Skip to comments.
Fantasy Iraq Invasion (Part One)
Posted on 11/17/2002 8:18:36 AM PST by Sparta
This the first of a two(maybe more) part Iraqi Fantasy Invasion. We will use part one to gather and post the needed intel for the invasion. I have a website that will help plan our invasion.
posted on 11/17/2002 8:18:36 AM PST
To: sphinx; Toirdhealbheach Beucail; curmudgeonII; roderick; Notforprophet; river rat; csvset; ...
posted on 11/17/2002 8:25:36 AM PST
If you want on or off the Weatern Civilization Military History ping list, let me know.
posted on 11/17/2002 8:26:18 AM PST
To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
posted on 11/17/2002 8:32:28 AM PST
posted on 11/17/2002 8:32:47 AM PST
Out standing post Sparta
Bump for general interest of all armchair generals out there
posted on 11/17/2002 8:35:16 AM PST
Here is a good map indicating terrain and the road nets
Click for larger map
posted on 11/17/2002 8:42:20 AM PST
This is an important map indicating Scud Target areas and origins
Click to enlarge
posted on 11/17/2002 12:00:08 PM PST
Many will discount the piece below but it is important when considering the Western Scud box.
The elimination of the Western Scud Box and protection of Israel and Jordan is priority #1
"King Abdullah and Jordanian ministers have been consistent in denying the presence of American troops on their soil. They insist that Jordanian bases will not serve as jumping off points for an assault against Iraq. These denials were repeated by the Jordanian king, when he called on Saudi crown prince Abdullah in Jedda Monday, August 12.
On this central front, the American war plan calls for a US force, built around a backbone of armored and special forces, to push into western Iraq and seize the strategic group of air bases - H-3 northwest, H-3 northeast, H-3 main base and the H-3 landing strip, which consists of a stretch of highway running from western Iraq across the border into central Jordan. US and Jordanian forces will also capture H-2, northeast of the Iraqi city of Ar Rutbah"
posted on 11/17/2002 1:23:54 PM PST
I like the idea. Let the neo-con armchair chickenhawk generals put their minds to work. (joking)
posted on 11/17/2002 1:45:02 PM PST
The CSIS list of Iraqi Air Targets is Here
Center for Strategic and International Studies
posted on 11/17/2002 1:46:39 PM PST
Excellent post. Also, another good source is the CIA World Handbook for a nation's economy. Also, look on the FAS and Global Security websites.
posted on 11/17/2002 1:53:34 PM PST
Some think the war is currently underway here
While the political and media world in US and Europe is getting hotter with discussion on the campaign against Iraq, some sources around the Turkish intelligence confirm that consistent forces of US and UK are already penetrated in Iraqi territory. They are not only special operations units like the Special Air Service (already since March active behind the Iraqi lines to locate strategic targets, sites of mass destruction weapons and underground bunkers of ballistic Scud missiles ramp) but also conventional units completely deployed in the Iraqi Kurdistan, which is in the northern region situated between the borders with Turkey
posted on 11/17/2002 2:24:42 PM PST
Please add me to your ping list. Thanks.
I would love to be on your ping list.
Although I agree that we have probably already done a lot of work over there, I'm wondering why Sadam hasn't said anything about this. You think that he would be shouting to the rooftops that the evil Americans have violated his territory.
I guess I'll come out as one of the fanatics on this subject, but I'll attempt to make my case. I hope that the moderator will understand my statement as well and allow it to stand without removal. But I feel stongly enough about this that I'll risk my posting priviledges and say what needs to be said.
As long as we make any attempt to keep this conflict "conventional" we have lost our opportunity to end the game once and for all, and must continue this cycle of skirmishes. The only thing that the Islamists understand or respect is ruthlessness - pure violence. Our politically correct methods of avoiding collateral damage goes too far in sterilizing warfare and makes us appear as weaklings to them. War is supposed to be grisly. War is supposed to be Hell on Earth. War is not supposed to be a 3D video game, as that disconnects the warrior from his trade until you get down to the squad level soldiers.
We have no desire to have the camelhumpers like us, but it is in our best interests to have them fear us. In order to accomplish this, our methods and tactics must become more than a modern blitzkrieg - they must become the literal unleashing of Hell's own demons. Our forces need to kill each and every person that they come into contact with inside the opposing force's areas. We need to cheer the sight of an Abrams grinding a Muslim into the sand, not cringe and say how horrible it is. Strategically, we need to start using our nuclear forces on Islam. If we take the challenge that Islam has presented to us - their jihad - and turn it around now, we will win once and for all.
So I say that there is no reason to invade Iraq. There is no reason to send our young men off to fight in that $hithole as is planned now. We need to send them in there only to double tap anything left alive after our SLBMs and ICBMs have done their job. And that job isn't only in Iraq. It is in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, China, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Maylasia, some of the Phillipines, and let's not forget Cuba and North Korea. Given the nuclear forces of both the US and Russia, we'd still have warheads left over.
Yes, I'm talking about the extermination of Islam. It isn't what we want to do, but we must come to terms with the fact that Islam wants all of us DEAD. They don't want us to convert - that's idiotic. They want us DEAD. The fact that these POS camelhumpers can even make that demand of us speaks directly to our perceived impotence in their eyes. They have allies within our borders - the Left in their various disguises - and they need to meet the same fate as the Islamists. I personally don't care if we kill each and every one of them - down to the last woman and child - and I'd certainly do my best to locate and eliminate all of them I could. Total war has been declared on us. So what are we doing? Are we going to sit here and masturbate while we die, or are we going to get off of our politically correct asses and become warriors again? I've had my fill of virtual self-gratification. I'll have my camel steak medium rare, thanks. Let's roll.
posted on 11/17/2002 6:44:44 PM PST
I don't think you're a fanatic, but we don't have to exterminate Islam. All Islam needs is a Reformation and a lot of Western influence.(Yes, I think we can Westernize the Muslims, look at the many American Muslims(not the useful idiots who get on TV) who are loyal Americans serving in the military and the police. I heard a caller to Rush say that he was Moslem and he welcomed profiling so he can feel safe. I'm all for exterminating Islamofascism, but not the extermination of Islam.(It's not necessary)
posted on 11/17/2002 7:04:18 PM PST
Without agreeing with 11B3 in the slightest, I have to take issue with your call for a "Reformation" of Islam. The Reformation was a call within Christendom to clean up corruption and return to Scripture as the foundation of Christianity, to return to the faith of the church Fathers.
In the context of Islam, what would this mean? A return to the much more highly engaged, much more aggressive wars of conquest, pillage and slaughter that Mohammed and his immediate descendants engaged in. No thank you. I much prefer the heretics of Islam, who pay more attention to their conscience, or at least to the possibility of retribution, than their religious dictates.
posted on 11/17/2002 7:49:36 PM PST
I much prefer the heretics of Islam, who pay more attention to their conscience, or at least to the possibility of retribution, than their religious dictates.
My use of the word reformation was not smart. My apologies to all offended Christians. I meant Reformation by shaking off the terrorists and the Islamofascists and by becoming Western by adopting democracy, civil liberties, respect for life, etc. If the people I describe are Islam's heretics, then so be it.
posted on 11/17/2002 7:54:41 PM PST
In the context of Islam, what would this mean?
I favor the Coulter plan. Forced conversion to Christianity. Now that would be an Islamic Reformation. ;-)
posted on 11/18/2002 6:28:24 PM PST
We should take this into account (yes, I know it's from the ultra-liberal Guardian, but it does contain some good info):
If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it
Friday September 6, 2002
At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator.
What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.
In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.
What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory".
If the Pentagon thought it could keep its mishap quiet, it underestimated Van Riper. A classic marine - straight-talking and fearless, with a purple heart from Vietnam to prove it - his retirement means he no longer has to put up with the bureaucratic niceties of the defence department. So he blew the whistle.
His driving concern, he tells the Guardian, is that when the real fighting starts, American troops will be sent into battle with a set of half-baked tactics that have not been put to the test.
"Nothing was learned from this," he says. "A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future." The exercise, he says, was rigged almost from the outset.
Millennium Challenge was the biggest war game of all time. It had been planned for two years and involved integrated operations by the army, navy, air force and marines. The exercises were part real, with 13,000 troops spread across the United States, supported by actual planes and warships; and part virtual, generated by sophisticated computer models. It was the same technique used in Hollywood blockbusters such as Gladiator. The soldiers in the foreground were real, the legions behind entirely digital.
The game was theoretically set in 2007 and pitted Blue forces (the US) against a country called Red. Red was a militarily powerful Middle Eastern nation on the Persian Gulf that was home to a crazed but cunning megalomaniac (Van Riper). Arguably, when the exercises were first planned back in 2000, Red could have been Iran. But by July this year, when the game kicked off, it is unlikely that anyone involved had any doubts as to which country beginning with "I" Blue was up against.
"The game was described as free play. In other words, there were two sides trying to win," Van Riper says.
Even when playing an evil dictator, the marine veteran clearly takes winning very seriously. He reckoned Blue would try to launch a surprise strike, in line with the administration's new pre-emptive doctrine, "so I decided I would attack first."
Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.
It was at this point that the generals and admirals monitoring the war game called time out.
"A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened,'" Van Riper recalls. "And I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre... but nobody seemed interested."
In the end, it was ruled that the Blue forces had had the $250m equivalent of their fingers crossed and were not really dead, while the ships were similarly raised from watery graves.
Van Riper was pretty fed up by this point, but things were about to get worse. The "control group", the officers refereeing the exercise, informed him that US electronic warfare planes had zapped his expensive microwave communications systems.
"You're going to have to use cellphones and satellite phones now, they told me. I said no, no, no - we're going to use motorcycle messengers and make announcements from the mosques," he says. "But they refused to accept that we'd do anything they wouldn't do in the west."
Then Van Riper was told to turn his air defences off at certain times and places where Blue forces were about to stage an attack, and to move his forces away from beaches where the marines were scheduled to land. "The whole thing was being scripted," he says.
Within his ever narrowing constraints, Van Riper continued to make a nuisance of himself, harrying Blue forces with an arsenal of unorthodox tactics, until one day, on July 29, he thinks, he found his orders to his subordinate officers were not being listened to any more. They were being countermanded by the control group. So Van Riper quit. "I stayed on to give advice, but I stopped giving orders. There was no real point any more," he says.
Van Riper's account of Millennium Challenge is not disputed by the Pentagon. It does not deny "refloating" the Blue navy, for example. But that, it argues, is the whole point of a war game.
Vice-Admiral Cutler Dawson, the commander of the ill-fated fleet, and commander, in real life, of the US 2nd Fleet, says: "When you push the envelope, some things work, some things don't. That's how you learn from the experiment."
The whole issue rapidly became a cause celebre at the Pentagon press briefing, where the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, got the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, General Peter Pace, to explain why the mighty US forces had needed two lives in order to win.
"You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" General Pace asked.
Van Riper agrees with Pace in principle, but says the argument is beside the point.
"Scripting is not a problem because you're trying to learn something," he says. "The difference with this one was that it was advertised up front as free play in order to validate the concepts they were trying to test, to see if they were robust enough to put into doctrine."
It is these "concepts" that are at the core of a serious debate that underlies what would otherwise be a silly row about who was playing fair and who wasn't. The US armed forces are in the throes of what used to be called a "Revolution in Military Affairs", and is now usually referred to simply as "transformation". The general idea is to make the US military more flexible, more mobile and more imaginative. It was this transformation that Rumsfeld was obsessed with during his first nine months in office, until September 11 created other priorities.
The advocates of transformation argue that it requires a whole new mindset, from the generals down to the ordinary infantryman. So military planners, instead of drawing up new tactics, formulate more amorphous "concepts" intended to change fundamentally the American soldier's view of the battlefield.
The principal concept on trial in Millennium Challenge was called "rapid, decisive operation" (RDO), and as far as Van Riper and many veteran officers are concerned, it is gobbledegook. "As if anyone would want slow, indecisive operations! These are just slogans," he snorts.
The question of transformation and the usefulness of concepts such as RDO are the subject of an intense battle within the Pentagon, in which the uniformed old guard are frequently at odds with radical civilian strategists of the kind Rumsfeld brought into the Pentagon.
John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington, believes the splits over transformation and the whole Van Riper affair reflect fundamental differences of opinion on how to pursue the war on Iraq.
"One way is to march straight to Baghdad, blowing up everything in your way and then by shock and awe you cause the regime to collapse," Pike says. "That is what Rumsfeld is complaining about when he talks about unimaginative plodding. The alternative is to bypass the Iraqi forces and deliver a decisive blow."
Van Riper denies being opposed to new military thinking. He just thinks it should be written in plain English and put to the test. "My main concern was that we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in an experiment," he says.
The name Van Riper draws either scowls or rolling eyes at the Pentagon these days, but there are anecdotal signs that he has the quiet support of the uniformed military, who, after all, will be the first to discover whether the Iraq invasion plans work in real life.
"He can be a real pain in the ass, but that's good," a fellow retired officer told the Army Times. "He's a great guy, and he's a great patriot, and he's doing all those things for the right reasons."'
To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
posted on 11/20/2002 9:48:09 PM PST
To: timestax; okie01
Here is a thread with war info. If you find the articles mentioned in the other thread, post them here too so we will have as much of the collective FR wisdom as possible in one place.
posted on 01/02/2003 4:42:02 PM PST
To: Sparta; sphinx; Toirdhealbheach Beucail; curmudgeonII; roderick; Notforprophet; river rat; ...
I can't resist .....
The Iraq attack....
A primary objective in the opening hours will be the city of Nasireye thence up the middle to Hilla. The southern troops will conduct the siege from Hilla. No Iraqui units will move south, distance too great, population hostile. This movement will take at least 2 days.
Simultaneously in the west the city and air fields near al Rutbah will be captured. These air bases will provide basing for the siege of Baghdad. The ground forces will proceed eastward to Ramadia. These units will prevent movement of Iraqi units into Syria. This movement will take less than two days.
The attacks from the south and the west will meet little or no resistance and the objectives will be secured.
In the north, a line Tallafar, Mosul, Kirkuk will be secured with the assistance of Kurdish irregulars. Bagdad will be approached from the Northeast, bypassing the forces dug in at the stronghold of Tikrit. This force andits advance elements will prevent movements by Iraqui unite into Iran.
This movement will take between two and three days.
While the ground forces are moving to surround the city of Baghdad, the air arms will be selectively attacking and destroying the entrenched forces, their equipment and their command and control. Psyops will identify specific units and will encourage them to cease their efforts and surrender. Some will be successful and flanks will be turned allowing the rings to be wrapped up. The air operations against Baghdad will take three days.
Within 5 days, Baghdad will fall.
There will be simultaneous activities by forces dedicated to securing rear areas around Basra and the areas to the rear of the Tallfar- Kirkuk line in the north. These forces will seize and hold the oil fields in the north and the south.
posted on 03/19/2003 4:51:08 PM PST
(Don't Panic !)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson