Breaking: U.S. forces launch largest air assault since invasion

[rmnunez]

Coordinating an airmobile operation involving 1500 soldiers is an accomplishment. Fortunately there was no resistance so we were spared the indignity of fleeing Iraqi military this time. Given the interest in demonstrating the effectiveness of Iraqi trainees, I think it was a good idea to focus on a sparsely-populated area approached slowly making lots of noise.

[bishop]

what iraqi military? you mean the sparse insurgents with ak-47's and rpg's? (and what do you mean by *we*?)

if the iraqi trainees were truly effective, their country would be a hell of a lot more stable than it currently is.. i don't see much improvement in the situation between now and several years ago.. the numbers definitely don't show any real improvement.

[jose]

LOL well put Raúl

[Boetie]

Turns out the whole thing is just one big expensive photo opt to coincide with Iraq's first parliament meeting since the December election.

See Iraqi's is doing their own security and they are even having a parliament meeting, isn't that just peachy.

Do you think the majority of Iraq's security forces are Sunnis? Do you think the Sunnis like the current Constitution? Do you think the Kurds and Shittes will want to change the government from a weak centralized government to a strong centralized government?

I'll bet this photo opt is more expensive than the Misson Accomplished photo opt a while back. But they both come down to the same thing, a failed attempt to create a souffle, cause that souffle went flat.

[bishop]

bring 'em on boetie...

it'd be great if they could just accept the fact that the situation in iraq is fucked - rather than deficit-spend a couple billion more just to window dress the situation.

our country's "leaders" are just as dangerous to our nation as are islamic terrorists, if not more...

[rmnunez]

Sorry Bish, for me the Iraqi military are the local forces reconstituted by the Coalitioneers, the insurgents couldn't qualify since, though Iraqi, they aren't in a recognized military force -its an insurgency, remember!? I usually qualify reference to the Iraqi regular forces.

My "we" is you and I, others posting here, the world in general, fortunately all of us were spared the indignity of seeing the reconstituted, US-trained and equiped, Iraqi regular forces flee in fear when confronted in combat (a documented trait in them).

I don't know what impact the exercise operation "Swarmer" may have had on the parliamentary proceedings, a show of force to compell submission? There were expressions in this regard from the forum, the speaker wasn't there, protocolarly defects resulted.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: bishop what iraqi military? you mean the sparse insurgents with ak-47's and rpg's? (and what do you mean by *we*?) if the iraqi trainees were truly effective, their country would be a hell of a lot more stable than it currently is.. i don't see much improvement in the situation between now and several years ago.. the numbers definitely don't show any real improvement.

no matter how effective an army is, if the area it guards is too big, they cannot hope to efficiently defend it. I would like to see you guard Iraq with only 1500 people. I could fit the entirety of the officially instituted Iraqi army into my church with plenty of seating space. and that would be adding in the entirety of the members of HPBC.

[bishop]

yeah, that much is obvious..

doesn't mean that we've done a damn thing to defeat/eliminate the insurgency though.. as time goes by, we waste billions more, more of our own are killed, and yet the insurgency continues seemingly unabated..

also, it's interesting that one of your first posts in this thread spoke about how we "need" to stay there and train the iraqis to defend themselves - a task that's progessing at less than a snail's pace thanks to the incompetence of our "leadership". and in this last post, you're saying that it's impossible to effectively defend the entire country.. that's what i'd call a catch 22 if i ever saw one. that's the kind of clueless bumbling that the instigators of this war were using when they decided to concoct bogus intelligence and paid no attention to arguments cautioning an invasion, and paid no attention to post-war planning..

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: bishop yeah, that much is obvious.. doesn't mean that we've done a damn thing to defeat/eliminate the insurgency though.. as time goes by, we waste billions more, more of our own are killed, and yet the insurgency continues seemingly unabated.. also, it's interesting that one of your first posts in this thread spoke about how we "need" to stay there and train the iraqis to defend themselves - a task that's progessing at less than a snail's pace thanks to the incompetence of our "leadership". and in this last post, you're saying that it's impossible to effectively defend the entire country.. that's what i'd call a catch 22 if i ever saw one. that's the kind of clueless bumbling that the instigators of this war were using when they decided to concoct bogus intelligence and paid no attention to arguments cautioning an invasion, and paid no attention to post-war planning..

you couldn't have the whole Iraqi regular army stand with their hands stretched out, in a single line, and even get them to stretch around a quarter of the border's perimeter. I said that without us, it would be impossible to do so. even Alexander the Great couldn't swing that one.

[rmnunez]

They don't have to hold hands along the border to secure it, with the fancy equipment, some helicopters, a watchtower here and there, the more vulnerable areas can be covered constantly and with just a few men. The Coalitioneers have completed training for about 40 thousand reconstituted Iraqi regulars, I suspect the 800 involved in "Swarmer" were just Iraq's finest -all airmobile-qualified and fully equipped.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez They don't have to hold hands along the border to secure it, with the fancy equipment, some helicopters, a watchtower here and there, the more vulnerable areas can be covered constantly and with just a few men. The Coalitioneers have completed training for about 40 thousand reconstituted Iraqi regulars, I suspect the 800 involved in "Swarmer" were just Iraq's finest -all airmobile-qualified and fully equipped.

maybe, but what good would they be in the case of an all out attack? we aren't afraid that the insurgents will be enough to overthrow the government. the thing is, the insurgents share the same views as the rest of the Middle East. if one country tried to attack right now, would Iraq be ready without us?

[rmnunez]

I think its unlikely that upon an Iranian conventional attack against Coalitioneers in Iraq, domestic insurgents would rise up and rapidly rally neighboring countries to engage the westerners. Instead I'd expect the Iranians to be overwhelmingly destroyed within a few miles of the border if they attempted a conventional military invasion, this will surely demoralize inconsequential insurgents who might renew their efforts at first but would be just as easily suppressed.

[RickSp]

Did anyone notice the obvious? That the reason that there were no insurgents in the area was probably because they were tipped off in advance, in all likelihood by someone in the Iraqi military or the government? Let us not lose sight of who the foreign infidel invader is, after all.

And best that I could tell, the Iraqis arrived by trucks and the 101 Airborne dropped in from helicopters. I doubt any of the Iraqi armed forces could be reasonably called "air mobile" especially as they don't happen to have helicopters of their own.

As combat operations go Swarmer was a photo-op.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Did anyone notice the obvious? That the reason that there were no insurgents in the area was probably because they were tipped off in advance, in all likelihood by someone in the Iraqi military or the government? Let us not lose sight of who the foreign infidel invader is, after all. And best that I could tell, the Iraqis arrived by trucks and the 101 Airborne dropped in from helicopters. I doubt any of the Iraqi armed forces could be reasonably called "air mobile" especially as they don't happen to have helicopters of their own. As combat operations go Swarmer was a photo-op.

best that you could tell from what? we have no evidence to even suggest they were tipped off, and if anybody here is an infidel, it would be the idiot referring to America, him being an American, as an infidel.

[rmnunez]

best that you could tell from your belief the Iraqi military has no helicopters?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez best that you could tell from your belief the Iraqi military has no helicopters?

yeah, I found pictures to prove they had mobile nuclear weapons platforms (you know, modern MIG's that were adapted to the purpose) if they had those, why not helicopters?

[Zeebadee]

"Not a shot was fired, or a leader nabbed, in a major offensive that failed to live up to its advance billing"

<snip>

"Before loading up into the helicopters for a return trip to Baghdad, Iraqi and American soldiers and some reporters helped themselves to the woman’s freshly baked bread, tearing bits off and chewing it as they wandered among the cows. For most of them, it was the only thing worthwhile they’d found all day." http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...174448,00.html

Is anyone going to continue to claim that Iran was supposed to be impressed by this major military action??

[dthmstr254]

you know, if it weren't for our press, they would be. however, the press makes it hard to even hold a war. hypothetical question: would we have remained in World War 2 if our press had been around with the technology we have? answer, via a busfull of recruits heading home from Fort Benning via Greyhound: hell, no. (and that was the lightened answer. would you like a direct quote? it would get a little colorful, especially the one I got from the commander who was training them. he has been in Iraq, on the field. he wants to go back. you know why the soldiers in Iraq want to return? because of the morons in the news. most of the soldiers in Iraq are latecomers, replacing troops that were already in Iraq at the time. send the troops that returned back out on a volunteering basis, and I bet the majority will go.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dthmstr254 you know, if it weren't for our press, they would be.

Why on earth would Iran be impressed by our ability to load up 1500 soldiers, fly and drive them a couple of dozen miles, unload them, and have them walk around all day? Is it because we managed to get through the day without any of our troops shooting each other? I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraqi troops hadn't even been issued live ammo. This kind of "action" just makes us look stupid.

[rmnunez]

I know Iraq had military helicopters, in fact some critical lefties claim Rumsfeld sold Saddam custom-designed models equipped to spray toxic gas on Kurds, but I'm intrigued by the possibility they don't have any now (of the Rumsfeld models or not). The Iraqi military will need helicopters once the Coalitioneers leave, these are ideal for counterinsurgency operations, very necessary.