Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would Iraq be different?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How would Iraq be different?

    How would the opperation/situation in Iraq be different if instead of a smaller US lead coalition a larger coalition conducted the mission. So many or telling us we should have done this, now tell us why.

  • #2
    Originally posted by BigDog
    How would the opperation/situation in Iraq be different if instead of a smaller US lead coalition a larger coalition conducted the mission. So many or telling us we should have done this, now tell us why.
    Im sure Ivan can answer that, not my field of expertise more of a hobby.
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Temujin
      Im sure Ivan can answer that, not my field of expertise more of a hobby.
      jeez talk about getting pushed into it...

      Militarily, I think the outcome would have been about the same - in part mainly due to the absolute dominance of the Allied Forces.

      If we look at successful OOTW/SASO missions in the 1990s, we see that battlefield dominance must be matched by integrated post-conflict reconstructive energy.

      In the case of northern Iraq, in 1991, this was accomplished with Operation: PROVIDE COMFORT, where the goal of the operation was TRANSITION of the activty to the UN High Commission for Human Rights, or some similar organisation. But even that success was diminished by the fact that the US caused the revolt, it tried to walk away, and it got caught out and had to take responsibility for it;s actions.

      I think a broader Coalition (even non-UN backed) of nations (with key players ofc) would have been more successful in this regard, rather than letting the US stew in it;s own juices - the UN should recognise now that the this conflict is costing more lives each day and it's impartial intervention would free up US troops to go home, calm down Iraqi insurgents, and allow the introduction of Peacekeeping forces from Non-Aligned Nations (such as Muslim Pakistan, and Bangladesh)

      People don;t realise one of the major reasons tha the major countries don't commit troops to peacekeeping missions is because it costs them money - this is the advantage (such as it is) of the lesser-developed nations. The UN peacekeeping stipend per soldier is not enough to cover the wage of an average Western soldier, but for these countries, it actually makes them revenue; hence the reason you always see Bangladeshietc troops on peacekeeping missions - their Govt loves donting troops, and it brings in more money.

      In the Case of East Timor in 1999, Australia cemented their position as head of the Coalition by agreeing to pay for the deployment costs of the ASEAN member nations contigents - this went a long way to ensuring their co-operation, and was a large part in giving INTERFET the legitimacy it had.

      The US could have bribed smaller nations into committing troops by offering to pay for their deployment and subsising their funding - not a huge ask for the US, as they;d need less boots on ground, and the propaganda boost would be increased - Musharref migh have sent Pakistani forces (most liekly with dire consequences - but they wouldn;t be Us casualties, hence non-interesting to the rest of the World.)

      My perfect Coalition would have seen NO US ground troops inside Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk or Takrit - the US has dominance in material, but it's COIN knowledge is still lacking. This I would have left to countries like Ethiopia, and Canada. (Ethiopia for it's experience in the Eritrean/Tigrean insurgencies, and Canada for it's roles in Rwanda and Bosnia)

      I've talked about Two Phase War in the MMS section, but for this situation, we have the same participants in Iraqi Freedom as !st Phase forces, and then we have the Cannucks, Pakistanis, Indians, Egyptians, etc etc as the Second Phase force - backed by US funding - which is the key.

      But most importantly of all - at the conclusion of combat, again, similar to East Timor, civilian police observers must take a role in pacifying the cities. This is the part that needed the UN, as you're not going to see cops out there otherwise.

      That to me was the big stuff up - not using civil sector people to put a human face on it - sure have them drive around in LAVs and APCs, but have them wear POLICE uniforms, not cams, have them drive through and arrest people for civil crimes, US soldiers included, have them establish themselves as independant arbitrators which Iraqi civilians can go to and file a complaint and know it will be followed up. But the US wouldn't allow this - much as it doesn;t allow "lesser" developed nations officers to command it;s troops.

      I've got more, but it;s late...
      Now listening too;
      - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks Ivan, I would be happy to hear somem ore of your thoughts tommorow if you don't mind.

        Comment


        • #5
          In your own time Ivan what do you think of a rapid deployment force commanded by the UN?

          Do you think it is do-able?

          Personally, while i dont know the broader picture on this i would suggest the troops be recruited from state armies and be fully under UN command. This is an alternative to various states sending formed units and demanding a say in how they are deployed.
          Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Temujin
            In your own time Ivan what do you think of a rapid deployment force commanded by the UN?

            Do you think it is do-able?
            No.

            The only way it will work is if the US is involved - due to their ability to project force. As the US refuses to have it soldiers serve under other nations leaders, the exercise is doomed to fail as the US officers would look to their immediate US superior, and not to the RDF superior, who may be French for example.

            I see the ARRC, and the idea of the SEATO RRF as laudable, and probably more realistic than anything "global".

            Until we see exercises scuh as EUROCORPS and NORTHCORPS working properly, and independently of the respective nations lower command structures, I can't see anything large scale taking place.
            Now listening too;
            - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ivan Rapkinov, your knowledge of world affairs and military issues is most impressive. You are also a great critical thinker and essay writer.

              Our military intelligence and CIA could use people like you; all they know how to do is sodomizing people with chemical lights and beating the crap out of scared 18 year olds. They couldn't catch a real terrorist even if they spotted him sitting in the CIA director's chair with feet on the desk and smoking cigar.

              This country has an abundance of good soldiers but dramatic shortage of folks like you, Rapkinov.
              Last edited by MonsterZero; 22 May 04, 13:19.

              "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
              --Frederick II, King of Prussia

              Comment


              • #8
                Don't forget the ability to to tell NATO to bomb the Chinese embassy in Serbia!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MonsterZero
                  Ivan Rapkinov, your knowledge of world affairs and military issues is most impressive. You are also a great critical thinker and essay writer.

                  Our military intelligence and CIA could use people like you; all they know how to do is sodomizing people with chemical lights and beating the crap out of scared 18 year olds. They couldn't catch a real terrorist even if they spotted him sitting in the CIA director's chair with feet on the desk and smoking cigar.

                  This country has an abundance of good soldiers but dramatic shortage of folks like you, Rapkinov.
                  MZ,

                  While I agree with your praise of Ivan, your criticism of the CIA is absurd. The problem with intelligence services isn't that they can't analyze information well, it's that they don't share well. Something that is improving everyday. Our intelligence services do a great job, despite having been raped and pillaged in the 90's by Congress.

                  Take care,
                  Brian

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X