The War in Ira: Redefining and Refocusing

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 8 2004, 06:51 PM
It is sad that many more soldiers have lost their lives after "the fighting is over" than during the battle.

The monotonous mantra repeated once again. It's not sad. It's a political slogan. Have you stopped to think that this statistic is only possible because of how amazingly successful the war itself was? It was historic. I assume you have some knowledge of history. Compare the casualties to any comparable operation in the past. Truly baffling. There are only a few in history at this scale which compare. The only one I can even think of that compares is the German invasion of Yugoslavia during World War II.
Gulf War I was much simpler.

Forget the CIA numbers. Forget WMD. Most people thought that urban warfare itself would create mass US casualties. A siege of Fortress Baghdad would be long and bloody. Remember? Not because of WMD but because of logical comparisons to the entire history of urban warfare which has been for the most part, extremely bloody. All of us remember the countless articles reminding us of the lessons of the siege of Leningrad.

What most people didn't know about beforehand was the incredible computerized coordination between air surveillance and ground teams - to the point that teams on the ground knew where targets were before they entered an area of town. "Shock and Awe" worked. Most Iraqi soldiers went home. They were no Viet Cong.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 8 2004, 07:13 PM