Well done to UK senior officers!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, the Israelis learned very early on that it' one thing to win the military battles and another one to win the PR battle. There is no way the coallition is going to win the PR battle in this war, especially with the liberal, lefty, hand wringing media we have at the moment, of which you are fine example.
It appears to me that you would have us warn the enemy that "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" and apologise profusely before we go in and try to kill them.
. As Solotk mentioned, you can't run this war with all the pussy footing around just because the media luvvies are embedded with you. If you are pinned down under fire you should be calling all your available firepower to bear on the problem, If there are civilian casualties as a result then it is very tragic but a fact of war.
Witterting on about the "USMC’s over-the-top and arguably distasteful display at the deaths of their enemies" just proves to me that the coallition has absolutely no chance of ever winning the PR battle when reporters interpret it as bad taste. What on earth did you expect? "Oh my oh my, I am so sorry, boo hoo! Pass me another missile."
Solotk, you are right about the 'pussyfooting' that appears to be going on in units with embedded reporters. How the decision makers can justify adding to the risks their troops have to take just because it wouldn't look good for the Nintendo audience back home for those under fire to call in 'overwhelming' firepower to get out of the mire.
It appears to me that you would have us warn the enemy that "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" and apologise profusely before we go in and try to kill them.
. As Solotk mentioned, you can't run this war with all the pussy footing around just because the media luvvies are embedded with you. If you are pinned down under fire you should be calling all your available firepower to bear on the problem, If there are civilian casualties as a result then it is very tragic but a fact of war.Witterting on about the "USMC’s over-the-top and arguably distasteful display at the deaths of their enemies" just proves to me that the coallition has absolutely no chance of ever winning the PR battle when reporters interpret it as bad taste. What on earth did you expect? "Oh my oh my, I am so sorry, boo hoo! Pass me another missile."
Solotk, you are right about the 'pussyfooting' that appears to be going on in units with embedded reporters. How the decision makers can justify adding to the risks their troops have to take just because it wouldn't look good for the Nintendo audience back home for those under fire to call in 'overwhelming' firepower to get out of the mire.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm more than a little surprized at those people here who are expressing their disgust at the US solidiers. You say that "whooping" after destroying an Iraqi position is not "Politically Correct". Why then have you not commented on the Iraqi soldiers dancing and waving rifles about over the bodies of the US soldiers killed in the ambush?
I'm sure that if you had been in the US soldiers position of having killed those who were trying to kill you, a certain amount of relief and elation would be warranted.
It's fine to sit infront of your computers and criticize. However, those soldiers are the one's whose lives are at risk and they can "whoop" as much as they d@mn well please!!!!!!!
I'm sure that if you had been in the US soldiers position of having killed those who were trying to kill you, a certain amount of relief and elation would be warranted.
It's fine to sit infront of your computers and criticize. However, those soldiers are the one's whose lives are at risk and they can "whoop" as much as they d@mn well please!!!!!!!
Solotk - very right!
Its unfortunate that Solotk was not doing Rumsfelds job.
As I recall he wanted to go before Xmas 2002 with light forces only - after all with all that air delivered "shock and awe" the Iraqi's would have just folded, right?
As I recall he wanted to go before Xmas 2002 with light forces only - after all with all that air delivered "shock and awe" the Iraqi's would have just folded, right?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm Quasr
Here is a little background on the "whooping and hollering" incident, which seems to have upset some people. It is drawn from an article by Daniel McGory and Tim Butcher in the Times of 24 Mar:-
"Like a maestro conducting an orchestra, Staff Sergeant Lerma spent most of yesterday striding on an earth berm 900 yards from the target, egging on his young troops from 1 Platoon, Fox Company. Urging them in the bluest of language to stay behind cover and to don helmets, he stalked behind them, talking one moment into his radio microphone, and shouting commands the next. "I have got a bunch of young men here just out of training and they are like a load of young dogs all straining at the leash, so they take some handling."
It was Staff Sergeant Lerma who called for the deployment of two Javelins to launch rockets to destroy the target. One missed but the other slammed into the building... At around midday two RAF Harriers dipped towards the rusting storage depot where the main group of Iraqis was holed up. The first 500lb bomb fell just wide of the mark, but moments later the second went home, shaking buildings up to six miles away... By late last night the US Marines were thinking of calling in yet more weaponry, this time Cobra attack helicopters, but they had too little time to organise the mission... If the display of firepower had not been so devastating the whole operation might have been comical.
"... if the Americans are like this when they have one building to deal with, what are they going to be like when they get to Baghdad?" a British officer asked."
I still think that a display of exuberance by young, green troops is forgiveable, and the final comment by a British officer was a bit snide.
How come a rusty old storage shed withstood a direct hit from a 500lb bomb?
"Like a maestro conducting an orchestra, Staff Sergeant Lerma spent most of yesterday striding on an earth berm 900 yards from the target, egging on his young troops from 1 Platoon, Fox Company. Urging them in the bluest of language to stay behind cover and to don helmets, he stalked behind them, talking one moment into his radio microphone, and shouting commands the next. "I have got a bunch of young men here just out of training and they are like a load of young dogs all straining at the leash, so they take some handling."
It was Staff Sergeant Lerma who called for the deployment of two Javelins to launch rockets to destroy the target. One missed but the other slammed into the building... At around midday two RAF Harriers dipped towards the rusting storage depot where the main group of Iraqis was holed up. The first 500lb bomb fell just wide of the mark, but moments later the second went home, shaking buildings up to six miles away... By late last night the US Marines were thinking of calling in yet more weaponry, this time Cobra attack helicopters, but they had too little time to organise the mission... If the display of firepower had not been so devastating the whole operation might have been comical.
"... if the Americans are like this when they have one building to deal with, what are they going to be like when they get to Baghdad?" a British officer asked."
I still think that a display of exuberance by young, green troops is forgiveable, and the final comment by a British officer was a bit snide.
How come a rusty old storage shed withstood a direct hit from a 500lb bomb?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...622136,00.html
THE SOUTH
Al-Nasiriyah
The soldier added that the United States and Britain would put 4,000-5,000 troops into battle. Earlier troops had evacuated the dead and wounded from the overnight fighting, which one medical corpsman said took a heavy toll on allied forces.
He continued: "They (US and British troops) are taking a lot more casualties than they (senior officers) are telling the press. This morning troops are still meeting pockets of resistance - cells of snipers - and they're causing a lot of problems. It is a hairy scene and the Iraqis have put up a good fight."
THE SOUTH
Al-Nasiriyah
The soldier added that the United States and Britain would put 4,000-5,000 troops into battle. Earlier troops had evacuated the dead and wounded from the overnight fighting, which one medical corpsman said took a heavy toll on allied forces.
He continued: "They (US and British troops) are taking a lot more casualties than they (senior officers) are telling the press. This morning troops are still meeting pockets of resistance - cells of snipers - and they're causing a lot of problems. It is a hairy scene and the Iraqis have put up a good fight."
Thread Starter
"What on earth did you expect? "Oh my oh my, I am so sorry, boo hoo! Pass me another missile."
No. Just calm professionalism. Even a satisfied grin. Even slapping the guy who scored the hit on the back. Even a cheer. Just not a great outburst of Super-bowl type celebration, especially if it can appear to be celebrating the enemy's death rather than our success.
If the Brits can do it (or can appear to do it) calmly and professionally, then why can't everyone? Public perceptions are important, and the degree of pride which most Brits have in their armed forces is enhanced by the professionalism and steady nerve which they see on the TV news. Perhaps NI gave the British Army an unusually useful amount of experience in operating in the glare of media attention? The Brits, in other words, seem to be winning the PR battle (at least back home) despite overwhelming hostility to the war before it was launched. And no-one is suggesting that they are any less effective in fighting the enemy, I trust?
Perhaps the coverage of US forces which I might find disturbing plays so well at home that its effect overseas is irrelevant.
(Danny, I'll bet the discipline of IDF units on the West Bank was icy cold, however joyful they might have been at getting rid of their enemies!).
(And SaudiPC9 of course I condemn the Iraqis who go hunting unarmed downed aircrew, who beat and threaten POWs, who desecrate our dead, and who oppose us at all, in fact).
No. Just calm professionalism. Even a satisfied grin. Even slapping the guy who scored the hit on the back. Even a cheer. Just not a great outburst of Super-bowl type celebration, especially if it can appear to be celebrating the enemy's death rather than our success.
If the Brits can do it (or can appear to do it) calmly and professionally, then why can't everyone? Public perceptions are important, and the degree of pride which most Brits have in their armed forces is enhanced by the professionalism and steady nerve which they see on the TV news. Perhaps NI gave the British Army an unusually useful amount of experience in operating in the glare of media attention? The Brits, in other words, seem to be winning the PR battle (at least back home) despite overwhelming hostility to the war before it was launched. And no-one is suggesting that they are any less effective in fighting the enemy, I trust?
Perhaps the coverage of US forces which I might find disturbing plays so well at home that its effect overseas is irrelevant.
(Danny, I'll bet the discipline of IDF units on the West Bank was icy cold, however joyful they might have been at getting rid of their enemies!).
(And SaudiPC9 of course I condemn the Iraqis who go hunting unarmed downed aircrew, who beat and threaten POWs, who desecrate our dead, and who oppose us at all, in fact).
<dons protective gear, steps into thread>
Freely admit to being a civvy interloper here with no idea of what it's like - all my impressions are second hand through my workplace, with the over-riding impression being one of relief that I've never had to experience some of the things discussed here.
So forgive me if this small query is mis-placed:
The Times article cited by FV suggests that the 'whooping and a' hollering' Marines are fresh out of training. Is it at all possible that these young men, lacking experience (but gaining it all too quickly) are a) still not quite fully aware of some of the more horrific aspects of war, leading to their being less 'sober' in their reactions and
b) because of their lack of experience, of which they are very well aware, are at a very high pitch of nervous energy (NOT that the other troops aren't) and anxious not only to do well but to show their enthusiasm?
Combining these two aspects, would this not perhaps help to explain their response?
I agree with Jacko that it doesn't look good on TV, but given that the troops in question are out there facing in a few days the sort of circumstances that most others (including me) won't face in a lifetime, I frankly don't give a **** how it appears on the telly.
When troops in contact have to think 'Oooh - how's this going to look on the news? Will Sophie Raworth be critical?' , then I'd suggest that we will have a major problem (and dead men). Far better that some sensibilities are mildly offended than young men wind up dead or badly wounded, surely?
Sorry for interrupting with me 4 penn'orth.
Freely admit to being a civvy interloper here with no idea of what it's like - all my impressions are second hand through my workplace, with the over-riding impression being one of relief that I've never had to experience some of the things discussed here.
So forgive me if this small query is mis-placed:
The Times article cited by FV suggests that the 'whooping and a' hollering' Marines are fresh out of training. Is it at all possible that these young men, lacking experience (but gaining it all too quickly) are a) still not quite fully aware of some of the more horrific aspects of war, leading to their being less 'sober' in their reactions and
b) because of their lack of experience, of which they are very well aware, are at a very high pitch of nervous energy (NOT that the other troops aren't) and anxious not only to do well but to show their enthusiasm?
Combining these two aspects, would this not perhaps help to explain their response?
I agree with Jacko that it doesn't look good on TV, but given that the troops in question are out there facing in a few days the sort of circumstances that most others (including me) won't face in a lifetime, I frankly don't give a **** how it appears on the telly.
When troops in contact have to think 'Oooh - how's this going to look on the news? Will Sophie Raworth be critical?' , then I'd suggest that we will have a major problem (and dead men). Far better that some sensibilities are mildly offended than young men wind up dead or badly wounded, surely?
Sorry for interrupting with me 4 penn'orth.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This letter was published in today's Daily Telegraph (which for o/s readers not familiar with it is a "conservative" paper favoured by the establishment):
Re: The war is being televised
Date: 24 March 2003
Sir - Whatever its rights and wrongs, the war has highlighted the frightening pace at which telecommunications have advanced, even since the last high-profile conflict with Saddam Hussein.
The terror of a Baghdad skyline lit up with digitally programmed bombs is now witnessed as it unfolds. The sight of Jon Sopel delivering his broadcast from behind a gas mask is shocking, no matter how much the use of chemical and biological weapons has been mooted.
And with live videophone links allowing us to ride side-saddle with the 7th US Cavalry through desert plains, the horrors of war spilling out of our screens really could be courtesy of Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately for millions of innocent Iraqis and thousands of our own troops, these scenes are all too real.
What a very grave pity then, that America cannot match the advancement of telecommunications with any thought for how their message is being received by the outside world. The image of Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating striding on stage to address troops aboard USS Constellation, accompanied by the thumping sound of We Will Rock You by Queen, was utterly abhorrent. Not content with that, he plumbed the depths of bad taste, trumpeting that, "when the President says, 'Go', look out! It's hammer time."
The American forces who planted the Stars and Stripes on Iraqi soil at Umm Qasr while advancing to the capital were following suit (report, Mar 22). How did they think this gung-ho aberration looked to others - those back home, the doubters of the UN, not least, the Iraqi people?
The self-made mandate of the coalition forces was not only to rid the world of a despot, but also to allow these poor people to start afresh - in a democracy, we hope. Would it not be more prudent, and a clear communication of their righteous intentions, for American troops to plant in the ground the three stars and three stripes of the Iraqi flag as they advance to free Baghdad?
From:
Larner Caleb, Leeds
I think that it is fair to suggest that opinion is divided on this subject, and to suggest that it isn't is to distort the complexities of public opinion.
JDSC now sprends a considerable proportion of the JCSC dealing with media ops at the Coy HQ level. Officers are taught how to handle situations where there is intense media interest and how to fight and/or conduct an operation in this environment. At no point is operational effectiveness to be compromised, and where it is likely SOPs are in place to handle the media presence in such a way as to minimise the risk of compromise and any serious and unnecessary risk to the film crew. JDSC have managed to address this problem sufficiently well to ensure a compromise between freedom of reporting and operational effectiveness where operational effectiveness is the overriding factor.
It would be interesting to understand what, if any, consideration the US forces give to this issue, and how much latitude sub-unit commanders are given to decide on how to apply those procedures.
Not necessarily. In fact the JCSC module on media handling is designed to manage the media at Coy level. Thus far (and there is always room for error) the British have not been shown in a bad light in the way that the Americans have. Perhaps there is a degree of nievety on tha parts of some that the rest of the world views events in the same way as those at home in America do, and see the world "through American eyes".
As for the images of a grinning sadist standing over the body of a dead American, words of disgust fail me. I believe in a God of infinite justice. I have faith that that man will meet his judgement in the next life if not in this.
Re: The war is being televised
Date: 24 March 2003
Sir - Whatever its rights and wrongs, the war has highlighted the frightening pace at which telecommunications have advanced, even since the last high-profile conflict with Saddam Hussein.
The terror of a Baghdad skyline lit up with digitally programmed bombs is now witnessed as it unfolds. The sight of Jon Sopel delivering his broadcast from behind a gas mask is shocking, no matter how much the use of chemical and biological weapons has been mooted.
And with live videophone links allowing us to ride side-saddle with the 7th US Cavalry through desert plains, the horrors of war spilling out of our screens really could be courtesy of Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately for millions of innocent Iraqis and thousands of our own troops, these scenes are all too real.
What a very grave pity then, that America cannot match the advancement of telecommunications with any thought for how their message is being received by the outside world. The image of Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating striding on stage to address troops aboard USS Constellation, accompanied by the thumping sound of We Will Rock You by Queen, was utterly abhorrent. Not content with that, he plumbed the depths of bad taste, trumpeting that, "when the President says, 'Go', look out! It's hammer time."
The American forces who planted the Stars and Stripes on Iraqi soil at Umm Qasr while advancing to the capital were following suit (report, Mar 22). How did they think this gung-ho aberration looked to others - those back home, the doubters of the UN, not least, the Iraqi people?
The self-made mandate of the coalition forces was not only to rid the world of a despot, but also to allow these poor people to start afresh - in a democracy, we hope. Would it not be more prudent, and a clear communication of their righteous intentions, for American troops to plant in the ground the three stars and three stripes of the Iraqi flag as they advance to free Baghdad?
From:
Larner Caleb, Leeds
I think that it is fair to suggest that opinion is divided on this subject, and to suggest that it isn't is to distort the complexities of public opinion.
JDSC now sprends a considerable proportion of the JCSC dealing with media ops at the Coy HQ level. Officers are taught how to handle situations where there is intense media interest and how to fight and/or conduct an operation in this environment. At no point is operational effectiveness to be compromised, and where it is likely SOPs are in place to handle the media presence in such a way as to minimise the risk of compromise and any serious and unnecessary risk to the film crew. JDSC have managed to address this problem sufficiently well to ensure a compromise between freedom of reporting and operational effectiveness where operational effectiveness is the overriding factor.
It would be interesting to understand what, if any, consideration the US forces give to this issue, and how much latitude sub-unit commanders are given to decide on how to apply those procedures.
just proves to me that the coallition has absolutely no chance of ever winning the PR battle when reporters interpret it as bad taste
As for the images of a grinning sadist standing over the body of a dead American, words of disgust fail me. I believe in a God of infinite justice. I have faith that that man will meet his judgement in the next life if not in this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The content of Caleb's letter and your comments, kbf1, that follow it clearly indicate that many people have no conception whatsoever of what war/military action is all about. It is coming home to them now via 'embedded' reporters - the very idea that there should be some PC way for troops to react because they may be on camera is ridiculous in the extreme. Clearly the idea of 'embedded' reporters is a mistake if people are going to be offended when they see what is a quite normal and justifiable reaction by the soldiers to their success, or COs beefing up the morale of their troops, ("It's Hammer Time").
By the time this war is over you will have all the material you need for a paper at Staff College on the inadvisability of embedded reporting, kbf1.
By the time this war is over you will have all the material you need for a paper at Staff College on the inadvisability of embedded reporting, kbf1.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JDSC now sprends a considerable proportion of the JCSC dealing with media ops at the Coy HQ level. Officers are taught how to handle situations where there is intense media interest and how to fight and/or conduct an operation in this environment. At no point is operational effectiveness to be compromised, and where it is likely SOPs are in place to handle the media presence in such a way as to minimise the risk of compromise and any serious and unnecessary risk to the film crew. JDSC have managed to address this problem sufficiently well to ensure a compromise between freedom of reporting and operational effectiveness where operational effectiveness is the overriding factor.
It is f^^king dangerous. It is f^^king frightening, it is not like it is in the movies or the text book that you were given at JCSC. I agree that the pictures themselves were unfortunate, but I wouldn't have had the camera there in the first place. You talk about operational effectiveness not being compromised, well this isn't an argument about that is it? Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether they whoop and holler or not. What does affect their operational effectiveness is when they are critcised from thousands of miles away by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse.
And thanks soooo much for quoting St Thomas. After all, he died only 700 years ago, so his opinion at this moment is truly useful. How arrogant and patronising can you be. I don't know anybody who delights in the death of another human being, for you to suggest that those soldiers won't feel the after effects of what they have had to do is insulting in the extreme. If that isn't pompous self-superiority I don't know what is. Just because you know a bit about the Army (I am assuming that you have a uniform) and a bit about the US army doesn't mean that you know squat about what it is like to be in battle.
These men will have to live with what they are doing for years to come. At the moment they are excited to have done their job well, and to still be alive. Who the f^^k are you to take that away from them?
Oh, if you want to interpret my opinions as a personnel attack on you, then that is up to you. My 'vitriol' may be emotive, but I am afraid that I am allowed to get angry and pissed off at those who criticise and judge without any experience of what they are talking about. I don't even know who you are so I am unable to attack you personally, I just think that you are talking rubbish!
Jacko,
as I said before, you just can't have it both ways. You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait.
I am getting sick of the superiority complex that you are fostering over the Americans. I tell you again, there has been some British whooping and hollering, you just haven't seen it on TV, so don't keep telling everyone how we have the morale high ground in the whooping and hollering stakes, it is an insult to us and the Americans.
And stop going into a Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk every time Danny flattens your argument. It's kind of childish.
Thread Starter
Desperado,
There's no question of superiority, overall. Just difference. Including different strengths and weaknesses.
And I don't want it both ways. You say: "You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait."
It may surprise you that I agree that the camera shouldn't have been there in the first place. I can quite see that Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether or not they whoop and holler. I can see that criticism "by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse" might undermine morale. (AK 47 or AK 74 or AKM, though? I wouldn't be able to differentiate by feel - especially not there, but I have had one shoved up my left nostril). But in a modern campaign like this one, which deliberately includes an information/propaganda element, there are considerations beyond the frontline. Perhaps there should not be.
In many ways I think it would be much better if the UK Forces had service photographers and video teams (combat camera style) providing imagery to the media (who would stay well back), with the MoD providing material in a managed way to the media. I'm atypical among journos here, I suspect, but I can see that the Frontline is no place for civvies to be (they can only get in the way), nor even for civilians to see in an uncensored, full-on way. But if we are going to see it, then account has to be taken of this information war and its requirements.
And sorry about the "Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk".....
There's no question of superiority, overall. Just difference. Including different strengths and weaknesses.
And I don't want it both ways. You say: "You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait."
It may surprise you that I agree that the camera shouldn't have been there in the first place. I can quite see that Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether or not they whoop and holler. I can see that criticism "by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse" might undermine morale. (AK 47 or AK 74 or AKM, though? I wouldn't be able to differentiate by feel - especially not there, but I have had one shoved up my left nostril). But in a modern campaign like this one, which deliberately includes an information/propaganda element, there are considerations beyond the frontline. Perhaps there should not be.
In many ways I think it would be much better if the UK Forces had service photographers and video teams (combat camera style) providing imagery to the media (who would stay well back), with the MoD providing material in a managed way to the media. I'm atypical among journos here, I suspect, but I can see that the Frontline is no place for civvies to be (they can only get in the way), nor even for civilians to see in an uncensored, full-on way. But if we are going to see it, then account has to be taken of this information war and its requirements.
And sorry about the "Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk".....
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
solotk, these "fighting forts" you refer to were once known as "Redoubts", and were successfully used by the British in both Africa and India, and latterly in New Zealand (where they also learnt the art of trench warfare from it's Maori inventors).
In all cases, the Imperial British Forces were a regular Army fighting an irregular geurilla army which refused to confront them on the terms with which they were familiar. The established tactics of European battlefields did not work, so they were forced to develop new ones.
The concept of garrisoning a supply road at regular intervals while the forward force advanced towards its objective was costly in terms of its requirements in materiel and manpower, but it proved effective against an enemy which employed the tactics of hit, run, and hide.
Perhaps your wisdom from the past could be of use to the planners of today; it does appear to be the situation they are facing.
Just a thought...
In all cases, the Imperial British Forces were a regular Army fighting an irregular geurilla army which refused to confront them on the terms with which they were familiar. The established tactics of European battlefields did not work, so they were forced to develop new ones.
The concept of garrisoning a supply road at regular intervals while the forward force advanced towards its objective was costly in terms of its requirements in materiel and manpower, but it proved effective against an enemy which employed the tactics of hit, run, and hide.
Perhaps your wisdom from the past could be of use to the planners of today; it does appear to be the situation they are facing.
Just a thought...
I'm actually quite strongly in favour of having the press with the forces. It strikes me that much of the reporting has carried a great deal more reality than in other recent conflicts, where war really has been presented as antiseptic, clean high-tech jousting with TV graphics and gun camera footage presented by friendly PIOs a long way from the battlefield. It's probably better for all concerned if the bull**** level is kept down. One thing which it certainly has shown up is the distinction between different papers and broadcasters - some of Sky News's coverage has been frankly sickmaking, reams of rubbish about "roaring spectacularly across the desert" and the like, and the BBC have been a sight better. The broadsheet press is doing a good job, but the redtoppers have managed to top even their own recently increased standard of vulgarity. The "Mid Market" papers - i.e. Mail and Express - have been deeply poor. Headlines like "SURRENDER!" in the Express a few days ago had no place at that time. (Bet the bloke who wrote that one feels like a right arssenow..) The Slime Trail hasn't been much better.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the Patriot issue, this is another thread that has turned into a predominantly UK-US slanging match. So what if different cultures have different methods of motivating their troops? So what if US troops seemed excessive in their response to the "end" of an extremely tense and frightening stand-off?
Let's not forget that these guys are out there, risking their lives as we sit pontificating about the niceties of their PC, or non-PC, responses. Let's show a little compassion for our troops as well as the Iraqis. Like many others, my war's being fought from a long way off.
Most importantly, let's not forget that we're in this together.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some of these posts are a disgrace.
Let's not forget that these guys are out there, risking their lives as we sit pontificating about the niceties of their PC, or non-PC, responses. Let's show a little compassion for our troops as well as the Iraqis. Like many others, my war's being fought from a long way off.
Most importantly, let's not forget that we're in this together.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some of these posts are a disgrace.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I instinctively remember a UK pilot screaming ' gotcha u ba$tards!!' when he hit an Iraqi transport in the last gulf war, which was shown a few years later in a docu.
And to be honest, so what!!!!
The torch has been passed to the guys out there, and they'll conduct their business how they feel appropriate!! They're professionals
Lets not make this a UK/US slanging as others have said!!!
And to be honest, so what!!!!
The torch has been passed to the guys out there, and they'll conduct their business how they feel appropriate!! They're professionals
Lets not make this a UK/US slanging as others have said!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
So maybe if we constructed Sangars, with a proper fortification every so often Blue?
The planners have to be aiming off for a guerilla war. There are simply far too many historical examples, of how Saddam will prosecute this war
Antony Beevor said Saddam is an afficianado of Stalins tactics against the Germans.
There have been too many assumptions made, that we are fighting a ragtag bunch of Ay-rabs, and this will be over in 10 minutes flat. I think the IDF could have told you otherwise. Some of the reports getting shown, are of the officers at the sharp end, confused and dismayed, that the Iraqis aren't throwing flowers, but are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the forces of liberation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2883225.stm
British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "We are meeting resistance from irregulars, members of the Fedayeen, who are extremely loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"They are terrorising the citizens of Basra and we will probably need to go in," he told CNN.
------------------------------------------------
Really ? The first British Soldier was killed by rioting CIVILIANS. You remember, the same people who will throw flowers at us. Not fanatics or irregulars, but the "Oppressed people we're liberating"
As long as the planners and headsheds won't face the truth, this is going to grind on and on. It is not just diehards, fanatics and irregulars, it's the Iraqi people we're fighting here, because we invaded their country. When Germany invaded Russia, there were a great many Russians, who had an axe to grind with Stalin, they still fought the invaders for "Mother Russia" When the Americans tried to snatch Aideed in Somalia , they were stunned at the ferocity of the defence. it wasn't just members of Aideeds clan resisting, it was just about the whole city. They resisted, because "Foreigners" were trying to take one of their own. Nationalism has been seriously underated in Iraq's case, the planners HAVE to be saying to themselves, let's act on the worst case, the entire nation hates us, let's plan accordingly"
Dangerous assumptions have been made about the preparedness of the Iraqi Army to fight. Yes we have seen surrenders, we could do with seeing more. I notice there is now a lot of airtime devoted to "Why are they fighting us? Don't they understand, we just want to give them humanitarian aid?"
What they understand, is a foreign nation is invading them, and for their own, nationalistic reasons and Arab pride, they are fighting, and as much as it pains me to say it, fighting well. The sandstorms and appaling weather season has started. Our technological advantage, will be eroded, as Aircraft can't fly, and Tanks and IFV's start choking in the dust and heat. Then, we will be fighting on their terms, which is exactly, what we didn't want to do. I think you had better move the "Hearts and minds" programme to the top of the agenda, and start installing an "Arms for food and building materials programme"
Is it just possible, that the poor Iraqi people, weren't quite as oppressed as we have been led to believe?
Sorry, bit of a ramble, doing several things at once here....
Just a thought,
Should we go firm with what we've achieved, and call the UN inspectors back into the areas we control, as a prelude to supplying humanitarian aid?
Two advantages
1. We get the UN back in the frame
2. We can get the humanitarian Program underway, before the rest of the Arab world gets on the bus to join the fight against the infidels
Just a thought
The planners have to be aiming off for a guerilla war. There are simply far too many historical examples, of how Saddam will prosecute this war
Antony Beevor said Saddam is an afficianado of Stalins tactics against the Germans.
There have been too many assumptions made, that we are fighting a ragtag bunch of Ay-rabs, and this will be over in 10 minutes flat. I think the IDF could have told you otherwise. Some of the reports getting shown, are of the officers at the sharp end, confused and dismayed, that the Iraqis aren't throwing flowers, but are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the forces of liberation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2883225.stm
British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "We are meeting resistance from irregulars, members of the Fedayeen, who are extremely loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"They are terrorising the citizens of Basra and we will probably need to go in," he told CNN.
------------------------------------------------
Really ? The first British Soldier was killed by rioting CIVILIANS. You remember, the same people who will throw flowers at us. Not fanatics or irregulars, but the "Oppressed people we're liberating"
As long as the planners and headsheds won't face the truth, this is going to grind on and on. It is not just diehards, fanatics and irregulars, it's the Iraqi people we're fighting here, because we invaded their country. When Germany invaded Russia, there were a great many Russians, who had an axe to grind with Stalin, they still fought the invaders for "Mother Russia" When the Americans tried to snatch Aideed in Somalia , they were stunned at the ferocity of the defence. it wasn't just members of Aideeds clan resisting, it was just about the whole city. They resisted, because "Foreigners" were trying to take one of their own. Nationalism has been seriously underated in Iraq's case, the planners HAVE to be saying to themselves, let's act on the worst case, the entire nation hates us, let's plan accordingly"
Dangerous assumptions have been made about the preparedness of the Iraqi Army to fight. Yes we have seen surrenders, we could do with seeing more. I notice there is now a lot of airtime devoted to "Why are they fighting us? Don't they understand, we just want to give them humanitarian aid?"
What they understand, is a foreign nation is invading them, and for their own, nationalistic reasons and Arab pride, they are fighting, and as much as it pains me to say it, fighting well. The sandstorms and appaling weather season has started. Our technological advantage, will be eroded, as Aircraft can't fly, and Tanks and IFV's start choking in the dust and heat. Then, we will be fighting on their terms, which is exactly, what we didn't want to do. I think you had better move the "Hearts and minds" programme to the top of the agenda, and start installing an "Arms for food and building materials programme"
Is it just possible, that the poor Iraqi people, weren't quite as oppressed as we have been led to believe?
Sorry, bit of a ramble, doing several things at once here....
Just a thought,
Should we go firm with what we've achieved, and call the UN inspectors back into the areas we control, as a prelude to supplying humanitarian aid?
Two advantages
1. We get the UN back in the frame
2. We can get the humanitarian Program underway, before the rest of the Arab world gets on the bus to join the fight against the infidels
Just a thought
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
solotk
I think the fort idea was also tried by the French in Indo-China but with less success. They may also have been less a fort than a fortified post but the principle was the same.
An interesting thought about getting the UN back but cannot see the US agreeing to that given the statements about "liberating" the country and it would surely be regarded as a victory for Saddam Hussein if the US-UK forces drew stumps at this point no matter how the spin-doctors tried to dress it up.
I think the fort idea was also tried by the French in Indo-China but with less success. They may also have been less a fort than a fortified post but the principle was the same.
An interesting thought about getting the UN back but cannot see the US agreeing to that given the statements about "liberating" the country and it would surely be regarded as a victory for Saddam Hussein if the US-UK forces drew stumps at this point no matter how the spin-doctors tried to dress it up.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solo
The issues I see emerging from that are:
1. The holding off of coalition forces would allow Saddam to consolidate his forces and bolster his defences around known lines. Any coalition troop movements would give an early warning of where the next line of advance may come from and give Saddam more of an opportunity to counter-attack as well as harass forces near the front line. The division of the mainly Sunni north and Shia'a south would mean that the coalition forces would quickly be drawn into a policing and humanitarian quagmire that would draw away anything up to 50% or more of the forces to contain small pockets of militias loyal to Saddam, while attempting to restructure the connurbations and infrastructure around them so that the people do not become hostile.
Diplomatically the UN will not sanction the effective division of the country as the French and Germans would see it as territorial gains which they would argue is sanctioning the initial use of force by other means. Coalition forces would see this as a loose-loose situation as it does not achieve the objective of the removal of Saddam and a unified, more democratic Iraq which is western facing.
The Russians are already nervous of the $3bn contracts awaiting payment on the lifting of sanctions being declared null and void if a colaition-led administration is in place. They would prefer either the current regime staying in place, or an American led on that they can bargain with. A split country with 2 administrations, 1 western coalition, the other Saddam in a state of siege does not suit their objectives.
(2) Agreed, however this should be done under the banner of the UNHCR and ICRC with military support. Already the US are asking for an extra 4000 troops to support humanitarian operations to free 7th Arm Bgde from looking after refugees and POWs.
The only way we can now secure a desirable outcome is to maintain momentum into the fight and as the MSR becomes extended establish FMAs (as is happening) with a rolling FFMA. A seperate LogOp for humanitarian aid should be opened using the exisiting aid organisations and their infrastructure until such a time as the objectives are won and the transition is made from offensive to peace-keeping operations begins, at which point the UN should be encouraged to take control of the aid programme with jiont US/Arab funding.
The issues I see emerging from that are:
1. The holding off of coalition forces would allow Saddam to consolidate his forces and bolster his defences around known lines. Any coalition troop movements would give an early warning of where the next line of advance may come from and give Saddam more of an opportunity to counter-attack as well as harass forces near the front line. The division of the mainly Sunni north and Shia'a south would mean that the coalition forces would quickly be drawn into a policing and humanitarian quagmire that would draw away anything up to 50% or more of the forces to contain small pockets of militias loyal to Saddam, while attempting to restructure the connurbations and infrastructure around them so that the people do not become hostile.
Diplomatically the UN will not sanction the effective division of the country as the French and Germans would see it as territorial gains which they would argue is sanctioning the initial use of force by other means. Coalition forces would see this as a loose-loose situation as it does not achieve the objective of the removal of Saddam and a unified, more democratic Iraq which is western facing.
The Russians are already nervous of the $3bn contracts awaiting payment on the lifting of sanctions being declared null and void if a colaition-led administration is in place. They would prefer either the current regime staying in place, or an American led on that they can bargain with. A split country with 2 administrations, 1 western coalition, the other Saddam in a state of siege does not suit their objectives.
(2) Agreed, however this should be done under the banner of the UNHCR and ICRC with military support. Already the US are asking for an extra 4000 troops to support humanitarian operations to free 7th Arm Bgde from looking after refugees and POWs.
The only way we can now secure a desirable outcome is to maintain momentum into the fight and as the MSR becomes extended establish FMAs (as is happening) with a rolling FFMA. A seperate LogOp for humanitarian aid should be opened using the exisiting aid organisations and their infrastructure until such a time as the objectives are won and the transition is made from offensive to peace-keeping operations begins, at which point the UN should be encouraged to take control of the aid programme with jiont US/Arab funding.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I bloody well knew it
Why keep them in massed formations in the desert, to be bombed to ******* by B-52's? Do we think he hasn't learnt his lesson from last time? I'd be interested to know, if the formations we have been bombing, are the same size as compositions in GW1? How do we know, that his Tanks and BDR's/BMP's arent parked in domestic garages in towns?
Sergeant Duane Gardner, of the Queen's Royal Lancers, said: "Civilians tell us that the militia have piled into Basra.
"All their kit, their army - apparently the tanks are hidden in the shop windows and under car parks."
KBF
Point 1, agreed to some extent, but I think Saddam, or whoever is really running the show, will just give the impression of bolstering around known lines. I think he's using the sandstorm to move not armour, but light columns, in commercial vehicles. Have you noticed how much traffic is still rolling around Iraq? the armour is staying where he needs it. yes, elements of the 3rd line are getting sacrificed T-55's et al , but I think that's to maintain the illusion. The best troops and equipment, are still to be committed. Agreed about the force commitment to policing at this stage too, but I suspect, it would be a bit higher than 50%
Point 2.
Agreed, but time is a constraint. The rabble rousers are busy around the Middle East. how long, before we see truckloads of volunteers? I believe the first buses have already left, with the martyr volunteers. An arab led humanitarian effort, has to be started, and well publicised, not the disgrace we saw in Safawan the other day.
The bare facts are, we haven't got enough troops in theatre , to comfortably achieve the stated objective, whatever it is this week, be it Regime change/WMD removal/Humanitarian aid. We just haven't got enough bodies on the ground. You and I know people are getting frustrated, with what is rapidly turning into a hot sandy KFOR operation. Get the UN involved now, let's get some Arab blue berets on the ground in small numbers, to gain some trust, and move the focus back on to ending this.
Sorry, bit simplistic, but the Cider is going down well
