Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/7/2005 4:53:28 PM EDT
I've noticed the past few days several stories mentioning how the British seem to be doing a better job keeping the insurgents in Iraq in check. At first, I just thought the Basra area was more quiet (which I do certainly believe it's not close to being as bad as Baghdad or Fallujah), but since the British force that moved North toward Baghdad also seems to be having fewer problems than American units in the area, it peaked my curiosity.

What do you make of this? Is it a tactics issue, an intelligence gathering issue or both? Do the terrorists simply prefer attacking Americans? Or do you think there's even an issue to begin with? What are the British doing different? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.

-CH
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:00:30 PM EDT
The British Army has a lot of institutional experience running patrols in urban areas against the kind of opposition faced in Iraq.  Undoubtedly they are doing something different, but it probably doesn't account for the entire difference.

The US media only reports American deaths, because they assume those will have a greater impact.  The US has more troops in more hot areas, in general, so they will take the brunt of the attacks and casualties, at least statistically.  The Brits are probably doing things a little better than the US Army; the US Army suffers from NIH syndrome and the Brits have a good bit of knowledge on the subject gained from N. Ireland.

As for what they are doing differently, The Neutral Observer is not certain.  Possibly more foot patrols; they tended to do that a lot in N. Ireland.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:03:06 PM EDT
I think it's merely a case of accolades.  Really.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:07:53 PM EDT
Yeah, it seems the Brits are relying more on going "light" as opposed to "heavy". Frequent foot patrols and movement by foot (or even bicycle) seem less likely to be hit by IED's than a HUMVEE or tank. It seems these IED's are accounting for most of our casualties.

It's simply harder to employ IED's against troops moving on foot. A heavy tank or vehicle is limited to roads and open areas. So it's very easy to determine where such a vehicle will pass and setup a kill zone. However, a foot patrol may approach from any angle or through any terrain or setting. Instead of just being limited to roads, they can move through, over and around buildings. They are not inhibited by terrain features. And they can even go through backyards, drains, whatever. It's simply harder to employ an IED against someone this way. The insurgents could just as easily end up being the targets while someone sneaks in their backdoor in this manner.

So perhaps, instead of using more armor as many want, perhaps we'd be more effective to go "lighter". Armor and other vehicles are very much a good thing when used properly, such as during invasions. But I really feel the situation we face now is a light infantry bread and butter fight. In many cases, using armor is a disadvantage when confronted with the situations we currently face in Iraq.

-CH
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:17:02 PM EDT
  Or they dont have a tv crew second guessing their every move... or maybe decades of experience at using locals to gather intel at a tactical, usable level... something that is highly regulated and controlled by big army... or they have a lot more arab speakers both native and trained... or because local comanders have the athority to bribe or bully the local sheiks... or maybe the arabs just dont want to fight the only other tribe wear men wear dresses
just kidding blackwatch..... you guys are the heat
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:23:49 PM EDT
Basra = Shiites = On winning side in upcoming election
Fallujah / Baghdad / Tikrit = Sunni = losing side of upcoming election


Guess which side is really going to be working hard on stirring up shit.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:29:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Yeah, it seems the Brits are relying more on going "light" as opposed to "heavy". Frequent foot patrols and movement by foot (or even bicycle) seem less likely to be hit by IED's than a HUMVEE or tank. It seems these IED's are accounting for most of our casualties.

It's simply harder to employ IED's against troops moving on foot. A heavy tank or vehicle is limited to roads and open areas. So it's very easy to determine where such a vehicle will pass and setup a kill zone. However, a foot patrol may approach from any angle or through any terrain or setting. Instead of just being limited to roads, they can move through, over and around buildings. They are not inhibited by terrain features. And they can even go through backyards, drains, whatever. It's simply harder to employ an IED against someone this way. The insurgents could just as easily end up being the targets while someone sneaks in their backdoor in this manner.

So perhaps, instead of using more armor as many want, perhaps we'd be more effective to go "lighter". Armor and other vehicles are very much a good thing when used properly, such as during invasions. But I really feel the situation we face now is a light infantry bread and butter fight. In many cases, using armor is a disadvantage when confronted with the situations we currently face in Iraq.

-CH



Well, yes and no.

You generally don't want to run armor through urban terrain without accompanying infantry.

Infantry is vulnerable to ambush also, though.  It's a matter of weighing risks and benefits.  Armor gives firepower, range, and a certain amount of protection, while infantry gives flexibility and mobility.

Plus, several branches of the DoD tasked with such things have displayed certain deficiencies in patrolling techniques in the past year.

IEDs are accounting for most of the casualties because the insurgents aren't sticking around for a stand-up fight as often.  They've learned some expensive lessons in doing that.  It's easier and cheaper to remotely detonate a bomb than to set up a proper ambush, and it yields that same results, although on a much slower scale.

It's going to go completely to urban terrorism and become more of a police/intelligence problem than one that begs a military solution before too long.  It's already trending that way.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:30:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 5:31:30 PM EDT by The_Neutral_Observer]
The Brits have traditionally done well at insurgency problems.  It's probably for the same reasons they were so successful (comparatively) at governing their colonies.

EDIT:

The Malay campaign is still pointed to as a textbook case.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:30:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I've noticed the past few days several stories mentioning how the British seem to be doing a better job keeping the insurgents in Iraq in check. At first, I just thought the Basra area was more quiet (which I do certainly believe it's not close to being as bad as Baghdad or Fallujah), but since the British force that moved North toward Baghdad also seems to be having fewer problems than American units in the area, it peaked my curiosity.

What do you make of this? Is it a tactics issue, an intelligence gathering issue or both? Do the terrorists simply prefer attacking Americans? Or do you think there's even an issue to begin with? What are the British doing different? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.

-CH



I'll carry on from a previous thread from this morning that was on this line……

Politics, religion and money… we understand that ALL arabs are fundamentally corrupt but loyal to their tribe… so, you decide which of the various corrupt local leaders you wish to support and away you go. Do lot's of hearts & minds stuff, let the local Sheiks, Tribal Elders or Mullahs take the credit for organizing it (they didn't, but it makes them look good) and generally let them do there own thing. As long as they are making money Arabs are happy, so you let them do their thing but tell them that if the BG's start causing trouble you will start being 'difficult'. So, the locals, who are doing very nicely, tend to point the finger when the local 'hero' starts rabble rousing.

And support the Mullahs… they carry a lot of influence, support them with public works and involve them in decision making and you can get the appropriate message across at Friday Prayers. And the message our people ask the Mullahs to get across is "Leave the British alone, the sooner they have finished, the sooner they will be gone"… it seems to work.

And go easy on shooting the locals… no one minds if you kill a genuine terrorist, but they do get mad as hell when women or kids get killed in the crossfire.

They do attack us from time to time…


So what went wrong back at the beginning? and please note these are my opinions!

A number of things……

Boots on the Ground…

US does not have enough… period. We have more per  square mile than you and foot patrols, lots of them are the way to pacify an area. If you drive through an area you only control it while you drive along it… walk along it and you own it.

Also, foot patrols make contact with the locals and can pick up intel… This was the way they got a grip around Camp Dogwood south of Baghdad, lots of intel gathering, then launched a series of raids to round up the people responsible… but here is were you/us differ! We killed or injured no one in the raids, especially the civilians, and as a result, the local Elder, who we know is well in with the Insurgents, thanked us for not killing any of his people and the attacks noticibly eased off afterwards.

Jay Garner/Paul Bremmer…

They would not listen and would not take any advice from the British… They were told from day one that they would have to work with the current facts on the ground, not try and impose some outsiders.  Backing Chalabi was a major blunder, he is hated by most Iraqis and he is an outsider with no support in Iraq. For Chalibi to gain power he needed unrest… and guess who got busted for supplying information to help target US forces… Chalibi and his people.

Bribery…

The US adminstrators were too honest and would not accept that corruption and kickbacks are the Arab way… we know that the local Sheiks and Tribal elders rip us off… but it means we are 'the Goose that lays the Golden Egg'… and  you don't shit on your own doorstep. Because there was little opportunity to cream off lots of money from the US adminstration, naturally people looked to the other source of money; the Insurgents.

Money…

Not enough money was funnelled into the economy quickly enough, idle hands make a breeding ground for insurgents, a well fed arab is an idle arab.

Intel Gathering…

Facts is facts… you guys are terrible at this!  Buy the info! Be corrupt, pay them off, you're in it to win, not get an anti corruption award! Also, make MUCH more use of human intel gathering… we put lots of our Spec Ops/Intelligence people to ferreting around in urban areas and targetting people and either winning them over to our side or simply blackmailing them into working for us… I won't go further into this,  except to say we used the same tactics as in Northern Ireland.
… it seems to work.

De Baathification……

This was the biggest mistake by Bremmer… we started rehiring the local Police from the start, he ordered us to sack them, we did, sort of…

Basically, it's their country, so let them do their own thing, OK the local Police's tactics may be totally unaccpetable in downtown LA or London, but this is not LA or London.

Dismissing all the Police and Army created a huge power vacuum that allowed the Insurgents space to organise and establish themselves. Vast amounts of arms were secreted away in the weeks after the end of the ground war. Now, how come we don't have such a trouble? House to House, block , by block searches for months untill we soaked up most of the arms were the tactics from early on.

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:33:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I've noticed the past few days several stories mentioning how the British seem to be doing a better job keeping the insurgents in Iraq in check. At first, I just thought the Basra area was more quiet (which I do certainly believe it's not close to being as bad as Baghdad or Fallujah), but since the British force that moved North toward Baghdad also seems to be having fewer problems than American units in the area, it peaked my curiosity.

What do you make of this? Is it a tactics issue, an intelligence gathering issue or both? Do the terrorists simply prefer attacking Americans? Or do you think there's even an issue to begin with? What are the British doing different? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.

-CH



I'll carry on from a previous thread from this morning that was on this line……

Politics, religion and money… we understand that ALL arabs are fundamentally corrupt but loyal to their tribe… so, you decide which of the various corrupt local leaders you wish to support and away you go. Do lot's of hearts & minds stuff, let the local Sheiks, Tribal Elders or Mullahs take the credit for organizing it (they didn't, but it makes them look good) and generally let them do there own thing. As long as they are making money Arabs are happy, so you let them do their thing but tell them that if the BG's start causing trouble you will start being 'difficult'. So, the locals, who are doing very nicely, tend to point the finger when the local 'hero' starts rabble rousing.

And support the Mullahs… they carry a lot of influence, support them with public works and involve them in decision making and you can get the appropriate message across at Friday Prayers. And the message our people ask the Mullahs to get across is "Leave the British alone, the sooner they have finished, the sooner they will be gone"… it seems to work.

And go easy on shooting the locals… no one minds if you kill a genuine terrorist, but they do get mad as hell when women or kids get killed in the crossfire.

They do attack us from time to time…


So what went wrong back at the beginning? and please note these are my opinions!

A number of things……

Boots on the Ground…

US does not have enough… period. We have more per  square mile than you and foot patrols, lots of them are the way to pacify an area. If you drive through an area you only control it while you drive along it… walk along it and you own it.

Also, foot patrols make contact with the locals and can pick up intel… This was the way they got a grip around Camp Dogwood south of Baghdad, lots of intel gathering, then launched a series of raids to round up the people responsible… but here is were you/us differ! We killed or injured no one in the raids, especially the civilians, and as a result, the local Elder, who we know is well in with the Insurgents, thanked us for not killing any of his people and the attacks noticibly eased off afterwards.

Jay Garner/Paul Bremmer…

They would not listen and would not take any advice from the British… They were told from day one that they would have to work with the current facts on the ground, not try and impose some outsiders.  Backing Chalabi was a major blunder, he is hated by most Iraqis and he is an outsider with no support in Iraq. For Chalibi to gain power he needed unrest… and guess who got busted for supplying information to help target US forces… Chalibi and his people.

Bribery…

The US adminstrators were too honest and would not accept that corruption and kickbacks are the Arab way… we know that the local Sheiks and Tribal elders rip us off… but it means we are 'the Goose that lays the Golden Egg'… and  you don't shit on your own doorstep. Because there was little opportunity to cream off lots of money from the US adminstration, naturally people looked to the other source of money; the Insurgents.

Money…

Not enough money was funnelled into the economy quickly enough, idle hands make a breeding ground for insurgents, a well fed arab is an idle arab.

Intel Gathering…

Facts is facts… you guys are terrible at this!  Buy the info! Be corrupt, pay them off, you're in it to win, not get an anti corruption award! Also, make MUCH more use of human intel gathering… we put lots of our Spec Ops/Intelligence people to ferreting around in urban areas and targetting people and either winning them over to our side or simply blackmailing them into working for us… I won't go further into this,  except to say we used the same tactics as in Northern Ireland.
… it seems to work.

De Baathification……

This was the biggest mistake by Bremmer… we started rehiring the local Police from the start, he ordered us to sack them, we did, sort of…

Basically, it's their country, so let them do their own thing, OK the local Police's tactics may be totally unaccpetable in downtown LA or London, but this is not LA or London.

Dismissing all the Police and Army created a huge power vacuum that allowed the Insurgents space to organise and establish themselves. Vast amounts of arms were secreted away in the weeks after the end of the ground war. Now, how come we don't have such a trouble? House to House, block , by block searches for months untill we soaked up most of the arms were the tactics from early on.

ANdy



As The Neutral Observer said, the British know how to run these things.  
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:33:34 PM EDT
I have the utmost respect for every boot on the ground over there.  And I dare not question their bravery.   However, I do not...or better put...I refuse to believe that one countrymen's soldiers are faring better than another's.

It is merely a case of accolades.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:34:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 5:39:57 PM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By vintovka:
  Or they dont have a tv crew second guessing their every move...
Media is kept on a very tight lead…

or maybe decades of experience at using locals to gather intel at a tactical, usable level... something that is highly regulated and controlled by big army...
Yes…


or they have a lot more arab speakers both native and trained...
Yes…


or because local comanders have the athority to bribe or bully the local sheiks...
Yes…

or maybe the arabs just dont want to fight the only other tribe wear men wear dresses
just kidding blackwatch.....
They have fought us before… they got their ass's kicked then as well

you guys are the heat
We have our moments…

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:37:53 PM EDT
The British have been in the business of countering insurgencies and terrorism longer than us.  More of their Senior Officers (Generals, Colonels) have Special Operations experience particularly in unconventional warfare, they speak and understand the Arab Customs too.  

We on the other hand, our Forces have been designed for the most part to break and destroy anything in its path.  Like Fallujah and Najaf, both those places fit squarely with what we do best.  Both are classic examples of how to conduct Urban Warfare.  

I will point out the Marines have been conducting Ops much like the Brits from what I have read, doing alot of patroling on foot.  I can remember back to the beginning of the conflict when Gen Mattis told of how he wanted Marines to use the No Greater Friend/No Greater Enemy approach (it reminds me of British Operations).

All in all, I don't think U.S. Forces have done all that bad, we just had to relearn lessons from Vietnam and see how the Brits do it.  Most of the problems we have are in the hot spots and most of that is from foriegn fighters from Iran, Syria, and elsewere who don't respond to "hearts & minds".  The Black Watch got a car bomb in one those hot spot sectors when they move up, Andy pointed out in another thread that the Black Watch had payback too.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:40:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

What do you make of this? Is it a tactics issue, an intelligence gathering issue or both?
-CH



... you forgot another possible variable - politics
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:44:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
The Brits have traditionally done well at insurgency problems.  It's probably for the same reasons they were so successful (comparatively) at governing their colonies.

EDIT:

The Malay campaign is still pointed to as a textbook case.



It often surprises people when they learn just how few British were needed to run the various colonies during the Empire… hundreds, or a few thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

The Malay Campaign is indeed quoted as a 'textbook' example', but the textbooks tend to skip over the targeted assasinations!

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:46:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
The Brits have traditionally done well at insurgency problems.  It's probably for the same reasons they were so successful (comparatively) at governing their colonies.

EDIT:

The Malay campaign is still pointed to as a textbook case.



It often surprises people when they learn just how few British were needed to run the various colonies during the Empire… hundreds, or a few thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

The Malay Campaign is indeed quoted as a 'textbook' example', but the textbooks tend to skip over the targeted assasinations!

ANdy



What's that saying?  Can't make an omelete without cracking some eggs?

Some people need killing.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:47:26 PM EDT
How did the Brits fare in the Falklands?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:49:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
How did the Brits fare in the Falklands?



Short story?  Kicked some ass.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:50:09 PM EDT
Andy, you guys had some action over in Oman too (I can't think of the time frame).  I know that Dick Meadows (SF legend) participated in SAS operations there.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:51:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
How did the Brits fare in the Falklands?



Short story?  Kicked some ass.



And people criticize Thatcher...sheesh.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:53:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
The British have been in the business of countering insurgencies and terrorism longer than us.  More of their Senior Officers (Generals, Colonels) have Special Operations experience particularly in unconventional warfare, they speak and understand the Arab Customs too.  

We on the other hand, our Forces have been designed for the most part to break and destroy anything in its path.  Like Fallujah and Najaf, both those places fit squarely with what we do best.  Both are classic examples of how to conduct Urban Warfare.  

I will point out the Marines have been conducting Ops much like the Brits from what I have read, doing alot of patroling on foot.  I can remember back to the beginning of the conflict when Gen Mattis told of how he wanted Marines to use the No Greater Friend/No Greater Enemy approach (it reminds me of British Operations).

All in all, I don't think U.S. Forces have done all that bad, we just had to relearn lessons from Vietnam and see how the Brits do it.  Most of the problems we have are in the hot spots and most of that is from foriegn fighters from Iran, Syria, and elsewere who don't respond to "hearts & minds".  The Black Watch got a car bomb in one those hot spot sectors when they move up, Andy pointed out in another thread that the Black Watch had payback too.



The way to deal with the foreign fighters is to use a 'carrot & stick' approach with the local population. Make it clear, if Terrorists are operating in your area, we will keep raiding your homes, searching everything that moves and generally being a total PITA…if Terrorists stop operating in your area or 'someone' fingers them then the heat comes off…

People learn, and when Abdull the Trader gets his car load of smuggled TV's (which the British have been turning a blind eye to him smuggling for months) seized in a stop and search, he doesn't say to himself "Damn Brtish'… he thinks to himself "if those local hotheads hadn't shot at the patrol I would not have had my TV's grabbed"… so he drops a coin.

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 5:57:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Andy, you guys had some action over in Oman too (I can't think of the time frame).  I know that Dick Meadows (SF legend) participated in SAS operations there.



60's to 70's My old man operated there, I have his Malaya and Oman medals on my den wall……

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
The British have been in the business of countering insurgencies and terrorism longer than us.  More of their Senior Officers (Generals, Colonels) have Special Operations experience particularly in unconventional warfare, they speak and understand the Arab Customs too.  

We on the other hand, our Forces have been designed for the most part to break and destroy anything in its path.  Like Fallujah and Najaf, both those places fit squarely with what we do best.  Both are classic examples of how to conduct Urban Warfare.  

I will point out the Marines have been conducting Ops much like the Brits from what I have read, doing alot of patroling on foot.  I can remember back to the beginning of the conflict when Gen Mattis told of how he wanted Marines to use the No Greater Friend/No Greater Enemy approach (it reminds me of British Operations).

All in all, I don't think U.S. Forces have done all that bad, we just had to relearn lessons from Vietnam and see how the Brits do it.  Most of the problems we have are in the hot spots and most of that is from foriegn fighters from Iran, Syria, and elsewere who don't respond to "hearts & minds".  The Black Watch got a car bomb in one those hot spot sectors when they move up, Andy pointed out in another thread that the Black Watch had payback too.



The way to deal with the foreign fighters is to use a 'carrot & stick' approach with the local population. Make it clear, if Terrorists are operating in your area, we will keep raiding your homes, searching everything that moves and generally being a total PITA…if Terrorists stop operating in your area or 'someone' fingers them then the heat comes off…

People learn, and when Abdull the Trader gets his car load of smuggled TV's (which the British have been turning a blind eye to him smuggling for months) seized in a stop and search, he doesn't say to himself "Damn Brtish'… he thinks to himself "if those local hotheads hadn't shot at the patrol I would not have had my TV's grabbed"… so he drops a coin.

ANdy



Pretty common sense really.  Make the Shieks look good, get the Mullahs involved, turn a blind eye to certain things like smuggling tvs.  Use Medical and Engineering troops to further enhance your image.  



Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:18:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Basra = Shiites = On winning side in upcoming election
Fallujah / Baghdad / Tikrit = Sunni = losing side of upcoming election


Guess which side is really going to be working hard on stirring up shit.



BINGO!  Folks, we have a winner.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:20:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Basra = Shiites = On winning side in upcoming election
Fallujah / Baghdad / Tikrit = Sunni = losing side of upcoming election


Guess which side is really going to be working hard on stirring up shit.



BINGO!  Folks, we have a winner.



Yeah, but didn't we unjustifiably fuck over the Sunnis?

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:24:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 6:26:24 PM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Basra = Shiites = On winning side in upcoming election
Fallujah / Baghdad / Tikrit = Sunni = losing side of upcoming election


Guess which side is really going to be working hard on stirring up shit.



BINGO!  Folks, we have a winner.



Partly right… but Moqtada Al Sadr is a Shiite and was raising hell with his Mahdi Army until he got a severe slapdown recently.

The 'Shit Stirring' up north is supported via Syria… there is an ongoing and quite vicious war going on in the western desert involving the US Special Forces and the SAS/SBS versus the insurgents supply routes from Syria.

US needs to put real pressure on Assad to stop providing support and safe havens for Baathist Insurgents within Syria.

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:24:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Basra = Shiites = On winning side in upcoming election
Fallujah / Baghdad / Tikrit = Sunni = losing side of upcoming election


Guess which side is really going to be working hard on stirring up shit.



BINGO!  Folks, we have a winner.



When the Sunni Shieks figure out that being a Politician that they can line their pockets with money and get in on rackets, they will get with the program.  Like Andy said, Arabs like MONEY and it puts the Ego driven Shieks in the spotlight too.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:28:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Basra = Shiites = On winning side in upcoming election
Fallujah / Baghdad / Tikrit = Sunni = losing side of upcoming election


Guess which side is really going to be working hard on stirring up shit.



BINGO!  Folks, we have a winner.



Partly right… but Moqtada Al Sadr is a Shiite and was raising hell with his Mahdi Army until he got a severe slapdown recently.

The 'Shit Stirring' up north is supported via Syria… there is an ongoing and quite vicious war going on in the western desert involving the US Special Forces and the SAS/SBS versus the insurgents supply routes from Syria.

ANdy



I will like to hear about their exploits out there.  
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:33:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 6:33:25 PM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:




Partly right… but Moqtada Al Sadr is a Shiite and was raising hell with his Mahdi Army until he got a severe slapdown recently.

The 'Shit Stirring' up north is supported via Syria… there is an ongoing and quite vicious war going on in the western desert involving the US Special Forces and the SAS/SBS versus the insurgents supply routes from Syria.

ANdy



I will like to hear about their exploits out there.  



You won't hear much…

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:33:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 6:40:40 PM EDT by sharky30]

Originally Posted By vito113:
Intel Gathering…

Facts is facts… you guys are terrible at this!  Buy the info! Be corrupt, pay them off, you're in it to win, not get an anti corruption award!

ANdy



but the CIA and other US intelligence agencies aren't allowed to operate with bad people anymore thanks to clinton and torecelli
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:33:59 PM EDT
The Western Desert has been a focal point for a good while.  Syria has a lot hinging on whether Iraq goes democratic; they are f---ed unless the insurgents decisively defeat the US in Iraq.

They've been caught too many times sticking their fingers into the pie.

Libya was in the same boat.  Libya saw the light, though, and came groveling early in the game.  It's too late for Syria to do the same.

Iran is in a tenous situation anyway, but they were smart enough to not do anything overtly stupid (or at least any more so than usual).

It'll be Syria before Iran.  Just wait on it.  As soon as the situation in Iraq settles down and the Palestinian leadership situation stabilizes.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:36:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Intel Gathering…

Facts is facts… you guys are terrible at this!  Buy the info! Be corrupt, pay them off, you're in it to win, not get an anti corruption award!

ANdy



but the CIA and other US inteligence agencies aren't allowed to operate with bad people anymore thanks to clinton and torecelli



I suppose thats one big advantage we still have… MI6 do pretty much what they like, no questions asked.

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:43:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 6:55:40 PM EDT by eodtech2000]

Originally Posted By vito113:

You won't hear much…

ANdy



I know that.

I just like to hear is that Hadji's are getting their asses handed to them by guys who drive around in pink Land Rovers and who can really reach out and touch you with .338 Lapua's and .50 McMillians.


High Res Link

ETA, fixed the HI RES pic
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:45:01 PM EDT
#1 Brit experience in these things, as already mentioned. You don't run an empire for hundreds of years and not learn a thing or two.

#2 We run more convoys because we have more boots on the ground to support. We also have longer supply lines. More opprotunity for ambush/roadside IEDs.

#3 We're too idealistic. We think Jeffersonian democracy will spring up everywhere if given a chance. We don't realize that the rest of the world, unlike our short history, has a long history of doing things differently. You can't bring Jeffersonian democracy from chaos. Remember we had alot of republican and democratic tradition, thanks to the Brits, to bring to the table when we formed this nation. That does not exist everywhere. You have to restore order first. That means backing people you wouldn't normally go to the local pub and drink with.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:53:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By vito113:

You won't hear much…

ANdy



I know that.

I just like to hear is that Hadji's are getting their asses handed to them by guys who drive around in pink Land Rovers and who can really reach out and touch you with .338 Lapua's and .50 McMillians.

www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/feb/230204/SAS%20Patrol_lo.jpg
High Res Link



Those guys are SASR...Australian
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 7:44:41 PM EDT
......................TOP FIVE REASONS BRITS DO BETTER IN IRAQ.......................................
 
 #5 Arab males to distracted by muscular sweaty british soldiers,    "to cute to shoot"

 #4 Believe BBC news stories that British Army about to convert to Islam

 #3 Being in a locked room with tommy not the experience they thought it would be

 #2 If they fight the Brits where would they get their wiskey

 #1 Fear of tony blair's wife comming to iraq and converting them to the one true religion

Link Posted: 1/8/2005 4:01:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
but the CIA and other US intelligence agencies aren't allowed to operate with bad people anymore thanks to clinton and torecelli



The idea of the Torch as an anti-corruption crusader is hilarious.  Was he wearing the Rolex he got from the concrete 'trade association' when he introduced the bill?
Link Posted: 1/8/2005 4:26:05 AM EDT
Interesting comments fellas. I always like to hear your thoughts Andy, as you have some good ones. Same goes for you Neutral Observer. You two guys are becoming some of the brightest minds in the ARF.com army.
Top Top