U.S. in combat under constraints

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:


U.S. in combat under constraints
By John Diamond and Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — U.S.-led combat forces are waging limited war in search of total victory.

Almost a week into the invasion of Iraq, a coalition force that was deliberately kept smaller than some Pentagon officers recommended is fighting under constraints designed to minimize world condemnation and avoid alienating Iraqis the Bush administration wants to liberate. Coalition troops limit fire to avoid killing civilians, and forces deliberately steer clear of destroying electric plants and other infrastructure vital to daily life.

There are already signs the limits are jeopardizing allied lives. Restrictions on the use of firepower against Iraqi defenders have prolonged battles, endangered supply lines and possibly contributed directly to casualties.

Army Apache helicopters, for example, encountered withering ground fire in a nighttime engagement Monday south of Baghdad, in part because the Apache crews were ordered not to attack the power grid in the area. Lights from streets and buildings made it easier for Iraqi gunners to spot the aircraft against the night sky. One Apache was downed, its two-man crew taken prisoner.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-25-military-usat_x.htm


It’s been obvious from the beginning that the US is waging an IDF type of war in Baghdad. Care is taken by the US to protect Iraqi civilians from harm to the point where it will/has cost US lives. Plain and simple this war is being fought to show the world community that American soldiers are great humanitarians that take great care not to kill/injure civilians.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DD03.htm


exerpt

So began the world's first big risk-averse war. The trouble is, the risk-averse outlook driving them to war also inevitably distorts their military strategy. The same anxieties propelling them into the conflict tend to hold them back from seeing it through decisively. In his speech, Bush promised 'to apply decisive force…. [T]his will not be a campaign of half measures'. After the first week of the campaign, some exasperated military observers might well advise the president to go tell it to the Marines.


What is now being called the Rumsfeld Strategy (after its architect, the alleged uber-hawk US defence secretary Donald H Rumsfeld) seems to have been designed to achieve victory with the minimum risk. Drop some awesome bombs on Baghdad from a safe height, send in a relatively light, fast column of ground forces from the south, hope that the Iraqi regime will collapse from shock and the people will come out to cheer their liberators.


It sounds like wishful thinking, a fearful child's idea that if you cross your fingers, jump out from under the bedclothes and switch the light on quickly enough the demons will all disappear. But wishes don't win wars. Now there are high-level complaints that the coalition forces inside Iraq are too lightweight, over-extended, and reluctant to engage the enemy. Attempting a safe war seems to be a highly risky business

[Alfred]

"Hello, I am Alfred, correspondent for the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper in the USA." "General Franks, under the current rules of engagement, we are going out of our way to avoid any enemy civilian casualties."

"Just how many Americans and British soldiers have died to-date because we have tippy-toed around in this war, and have gone the extra mile to avoid civilian casualties?"

"As a follow-up.....General Franks. Exactly how long are we going to look at Iraqi lives as being just as impotant as American or British lives?" "I was under the impression that we were at war."


I think it is wrong to deliberatly target civilians....however I would NEVER want to fight in a war in which my government considered the enemies welfare of equal value to mine.

If however, the bad guys were shooting at me from behind a bunch of civilians, I would fire back. If the bad guys fire at me from a Mosque, a hospital or from wherever, I would fire back.

And if the Iraqi's hit us with poison gas outside of Baghdad? You will see carpet bombing of the city in every spot where we see troops....regardless of where they are.

[L@mplighterM]

I think there’s no excuse for putting restraints on the American/allied armed force. Its obvious to me that is what is taking place or did take place in Iraq.

Everyone can be an armchair General but really watching this as it unfolded its obvious to me that this isn’t an all out war. When they bombed Baghdad they left 75% of the targets intact and the Secretary of Defense admitted this was done to protect civilians.

By leaving these targets intact I don’t think anyone could argue that it created an increased danger for the US armed forces.

Has the US taken lessons from the IDF that also shows restraints?

A Commander in Chief responsibility should be to do everything in his power to keep his troops safe.

[mimil]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM

A Commander in Chief responsibility should be to do everything in his power to keep his troops safe.

The best way would be to withdraw.

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:

Will trying to avoid civilian casualties cause more deaths?
By John Keegan
(Filed: 27/03/2003)


How much more difficult are the allies making this war for themselves by their determination to spare the Iraqi civilian population as much suffering as is humanly possible? That is certainly a condition of the strategy being pursued.

The air forces, but also units on the ground, are under strict orders not to target civilian buildings, and not to fire on civilian groups or individuals. That is a counsel of perfection and inevitably some civilians do become victims, as in Baghdad yesterday, when an apparently misdirected cruise missile strike on a market killed 15 residents of the district.

Accidental deaths, however, are integral to war, as the toll of "friendly fire" incidents in this one indicates. Of Britain's 22 dead, 18 were victims of accidents.


http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/27/ixop.html

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:

Garvin said some of the Iraqi fighters were using women as shields and had given guns to children.

"Unfortunately some of the children have been firing at our Marines and our Marines have been forced to defend themselves," he said.

http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncnews/story/2379455p-2217701c.html


10-year-old Afghani boys were excellent killers during the conflict with the Russians.