RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


So what do you think the Iraqi strategy is? nm(6 posts)

So what do you think the Iraqi strategy is? nmKristin
Mar 31, 2003 4:08 PM
survive at all costsmohair_chair
Mar 31, 2003 4:28 PM
It's quite simple. Drag it out as long as possible to maximize the number of Americans and Iraqi civilians killed. Bodies stacking up is supposed to change American opinion and world opinion and cause the Americans to pull out.

It's a classic strategy for a small force fighting a much more powerful force. Poke the bear with a stick and run away. Just don't ever get caught!

One of the masters of this strategy was George Washington, who knew he could never afford to lose a battle. But in the beginning, Washington wasn't all that concerned with winning battles, either. Winning wasn't the point--not losing was. The army just had to survive to fight another day.

The Iraqis are in a different situation because they actually have an army that can theoretically match up against the US Army. But the game is the same. Draw the invader in so you can fight them on your own turf, skirmish them all along the way, but always pull back a little when things get too hot. Repeat. You don't have to defeat the invader, just kill 20-30 a day and capture a few. Meanwhile, the invader is killing your civilians and destroying your cities, stacking up their dead, and spending crazy sums of money for reasons that are eventually lost.
and hope for a negotiated settlementMcAndrus
Apr 1, 2003 5:22 AM
I agree. It's nice to see someone else notice the similarities between Iraqi strategy and revolutionary American strategy. From Saddam's perspective, all he has to do is survive to declare a victory.

I think Saddam's also holding out hope for a negotiated settlement brokered by the UN (or someone else). But first, he has to delay, delay, delay in order to wear down the American morale.
and throw in a dose of fanatical suicide bombings andKeeponTrekkin
Apr 1, 2003 7:12 AM
atrocities against the invader and the civilian population just for good measure.

Perversely, it's easier to provide such leadership from the grave because you're now a martyr and your loyal followers can share your martyrdom.
Pick your "atrocity".Charlie Amerique
Apr 1, 2003 9:55 AM
The English considered fighting from behind cover to be an act of terrorism and against the rules of war. They declared George Washingoton a traitor and found him guilty of war atrocities in a court in England (while the war was still being fought).
On the U.S. side, we now have a 25mm autocannon being fired into an un-armoured van carrying civilians.

I worked on Bradleys when I was in the army and I know for a fact that you are not allowed under U.S. rules of engagement you are not allowed to fire anything .50cal ("Ma Duce") or above at unarmoured vehicles. What the hell where these kids thinking?? (besides "I'm scared and I wanna go home.")

Atrocities, like history, are the perview of the victor.
about the same as a rabid dog being poked with a stick nmDougSloan
Apr 1, 2003 7:50 AM