No announcement yet.

So why are Iraq operations impossible April-September?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So why are Iraq operations impossible April-September?

    OK, I admit I am dull. I once found a good list of reasons but lost the URL.

    Why is it so difficult to fight in Iraq from April to September?

    I assume reasons include vehicle and weapon breakdowns, degraded effectivty of thermal sights and generally less performance from the humans in theater, but does anybody has a more authorative list? Obviously this is a very big deal, otherwise the US administration wouldn't push as much as they do.

    I would also be grateful for pointers to discussion fourms which might concentrate on these and similar questions.


  • #2
    I think April-Sep. is the time for sandstorms and I don't think that modern US attack helicopters or MBTs react too good to tons of sand in their engines
    And termal sights will probably fail if the air is filled with hot sand.
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger


    • #3
      The weather in Iraq is more appropriate for military operations in the desert and possible chemical and biological conditions, with tempertures ranging between 30-60 degrees. However, everyday is getting hotter. By late March and early April the temperture could be in the 80's. By May, they'll certainly be in the high 80's and climbing.

      The higher tempertures threaten the health of soldiers, particulaly considering most will be fighting with chemical protection suites. While US troops train with this gear in hot tempertures, you still don't want them to fight under such circumstances.

      There are also religious considerations. I know people will start making their pilgrimage to Mecca in the next week or so. And there's another holiday coming up very soon (me forget what it's called). While we don't want to attack during this time frame, we might not have a choice.

      Short and sweet, if we're going to attack, it will be in mid to late February or March. Anything after that is too risky.

      Had the French and Germans truly wanted to stop the war, they would have suckered the US into a lengthy debate in the UN on a RESO authorizing the use of force. Then drag it along until April or May. Then we would have little choice, but to sit back and wait until very late this year (if we really want to put ourselves at risk) or until 2004. Bush doesn't want this war interferring with his re-election bid. While there are benefits, there are also great risk that might destroy him by waiting so long.

      Saddam knows all this. That's what makes the situation so dangerous. All Saddam has to do is waiver and turn over some previously unreleased information and we'll have little choice, but to wait. Even now, the Arab Coalition are in Iraq trying to convince Saddam to comply and be more cooperative. He'll say okay, and they'll want to wait. He doesn't need to comply fully, just enough to cast doubt on his continued defiance.

      While I believe there is one shot left for diplomacy. The road is rapidly closing. While I know the Arab League's motives are anything, but honorable, at least they have the guts to go to the man and tell him to comply and get creamed. That's more than I can say for Germany, France, and number of other countries.

      I'm beyond the justification point. If the US is the big bad wolf, we might as well play the part now. Bush should tell Saddam to step down immediately, or face military action. That would prevent him from doing anything that might really create a terrible political distaster for the US.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942


      • #4
        ...because they will have to fight.


        Latest Topics