The Greatest Battle of Our Time

[revprez]

I think that sort of strays from the intended OP point. You could argue a relative's battle against cancer was somehow justified given it affected your history.

I don't see how mass transit in record time is really a determining factor given the war didn't amount to anything like other major conflicts.

Can you point to a battle in history where comparable forces achieved operational objectives so swiftly?

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

Can you point to a battle in history where comparable forces achieved operational objectives so swiftly?

Rev Prez

Leaving aside the historical insignificance of this battle compared to some of the others cited, how did this battle compare to Hitler's initial push into Russia, or his conquest of France?

[Crown]

Wow. You are just oozing stupid now aren't you? So how is Operation finishing my daddy's war historically significant and decisive?

Well, I can't argue that it is the most historically significant battle in history--

And yet you will try...

I imagine we could all think of something more historically significant that the first campaign to transform the Middle East.

You must be kidding me right? Did Iran and the Shah and the clerics miss your attention? Did the Beruit conflict, the establishment of Israel, and the courting of Egypt go unnoticed? Did the west's support for Saddam in his 8 year war not happen now? Did liberating Kuwait happen in a bad dream?

And these are only examples of modern conflicts in the Middle East post WWII, lets not delve too much deaper shall we?

I can argue that it is the most decisive in respects to the swiftest advance over such a distance in history.

Rev Prez

*pfft*

And I can argue it was the worst mis-match since Soviet Union versus Afganistan. But hardly an achievement. The US's ability to win the war was never in doubt, it was a forgon conclusion. Still not seeing the decisive or significance here.

Baghdad was captured in 20 days, Paris in 35, Warsaw in under 28 days. The war in Iraq 'officially' ended on May 1st (41 days), France fell in 37. Fuck the liberation of Kuwait took 3 days.

Was OIF impressive sure, was it so far beyond the relm of possibility as to go down as a historically significant battle or decisive? No.

[Vympel]

The analogy doesn't quite work. The Germans didn't give up, and the war continued. The blockade continued regardless of the Jutland action.

That would be because the Germans failed to destroy the British Fleet. What's the problem? As I said, Jutland is hardly very important, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

Well, it represents the evolution of strategic studies along a managerial science dimension.

That's the language they use in the Navy, believe it or not. They also use "network-centric warfare," "force packages," and all sorts of other things lifted from UPS.

Yeah, I know, the gibberish is just annoying.

I wouldn't say that. Guerre de course refers to any sort of naval action aimed at destroying the enemy's ability to wage war pther than engaging the enemy's main naval forces.

Rev Prez

That could work then I guess.

[revprez]

And yet you will try...

I did?

You must be kidding me right? Did Iran and the Shah and the clerics miss your attention? Did the Beruit conflict, the establishment of Israel, and the courting of Egypt go unnoticed? Did the west's support for Saddam in his 8 year war not happen now? Did liberating Kuwait happen in a bad dream?

And these are only examples of modern conflicts in the Middle East post WWII, lets not delve too much deaper shall we?

Which if these led to the transformation of the Middle East from a collection of Islamofascist dictatorships to functioning democracies?

And I can argue it was the worst mis-match since Soviet Union versus Afganistan. But hardly an achievement. The US's ability to win the war was never in doubt, it was a forgon conclusion. Still not seeing the decisive or significance here.

Well, it's hard to argue that any other battle in history was more decisively decided when you consider American overmatch.

Baghdad was captured in 20 days, Paris in 35, Warsaw in under 28 days.

And let's not forget that there was a 350 mile advance through enemy territory to Baghdad.

The war in Iraq 'officially' ended on May 1st (41 days), France fell in 37.

With two advances each less than two hundred miles.

Fuck the liberation of Kuwait took 3 days.

With an unopposed advance of 100 miles.

Was OIF impressive sure, was it so far beyond the relm of possibility as to go down as a historically significant battle or decisive? No.

Wait, since when did uncertainty of victory become a prerequisite for decisiveness? I've already conceded the historical significance of the battle.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

That would be because the Germans failed to destroy the British Fleet. What's the problem? As I said, Jutland is hardly very important, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

Well, I'm not trying to make it out to be "bad." I'm just saying that Jutland's only lesson was that Mahan's concept of seapower was severely flawed.

Yeah, I know, the gibberish is just annoying.

Yeah, and unfortunately it grows on you if you're exposed to it too long.

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

With an unopposed advance of 100 miles.

And how much of OIF consisted of unopposed advances? In fact, the early news reports all indicated that there was some surprise at how little early resistance there was.

PS. OIF was not a "battle"; it was a war. Actual battles in that war were few and far between.

[Mr Bean]

My vote goes with Stalingrad

[SoX]

Cant remember where i read this, maybe here.. but on the topic of the "War in Iraq"

"A War is when at least TWO countries fight"

[Vympel]

PS. OIF was not a "battle"; it was a war. Actual battles in that war were few and far between.

As I recall, there was only a single pitched slugfest in the entire thing- the Marines blasting there way through some city or other (Karbala, Fallujah, don't remember ...) quite unlike 1991. Baghdad was a non-event, much to our surprise. The only three notable 'events' in the whole thing...

- The ill-fated AH-64 Apache assault on a Republican Guard division (can't remember which...). Around 30 Longbow Apaches went in, got shot up something severe by heavy AAA fire, inflicted negligible damage (if any), and returned. Two crashed on the way back. Led to a "we need to be more careful with our attack helicopters" decision.

- The sporadic attacks on the lines of communication by irregular forces: the cause of much hand-wringing, and if they had continued there was speculation that the advance would have to be stopped.

- the ambush of the 507th Maintenance coy. In any other war, this would've happened hundreds of times to hundreds of different, equally incompetent units.

[HemlockGrey]

OIF will certainly have far-reaching effects; it already has altered the fundemental political makeup of the Mideast and has had broad political conquenses. But it doesn't compare to stuff like Thermoplyae or Milvian.

Also, disregard the "Our Time" bit. I thought it sounded grand and dramatic so I stuck it in; sorry if I confused anyone as to the point of the OP.

That said, while Stalingrad was certainly terribly bloody, I don't think it actually decided much. Had the Germans taken the city, it would merely have fulfilled one of Hitler's myriad personal obsessions. It would not have halted the Allied advance and I doubt it could have stopped the Russians.

I'm tempted to say the Battle of Lutzen (the first one), since the imperials just got their asses so terribly, terribly kicked, but the Swedes didn't really press their advantage so I'm not sure it would count. Poor Gustav Adolf.

I would also count that one battle in which the Spaniards decisively defeated attacking Swiss pikemen through judicious use of artillery and hand-to-hand, thus bringing about the end of Swiss dominance in European warfare, but I cannot remember the name.

[Crown]

I did?

You god-damn know you did you little snake, when you suggested that it was 'the first <historic> campaign to transform the Middle East'.

Which if these led to the transformation of the Middle East from a collection of Islamofascist dictatorships to functioning democracies?

Don't move the goal posts you dis-honest cunt. Nowhere did you stipulate that the 'historic' campaign to transform the Middle East was pinned to 'bringing' democracy, to which you will note has yet to happen in Iraq and you ignore the toppeling of the democratic Iranian government in the 50's and installing the Shar.

And don't think that I didn't notice to your un-substatiated claim that Saddam was an 'Islamofascist' either dipshit.

Well, it's hard to argue that any other battle in history was more decisively decided when you consider American overmatch.

The War wasn't a battle fuck nuts, you have yet to prove (and unless you have a crystal ball it should be fascinating to see you try), that the war has been 'decisive'.

And let's not forget that there was a 350 mile advance through enemy territory to Baghdad.

With fucking minimal resistance, and troops surrendering to US reporters for fucks sake. Not to diminish any trooper's involvement in this war, as it was their lifes on the line, but hardly a march on Paris, Warsaw, Athens or Moscow was it?

With two advances each less than two hundred miles.

Of unopposed territory! What are you deficient?

With an unopposed advance of 100 miles.

Well I guess you are then ....

Wait, since when did uncertainty of victory become a prerequisite for decisiveness? I've already conceded the historical significance of the battle.

Rev Prez

Since the victory has yet to be achieved. There hasn't been a find of WMD, there hasen't been a dramatic decrease to the threat of America's national security, and Al'Qeda is still out there. What did you think I would forget about the fact that 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was also apart of the 'War on Terror'?

Just a question; you wouldn't happen to be the old Iraqi information minister would you?

[HemlockGrey]

I imagine we could all think of something more historically significant that the first campaign to transform the Middle East.

Persian invasions. Alexander the Great! Roman invasions. Sassanid and second Persian empires. Turkish invasions. Crusades. MONGOL EMPIRE. Tamerlane the Whirlwind. Ottoman invasions. And many, many, many more.

Are you high?

[revprez]

That would be because the Germans failed to destroy the British Fleet. What's the problem? As I said, Jutland is hardly very important, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

I'm not trying to make it out to be some great naval debacle. I'm just saying that all Jutland disproved Mahan's argument that the primary strategic objective in naval warfare is the destruction of the enemy's battle fleet. By the time naval OAs grasped that lesson, battleships had already been relegated to the decidedly unsexy role of providing fire support for amphibious forces. It took another fifty years before the US stopped wasting money on large battleship and nuclear cruiser surface action groups.

Yeah, I know, the gibberish is just annoying.

And addictive if your exposed to it too long.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Turning over a new leaf here...

You god-damn know you did you little snake, when you suggested that it was 'the first <historic> campaign to transform the Middle East'.

Back on up there.

1) I specifically said "well, I can't argue that it is the most historically significant battle in history."

2) "Transform the Middle East" is one of the most common phrases used to refer to the ambition and effort to democratize of the region. Don't blow up on me because you're God knows how many centuries out of the loop.

Don't move the goal posts you dis-honest cunt.

I'm not moving the goal posts. If anything, you've decided to reinterpret my argument in order to hurl a few insults. So spare me the righteous indignation and argue something.

Nowhere did you stipulate that the 'historic' campaign to transform the Middle East was pinned to 'bringing' democracy, to which you will note has yet to happen in Iraq and you ignore the toppeling of the democratic Iranian government in the 50's and installing the Shar.

1) See above remarks about "transforming the Middle East.'

2) I was perfectly clear that this was the first campaign to do so, which obviously implies that the task is not yet completed.

3) Pahlevi was not "installed," he assumed the throne in 1941 after his father abdicated. There was nothing much in the way of democracy either; the Shah remained chief of state and exercised immense power over the Majlis even during Mossadeq's tenure--a point he drived home in 1952 by firing the man and investing the next decade consolidating more power for himself.

And don't think that I didn't notice to your un-substatiated claim that Saddam was an 'Islamofascist' either dipshit.

Hahaha. Bullshit.

The War wasn't a battle fuck nuts, you have yet to prove (and unless you have a crystal ball it should be fascinating to see you try), that the war has been 'decisive'.

It was a single, continuous engagement of opposing forces with a set of concurrent operational objectives, exactly what the US Army calls a battle. That the battle was decisive is obvious; one American ADE crushed four divisions of Iraqi Republican Guards in the final stage of the engagement after a two week, 350 mile advance to the objective across hostile terrain.

With fucking minimal resistance, and troops surrendering to US reporters for fucks sake. Not to diminish any trooper's involvement in this war, as it was their lifes on the line, but hardly a march on Paris, Warsaw, Athens or Moscow was it?

In terms of human cost, no. But what does that have to do with decisiveness?

Of unopposed territory! What are you deficient?

What are you talking about?

Well I guess you are then ....

The 100 mile advance made no contact with the enemy. What you call "minimal resistance" in Iraqi Freedom was constant contact. Just because American blockers were good enough to send most of them running away doesn't make the result any less decisive--in fact, it is an entirely impressive display of the psychological power American overmatch provides.

Since the victory has yet to be achieved.

Oh no you don't. You spent the first half of this post making utterly baseless allegations about goal posts being moved. You said

Was OIF impressive sure, was it so far beyond the relm of possibility as to go down as a historically significant battle or decisive? No.

Now answer the question.

There hasn't been a find of WMD, there hasen't been a dramatic decrease to the threat of America's national security, and Al'Qeda is still out there.

Well that depends on the success of the campaign in Iraq, but Operation Iraqi Freedom still represents a decisive advance down the list of US strategic objectives in the War on Terror. We have elimated a regime that was known to support terrorists, suspected of cooperating with al Qai'da, widely believed to have WMDs and programs to develop more, and most importantly was denying its population freedom.

What did you think I would forget about the fact that 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was also apart of the 'War on Terror'?

Why would I? It's true.

Just a question; you wouldn't happen to be the old Iraqi information minister would you?

That's funny coming from someone trying so hard to deny the obvious. Go watch some TV news--you should catch that "transforming the Middle East" line in an hour if you worry.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Persian invasions. Alexander the Great! Roman invasions. Sassanid and second Persian empires. Turkish invasions. Crusades. MONGOL EMPIRE. Tamerlane the Whirlwind. Ottoman invasions. And many, many, many more.

Are you high?

Does anybody watch the news, read the papers, or do anything but construct arguments in a vacuum? "Transform the Middle East" has been commonly linked to democratization in the region for over a year now.

Rev Prez

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, that does not change the fact that OIF is not the first war to introduce sweeping change in the Middle East, nor is it the most important by ANY stretch of the imagination.

[revprez]

Of course, that does not change the fact that OIF is not the first war to introduce sweeping change in the Middle East, nor is it the most important by ANY stretch of the imagination.

No it doesn't, and I'm not going to argue the historical significance of Middle Eastern transformation.

Rev Prez

[HemlockGrey]

And yet, unless I am incredibly mistaken (which is always a possibility) you claimed OIF was the first campaign to "transform" the Middle East, unless you used the very general term "Transform" to mean something extremely specific.

[revprez]

And yet, unless I am incredibly mistaken (which is always a possibility) you claimed OIF was the first campaign to "transform" the Middle East, unless you used the very general term "Transform" to mean something extremely specific.

"Middle East transformation" commonly refers to the democratization of said region.

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

And yet, unless I am incredibly mistaken (which is always a possibility) you claimed OIF was the first campaign to "transform" the Middle East, unless you used the very general term "Transform" to mean something extremely specific.

"Middle East transformation" commonly refers to the democratization of said region.

Rev Prez

When did this redefinition of English language take place?

[revprez]

When did this redefinition of English language take place?

Last year.

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

When did this redefinition of English language take place?

Last year.

Rev Prez

The fact that the Bush Administration calls it "Middle East transformation" does not mean that they now have exclusive ownership of the word "transformation" as it applies to the Middle East.

[revprez]

The fact that the Bush Administration calls it "Middle East transformation" does not mean that they now have exclusive ownership of the word "transformation" as it applies to the Middle East.

No, but it does mean I have a reasonably expectation that people who purport to be up on events in Iraq will be familiar with the phrase "Middle East transformation"--considering its prevalent use in the administration, policy analysts, and commentators.

Rev Prez

[The Aliens]

Transformation means 'change'. The Mongols, Persians, Crusades and Israel all changed the Middle East. Define it however you wnat, it's not making you any mroe right.

Hitler deciding to attack Russia was probably one of the most significant military decisions in the 20th century. I'm not going to make claims about before 1900, because I know very little about specific battles from that period. If Hitler hadn't have changed tactics to attack Russia though, he could have worn down Britain and focused his sole attention on the Eastern front.