B
belalady
Guest
Arabic-Moslem troops were not the Congas.
America, which has the upper hand to fight terrorism of which she is victim, makes some errors, which are though comprehensible. When the offensive against Saddam started, some envisaged a lengthy conflict, his army opposite and fighting until the end. Even some thought of a likely beginning of a third world war. Let us recall the calls and protests of the American leaders who doubted about the victory. There have been for decades images of Moslem armies during their military parades. Impeccable review musters with a lot of war material, trampling sometimes the American flag. Previous to the war events, the poisoning of Islamic propaganda had succeeded in convincing the American leaders of a possible and probable military defeat, of an overwhelming shameful rout and of a shameful and heavy cost on casualties. Let us recall that even President Bush called the nation for meditation, to fast and pray as it happened once at the time of the American Civil War. Terrorist propaganda had succeeded in making us believe that. And it also made us believe that it would be a second even worst Vietnam.
However, it was seen that in a 3-4 weeks time, the US military victory over the ground was achieved. Saddams army was thence seen as a paper tiger, with its soldiers deposing their weapons as they no longer wanted to fight for an unjust regime. They had served their dictator for they had no choice and they needed to feed themselves and their families, the leaders having all the manna form the richness of oil.
But the fact was given I do not know why that the Arab soldiers do not have neither the discipline nor the ferocity in combat and war that the soldiers of the communist countries of Asia have always shown. Only the scientists and the learned can explain why the communist regimes, which were not democratic either, obtained a considerably larger obedience in their troops than the Arabic-Moslems soldiers, who made defection almost immediately. The researchers may be able to explain it. However, I do not have this claim or the pretension to write on such a matter. Anyhow, that a totally different subject.
The victory after the fall of Baghdad surprised everyone for its speed. A piece of evidence that even the American leaders did not expect it to be so fast was given by all the plundering which started immediately, the American being not able to stop it as such situation had not been foreseen. Honest, good and honorable people were killed and stolen, with the lack of protection by the American troops, who did not know how to act, and did not receive clear instructions against those looters, who tarnished very much the image of the United States, with these confusions of museums for example. The strategists had not thought of that, neither a so rapid victory.
Only one conclusion must be withdrawn from all that. All the battle fields are not the same ones. You should not always use the same mould to face the enemy, for the enemy is different each time. Furthermore, there is not one sole pattern for wars, from World War II to Southeastern Asia conflicts and even to Iraq. It is evident that the US soldiers and marines are not trained to face the urban guerrilla and repeated civilian demonstrations as police forces would be trained for. Future troops or army corps should have to be trained for that, with a very high behavior of police forces and should act thus as police officers rather than soldiers sometimes. They should be perhaps mixed corps, with a double formation I do not know, able in protecting the goods and the people. The troops formation and the discovery on the battle field only after their arrival is not good. They must certainly be trained before arriving in the ground.
I strongly recommend you to read my last post, which the link is here : http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3666
which will drive you to my main text : about freedom and Iraq
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3664
Best regards
America, which has the upper hand to fight terrorism of which she is victim, makes some errors, which are though comprehensible. When the offensive against Saddam started, some envisaged a lengthy conflict, his army opposite and fighting until the end. Even some thought of a likely beginning of a third world war. Let us recall the calls and protests of the American leaders who doubted about the victory. There have been for decades images of Moslem armies during their military parades. Impeccable review musters with a lot of war material, trampling sometimes the American flag. Previous to the war events, the poisoning of Islamic propaganda had succeeded in convincing the American leaders of a possible and probable military defeat, of an overwhelming shameful rout and of a shameful and heavy cost on casualties. Let us recall that even President Bush called the nation for meditation, to fast and pray as it happened once at the time of the American Civil War. Terrorist propaganda had succeeded in making us believe that. And it also made us believe that it would be a second even worst Vietnam.
However, it was seen that in a 3-4 weeks time, the US military victory over the ground was achieved. Saddams army was thence seen as a paper tiger, with its soldiers deposing their weapons as they no longer wanted to fight for an unjust regime. They had served their dictator for they had no choice and they needed to feed themselves and their families, the leaders having all the manna form the richness of oil.
But the fact was given I do not know why that the Arab soldiers do not have neither the discipline nor the ferocity in combat and war that the soldiers of the communist countries of Asia have always shown. Only the scientists and the learned can explain why the communist regimes, which were not democratic either, obtained a considerably larger obedience in their troops than the Arabic-Moslems soldiers, who made defection almost immediately. The researchers may be able to explain it. However, I do not have this claim or the pretension to write on such a matter. Anyhow, that a totally different subject.
The victory after the fall of Baghdad surprised everyone for its speed. A piece of evidence that even the American leaders did not expect it to be so fast was given by all the plundering which started immediately, the American being not able to stop it as such situation had not been foreseen. Honest, good and honorable people were killed and stolen, with the lack of protection by the American troops, who did not know how to act, and did not receive clear instructions against those looters, who tarnished very much the image of the United States, with these confusions of museums for example. The strategists had not thought of that, neither a so rapid victory.
Only one conclusion must be withdrawn from all that. All the battle fields are not the same ones. You should not always use the same mould to face the enemy, for the enemy is different each time. Furthermore, there is not one sole pattern for wars, from World War II to Southeastern Asia conflicts and even to Iraq. It is evident that the US soldiers and marines are not trained to face the urban guerrilla and repeated civilian demonstrations as police forces would be trained for. Future troops or army corps should have to be trained for that, with a very high behavior of police forces and should act thus as police officers rather than soldiers sometimes. They should be perhaps mixed corps, with a double formation I do not know, able in protecting the goods and the people. The troops formation and the discovery on the battle field only after their arrival is not good. They must certainly be trained before arriving in the ground.
I strongly recommend you to read my last post, which the link is here : http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3666
which will drive you to my main text : about freedom and Iraq
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3664
Best regards
