Iraqi military in civilian clothes

[ssardon]

OK, I am hearing Fox News and all the other cable news networks talk about how the Iraqi military are dressing in civilian garb and this is not according to Geneva Conventions rules. Even some of our military leaders are saying this. BUT . . . isn't this part of unconventional warfare. I know that our spec ops people do this. Are we hamstringing them? Is this a blunder on our conventional leaders?

Hearing this struck me as odd as I know that blending in is critical to unconventional warfare.

[steel bonnet]

yes that`s true,though l think it`s because the Gov`s &Military are trying to point out Saddam is usuing this & therefore breaking Geneva Rules.
Of course our SAS/Delta/CIA/SpecOps will be doing the same,though there on the side of Right,therefore it`s okay.
It`s just the press yet again being spoon fed,running with it & not thinking. There quiet happy being used in this Three Way war (Coalition/Anti War & Saddam) & sending info that all THREE sides can use to try & make there case more just.

just wait till they get to bagdad. There is unfortunately going to be a Very large amount of Bodybags on all sides. As the FIBUA/MOUT starts up & there will be plenty of civvie dressed fighters too.
So when you see Bagdad civilian bodies being brought to the cameras,dead & bullet holes everywhere,just remember was that person actually Armed at that time,as we all know the Iraqis will claim NOT So.

Ja
Steel Bonnet

[ssardon]

What will this mean for our SOF in the future? Is this hamstringing us? War is hell and while I am a big fan of Rumsfield and some of the others, I think that you do whatever you can to win.

[Ichhabe]

So by meaning that, it is okay for the Iraqis to use what it takes for a victory?
Or is it just for the Coallition-side to do that?

[Trigger]

Yes Ichhabe, they can dress any way they want, but they better not bitch when we start shooting first and accepting surrender second.

[Kitsune]

Lol guys...how about changing the genevan convention that only US troops are allowed to use certain tactics? That should solve this problem!

You Americans are just incredible. You are attacking a regime that is known for its brutality. They are fighting for their survival!!! Even democracies **** on the genevan convention when they are really threatened. Did you really think Saddam would not?
Besides you are using those high tech weapons that kill from the distance...Do you really think in this situation the Iraqis give anything on your whining that their tactics are UNFAIR? LOL!!! They are using those tactics because that is the only way they can hope to achieve something.
(By the way, if you were attacked by a technological superior enemy...what would you do? Seen "Independence Day"? How unfair the Humans were fighting?)
You Americans on the other hand have to abide the rules (or do not get caught breaking them). You are the Good ones. That is the role you chose. That is your legitimation. And remember: Saddam wants to make this war as long and bloody as possible. So he does not want that his troops surrender! He wants them to fight...and they will fight if US troops start shooting them just in case the white flag they are waving is a trick. He wants the Iraqi to rally behind him. And they will when America starts bombing their cities brutally now. It is in Americas interest to accept surrender and keep talking with iraqi generals about it!
Rightful or not. USA attacked and the attacker has always one disadvantage: The Attacker needs to win, whereas the Defender just has to survive.

Anyway, war is not about fairness. It is about victory or defeat. Fairness is the first thing that goes out of the window. Even those who fight fair do so usually only because it is advantageous to them (sometimes in the long run). War is hell and no computergame. Anyone who cannot except this should stay home. (We Germans did anyway.)
Same goes for the length of it. One can always wager a guess...but no one knows for sure. A war takes at long as it takes.

I have spoken.

[hood]

When was the last time the US was involved in a war where the enemy followed the Geneva convention for their conduct? I don't think it's happened a single time, although I'd be curious if someone can come up with one. The idea that there's rules for war is a joke. I think it's great that we hold ourselves to certain standards, but we can't honestly expect our opponent to.

[Trigger]

Kitsune, none of US AMERICANS expected the Iraqis to do anything honorable, but alerting the world to their treachery is simply a matter of playing the game of international politics. No one is surprised by what they are doing. It sounds like the fact that our high tech weapons employed from a safe distance PISSES YOU OFF. GOOD!
WE AMERICANS will still play by the (ridiculous) rules of war, which will undoubtedly result in more AMERICAN AND BRITISH AND AUSTRALIAN dead. Make sure you take note of the names when you comend the Iraqis for being so ingenious. And you germans stayed home because the leader of your country is a former terrorist who lacks the balls to do the right thing.

I have responded

[ssardon]

My original point was that I wondered what people thought in regards to our SOF. Will this mean that our generals will send out directives saying "You have to have military dress on"? I know in Afghanistan the SOF tried to blend in and I wondering if anyone thinks this will change (and hamper) our policy.

[Kitsune]

I know why modern military forces use these High-Tech Long-Distance Weapons. And It certainly does not piss me off, Trigger.
I just thought it a bit ridiculous that this Iraqi unfairness is mentioned so often in the american media. Especially if one thinks of the fact that here a giant nation with 290 million people is attacking a backward dwarf of a nation with less than 25 million inhabitants.
This is just incredible.

For the Americans to play by the rules of war may in fact shorten this war, not lengthen it, Trigger.

By the way...Schröder is no former terrorist. You are refering to the foreign secretary, Joschka Fischer.

[yellowking]

kitsune, what do most Germans think of Fischer's history?

[Trigger]

Hey Kitsune, I didn't mean to go off on you. I didn't realize you were referring to our laughable media regarding the 'unfairness' issue. :)
Also, my mistake on Schroder. I was thinking of Fischer and got 'em confused.

[Kitsune]

No sweat trigger, i'm not this easy offended! :D

@yellowking:

Fisher had indeed some problems with his past. He was no terrorists, but there were some connections to leftist groups, who, let's say, did not totally distance themselves from violent action. Fisher denied everything (of course). And nothing could be proven. Then there is of course his evolution from an late sixties protester to an realpolitik style foreign secretary. Some kind of political chameleon.
(Because of this adaptility and the fact that Fisher was really fat in the nineties a german David Letterman equivalent made the joke that he probably is some kind of E.T. because he obviously can "change his shape" ! With Photos as proof of course).
But today Fisher is in fact one of the most popular politicans in Germany.
Believe it or not, his politics is not so bad and certainly not unreasonable (he is quite intelligent). Germanies attitude as far as this war is concerned? That is Schröders doing.
I personally appreciate Fishers intelligence. As a foreign secretary he does a good job for a Green. Could be much worse. I still feel mistrust because of his radical change in outlook and his past...but one cannot really say anything substantial against him as far as the last 15 years are concerned. No scandal or such.

[96B]

Kitsune, you are right about how it seems rediculous about the media covering how the Iraqis arent going by the Geneva Convention, but that as Trigger said is all playing the game of international politics. Alot of times our media says things that upsets me, but you just have to take alot of it with a grain of salt. The American people and especially our military do not expect them to play fair and if we were in their spot we wouldnt either, but everyone should note we could definately play dirty but because of who we are, what we stand for, and what we are trying to do, it is not in our or the Iraqi peoples best interests. All the "You Americans" comments are offensive and unnecessary, as well as stereotypical. I definately do not like you talking that way about my countrymen. The media and politicians will talk all about the not following geneva conventions but like I said its all about politics. You talk about how the Iraqis are fighting for their survival and such, but you make it sound like you are defending them. Have you ever seen the video of their soldiers beating unarmed civilians, women and children and laughing about it? Look what most of them do when our Marines come rolling through, they **** their pants and surrendur, or maybe put up stubborn resistance that is ultimately futile. You talk like all America does is shoot missiles from very far away and fight high tech wars. Tell that to the families of the Marines that died, tell that to the families of the POWs that got executed, tell that to all of our war casualties now and in the future. War is not fair, it is ugly, brutile, and unforgiving. You do what you need to do to accomplish your objectives, in this case do everything we can to spare civilian casualties and structural damage to non military buildings. America has the largest, most advanced military on earth and will not hesitate to use its capabilities to win, so I dont expect to hear comments implying we are beating up on a helpless nation because incase you havnt been watching, men are dieing out there and it is very very dangerous. Sadaam and his evil regime will be gone no matter what.

[MK133]

We are kick'n but! woot

[Kitsune]

Your right semperfi. The "You Americans" comment sounds more offensive than it was meant. Sry about that.
Actually I do not believe that Marines and the likes discuss this a lot. It is certainly a media thing. The soldiers who fight know war for what it is that's for sure.

[GazB]

"Tell that to the families of the Marines that died, tell that to the families of the POWs that got executed, tell that to all of our war casualties now and in the future. "

Why do they need to be told that the US prefers to solve problems from 30,000ft with stealth bombers and cruise missiles? The current conflict is an exception to engagements like Kosovo, where I believe the KLA used many tactics that the US would call terrorism now, or Afghanistan where airpower and a few Spec Ops on the ground supported a Northern Alliance victory over the Taleban.

Wearing civilian clothes is not a violation of the geneva convention. It just means if the person is captured by the enemy without some attempt at a uniform they don't get POW status and can be executed on the spot for terrorism or treason charges.

[96B]

"Why do they need to be told that the US prefers to solve problems from 30,000ft with stealth bombers and cruise missiles?"

How ****ing dare you disrespect the lives given by our soldiers and Marines fighting over there now, you must be very ignorant if you believe all America does is use air power and cruise missiles from afar. The events from which you refer are reflective of Bill Clintons war strategy so criticize him and not Americans.

Air power and our technology are capabilities we happen to possess and ANY country with that power would use it, and I CERTAINLY hope you dont mean to imply we are cowards and are not willing to fight a battle on the ground.

"The current conflict is an exception to engagements like Kosovo, where I believe the KLA used many tactics that the US would call terrorism now, or Afghanistan where airpower and a few Spec Ops on the ground supported a Northern Alliance victory over the Taleban."

First of all, Afghanistan is not Kosovo, Iraq is not Kosovo either, so you cannot compare the two.

The U.S. did almost all of the fighting in Afghanistan as well as suffering the most casualties and the Northern Alliance merely followed through from our spearhead. Thats not to take away from the tough fighting they may have carried out but the success there was mainly due to Americans.

A few spec ops on the ground? Aside from actually considering troops numbering in the thousands "a few spec ops" you need to do your homework because it is obvious there were and are much much more than a few on the ground and in the air over Afghanistan.

I dont want to jump to conclusions, but from what I gather with your comments about Americans using air power and cruise missiles from afar as well as "a few spec ops" makes me think you are for sure implying we are either cowards or are not willing to risk large numbers of our lives to accomplish a goal. Maybe you would care to elaborate on your problems with America?

[warchild1/27scout]

that's why on black ops theres no name tapes and sometimes enemy weapons are used.those guys are totally deniable by the u.s. govt.

[GazB]

Cowards? No... obviously not.

Interested in even or fair fights... no... not that either.

"The U.S. did almost all of the fighting in Afghanistan as well as suffering the most casualties and the Northern Alliance merely followed through from our spearhead. "


Bollocks.

Both the Kosovo campaign and the Afghanistan campaign were Airpower based wars that used very large numbers of locals lead and organised by small numbers of Spec Op troops.

Airpower alone would be useless in Kosovo or Afganistan.

Too much tree cover in Kosovo and too many caves and rocks to hide behind in Afghanistan.

The use of the signicficant ground forces (ie KLA and the Northern Alliance) was what made airpower in each case effective.
With KLA or NA troops the enemy either had to form large groups of units to fight or they had to melt away to avoid being wiped out by locally superior numbers.
If they formed up in large groups to fight the airpower had a target and was used to pummel them.
There are about 7,000 US troops in Afghanistan... if you think they defeated the Taleban alone then you are dreaming. Most of those troops arrived in Kabul after it was taken and remained there.
Equally there was never any large ground force of western soldiers till after the Serbs left Kosovo.

Both cases of surrogate ground forces making airpower effective... the opponent has the choice of withdrawing or being destroyed.

"...makes me think you are for sure implying we are either cowards or are not willing to risk large numbers of our lives to accomplish a goal."

I don't think you are cowards... but I don't think you want to lose a lot of your own men and women for something you aren't prepared to come clean about.
During WWII everything was clear... it was national survival... for everyone... even countries like New Zealand were threatened with invasion.
Most people are quite happy to fight and if need be die for their country.

Few would die for oil or the lives of foreigners... they are being killed all the time (look at Rwanda or Cambodia).

First we were told this war will be all about enforcing a UN resolution. When the UNSC refused to be used or told which articles to enforce it became about the Iraqi people... strange that we've ignored them for so long but now they are worth saving.

[papabear]

Few would die for oil or the lives of foreigners... they are being killed all the time (look at Rwanda or Cambodia).

Given the dependence of the "American way of life" on oil, it would not be surprising to see the government take an active interest in governments that might pose a threat to America's oil supply.

This is not to characterize the current conflict as a war for oil--but certainly, at some level, the strategic interest of the country is at stake.

What the US government will do with Iran remains to be seen. Supposedly the Iranian government poses more of a threat than the Iraqi government, in terms of its links to terrorist organizations, and the state of its nuclear program. Given the amount of resources that rebuilding Iraq will take up, if that happens, I would be surprised if the US government will take military action against Iran in the short term future.

[96B]

We can go back and forth argueing all day long to accomplish nothing...

In reality it really doesnt matter how the hell we fight our wars or conflicts as long as we fight to win, thats afterall the point. As far as your comments go about why the Iraqi people matter now, you have to understand that before Bush for 8 years a man with no testicular fortitude and an assinine foreign policy ran this country, so you shouldnt have expected major ground confrontations under his presidency because most Democrats bend over backwards to avoid conflicts with enemies.

Regardless of who actually deserves credit for taking down the Taliban, you act like its all a product of the Northern Alliance and the US did not contribute anything but "a few spec ops" on the ground, like I said, thousands are not a few my friend. With regards to the air war, we could have crippled the Taliban without the troops on the ground it would have just taken longer. No we wouldnt have gotten the caches of weapons in the caves and such, but their tanks and their so called large scale conventional fighting ability would be demolished. Yes they still would have remained a threat because of the survivors who remained hidden, and it is still a very dangerous place today after all the main fighting. In Kosovo, I agree that without the forces on the ground the air war could not have completed so many objectives, but like I said Clinton was president then.

I would like to question why so many criticize this war, when nobody really said anything about Clinton bombing Kosovo or Iraq. When the Iraqi people are finally freed and the regime is gone and they are praising America and Britain for freeing them, people will hopefully understand why we were there.

[GazB]

"This is not to characterize the current conflict as a war for oil--but certainly, at some level, the strategic interest of the country is at stake. "

Quite refreshing to hear that admitted occasionally... more often the reply is that it has nothign to do with oil... we are saving them because it is the right thing to do... of course if it really was being done because it was the right thing to do then you are going to be very busy solving the worlds problems. Facing up to reality and saying it is about the global economy indirectly and directly about the US economy and that in a round about way it is also beneficial to most of the people involved is honest but not the sort of honesty the US thinks the world (or the American people) can stomach.


"In reality it really doesnt matter how the hell we fight our wars or conflicts as long as we fight to win, thats afterall the point."

Of course it matters, and I am not saying the methods used are wrong. One of the greatest problems regarding foreign wars is getting your troops worked up enough to fight well for something they might not care much about or even understand. Case in point Soviet troops in afghanistan or US troops in Vietnam. They were both told they were there to save the local population but any moron could see the local population was aiding and abedding the enemy.

If Saddam didn't have such a tight grip on Iraq then using the Iraqi people to rise up would have been an option. Unfortunately only the Kurds and the marsh arabs rose up when asked and supporting the Kurds would present more problems than it solved. ( the Kurds would demand their own country in return and that country would include most of Turkey and a sizeable section of Iran... the US could care less about Iran but Turkey is a Member of NATO and the US is bound by the NATO charter to help defend its national integrity.

"With regards to the air war, we could have crippled the Taliban without the troops on the ground it would have just taken longer."

Like 40 years?
The Serbs in Kosovo only started losing troops when the KLA started joint ops. Of the thousands of serb tanks claimed destroyed during the campaign 13 were confirmed destroyed. Your confidence in airpower is largely unfounded.

"but their tanks and their so called large scale conventional fighting ability would be demolished. "

Their cave network could easily conceal tanks. They could have withstood all but nuclear bombardment.

"I would like to question why so many criticize this war, when nobody really said anything about Clinton bombing Kosovo or Iraq."

Plenty had lots to say... you were obviously not listening.

This seems to be a party political thing for you... clinton is bad but bush jnr is good?
In helping the KLA in Kosovo clinton and allbright aided and abedded a terrorist organisation and installed it into political power in Europe.

[Trigger]

One of the greatest problems regarding foreign wars is getting your troops worked up enough to fight well for something they might not care much about or even understand.
All we have to do is turn a calendar to September and point to the number 11.

Facing up to reality and saying it is about the global economy indirectly and directly about the US economy and that in a round about way it is also beneficial to most of the people involved is honest but not the sort of honesty the US thinks the world (or the American people) can stomach.

How would you know what the American people can stomach? According to your profile you are in New Zealand. Don't believe every paper you read.

Turkey is a Member of NATO
That didn't seem to matter much recently. Say isn't Germany a member too?

Your confidence in airpower is largely unfounded.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA rofl
Tell that to the Republican Guard.

Their cave network could easily conceal tanks. They could have withstood all but nuclear bombardment.
I guess you haven't heard of the Thermobaric bombs we used there. Good videos of these and what's left of the caves on Globalsecurity.org

Plenty had lots to say... you were obviously not listening.
Complete B.S. No protests, No 24/7 media coverage of American atrocities. Nothing but Clinton biting his lip, trying to look sincere. Please.

[GazB]

"All we have to do is turn a calendar to September and point to the number 11."

What does 11/9 have to do with Iraq? ...you might as well point to the 7th of December and talk about Pearl Harbour... or is this attack on Iraq a sneaky bluff for the real strike on Saudi Arabia, where more than 75% of the hijackers and probably 80% of the money came for for the attack on 11/9?

"How would you know what the American people can stomach? According to your profile you are in New Zealand. Don't believe every paper you read. "

Well, I see the Osbournes on national TV here and then I see snippits on US TV with al the swearwords beeped out... including such foul evil words as Damn.

"That didn't seem to matter much recently. Say isn't Germany a member too?"

The NATO charter is about defence from attack from powers who are not members of NATO. It says nothing about having to help other members invade other countries to make sure your oil stays the price you want it to.
(I am sure if the US was actually attacked Turkey and Germany and even france would do everything they could to help... Iraq has never attacked the US except in self defence.)

"Tell that to the Republican Guard. "

Any army stupid enough to dig in in open ground can of course be taken out by airpower. Lets see how effective airpower is in urban combat (or indeed forests or mountains).

"I guess you haven't heard of the Thermobaric bombs we used there. Good videos of these and what's left of the caves on Globalsecurity.org "

Guess you haven't heard that the Soviets also used FAE weapons... in fact Thermobaric is the preferred Russian term... the west normally calls them FAEs (fuel air explosives)... after describing FAEs as almost like nukes... which is bollocks... and declaring the Russian use of TOS-1 rockets as potentially a warcrime they had the problem of what to call them when they wanted to use them themselves... lets use the term the Russians use... thermobaric... litterally "heat" "Pressure".
The Russians have Thermobaric warheads for everything from bombs to RPG and ATGWs and dedicated rocket launchers called RPOs.

Of course you'd think if American thermobaric warheads were so effective they'd have finished by now... yet the Taliban still fight back... strange. The Soviets found the same thing during 79-89.

"Complete B.S. No protests, No 24/7 media coverage of American atrocities. Nothing but Clinton biting his lip, trying to look sincere. Please."

In America perhaps... what was it like for the rest of the world... we do exist you know...

It is quite interesting that your media has such a cult of personality. Clinton could do no wrong, while bush can do no right. Yet you think you get an unbiased picture of the world and you can't even get a balanced picture of your own country... not that the rest of the worlds media are perfect either.

[Ratamacue]

I will say that the US media is actually extremely liberal, and tries to sway the public that way. If anything, they show more of the negative aspects of this war than the positive.

I DO think that Saudi Arabia (along with Iran, North Korea, etc.) is a greater threat to us than Iraq. However, most people realize that (even though Saddam Hussein does support Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, a fact that the US media tries to tuck in to the drawer).

I won't try to attest to the real motives of the US is. The fact is, I don't know what our real motives are, but I have my belief in what they are, and so do you.

The fact is, though, the result of whatever the motive is is the same. Hussein's regime is gone. Iraq is free. Yes, after the war we will most likely have to systematically root out and destroy remaining elements of the Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units, but I see that as being easier than it is in Afghanistan.

As for your comments on the Fuel Air Explosives, what you said has nothing to do with anything. He simply said that FAE's will make short work of cave complexes, which sure as hell is true. He said nothing about FAE's magically having the ability to destroy every cave or anything, nor did he say that FAE's are solely used by the United States.

Also, the US also has thermobaric grenades/RPG's. They've been used in cave clearing in Afghanistan to very impressive effect.

[papabear]

The fact is, though, the result of whatever the motive is is the same. Hussein's regime is gone. Iraq is free.

I'm not sure the outcome is going to be so easy to predict.

[GazB]

"The fact is, though, the result of whatever the motive is is the same. Hussein's regime is gone. Iraq is free."

But that is the point!!!

If bringing democracy to the region was really the goal why not start by bringing it to Kuwaite?

The effect of the motive is not the same... other than the war itself. The real motive underneath this war is what will happen to the Iraqi people after the war.
This is not the first time a foreign power has gone into the region and created countries. 300 years ago there was no Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was created by the British as a buffer to stop the Soviet spread into its colony of India, it is made up of various very different groups that will never get along with each other. In the Middle East the same mistake was made... lines were drawn by the British and countries were created. People were chosen to become royal families and rulers or each of the countries they made. Turkestan was split up and made into Turkey and bits of Iraq and Iran... Iran being Persian. To give the Kurds back Kurdistan you'd have to cut bits off Turkey, Iran and the whole of northern Iraq. Turkey is a NATO member so the US and other NATO members are bound to defend Turkey's national border.
This is not going to be a simple proposition. Democracy could lead to Kurdish autonomy and a war with Turkey and Iran.


Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units, but I see that as being easier than it is in Afghanistan.

I agree... because I doubt peace and democracy will ever come to afghanistan. Currently the US forces are busy hunting down the reminance of the Taleban. They could care less about the rest of the country and the little government they have installed there has very little power outside Kabul. Even the Soviets managed to take all of the cities but they only really got close to winning the war though the brutal use of airpower to force the urbanisation of the population. The loss of the free use of airpower through the introduction of stinger and the training to use it properly cost them the war.


He simply said that FAE's will make short work of cave complexes, which sure as hell is true.

No it is not true. The Afghans are well aware of the capabilities of FAE weapons and how to protect oneself from them. If Soviet FAEs didn't destroy the thousands of cave complexes then US FAEs are unlikely to either... in the same way that French firebases in Vietnam were not more effective in defeating a jungle enemy than US firebases were.


They've been used in cave clearing in Afghanistan to very impressive effect.


And the Soviet spec ops did amazing things with RPO rockets as well... they still lost the war.
B-52s had a very impressive effect... don't confuse impressive with effective.