Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DON'T FEAR ARAB ARMIES
New York Post ^ | 9/30/02 | JAMES A. LACEY

Posted on 09/30/2002 2:10:01 AM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:09:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

DURING the Gulf War, Israel absorbed 39 Iraqi Scud missiles without retaliation. In recent days, senators from both parties have raised the alarm that an Israeli response this time around would lead to a wider war - we'd find ourselves fighting the entire Arab world.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/30/2002 2:10:01 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
They give up as fast as the French.
2 posted on 09/30/2002 2:14:49 AM PDT by bmwcyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Finally, an analysis based on facts.
3 posted on 09/30/2002 2:14:53 AM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
No, It is still conjecture. If they got any people to the ground, all they have to do is hand out rifles. One man, 10 rounds, go into battle. It would still be a loss on their side, but no modern country ever faced 500,000 soldiers each with a rifle on the ground at their borders when their borders are the size of New Jersey. Many would die.

Problem would be getting to fight, that's all.

4 posted on 09/30/2002 2:48:10 AM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
I'm not the least bit worried about muslim armies. Why would any despot put his throne at risk when terrorism works so well? They get everything they want with it, and it looks like the west is content to lie back and take it.
5 posted on 09/30/2002 3:00:30 AM PDT by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I respect your opinion but it is a matter of technology and firepower. If they mass their rifle platoons then we kill them. If they turn it into a guerilla war then one must assume that the native populace supports the current regime, which I don't believe. Remember, their trained soldiers couldn't wait to quit last time against us. They exhibited similar behavior each time they have attacked Israel. I can't imagine islamic civilians would be more loyal and steadfast than their soldiers. Living under tyranny does not engender those qualities that we most admire. However, your premise is well taken when you consider groups of determined resistors, e.g. the Jews at Warsaw who accomplished much with less than you posit.

Even the lessons of RVN are now forgotten when discussions take place about asymmetric warfare. The unchallenged assumption is that we were beaten by an unconventional guerilla force because of their determination to throw us out of the country. Untrue. They won that conflict in the newspapers of our own country, in the halls of Congress, and in executive office staff conferences. Our military application of availanle resources was limited by politics not by potential.

6 posted on 09/30/2002 3:03:36 AM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
It would still be a loss on their side, but no modern country ever faced 500,000 soldiers each with a rifle

Oh yes. March up 500,000 soldiers with rifles. In the sand.

Can you say "testing ground"? I'd like to test cluster bombs. Bet there is even more fun stuff that needs testing :).

7 posted on 09/30/2002 3:06:46 AM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
all they have to do is hand out rifles. One man, 10 rounds, go into battle.

No, I don't think so. This isn't Korea anymore, or the Iran-Iraq war. Human-wave attacks will do nothing but get all the humans in the wave killed. Come to think of it, that's what happened to the Iranian untrained soldiers used in mass attacks.

A modern army just has too much firepower. Massed attacks can only be effective in a limited scale ambush in rugged country where modern firepower cannot be brought to bear.

8 posted on 09/30/2002 3:12:13 AM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
Finally, an analysis based on facts.

A big AMEN to that! Enough of the pathetic, fearful, scaremongering.

9 posted on 09/30/2002 3:34:33 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
500,000 riflemen.. YAWN! 10 daisy cutters should do the trick.
10 posted on 09/30/2002 3:36:07 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
We didn't fight the Republican Guard and we just drove their “expendable” troops back in disarray a couple hundred miles.

As for civilians fighting, a case in point are the “Sammis” in Mogadishu. Sure we dropped a lot of them but they kept coming.

Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on. If we had left South Korea after the truce, I'm sure the end would have been the same.

Basically, you don't know how the masses will react to a full-blown invasion of their nation.

We were lucky in Afghanistan. There was a strong, well-equipted opposition force waiting to help out when we arrived.

11 posted on 09/30/2002 3:39:02 AM PDT by johnny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
We didn't fight the Republican Guard and we just drove their “expendable” troops back in disarray a couple hundred miles.

I believe if you will go back and review the facts that you will find that we hit the RG hard in their own barracks and in the field. Their decision to withdraw any distance at all was influenced greatly by their losses.

As for civilians fighting, a case in point are the “Sammis” in Mogadishu. Sure we dropped a lot of them but they kept coming.

We were certainly facing a conglomeration of militia kinds of forces there. No "organized" forces were in existence. We also, thanks to X42 did not have a full menu of capabilities to deal with the situation, e.g. no armored options and a meager air attack capability. The political will to kill our attackers was a direct result of Clintons policy to not turn our meals on wheels program into a full fledged military capability to defeat some two-bit warlords armed with rat scout jeeps and RPGs. Our underequipped forces acquitted themselves well, killing over 1,000 of the attacking rabble despite setting out on a 30 minute raid.

Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on. If we had left South Korea after the truce, I'm sure the end would have been the same.

You missed my point entirely. Please reread the original post.

Basically, you don't know how the masses will react to a full-blown invasion of their nation.

One never knows for sure. I recounted the history of islamic forces when faced with overwhelming firepower. You need look no further than the Israeli defense to get an idea. In every conflict, the trained iislamic attackers abandoned their positions and vehicles to escape their perceived annihilation. You do not remember our Iraqi opponents surrendering to CNN reporters? You do not remember seeing video of our soldiers pointing surrendering Iraqis to rear positions without supervision because the numbers of surrenders were just too large to deal with?

We were lucky in Afghanistan. There was a strong, well-equipted opposition force waiting to help out when we arrived.

Luck had very little to do with it. That was engineered. Do not forget that there are large groups of dissidents, e.g. Kurds who would like nothing better than to kill a few Iraqis. Saddam has killed off a lot of members of opposing clans who would love to exact revenge under their own islamic codes of (dis)honor. His murders over time number at least in the hundreds of thousands. This does not breed a fierce monolithic loyalty.

12 posted on 09/30/2002 4:03:46 AM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on

Because it was America's will to fight on that was destroyed, and that was destroyed by Americans - basically the same crowd that today wants appeasement with the Arabs and destruction of American society, and of Israel.

13 posted on 09/30/2002 4:06:10 AM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
Exactly! The similarities are undeniable.
14 posted on 09/30/2002 4:20:01 AM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
>>500,000 soldiers each with a rifle on the ground<<

Yes, but how many would be left after a single pass of a 4-ship of A-10s?
15 posted on 09/30/2002 4:20:42 AM PDT by NerdDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
no modern country ever faced 500,000 soldiers all twelve years old or less each with a rifle on the ground at their borders

You left out something critical

16 posted on 09/30/2002 4:24:02 AM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
""Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on""

Humbug!!! We could have destroyed the North's ability to fight back at any time.

Remember the 1972 Christmas air offensive. We destroyed all of the north's air defenses, their telecommunications, mined their ports and canals, destroyed all of the highway and rail bridges that had been off limits for 6 years, knocked out the major electrical generation plants, etc., etc.

After a mere seven days North Vietnam did not have the capability to continue a 20th century war. "Will to fight on" was all they had left. That "Will" would have been irrelevant if the USA had had the will to continue.
17 posted on 09/30/2002 4:27:26 AM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The title might be placed in a different context. Fear the Lord God, instead.

If Iraq or a handful of nation sympathizers generate several hundred to thousand portable WMD and then distributed these to any disparate group or individual who had no 'homeland'. And further, if Hussein promotes the identical incentive to fight 'America', which he promoted to his people when they invaded Kuwait,.....then an assymetric warfare would arise within the borders of the US with the spoils of 'war' as whatever was leftover for the grabs of those seeking to loot the US.

Consider this scenerio for a moment.

If multiple WMD were used within the US, even a handful, and a large number still remained distributed amongst disparate groups, then even a retaliatory strike wouldn't remove that threat, but most likely we would suffer continued attack.

If such activity were linked to Iraq, then most probably a grouping from Europe would invade southerly to seize the region, the Chinese would probably invade from the east to seize the area with overwhelming numbers, and even a coalition from the African continent would seek to defend its interests by moving north.

Even during WWII, I don't recall another series of events this close to reality, which all seem to converge upon descriptions of the Apocalyse in Scripture.

A nations without walls being attacked for its loot, Kingdom of the East with 200 million invading across the Euphrates. An idenitfication of likely groups forming kingdoms of the north and south where the kingdom of the west (the US) is naturally not mentioned.

An interesting Prophecy,...but then again some people just really believe the Bible is myth. Of course if its just myth then this really wouldn't be happening?????? or just maybe it isn't quite so mythical.

18 posted on 09/30/2002 4:45:11 AM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The fundamentalists think the end times are near. I wonder who the mighty military/economic power that attempts to rule the world is going to be?
19 posted on 09/30/2002 5:07:21 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
One man, 10 rounds, go into battle. It would still be a loss on their side, but no modern country ever faced 500,000 soldiers each with a rifle on the ground at their borders when their borders are the size of New Jersey.

On July 1, 1916, at the Somme, 27 British and French divisiions -- 750,000 men -- had been assembled over a 30 kilometer front. The German lines had been bombarded for eight solid days by 1,500 pieces of heavy artillery.

By the end of the first day, the British army casualties totalled 57,470. By the end of the battle, the cost was 420,000 British casualties plus 200,000 French casualties.

The British and French gained 12 kilometers of ground.

Such tactics had become obsolete two generations earlier.

On June 3, 1864, at Cold Harbor, Virginia, 50,000 Union troops from three Union corps climbed out of their trenches and advanced in a two-mile-long line against entrenched Confederate positions defended by men armed with muzzle-loaders.

In half an hour, they had lost 7,000 men and retreated.

Grant ordered another attack. The Union soldiers all along the line refused to obey. One Capt. T.E. Barker said, "I will not take my regiment in another such charge if Jesus Christ himself should order it!"

Five hundred thousand Arab troops (assuming they were secretly and safely transported over desert terrain over which Israel enjoys total air superiroty with modern aircraft and assuming they have a massive infusion of courage that they have seldom shown on the battlefield) will fare no better against Israeli defenses especially in desert terrain where the Israeli Air Force owns the skies.

20 posted on 09/30/2002 5:54:39 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
That's why GOD and Dupont created Napalm, It would make a TARGET RICH ENVIRNOMENT !!!!
21 posted on 09/30/2002 6:14:38 AM PDT by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Actually, Israel has been in a far worse position. In 1948, she had 16,000 soldiers (most of whom had little or no training), 10,000 rifles and faced a well-equipped and well-trained Arab league which had more than 100,000 soldiers. Eight months laters, Israel managed to end the fight.
22 posted on 09/30/2002 6:31:35 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
It is very foolish to underestimate the enemy.
23 posted on 09/30/2002 6:42:13 AM PDT by chukcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
A modern army just has too much firepower.

Like the AC-110 gun ship?

24 posted on 09/30/2002 6:47:28 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is ridiculous. Hasn't this guy heard of September 11 when these scumbags attacked America.
25 posted on 09/30/2002 6:57:19 AM PDT by adam stevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com


STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.
VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794


26 posted on 09/30/2002 7:17:46 AM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
Just imagine the carnage a flight of AC130s would do to a massed army of riflemen in the open. Truly shooting fish in a barrel. And that does not even count the most devastating components of the US arsenal.
27 posted on 09/30/2002 7:22:15 AM PDT by astounded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Some of the comparisons to Korea and Vietnam just don't apply here. In the desert, there is no place to hide from our overwhelming air power. Desert warfare with the United States would only bring about complete destruction of the arab armies. I'm picturing napalm, daisy cutters, cluster bombs.... Much like the '91 Gulf War, they would be decimated long before they ever got a close up view of the American infantry. It is true that Egypt has the most military power of the bunch, but they have voiced their opinion recently that they are not interested in taking on the Israeli's solo. And the rest of the Arab states are either too broke or too disorganized to join in.
28 posted on 09/30/2002 9:24:04 AM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But they'd have to cross the Suez Canal - and keep crossing it with thousands of tons of supplies a day. In the era of smart weapons, where one bomb kills one bridge, the canal is an insurmountable barrier - especially with the Israeli army waiting on the opposite bank.

Geez . . . couldn't they just part the Red Sea and split???

29 posted on 09/30/2002 9:50:34 AM PDT by GeekDejure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Well, this is just dandy, but it isn't their armies we have to fear anyway. It wasn't an Arab army that flew the planes on 9/11. Unless we do something about the enemy in our midst, we will continue to suffer terrorist attacks. I can see it now. All of our troops are stationed overseas while we suffer major terrorist attacks at home. It's insane.
30 posted on 09/30/2002 9:58:55 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
The US Military [Israelis excluded] have tremendous force multipliers in its arsenal...a major one being presicion guided munitions and even to a lesser extent dumb bombs drops by computer...a half million man army dispersed along a border the size of New Jersey would make for a target rich environment.

As for Israel...terrain is a really big force multiplier for them...there are only a few approaches for legitimate forces to come through...Arab men with rifles can be easily shot by better trained Israeli men with rifles...so the only thing that will help Arabs is mech, that is where the Avenue of Approach comes into play....if I remember correctly....one company of Israelis held off Syrains Division[s] because they controlled key territory.

500,000 or 5,000,000 an Arab army in its current form and doctrine is still minced meat to any Israeli meatgrinder.

IMHO

31 posted on 09/30/2002 10:01:35 AM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
It is good that the Arabs do not have a cluster bomb delivery system, it is just the thought of all thoose Jonny Jihads lined up with spears, some are going to get through.
32 posted on 09/30/2002 1:15:46 PM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Geeze Race, just finished watching reruns of Ken Burns' Civil War, sounds like Pickett's Charge. Your scenario requires that we remain stationary or in a defined location. The type of attack that you describe would be effective on a CVN Task Force relying on defense in depth. Air Cav with suffcient choppers would be hard to mass against.
33 posted on 09/30/2002 1:26:09 PM PDT by Jimmy Valentine's brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
No, It is still conjecture. If they got any people to the ground, all they have to do is hand out rifles. One man, 10 rounds, go into battle. It would still be a loss on their side, but no modern country ever faced 500,000 soldiers each with a rifle on the ground at their borders when their borders are the size of New Jersey. Many would die.

DPICM means never having to say you're sorry.

34 posted on 09/30/2002 1:28:34 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robe
That's why GOD and Dupont created Napalm

You mean the got it wrong back in the sixties? I thought it was DOW Chemical Napalm that the leftists were protesting.

You don't think there's a connection between the sixties protests against DOW Chemical and the breast implant suits twenty years later against DOW-Corning do you?

35 posted on 09/30/2002 1:34:21 PM PDT by Jimmy Valentine's brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine's brother
LOL! It is not ME that would believe in a Pickett's Charge, I hope that isnt what it sounds like, I just think they might. Although, the infiltratin of them, in the surrounding countryside and otherwise, I do not think they will voluntarily line up to be shot, but that does not mean that thousands wont be with a rifle on the street corner where the organized masses of troops arent.

It is the 'organized' chaos theory I guess, many of them, armed, within and without, spread out like a measles, taking out center and edge defenses, instead of facing the front line in battle.

Let's all remember, there were 750,000 rifles captured when Israel attacked Beruit in 83 to push the PLO to the sea. That was almost 20 years ago, and with knowlege of the KARIN-A and Arafat, how many rifles are there in country there now, awaiting the command?

I dont think my idea is a flawless one for them to accomplish, jusst a nasty one, hard fought, winnable, but bloody none the less.

36 posted on 09/30/2002 3:10:41 PM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Dead on
37 posted on 09/30/2002 3:13:51 PM PDT by philetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chukcha
It is very foolish to underestimate the enemy.

That is all well and good. Assuming you have an enemy worthy of estimation. If you seriously believe that the Arab populations would fight for their King/Prince/Father of the people, I've got a nice tract of marshland to sell you. Suitable for an Arab air base.

38 posted on 09/30/2002 3:24:33 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson