May 10

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Fri May 20, 2011 11:57 pm

RF wrote: ...
Lets be clear. I think that if a country invades without lawful reason another country in violation of the UN Charter then that country gives up all its rights to territorial integrity. The US Army acting on behalf of the UN in my opinion does not and should not require permission to invade Iraq.
In one sense the US didn't need any more permission than it had. On the other hand there were political concerns that dictated our incursions into Iraq be of a limited nature.
RF wrote:
lwd wrote: Then show me how it's wrong. I certainly don't see it and your proclomation doesn't past muster as proof.
lwd, if you are faced with a threat the only solution is to eliminate the threat. Containment is not elimination.
It can be. The Soviet Union is a rather classic example of that. It's not a black and white thing either there are all sorts of shades of grey. How much does it cost in one coin to gain how much additional insurance that the threat is limited or eliminated?
Containment, the policy used against Saddam Hussein for the 13 years prior to the 2003 invasion, allows the threat to continue so you have to devote resources permanently to contain and block.
Well not permanently and taking him out then would also have taken considerable resources. Indeed overall I think things worked out much better for the US for a number of reasons.
Get rid of the threat once and for all no futher resources for perpetuity are required.
We could have taken out the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, would that have been better than letting them collapse of their own accord? I don't think so.
Clearing the Iraq forces out of Kuwait in my view was only half the job. Removing the regime that invaded Kuwait should have been the number one goal...
From what I've read the US wouldn't have been unhappy with that but that wasn't what the coalition signed up for.
RF wrote:
lwd wrote: There were incursions into Iraq but they were designed to cut off the Iraqii forces in Kuwait.
Question - if the purpose of Desert Storm was simply to clear the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, then why block their exit routes?
Because it also cuts off their supply routes and some CC channels and degrades their fighting potential when and if you have to cut them off.
RF wrote: ... War is not a game of cricket - or baseball. In war there can only be one objective - absolute victory. Any thing less is a betrayal of what you are fighting for, a betrayal of serviceman's lives. Such a war should never be fought. And you don't need to study Clauswitz to understand that.
Historically that has not been the case and I don't think studying Clauswitz supports it either.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat May 21, 2011 1:24 am

Beyond belief that lwd use the disguise of "answering" just to show of and say the "last word" here. In carefull analysis he says nothing for what RF already did.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Mon May 23, 2011 8:26 am

lwd wrote:
The US could and did enter Iraqi territory but regime change in Iraq was not what our coalition partners desired and the coalition was founded based to a large extent on their desires. We were after all operating out of Saudi territory and the were footing the fuel bill. Furthermore we didn't want nor did our allies want a permanent US force in the region. .
But the end result was a virtually permanent US presence in the Gulf, not least enforcing the no fly zone to contain Saddam for years afterwards.

There was a confusion of aims in the build up to and execution of Desert Storm. Neither were the Coalition simply ''guests'' of the Saudis' as there were some three incursions by Iraqi forces into Saudi territory and the Neutral Zone during the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait and the build up to Desert Storm.

One of the political problems with regime change was the fear of a power vaccuuam in the area of Iraq and the possible ''Balkanisation'' of the country into three or more statelets. And Iran was unofficially part of the Coalition as they co-operated (behind the scenes) with Coalition forces.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon May 23, 2011 12:27 pm

RF:

You are wasting your time.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Mon May 23, 2011 3:05 pm

RF wrote:
lwd wrote: The US could and did enter Iraqi territory but regime change in Iraq was not what our coalition partners desired and the coalition was founded based to a large extent on their desires. We were after all operating out of Saudi territory and the were footing the fuel bill. Furthermore we didn't want nor did our allies want a permanent US force in the region. .
But the end result was a virtually permanent US presence in the Gulf, not least enforcing the no fly zone to contain Saddam for years afterwards.
Indeed but perhaps I should have stated what was not desired was a permanent presence of a large ground force in the gulf. Now I'm not sure that we or our allies wanted as much of a naval and air component as we had or not. Many of the Gulf states did and still do consider Iran if not the primary threat close to it. A small US military presence is considered a tripwire force without the socieal problems that a large one represents.
There was a confusion of aims in the build up to and execution of Desert Storm. Neither were the Coalition simply ''guests'' of the Saudis' as there were some three incursions by Iraqi forces into Saudi territory and the Neutral Zone during the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait and the build up to Desert Storm.

One of the political problems with regime change was the fear of a power vaccuuam in the area of Iraq and the possible ''Balkanisation'' of the country into three or more statelets. And Iran was unofficially part of the Coalition as they co-operated (behind the scenes) with Coalition forces.
Iran was hardly part of the Coalition although they were not at all unhappy to see Sadam taken down a peg or two. They also were not unhappy to be the recipiants of a significant portion of the Iraqi air force. As for a confusion of aims, there will tend to be that whenever you put together that large a coalint (Syria was even part of it!). In general there will be some aims that everyone agrees to then there will be others that have varrying degrees of support and may or may not be acomplished as part of the first set or a little creative interpretation of the first set. In any case I think things actually worked out better this way but more through luck than design.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Mon May 23, 2011 6:10 pm

Well, we did eventually get regime change, and in political conditions rather more hostile to the US under George Bush junior than his father. But it would have been better to have finished the job in 1991 and not to have another war in 2003.

Ultimately the US did hold all the cards, it enforced its will in 2003 when it could have done that far more easily and comprehensively in 1991 by simply not ordering a halt at the time it was done. US forces could have gone to Baghdad pleading grounds of military necessity and the rest of the Coalition would have been swept along by the pace of events.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Tue May 24, 2011 3:58 pm

RF wrote:Well, we did eventually get regime change, and in political conditions rather more hostile to the US under George Bush junior than his father. But it would have been better to have finished the job in 1991 and not to have another war in 2003.
Would it? If you are only looking at the effect on Sadam and his regime perhaps. But if you look beyond that the equation changes.
Ultimately the US did hold all the cards, it enforced its will in 2003 when it could have done that far more easily and comprehensively in 1991 by simply not ordering a halt at the time it was done. US forces could have gone to Baghdad pleading grounds of military necessity and the rest of the Coalition would have been swept along by the pace of events.
Indeed but there would have been consequences for that as well.

Saltheart
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:46 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: May 10

Post by Saltheart » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:23 pm

Bgile said: "I've come to believe that responses to my posts are coming closer and closer to ridiucle and direct personal attacks. I'm not having fun here anymore ... Karl was probably right when he posted here a long time ago to the effect that there is no place here for people who don't believe in German supremacy. In some cases I think I can add war of annihilation to that.

I will really miss some of the more polite exchanges we had a long time ago, where people actually thought about other points of view and made considerate replies. This is not directed at everyone here, but the climate has just become too unpleasant for me."


How sad. I've "lurked" on these boards for the last few weeks reading hours of comments. I've soaked it up like reading a book as I love the subject and have read about battleships on and off for years.
I discovered Nathan Okun awhile back too and soaked it up as well as it was yet more tons of info on this great subject. Although there was lots I disagreed with on his site. However I enjoyed reading your posts Bgile and you were always the absolutely necessary other half of the ongoing struggle here and while I agreed with some and disagreed with some of what you said you always came across as highly intelligent and a gentleman. Your comments (including, maybe especially the ones I disagreed with) helped me to join this fascinating forum.
Hope you start joining in again one day.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:44 pm

lwd wrote:
Indeed but there would have been consequences for that as well.
Yes there will be consequences, as the conflict and the rest of the world don't operate in a vacuuam. What you don't do is specify those particular consequences you have in mind which are detrimental to the US and indeed Britain, as an ally of the US.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:48 pm

Saltheart wrote: ... Karl was probably right when he posted here a long time ago to the effect that there is no place here for people who don't believe in German supremacy. In some cases I think I can add war of annihilation to that.
I would hope that from the five thousand odd posts I have made to this forum that it is clear that I for one do not believe in German supremacy or a war of annihilation.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:55 pm

RF wrote:
lwd wrote: Indeed but there would have been consequences for that as well.
Yes there will be consequences, as the conflict and the rest of the world don't operate in a vacuuam. What you don't do is specify those particular consequences you have in mind which are detrimental to the US and indeed Britain, as an ally of the US.
Well for one the parameters of the operation were agreed upon by the allied countries involved. If the US and broken those agreements and arguably gone well beyond the UN charter at the very least there would have been a loss of trust. What the long term ramifications would have been is an open question.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:08 pm

The long term ramifications are indeed open to question, but handled properly and sensitively they may be beneficial and not detrimental to the Allied powers.

During Desert Storm there was a lot of discussion between the US/British/French and UN and the Arabian countries as to objectives for Desert Storm. Elimination of Saddam Hussein doesn't seem unreasonable and a great many Iraqi expatriates living in the UK made it clear at the time that they wanted to see the Coalition overthrow Saddam Hussein so that they could go back to their country. Had the Coalition made this objective as reasonable and desirable I believe that the majority of opinion in the Gulf, even Iran, would have gone along with it, without any loss of trust.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:26 pm

As for eliminating Sadam they were certainly trying while working within the parameters agreed to. Apparently they almost got him at least once when they took out the lead and tail vehicles in a convoy he was in. Not sure if they took out more vehicles in it or not but if they had known he was there I suspect the convoy would have been hit a lot harder.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:09 am

RF:
Elimination of Saddam Hussein doesn't seem unreasonable
Dammit! Getting rid of Saddam then was the only reasonable thing to do. Again: it's like landing in Normandy, fight the Germans out of the occupied countries and then letting Hitler alone "in his own borders". What would happen sooner or later: payback.

I don't even know how a discussion like this one takes place: haven't the US had to invade Irak in 2003, occupied the country and get a lot of international opinion flak that could have been avoided in 1991. It's obvious: just ask any infantry soldier that served there.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:44 am

It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
Douglas MacArthur
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Post Reply