Hi twfowler; The problem with cities is that they are essentially designed for brutal guerilla warfare. There was a good reason that the Iraqis ran like hell out of Kuwait City when their supply lines were cut off.
Re: "The German's never shut off all access to Stalingrad which made the attack at least ten times harder." I can assure you that in the absence of an attack on the US, our turning Baghdad into a 21st century version of Stalingrad would leave us with a reputation that would require a century to repair. But that's not even my point with this. The point is that cities are natural fortifications. These are not places where the US has the natural advantage. In fact, our armed forces (as compared to the Iraqis or other Arabs) are similar in their advantages and disadvantages to the Germans (as compared to the Russians). But look at what happened to the Germans at Stalingrad:
The highly efficient and well-organized German forces, used to racing over open ground with close artillery and tank support, had no taste for continual close-quarter fighting, much of which took place in Stalingrad's devastated industrial complex. The vaunted German infantry hated close combat; they called it Rattenkrieg. German staff officers were appalled at its waste; they knew it was inexorably chewing up their best stormtroops.
jpost.com
I have no doubt that we can take Baghdad, and that the above description does not apply. Instead, my doubt is in the question of whether or not we can pacify it. These are not small cities filled with people who are chafing under the rule of a hated foreign elite like the Afghanistani cities were. This is a proud and (in their eyes) used to "freedom" and self rule. They are not going to put up well with being under US occupation any better than the Palestinians have put up with Israeli occupation. Note that our troops in Afghanistan are there by invitation.
It's not an accident of history that the 1st world no longer holds colonies in any well populated part of the 3rd world. The 1st world was already driven out of those areas. We do not have the brutality necessary to rule them again. Merely explaining that we are there to help the locals will not convince them to not shoot at us anymore than that same explanation has ever convinced any people to not shoot at their occupiers. If they have the weapons, and they have the hope, they will shoot. This is the way that humans are.
Re: "You think Iran is going to help Saddam? If it does it wont be able to give as much help as Vietnam got." (1) Iran gave Iraq help in the last Gulf War. Since then, relations between the two countries has improved considerably. (2) All the help that the Iraqis need are small arms, and Iran can provide plenty. The border between the two countries is immense. Plus Iraq has several other borders that would be likely to see infiltration. The US can't patrol the borders of Afghanistan despite the unfriendly relations that the Taliban had with all the neighboring countries, or those countries direct alliance with the US. Iraq's border is much much longer than Afghanistan's. Though it is less rugged most of the way, that works both ways as flatter terrain helps speed the movement of supplies. Vietnam was resupplied by people carrying stuff around on bicycles.
Re: "... I was talking about how comitted they where over a very long an very difficult period of fighting, 1st against the French and then against the Americans. They couldn't defeat the Americans in anything much bigger then a skirmish but they won through determination."
Human history is filled with examples of people who fought against invaders for decades. All that it takes is hope.
-- Carl |
