of some Russian weapons and they'd have a much easier time.

But again, the Iraqis aren't Chechens.

[Vympel]

Proportionately, I cannot see how the fighting in Baghdad will be any worse than the fighting in Hue, even if the Iraqis use chemical weapons. Our soldiers are far better trained and far better equipped than the ones who stormed Hue, and going up an army - even the Republican Guards - with far less to motivate them than the North Vietnamese.

Actually, the US troops are not as well equipped in terms of either tanks, or high explosive direct firepower. Troops in Vietnam had M48 tanks that they could stick close to, with phones on the rear so they could talk to the crew- and these things had HE, IIRC. No such amenities on the M1. They had 106mm recoilless rifles to blast enemy fortifications. They're gone. Sure, situational awareness (i.e. night vision and such) and training has gone up, but the equipment isn't the best for it. See previous post.

[Stuart Mackey]

My concern is not so much with the current conflict, I dont think the Iraqi army will/can hold for long even is there is some FIBUA stuff. Saddam does deserve to be dead or put on trial for being a murder asshole of the first order, him and Mugabe and all others like him. But this is not the time or the , immediate, method to do it.
My concern is the effect on International politics the rupture of US relations with the UN will mean. If the US now wishes to act unilaterally as it see's fit, to have alliances of conveniance, then the precedent set is disturbing as other antions will do just the same. Do we, as a planet, wish to go back down this path that has caused so much strife in the past and led directly to the LofN and then the UN in the first place?