Franco-Prussian War Parallels.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think you can draw a very close comparison between the war in Iraq and the Franco-Prussian War, but you can discern a few intriguing parallels:

The proximate causes of both wars (though the root causes are about as far apart as one could imagine) lay in serious miscalculations about opponents' capabilities, in the face of pretty convincing evidence to the contrary. In the case of France and Prussia, the French should have paid a lot closer attention to goings on in Austria four years previously. Likewise, the Iraqis obviously haven't been paying much attention to news from Afghanistan, nor do they seem to have gotten as much as they could have out of the 1991 war. Also in both cases, these miscalculations were exacerbated by essential hubris on the part of the responsible governments. (Though to be fair, the French government was driven by exceedingly strong anti-Prussian popular opinion; Saddam and the boyz say what they say because they are who they are.)

Both wars began with an unprecedented maneuver campaign which served to decisively unbalance the correlation of forces in the favor of the maneuvering party. The Prussian Army forced the Emperor and the main French field army out of the war at Sedan. Last week's "Baghdad Maneuver" on the ground and associated psyops maneuvers have accomplished essentially the same thing.

In both wars the invaded country's leader was removed from command early on by enemy action. Napoleon III was captured at Sedan, while Saddam seems to have been either incapacitated, or at least his ability to effectively command has been.

The French and the Iraqis both continued to fight with rump forces under devolved (at least effectively) command.

The French and Iraqis both resorted to guerillas in an attempt to slow the advance of the invaders. It is indeed true that the franc-tireur were patriots, while the Saddam Fedayeen are at best regime diehards, but their tactical purposes are the same. Their effect on the battle will both ultimately have been the same: nuisance value only.

Finally, each invading power realized that its true objective was the enemy regime. Both the US and the Prussians targeted the enemy capital as their primary geographical objective, representing as it did the center of gravity of the enemy regime. Though some outlying garrisons continued to resist for a while, the Prussians essentially won when Paris capitulated, just as the US will have won when Baghdad is occupied, even if some "dead enders" in the countryside carry on for a time.

Some of the above may be a bit of a stretch, but it serves to illustrate that though the current war is going somewhat against initial expectations, it is overwhelmingly likely to be concluded to our satisfaction, and decisively so.

- The author, Tony Evans, is a retired Marine and student of the Keegan school of historical synthesis.

[David]

Interesting observations

[Ted]

There are major differences though, even in which he draws parralells.

Paris always has been the jewel of France, once it falls, France falls. The Prussians knew that, the Germans knew that.

Unlike the French not drawing conclusions from the Austro-Prussian War, Iraq hasn't had the ability to implement changes in its military, either upgrades due to lack of supplies, or methodology, due to a lack of actual combat, witnessed and been party to.

Napolean III wasn't much of a leader, nor did his loss have any effect on the French Military, while Saddam Hussein is one of the best leaders of the late 20th Century, in terms of staying in power and control.

One of the main reasons for the Prussians attacking the French was Elsaß-Lothringen, while the Americans have no such territorial claims on Iraq.

Again relating to the value of Paris, the French government itself wasn't much of an issue, the Prussian aim was the capture of Paris, not the destruction of the French Imperial government, as it knew that to take Paris was to defeat France.

His double standard relating to the partisans is a nice, American, touch. The Fedayeen are patriots, not die-hards, though the difference between the two could be debated.
The effect of them on the battle, the Fedayeen, already has had tremendous effect. The US Army has taken to supplying the 3ID and 7Cav by air, as the massive 300- vehicle convoy's are prime targets, and have been attacked several times.

[Frank Hipper]

One of the main reasons for the Prussians attacking the French was Elsaß-Lothringen

Calling it Elsass-Lothringen is hardly respectful of French feelings, Ted.

I believe a closer analogy would be the Spanish-American war. Especially considering the rationale for the damned thing.

[Ted]

One of the main reasons for the Prussians attacking the French was Elsaß-Lothringen

Calling it Elsass-Lothringen is hardly respectful of French feelings, Ted.

Bah.

Elsaß-Lothringen has only been Franch for about 120 years in total, out of the past 1000-odd.

[Frank Hipper]

One of the main reasons for the Prussians attacking the French was Elsaß-Lothringen

Calling it Elsass-Lothringen is hardly respectful of French feelings, Ted.

Bah.

Elsaß-Lothringen has only been Franch for about 120 years in total, out of the past 1000-odd.

Dare you to march around in a sandwich board in Paris with that on it.

[Ted]

Elsaß-Lothringen has only been Franch for about 120 years in total, out of the past 1000-odd.

Dare you to march around in a sandwich board in Paris with that on it.

I'm not THAT stupid Frank, no matter how much some people believe.

[David]

I'd say the closest group the Fedayeen comes to in recent history is the Nazi SS. Like the SS, they are completely loyal, not to the country, but to the regime that controls the country and the leader that controls the regime. Like the SS, they have no respect for human life, most specifically the lives of the people in their country, and are willing to carry out any order that advances the goals of their regime, no matter what cost to human life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There are major differences though, even in which he draws parralells.

Paris always has been the jewel of France, once it falls, France falls. The Prussians knew that, the Germans knew that.

Baghdad is nearly four times larger than the next largest city in Iraq. It is every bit as much the industrial, infrastructural, and administrative centre of the Iraqi State, nevermind in terms of weight of population. We take Baghdad, we control Iraq.

Unlike the French not drawing conclusions from the Austro-Prussian War, Iraq hasn't had the ability to implement changes in its military, either upgrades due to lack of supplies, or methodology, due to a lack of actual combat, witnessed and been party to.

France had not been party to the Seven Weeks War, but had obviously witnessed it. So had the rest of Europe. The whole world witnessed the Afghani War - And conclusions could be drawn. The obvious one for Iraq might have been that the only way to protect the regime was to disarm from WMDs and come to an accomadation with the USA.

Hell, Saddam is a secularist - If he had played his cards right on a rational calculus he could have made himself an ally of the USA in the war on terror. But he is inherently irrational and didn't do that. He continued to support terror, develop and stockpile WMDs, and based his ability to survive on purely psychological analysis of the enemy populace.

Napolean III wasn't much of a leader, nor did his loss have any effect on the French Military, while Saddam Hussein is one of the best leaders of the late 20th Century, in terms of staying in power and control.

Napoleon III exercised a tremendous morale influence over the French military, and his loss hit them in that regard. The troops of the Republic which try to relieve the siege of Paris were better led, but never fought as well. Personally he was mediocre - Witness his intelligence during the Second War of Italian Independence, the victories over the Austrians and his diplomatic skill there - against what happened later.

Saddam himself is hardly "one of the best leaders". His military abilities are laughable - Look at the Iran-Iraq war, let alone his ludicrous orders in Desert Storm - and his diplomatic moves have seen endless miscalculation of his own abilities, suggesting a lack of comprehension of how the world functions these days, let alone merely mediocrity.

One of the main reasons for the Prussians attacking the French was Elsaß-Lothringen, while the Americans have no such territorial claims on Iraq.

That was NOT the main reason for the Prussians attacking France. The main reason was Bismarck's desire to unify Germany under Prussian domination, which he knew France would oppose. So he had to eliminate France has a counterweight first. The official pretext was that France had demanded Germany withdraw the candidacy of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen for the throne of Spain, and never again allow the candidacy of a German prince for the Spanish throne.

Again relating to the value of Paris, the French government itself wasn't much of an issue, the Prussian aim was the capture of Paris, not the destruction of the French Imperial government, as it knew that to take Paris was to defeat France.

Yes, and to take Baghdad is to defeat Iraq. In both cases the concentration on the capital - because it is the center of gravity for the state - allowed(s) for regime destruction.

His double standard relating to the partisans is a nice, American, touch. The Fedayeen are patriots, not die-hards, though the difference between the two could be debated.

The Fedayeen are an internal security paramilitary force, Ted, not patriots. They have been bolstered in their ranks by foreign volunteers from other Arab countries. Still not patriots. You're letting your anti-American bias creep through.

The effect of them on the battle, the Fedayeen, already has had tremendous effect. The US Army has taken to supplying the 3ID and 7Cav by air, as the massive 300- vehicle convoy's are prime targets, and have been attacked several times.

Do you have any proof that supplying certain vital goods by air was not part of the plan, as it has been in other wars? No. Next, those convoys are still going through, without any effect. A few elements of a few convoys have been sabotaged, with a minor loss in vehicles, life, and supplies. The comparison is entirely valid.

[Frank Hipper]

I'd say the closest group the Fedayeen comes to in recent history is the Nazi SS. Like the SS, they are completely loyal, not to the country, but to the regime that controls the country and the leader that controls the regime. Like the SS, they have no respect for human life, most specifically the lives of the people in their country, and are willing to carry out any order that advances the goals of their regime, no matter what cost to human life.

The Viet-Cong also come to mind, perhaps not quite as inhuman, but bad enough.

[David]

Yes, but I thought that the people here would more easily see the connections between the SS and the Fedayeen than anyother type of psuedo military organization, because of the amount of documentation on it. DoZ also brought up something that I should have said, both organizations serve in the role of a secret military police, infamous for kidnapping citizens at the slightest provocation and torturing them to death. Like Hitler's political and military organizations, Saddam's live in constant fear of being found to be disloyal or a threat to the regime, and being rounded up by the secret police.

[Ted]

There are major differences though, even in which he draws parralells.

Paris always has been the jewel of France, once it falls, France falls. The Prussians knew that, the Germans knew that.

Baghdad is nearly four times larger than the next largest city in Iraq. It is every bit as much the industrial, infrastructural, and administrative centre of the Iraqi State, nevermind in terms of weight of population. We take Baghdad, we control Iraq.

I never said CONTROL, I said the fall of Paris would be the defeat of France, which it was. If Baghdad falls, the regime will still fight on.

Unlike the French not drawing conclusions from the Austro-Prussian War, Iraq hasn't had the ability to implement changes in its military, either upgrades due to lack of supplies, or methodology, due to a lack of actual combat, witnessed and been party to.

France had not been party to the Seven Weeks War, but had obviously witnessed it. So had the rest of Europe. The whole world witnessed the Afghani War - And conclusions could be drawn. The obvious one for Iraq might have been that the only way to protect the regime was to disarm from WMDs and come to an accomadation with the USA.

Hell, Saddam is a secularist - If he had played his cards right on a rational calculus he could have made himself an ally of the USA in the war on terror. But he is inherently irrational and didn't do that. He continued to support terror, develop and stockpile WMDs, and based his ability to survive on purely psychological analysis of the enemy populace.

The Americans have never cared about the WMD's in Iraq, they've made that clear with the goals of this war.
Bush would never have allowed Hussein into the war on terror, which is odd, as Reagan was great friends of Hussein, refused to allow any sanctions against Iraq or any bill to pass that would state Iraq had committed genocide.
Atleast Saddam Hussein had the brain capacity to analyse.

Napolean III wasn't much of a leader, nor did his loss have any effect on the French Military, while Saddam Hussein is one of the best leaders of the late 20th Century, in terms of staying in power and control.

Napoleon III exercised a tremendous morale influence over the French military, and his loss hit them in that regard. The troops of the Republic which try to relieve the siege of Paris were better led, but never fought as well. Personally he was mediocre - Witness his intelligence during the Second War of Italian Independence, the victories over the Austrians and his diplomatic skill there - against what happened later.

Saddam himself is hardly "one of the best leaders". His military abilities are laughable - Look at the Iran-Iraq war, let alone his ludicrous orders in Desert Storm - and his diplomatic moves have seen endless miscalculation of his own abilities, suggesting a lack of comprehension of how the world functions these days, let alone merely mediocrity.

Napoleon's actual loss had no great effect on the fighing ability of the French Army, which has only fought for France and Paris, not any leader.

The ability of Saddam Hussein to stay in power for the last 24-25 years as a brutal dictator is evidence of his leadership abilities.

One of the main reasons for the Prussians attacking the French was Elsaß-Lothringen, while the Americans have no such territorial claims on Iraq.

That was NOT the main reason for the Prussians attacking France. The main reason was Bismarck's desire to unify Germany under Prussian domination, which he knew France would oppose. So he had to eliminate France has a counterweight first. The official pretext was that France had demanded Germany withdraw the candidacy of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen for the throne of Spain, and never again allow the candidacy of a German prince for the Spanish throne.

Thank you, German UNIFICATION, which would mean the inclusion of Elsaß-Lothringen.
France's opposition is well known, but it proves that there is no link between the Prussian reasons for war and the American reasons for war.

Again relating to the value of Paris, the French government itself wasn't much of an issue, the Prussian aim was the capture of Paris, not the destruction of the French Imperial government, as it knew that to take Paris was to defeat France.

Yes, and to take Baghdad is to defeat Iraq. In both cases the concentration on the capital - because it is the center of gravity for the state - allowed(s) for regime destruction.

The destruction of Baghdad will not end the war. It will just signal the "End of the Begining."
The loss of Paris WAS the end of the Franco-Prussian War.

His double standard relating to the partisans is a nice, American, touch. The Fedayeen are patriots, not die-hards, though the difference between the two could be debated.

The Fedayeen are an internal security paramilitary force, Ted, not patriots. They have been bolstered in their ranks by foreign volunteers from other Arab countries. Still not patriots. You're letting your anti-American bias creep through.

The Majority of Fedayeen ARE patriots, fighting for THEIR Iraq, and THEIR government. The foreigners are not actually a part of the Fedayeen in the south, they just fight along side them.

The effect of them on the battle, the Fedayeen, already has had tremendous effect. The US Army has taken to supplying the 3ID and 7Cav by air, as the massive 300- vehicle convoy's are prime targets, and have been attacked several times.

Do you have any proof that supplying certain vital goods by air was not part of the plan, as it has been in other wars? No. Next, those convoys are still going through, without any effect. A few elements of a few convoys have been sabotaged, with a minor loss in vehicles, life, and supplies. The comparison is entirely valid.

The decision to send supplies by air is ludicrous if it was a decision from the begining of the war. It is more expensive, more time consuming, and more labour intensive to send supplies by air.

When atleast 1 300-vehicle convoy has been sent back to Kuwait due to Fedayeen attacks, I would say that it has a great effect.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I never said CONTROL, I said the fall of Paris would be the defeat of France, which it was. If Baghdad falls, the regime will still fight on.

No, it won't. The regime is so heavily centralized that the fall of Baghdad will destroy it. The only organized resistance that could possibly exist after the fall of Baghdad is if Saddam's clan maintains a defence of Tikrit, which would be a local revolt against our authority. The remaining Fedayeen in the field would be little more than thugs, the Special Guards will die or surrender in the defence of Baghdad, and the low-level Republican Guard units will likely surrender after the fall of Baghdad, because once the regime is gone they have no more reason to fight. Their officers, of course, cannot effect a resistance without men and will be little more than bandits.

The main problem that will remain would be the Fedayeen, who stiffened with foreign volunteers might continue to resist for some time. They're unlikely to get a warm welcome in the south due to religious reasons, or the north for ethnic ones, though. And so we can hunt them in a few areas of the country reasonably.

The Americans have never cared about the WMD's in Iraq, they've made that clear with the goals of this war.

They're one of the prime reasons for entry.

Bush would never have allowed Hussein into the war on terror, which is odd, as Reagan was great friends of Hussein, refused to allow any sanctions against Iraq or any bill to pass that would state Iraq had committed genocide.

Hardly. Saddam just needed to do what was necessary to avoid this fate.

Napoleon's actual loss had no great effect on the fighing ability of the French Army, which has only fought for France and Paris, not any leader.

L'Empereur! L'Empereur! So went the battle-cry of the army of Napoleon I, and Napoleon III. The Bonapartiste regimes were very much personally motivated, Ted, and your lack of knowledge in that regard is only amusing.

The ability of Saddam Hussein to stay in power for the last 24-25 years as a brutal dictator is evidence of his leadership abilities.

It's evidence of paranoia and lack of morality. The man is hardly a strategist, or a tactician. He does have quite a bit of cunning, however, and probably is intelligent.

Thank you, German UNIFICATION, which would mean the inclusion of Elsaß-Lothringen.

Then why didn't Germany annex Austria and the Sutendenland next? Or why didn't Prussia do it in '66? Nice try, Ted, but after the Year of Revolution the German unificationists had abandoned the idea that all German-speaking peoples needed to be included in a unified German State and went to a minimalist model.

France's opposition is well known, but it proves that there is no link between the Prussian reasons for war and the American reasons for war.

Read the beginning of the article I posted again.

The destruction of Baghdad will not end the war. It will just signal the "End of the Begining."

Taking Baghdad will signal the effective end of the war, except for some mopping up. Revolts by ethnic groups inside of Iraq - Should they occur, and assuming this is what you refer to - will be entirely different wars and are not relevant to consideration in regard to this conflict.

The Majority of Fedayeen ARE patriots, fighting for THEIR Iraq, and THEIR government. The foreigners are not actually a part of the Fedayeen in the south, they just fight along side them.

The Fedayeen fight for money and out of fear of what would happen to them if they surrendered. Some of them may be personally loyal to Saddam, but none to the idea of an Iraqi State. The foreigners fight for religious purposes, and are in the Fedayeen:

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0 ... 39,00.html

Ramadan said that there were "columns" of volunteers from Arab and other Muslim countries arriving in Iraq to join Fedayeen paramilitary groups,

- Originally from the New York Times

(I love it when their stories are reprinted in papers which don't require registration for their websites.)

The decision to send supplies by air is ludicrous if it was a decision from the begining of the war. It is more expensive, more time consuming, and more labour intensive to send supplies by air.

It's also much faster, and so for certain vital goods can be useful.

When atleast 1 300-vehicle convoy has been sent back to Kuwait due to Fedayeen attacks, I would say that it has a great effect.

A single three hundred vehicle convoy? That's quite minor considering the scale of logistics required to support the three divisions that are forward.