Is the US Military Losing the Battle for Hearts and Minds in Iraq?

[Art]

Not at all accurate, but since you brought WW2 up, and the US military is again being depicted as a bunch of irresponsible Yahoos with 500lb bombs, let me just remind you that while all others (including the British) performed night-time raids on population centres because it was too difficult to accurately target the smaller plants and bases with the AA capabilities during daytime, it was only the 8th airforce that performed daytime raids, specifically targeting infrastructure and airbases, and the Americans paid dearly for that.
How quickly they forget.

It's kind of relevant that the US bombers in the Japanese theatre the B29s, could drop their munitions from a far greater height than the British thus staying above the fighter sceens. In europe they used mainly the B17 flying fortress which had a huge amount of close contact defensive weapon systems on board.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's kind of relevant that the US bombers B29s could drop their munitions from a far greater height than the British thus staying above the fighter sceens.

B-29s were not used in Europe. Mostly it was B-17s ("Flying Fortresses") and B-24s ("Liberators"). They didn't fly higher than the British bombers and they, as the saying goes, took a lot of flak. They did have better accuracy although there was no great effort to minimize collateral damage.

 

[Art]

B-29s were not used in Europe. Mostly it was B-17s ("Flying Fortresses") and B-24s ("Liberators"). They didn't fly higher than the British bombers and they, as the saying goes, took a lot of flak. They did have better accuracy although there was no great effort to minimize collateral damage.

Yes' I was just amending my original post to distinguish between the two different theatres

 

[Yonoz]

It's kind of relevant that the US bombers in the Japanese theatre the B29s, could drop their munitions from a far greater height than the British thus staying above the fighter sceens.

The 8th air force operated in the European theatre.

In europe they used mainly the B17 flying fortress which had a huge amount of close contact defensive weapon systems on board.

That still does not alter the fact that while other air forces flew bombing missions at night time to avoid casualties (and as a result could only target civilian populations most of the time), the US 8th airforce sacrificed many men so that they could bomb actual targets. The amount of defence on board is also irrelevant as the massive losses occurred in spite of it.
The point I am trying to make is that the US military is not the pack of war-mongers it is made to be (most of the time, I'm just as appalled as the next person over the prisoner abuses).

 

[alexandra]

Almost all of the suicide attacks are committed by foreign fighters. Their imprint is far larger than their representation in the insurgency would suggest.

Evidence, please? (Truly, I'm interested in hard facts on this issue).

 

[alexandra]

Art wrote:

As I intimated earlier insurgents need a massive support infrastructure to operate effectively...

, to which you responded:

Bull****. If you know where to get explosives and ammunition, and you know how to use telephones, what else do you need except an occasional pick up between cities and a place to eat and sleep? Don't make claims you can't even back up qualitatively, let alone quantitatively.

Rev Prez

And here's what globalsecurity.org has to say about this:

Chapter V. Conclusion

Since Che Guevara's death in 1967, the nature of guerrilla
warfare has changed little. Whether one is a student of Sun-Tuz,
Clausewitz, Nepoleon, Mao-Tse-Tung or Che Guevara, it is obvious
that the activity of war is conducted in accordance with a set
of fundamental precepts which have remained constant throughout
history. The only thing that has changed and which continues to
evolve is how these principles are applied to meet the challenges
posed by the different physical environments and situations in
which wars are fought.

Marines deployed to conduct counter-guerrilla operations can
expect to face a crafty well trained opponent equipped with many
of the same lethal and sophisticated weapons available in the
Corps' own inventory. Operating from secure bases in remote
rural areas and hidden urban enclaves, the guerrilla fighter will
have the distinct advantages of knowing the terrain upon which he
operates, a total commitment to the cause for which he is fight-
ing and the moral support from his fellow citizens. In such a
situation, Marine Corps forces must be willing to fight a war of
repeated limited engagements where manuever, mass and security
will be paramount. They must also be prepared to suffer the
manpower attrition associated with this kind of warfare.
Reference: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/CJK.htm

My point? Perhaps you should do some research before responding to others' posts..?

 

[Art]

The 8th air force operated in the European theatre.
That still does not alter the fact that while other air forces flew bombing missions at night time to avoid casualties (and as a result could only target civilian populations most of the time), the US 8th airforce sacrificed many men so that they could bomb actual targets. The amount of defence on board is also irrelevant as the massive losses occurred in spite of it.
The point I am trying to make is that the US military is not the pack of war-mongers it is made to be (most of the time, I'm just as appalled as the next person over the prisoner abuses).

Strategic air bombing with the aim to demoralise and break the will of an enemy by flattening it's cities was first put forward as a theory in England shortly after the end of WW1 following the success Germany had achieved in demoralising the British with it's Gotha bomber raids on London in 1917-18. It was championed in England by Major-General Hugh Trenchard and in 1920 in the USA was enthusiastically supported by Brigadier-General Warren Mitchell. The navigation and range finding equipment available in the first few years of the war were totally inadequate for pinpoint bombing by day or night. In Aug 1941 the Butt report showed that only 10% of British bombers were succeeding in dropping their bombs within 5 miles of the target. In Feb 1942 'Bomber' Harris became CIC of bomber command. His idea was to compensate for poor accuracy with sheer numbers and began his 1000 bomber raids in May of that year. Although he was the chief architect and proponent of the attacks on German cities it is wrong to suggest the American 8th USAAF did not participate. For example the centre of Hamburg was flattened in joint British/USA raids involving 800 bombers on the 24th and 26th July 1943. Radar and nightfighters had made it very dangerous for bombers whether they attacked by day or by night and in fact British losses over Berlin, between Nov 43 - Mar 44, of 5.2% losses (1047 lost and 1682 damaged) resulted in the campaign being abandoned.
The Americans did not fly at night for the simple reason they had not been trained to at that time and so did not assist in the campaign over Berlin because to attack during the day would have been suicide. After the Berlin bombing Harris's masters who were unconvinced that strategic air bombing was having the desired effect ordered him to redirect his forces to attack the luftwaffe and it's supporting infrastructure to prepare the way for the 'D' day landings. He did so reluctantly but in the event the combined bomber forces were very successful to the extent that the Germans defending the beaches are said to have had a joke; "If it's blue it's British, if it's silver it's American and if it's invisible it's ours"
In summary your overall claim that the American forces did not target civilian population centres in europe is wrong although I agree not to the same extent as the British. However in the Japanese theatre the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were inarguably attacks on civilian centres as was the fire bombing of Tokyo.

 

[Yonoz]

In summary your overall claim that the American forces did not target civilian population centres in europe is wrong although I agree not to the same extent as the British. However in the Japanese theatre the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were inarguably attacks on civilian centres as was the fire bombing of Tokyo.

This is far more than "not to the same extent". The operational concept was completely different. Sure you can find an example of a few instances where US bombers paticipated in bombing of cities, but as a whole the Americans did not bomb cities as a strategy whereas the Brits and Germans did.
The use of the bombs on Japan is another concept, I wouldn't mind discussing it but I know exactly what the discussion is going to deteriorate into.

 

[Art]

This is far more than "not to the same extent". The operational concept was completely different. Sure you can find an example of a few instances where US bombers paticipated in bombing of cities, but as a whole the Americans did not bomb cities as a strategy whereas the Brits and Germans did.
The use of the bombs on Japan is another concept, I wouldn't mind discussing it but I know exactly what the discussion is going to deteriorate into.

The British strategic air offensive was part of a joint effort with it's operational parameters agreed at the Washington Conference. General H. H. Arnold the Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces was convinced that if bombers were well armed and armoured, flew high enough and in close formation they could make daylight raids without suffering heavy casualties. This proved a fallacy as did the RAF's belief in evading interference by operating at night.
On more than "a few" occasions US bombers did try daylight attacks on German cities but their losses were horrendous. A few examples; in the Bremen raid April 17th 1943 of 115 bombers deployed 16 were lost and 44 damaged. In the Kiel raid of June 13th the loss was 22 out of 66 B17s. In a raid on Hanover in July losses were 24 out of 92; against Berlin on July 28th it was 22 out of 120.
My point is that while it is certain that the US signed up to the strategic air offensive and it's targets (including civilian population centres) at the Washington Conference, it is less certain whether the USAAF dropped fewer munitions on German cities because of the moral issues or because it was just too dangerous to do it during the day. My own opinion is it was a mixture of both reasons which is why I said earlier that I would consider 'Bomber Harris' to be the most culpable in the deliberate targeting of civilians.
The key conclusion of all of this is that post-war analysis determined that Harris's fixation on trying to bomb the Germans into submission was counter-productive and actually lenghtened the war by several months as it diverted resources from far more worthwhile targets.

 

[Yonoz]

It's incredible what lengths you'll go to in order to avoid giving anything American the little credit it deserves.

 

[Art]

It's incredible what lengths you'll go to in order to avoid giving anything American the little credit it deserves.

Like researching FACTS you mean??

 

[Yonoz]

Like researching FACTS you mean??

Look at the way you phrase this:

My point is that while it is certain that the US signed up to the strategic air offensive and it's targets (including civilian population centres) at the Washington Conference, it is less certain whether the USAAF dropped fewer munitions on German cities because of the moral issues or because it was just too dangerous to do it during the day. My own opinion is it was a mixture of both reasons which is why I said earlier that I would consider 'Bomber Harris' to be the most culpable in the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The facts remain, the British bombed mainly during the night, the Americans didn't and targeted less civilian targets. You bend head over heels to twist this so that you would not have to acknowledge that the Americans showed superior morals to other nations.

 

[russ_watters]

It's incredible what lengths you'll go to in order to avoid giving anything American the little credit it deserves.

Like researching FACTS you mean??

Well, he could also mean like moving vastly off topic and arguing against your own facts once you realized the facts were no longer in your favor. Remember the 40 vs 2? Those numbers are facts - or at least they were until you realized what they meant and insinuated that the 40 was wrong, then quickly changed topic to general US-bashing.

No, no bias for you...

 

[Art]

Well, he could also mean like moving vastly off topic and arguing against your own facts once you realized the facts were no longer in your favor. Remember the 40 vs 2? Those numbers are facts - or at least they were until you realized what they meant and insinuated that the 40 was wrong, then quickly changed topic to general US-bashing.

No, no bias for you...

Russ I have no idea what you are rabbiting on about... in your haste to attack the messenger you do not seem to have read the message,
I will agree that WW2 is off topic but if you check back you will see I didn't raise this sub-topic, I responded to other people's posts. Far from US bashing I thought my comments with regard to USAAF activities during the war were very even handed and supported my opinions with FACTS. If I had simply wanted to bash America I would have harped on about Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I didn't.
As for the common mis-conception that the US bombed during the day to ensure accuracy, this is simply nonsense. I have already provided the FACTUAL reaons why the US bombed by day and the British bombed by night. With the equipment available in 1943 it was quite simply impossible to drop bombs with an accuracy greater than a few miles from a height of 37,500 ft (the ceiling for the B17) which btw was 10,000 ft higher than the ceiling for the British Lancaster bomber. http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html http://www.worldaircorps.com/airplanes/am239.htm
I had no intentions of using this thread to flame Americans. My intention was to suggest that perhaps a change in tactics might SAVE American lives. How this is construed as bias against Americans is totally beyond me.

 

[Smurf]

It's incredible what lengths you'll go to in order to avoid giving anything American the little credit it deserves.

There are a million and one things you could say about America that would give it plenty of credit it deserves. Just because the first one you bring up is refuted so easily doesn't make him anti-american.

 

[Yonoz]

There are a million and one things you could say about America that would give it plenty of credit it deserves. Just because the first one you bring up is refuted so easily doesn't make him anti-american.

Feel free to read previous posts.

 

[russ_watters]

I had no intentions of using this thread to flame Americans. My intention was to suggest that perhaps a change in tactics might SAVE American lives. How this is construed as bias against Americans is totally beyond me.

Ahh, my daily Dilbert. Hilarious, thanks.

 

[Art]

Ahh, my daily Dilbert. Hilarious, thanks.

Another example of your intellectually challenged debating skills eh Russ
Resorting yet again to your ususal tactic of 'If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.'
I refer you to this quote by Samuel Johnson which you might want to consider taking on board http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it_is_better_to_remain_silent_and_be_thought_a/11970.html

 

[russ_watters]

And I am reminded of the famous quote, "you are what you eat..."

Sorry Art, I only make serious responses to serious posts. Absurd posts are met with sarcasm.

 

[Art]

And I am reminded of the famous quote, "you are what you eat..."

Sorry Art, I only make serious responses to serious posts. Absurd posts are met with sarcasm.

Wow, such repartee. Sharp as a cucumber as ever, I see.
Guess you must depasco stercus

 

[Art]

Looks like French Fries are back on the menu.

Withdrawal on the agenda
By Tom Engelhardt

Republican Congressman Walter B Jones (famed for insisting that the Congressional cafeteria re-label French fries as "freedom fries" on its menu), a man who represents North Carolina's 3rd Congressional District, home to the Marine's Camp LeJeune, voted enthusiastically for the Iraq War, but recently changed his mind. Last week he became one of four congressional sponsors of a resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal. "Do we want to be there 20 years, 30 years?" he asked at a Capitol Hill news conference. "That's why this resolution is so important: We need to take a fresh look at where we are and where we're going."

Various explanations for his unexpected change of mind (and heart) have been offered. In the last lines of a June 13 piece, "Sunni-Shi'ite Quarrel Edges Closer to Political Stalemate", New York Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise made the following connection:
[Jones's] remarks came two weeks after military commanders told a Congressional delegation visiting Iraq that it would take about two years before enough Iraqi security forces were sufficiently trained to allow the Pentagon to withdraw large numbers of American troops.

Looks like Cheney's buddies at Halliburton are even pissing off republicans these days.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/news/oil.php

 

[Art]

Even the Pentagon admits Iraq has been a total 'screw up'

THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

Some things never change

Van Langendonck reports that U.S. troops facing fierce resistance from Saddam loyalists in the so-called Sunni Triangle are taking a page out of an old textbook, rewarding Iraqis who cooperate with them, and punishing those who shoot at them by destroying their houses and crops. It didn’t work out very well in Vietnam, and it doesn’t look like it’s working out in occupied Iraq.

http://gnn.tv/articles/392/Special_Iraq_Coverage_Your_Hearts_and_Minds_or_Else

 

[Rev Prez]

As I previously stated the British tried the kill and capture approach for 25 years. It did not work.

Sure it did. The general insurrection lasted six years and went very badly for the IRA.

Not sure what your ratio is supposed to mean??

It means that the Americans physically outnumber the enemy by 7:1. That, and they're kill ratio is roughly 10:1. It's a nice numerical way of saying that most of the bad guys don't have a chance in hell of surviving this.

As for the right track figures I've already answered that.
What are you raving about? You provided the reference, not me, I'm merely quoting from it. Are you disputing your own source?

Where did I dispute my own source?

I could go on...

You could provide a source that actually says what you say it says.

Now where did you hear that? Oh yes Bush said it

Nope.

Which directly contradicts your stance in the previous paragraph.

Why would it? We agree that foreign fighters are far less numerous than former regime elements.

Please at least make an effort to be consistant in your arguments.

I'm still waiting for you to attempt to substantiate yours.

Apart from those requirements you listed, the one thing the insurgents need above all others is the acquiesence of the communities in which they live.

Why the community? Why not just a handful of households?

For example if your next door neighbour went out regularly at night to shoot policemen you would probably report your suspicians to the police but if you detested those same policemen you may decide to keep quiet.

So you've made an argument for having your immediate neighbors in check, although you haven't explained why your neighbors would have to know that you're going out to shoot policemen. Why would the whole community need to know? Especially if you move around a lot?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

And here's what globalsecurity.org has to say about this:

Hmmm...it looks like Globalsecurity has nothing to say on the matter.

My point?

You spell "massive infrastructure" as "moral support of the community?" Not a very impressive one. Try again.

Rev Prez

 

[Smurf]

Russ I have no idea what you are rabbiting on about... in your haste to attack the messenger you do not seem to have read the message,

It took me 9 days but I just got the irony in this statement.

 

[Art]

Sure it did. The general insurrection lasted six years and went very badly for the IRA.

Well who am I to argue after all I only lived in ireland throughout the troubles.

It means that the Americans physically outnumber the enemy by 7:1. That, and they're kill ratio is roughly 10:1. It's a nice numerical way of saying that most of the bad guys don't have a chance in hell of surviving this.

What can I say, you're playing a blinder, 17,700 insurgents killed? Got a source for that ? As for the outcome, time will tell.

Where did I dispute my own source?

You claimed as above that the kill rate was great and yet your report showed the number of insurgents had quadrupled. So looks like more people becoming alienated to me.

You could provide a source that actually says what you say it says.

Sure sounded to me as if junior was blaming all his woes on 'foreign fighters' yet your report shows they make up a small % of the insurgency

Why would it? We agree that foreign fighters are far less numerous than former regime elements.

Good we agree on something

I'm still waiting for you to attempt to substantiate yours.

My what?

Why the community? Why not just a handful of households?
So you've made an argument for having your immediate neighbors in check, although you haven't explained why your neighbors would have to know that you're going out to shoot policemen. Why would the whole community need to know? Especially if you move around a lot?

See response from Alexander re Globalsecurity

 

[Rev Prez]

Well who am I to argue after all I only lived in ireland throughout the troubles.

Are you seriously going to just chalk it up to authority on this one?

What can I say, you're playing a blinder, 17,700 insurgents killed? Got a source for that ? As for the outcome, time will tell.

Yes, I do [1], [2.

You claimed as above that the kill rate was great and yet your report showed the number of insurgents had quadrupled. So looks like more people becoming alienated to me.

The report shows the estimated strength of the insurgency at a given time changing; and the figures derive from DoD estimates correlating the lethality of the insurgency with the killed and captured numbers.

Sure sounded to me as if junior was blaming all his woes on 'foreign fighters' yet your report shows they make up a small % of the insurgency

Then be more specific. Where did the President say that foreign fighters made up the bulk of the insurgency?

My what?

Your arguments. Follow along.

See response from Alexander re Globalsecurity

Already answered.

Rev Prez`

 

[Art]

Are you seriously going to just chalk it up to authority on this one?

Maybe we are at cross purposes here because I haven't a clue what you mean.

Yes, I do [1], [2.

Well your first source is hardly an unbiased source as it is the US military, the second doesn't mention insurgent casualties. The military source would presumably be derived by totting up estimates like the claim of 40 dead insurgents in the article at the start of this thread despite the attack being only from the air and eyewitnesses claiming the number of insurgents killed was 0? Or are the eyewitnesses lying because they are insurgents too? In which case the militaries' report is still wrong because they claimed to have killed them all. Bit of a paradox really.

The report shows the estimated strength of the insurgency at a given time changing; and the figures derive from DoD estimates correlating the lethality of the insurgency with the killed and captured numbers.

Yes it does show the number of insurgents changing - it's upwards. (despite your claim of 17,000 killed or captured) Still looks to me like the insurgency is gaining more support the longer this goes on.

Then be more specific. Where did the President say that foreign fighters made up the bulk of the insurgency?

Read what he said. I am not going to get involved in semantics.

Already answered.

You really have no idea of how urban guerilla warfare is conducted.

 

[Rev Prez]

Maybe we are at cross purposes here because I haven't a clue what you mean.

You appealed to your own authority and leave it at that.

Well your first source is hardly an unbiased source as it is the US military...

What a wonderful world you live in where Zmag is authoritative.

...the second doesn't mention insurgent casualties.

"On 20 October 2003 the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants -- that is: civilians who did not take up arms."

You really have no idea of how urban guerilla warfare is conducted.

Enlighten us.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

Hmmm...it looks like Globalsecurity has nothing to say on the matter.

Yes, it does. Couldn't you read it? I repeat, and highlight the relevant words to make it easy for you to find them:

Chapter V. Conclusion

Since Che Guevara's death in 1967, the nature of guerrilla
warfare has changed little. Whether one is a student of Sun-Tuz,
Clausewitz, Nepoleon, Mao-Tse-Tung or Che Guevara, it is obvious
that the activity of war is conducted in accordance with a set
of fundamental precepts which have remained constant throughout
history. The only thing that has changed and which continues to
evolve is how these principles are applied to meet the challenges
posed by the different physical environments and situations in
which wars are fought.

Marines deployed to conduct counter-guerrilla operations can
expect to face a crafty well trained opponent equipped with many
of the same lethal and sophisticated weapons available in the
Corps' own inventory. Operating from secure bases in remote
rural areas and hidden urban enclaves, the guerrilla fighter will
have the distinct advantages of knowing the terrain upon which he
operates, a total commitment to the cause for which he is fight-
ing and the moral support from his fellow citizens. In such a
situation, Marine Corps forces must be willing to fight a war of
repeated limited engagements where manuever, mass and security
will be paramount. They must also be prepared to suffer the
manpower attrition associated with this kind of warfare.
Reference: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...rt/1988/CJK.htm

You spell "massive infrastructure" as "moral support of the community?" Not a very impressive one. Try again.

Huh? What on Earth do you mean? If you want to discuss something I've written, please follow at least the basic rules of logical discussion and explain what the problem is. Unless we are logical, we cannot discuss things sensibly.

 

[Art]

Seems the US soldiers believe they have lost the battle for hearts and minds.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0507/04/A04-236191.htm

And so much for the much vaunted elimination of the cruelty and excesses of SH's regime with the introduction of the new westernised democratic institutions
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1405971.htm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520186,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html

 

[Rev Prez]

Seems the US soldiers believe they have lost the battle for hearts and minds.

Why do you misrepresent your sources? There isn't a single poll in any of these links.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Why do you misrepresent your sources? There isn't a single poll in any of these links.

Rev Prez

Gosh! You're right there isn't . But then again I didn't say there was? Why don't you try responding to posts as they are actually written rather than to how you would have wished them to be written, it would make a nice change and be a lot more relevent.