Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
A gaf?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
We watched a program the other night on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 4 called How the west was lost. It covered as you may think the history of the western, but there was a remark that the US before the Second Gulf war was like Garry Coopers character in High Noon trying to raise a possy to fight the bad guys. Ony in the end being forced to fight them alone. Another case of rewriting history?
-
Message 2
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Quite simple, They were not fighting alone. They may have supplied the biggest numbers, but other countries also fought along side them.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
I think it was fair enough. I agree that it is perhaps a bit offensive of Americans to forget about the British involvement, but this amounts less to a posse than to a hired gun: Another outsider, a Doc Holliday to the Earps.
The crucial comparison is that between the broad coalition assembled by Bush the elder, and the more limited coalition in the war of Bush the younger. The 1991 saw something much closer to a "posse", a coalition that included local powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria. The 2003 coalition failed to recruit any regional players. They stayed aloof and made their opposition to the operation pretty clear. -
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
The 2003 coalition failed to recruit any regional players. They stayed aloof and made their opposition to the operation pretty clear.Μύ
Not true, the invasion was launched from Kuwait, which had been occupied by Saddam in 1991 and whose sovereignty he had never recognised. Coalition forces had been stationed in Oman and had trained there for possible actions against Iraq. Large numbers of particularly US forces had been stationed there since the end of the first Gulf War and, particularly, since the end of 1998 when the weapons inspectors had been withdrawn and a week-long bombing campaign was launched against Iraq making an ultimate ground invasion almost inevitable (when Mr Bush was still in the Texas Governor's mansion). The Gulf States had a vested interest in overthrowing Saddam and gave their support to the Coalition both materially and by supplying bases for both training, supply and eventual invasion.
As far as the actual invasion was concerned 5 countries took part, the USA (248,000 troops), the UK (45,000), Australia (2,000) and Poland (194) as well as Denmark which provided naval and logistical support. There was also an attack by 70,000 Kurdish troops from the areas which the Kurds controlled simultaneously with the invasion from Kuwait. several countries, such as Spain and Portugal, supported the operation but did not deploy troops in the initial invasion.
35 other countries deployed troops in Iraq subsequent to the invasion and took part in significant actions not involving the US such as this one:
29
This was a greater number than in the first Gulf War. The idea that countries outside the US did not support the objectives of the war is fallacious, a liberal myth and a rewriting of history, as well as a 'gaffe', as shown here:
-
Message 6
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
Another case of rewriting history?
No, it's true they're alone because it's the only nation with the numbers to fight a war (US forces are the largest in the west).
Moreover they're technological more advanced than their allies.
They European allies can't fight together a war like in Iraq and Afghanistan without US because they dislike each other. So the new Giano Temple is the White House. -
Message 7
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 8
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
Hmm, trollus americanus, large proboscis being constantly waved around, small brain, mainly active late in the day
-
Message 9
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 10
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
Rudolph91
"An American operation"
It wasn't an American operation.
The first land attack at the Iraq's first line was made by The French Foreing Legion. Norman Schwarzkopf said : "The French Foreign Legion is extraordinary".
"The RAF"
About the RAF: "You" gave American teckies and Jdam on RAF aircrafts to make them somewhat effective because you need RAF pilots. Do you remember the battle of Britain? Do you remember Falkland? They aren't Ducks. They can make the impossible with nothing or less.
"The WWII"
Battle of Britain - El-Alamein - German battleship Bismarck.
Without these, no D-Day.
(they're Brit's wins)
US forces (especially USMC) are the best but Uk force have a millenary war experience and they fight well. I know who fight there.
I hope that two American soldiers kidnapped leave free soon.
Bye
I hope you don't take any of this personal -
Message 11
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
hi rudolph
what did u mean by "Your SAS gave us all a lesson on how not to conduct special ops."
st -
Message 12
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
The Gulf States did indeed provide bases to US forces, but they declined to actively participate in the war. The 1991 conflict saw active participation in the war against Iraq by nine Arab nations. That is a very big difference.
While it is true that there were a lot of countries involved in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a lot of these offered only small, token commitments for political reasons. These 35 countries include ten which sent fewer than 100 soldiers. The Bush administration once even published a list of 49 coalition partners that included half a dozen with no military forces at all.
As for other countries not supporting the objectives of the war, we now know that even British officials had strong misgivings about the war and its goals. The participation of UK forces was mostly offered to keep the 'special relationship' intact, and perhaps in the hope of putting a brake on some of the more foolish plans hatched in the White House. There appears to have been a much greater awareness in London than in Washington that troops would not be able to move in, set the country to rights, and move out. There still was an institutional memory of what it means to try to create order in a country such as Iraq, and how protracted and bloody this is likely to be.
Aside from the diplomatic ineptitude displayed by some members of the US government, the crucial difference between 1991 and 2003 was that the former situation involved symmetrical, the latter asymmetrical warfare. The 1991 conflict was a obvious case of aggression by one country against another, and apart from legal and strategic justifications, a major military operation was an effective means of redressing the situation. In the post-9/11 world, on the other hand, the threat was that of terrorism, but because of the sheer difficulty of effectively fighting terrorist organizations and the lack of preparedness to deal with this problem, the US government chose to go after substitute targets ('rogue states'), a strategy which offered little enough hope for success. The result was, predictably enough, that the substitute targets were defeated but the fight against terrorism had to be continued without interruption. -
Message 13
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
The RAF with it's twice the cost of an M16 Tornado was getting shot out the sky like Ducks on opening day of the season.Μύ
A lot of uninformed and unfair criticism was vented on the Tornado and its JP233 anti-airfield weapon. (The latter certainly had its disadvantages, but did not contribute directly to the losses.) The real problem was not one of equipment, but of tactics and targets, in this case low-altitude attacks against enemy airfields. Low-altitude attacks against defended targets are inevitably very dangerous, because of effective anti-aircraft missiles and guns. Perhaps they turned out to be even more dangerous than expected, but the RAF Tornado's primarily suffered because they had been dedicated to this kind of operation.
Losses were reduced after a change in tactics, with aircraft flying higher to stay out of reach of the light defenses. Whether this means that low-altitude attacks should not have been tried has been hotly debated. On the one hand, this was part of a long-term trend, going on at least since the war in Vietnam, which saw US gunships forced to operate at higher altitudes with larger caliber weapons to stay out of ground fire. On the other hand, operations at medium altitude could be much more dangerous as long as the opponent has a defensive fighter force and an air command structure. And airfields are not easy targets; merely putting a crater in the runway is not enough. -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
Rudolph, your are a bit off base with your Brit gear being 20 out of date. The Callanger Mk2 is and this is a fat better battle tank than the M 1. Oh and the armour on your tanks is British.
-
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
That should od course read far not fat.The Tornados suffered because as stated they had to deliver their loads straight and level at a very low hight. There was at the time no weapon that could stand off and do the job.
-
Message 16
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 17
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 18
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 19
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
Rudolph
Andy McNab's book was about the one SAS operation which went wrong, largely due to them being unwilling to murder a small boy who spotted them and gave away their position.
The other SAS patrols operated with great success farther west, in the desert, guiding US aircraft in to attack the Scud launchers, and shooting up some launcher positions themselves. They played a much bigger part in stopping the Scud attacks on Israel than the much-publicised patriot missiles did.
Did you read any books about the US Special forces lately - eg the raid to rescue the hostages in Tehran?
British technology may be behind the US, but so is everyone else's, due to the massive spending of the US defence people. However, technology alone does not win Guerilla wars - you need to understand the political situation, and tread a careful line between killing the enemy and slaughtering civilians at random.
The problem with one American Aircraft taking out an entire armored division, (a slight exagerration, perhaps?) is we'd prefer them to make sure it is an enemy armored division first! -
Message 20
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
hi rudolph
yes i have read \bravo - it was an operation that was compromised - no big thing - it happens
lots of others worked
didnt we have that one in afghanistan were us special forces were compromised and in their eztraction a chinook got taken out ??
u r correct - iraq was a us conflict - we shouldnt have been there - the us war machine after afghanistan was revved up with nowhere to go - iraq was unfortunate enogh to be there
afghanistan was a place we didnt need to be either - it was your war because of Islaamic enmity with your foreign policies - but i was quite happy with our involvement as we should stand together
i wish we hadnt bothered as we were such a bunch of crap - we didnt actually contribute much
st -
Message 21
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
your are a bit off base with your Brit gear being 20 out of date.Μύ
The aviation journalist Jon Lake pointed out in 2007 that the USAF bought about 60 new aircraft a year. While that was a very impressive number by the standard of most of the world's air forces, but nevertheless, at that rate it would take 100 years to replace every aircraft. This would mean that the average age of US combat aircraft would reach 100 years, which of course sounds slightly absurd, but in fact it already is well over 20 years and heading towards 30 years. Some aircraft are now planned to remain in service until they will be 80 years old, such as the B-52 bomber.
The curious reality is that although the US spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the US forces are far from immune to the problem of out-of-date equipment, because the USA maintains (for mostly political reasons) a military that is too big for its budget. It was created during the Reagan years, and since then no administration has dared to make the deep cuts in numbers that would be necessary to make it more sustainable. In 2007 the USAF requested permission to get rid of 1000 aircraft, many of them so old as to be unairworthy or very expensive to maintain, but Congress rejected the idea.
During the wars of 1991 and 2003, geriatric equipment was not a purely UK problem. The biggest problems occur among the less glamorous but still very necessary types: Many C-130 and C-5 transports were rather old, and some of the KC-135 tankers plainly decrepit. Even among the combat aircraft, in 1991 the USAF had to rely on aged F-4G Phantoms for the suppression of the Iraqi air defenses. -
Message 22
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Monday, 26th July 2010
About:"This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way."
In my opinion, Message 16 - Yesterday, didn't broke the House Rules in some way and without the "US posts" it's difficult to understand the meaning of the others linked to them.
"My Lords,I appeal to your mildness and clemency"
-
Message 23
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 27th July 2010
I would agree. Their tanks and APCs were)And still are) in the age bracket of most of Europes. Their A10s (Not wanted at first by the USAF) are a 1970s desisn. The F16 is a updated 70s design. The F15 the same as with the USNs F14. The B52 although a fantatsic bomber, the youngest model is over 40 years old. At the moment the best attack sub in the world is the RNs new Asute (Although they will never get enough of them) The Daring class is the world leader in destroyers, and the Typhoon outclasses most fighters. Swings and round abouts though. They just happen to be new front line weapons
-
Message 24
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 25
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 1st August 2010
Sadly there is a song from Blood brothers which sums up the US. It goes "Living on the Never Never." The US may be one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world when it comes to its armed forces, but they are also one of the deepest in dept. Most of the goods worn driven or played with comes from the likes of China, and if one day those countries were to say. "We no longer want your bits of useless paper for our goods. The US would collapse. (As would the likes of the UK and the EU)Sadly though it would take a very brave President to try and bring your ballance of trade back the way it was. This one won't see a second term as he has decided to try and move the country away from an oil dependant one. The oil companies will throw their vast wealth behind the one who lets them keep producing. China could take over most of the remaining US industries by using its vast supply of dollers and buy shares in those companies. You could end up with ALL the US arms companies being own by Red China.
-
Message 26
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 27
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 1st August 2010
Seems like I luckily missed some uneducated and inaccurate non-Brit bashing dumba**e? Lol
Even Americans must know the great British military victories and institutions that we have won/started?
They officially speak OUR language (ENGLISH) and use GMT time as their focal point geographically!
Back on topic- Gulf 2 broke international law and popular opinion, all for oil and arms/building contracts? -
Message 28
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 1st August 2010
US forces are a joke. I read an article about Royal Marine officer training some years ago, according to which the first thing a recruit was required to do upon arriving at the depot was to go through the US Marines' 'passing out' fitness test. Any recruit who wasn't *already* up to USMC fitness standards was sent home immediately, not even allowed to begin Royal Marine officer training.
The moral was clear: a fully-fledged US serviceman is about as capable as his/her British equivalent on day one of training.
-
Message 29
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
They officially speak OUR language (ENGLISH)Μύ
It's their language too, regardless of the name of it - the name is as cultural and historical accident.
And no one "owns" a language, so we cannot say they use "our" language - they use THEIR varieties of a language called English, it's not OUR language, we have no say how a language is used in another country.
use GMT time as their focal point geographically!
Μύ
Geographically? They use the Prime Meridien as a focal point geographically, but use GMT (actually it's called UTC) for matters temporal. -
Message 30
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
"And no one "owns" a language, so we cannot say they use "our" language - they use THEIR varieties of a language called English, it's not OUR language, we have no say how a language is used in another country."
Perhaps we should own it!
The English language is one of our greatest exports - we should start cashing in on it.
Americans could carry on speaking English, but they'd have to pay an annual fee for the privilege - that should sort out our current cash crisis.
If the Yanks don't like it, they can go back to speaking Navajho or something.
-
Message 31
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Americans could carry on speaking English, but they'd have to pay an annual fee for the privilege - that should sort out our current cash crisis.
Μύ
Why stop there, we could just get them to plead allegiance to the Crown again...! -
Message 32
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
the way they treat our Royalty, I thought they had. LOL. They still refer to houses etc as Victorian were you would think they would refer to them by the President in office. But as they change them every four years it is understandable. It would be like us refering to houses as of the Wlson or Blair area. An offshoot. In the future Will the world refer to things built or madein the Elizabethian period?
-
Message 33
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Back on topic- Gulf 2 broke international law and popular opinion, all for oil and arms/building contracts?Μύ
The causes of that war are complex, but the idea that warfare for oil is somehow objectionable has always struck me as rather ill-considered. Roughly since WWI, oil has been the most important strategic resource of all. And a source of considerable power to those who possess it. Among all possible things to fight for, oil strikes me as one of the more rational reasons; or at least rather more rational as a casus belli than religion or some tract of barren land.
Not to say that the 2003 was really a war for oil -- I think it was not nearly as rational as that -- but where is the logic in allowing blood-thirsty megalomaniacs to hold the world hostage by allowing them control of vital strategic resource?
Anyway, the causes of the 2003 war evidently go back to the end of the 1991 war, when economic sanctions were continued with the stated goal of forcing Iraq to destroy its stockpile of WMD, under the control of UN weapons inspectors. This turned out to be remarkably successful, as the Iraqi regime complied and the weapons inspectors managed to track down and destroy almost the entire WMD stockpile and dismantle the Iraqi weapons programs. However, the USA and UK refused to be satisfied, as their real goal was not to force Iraq to disarm but to bring down the regime of Saddam Hussein. But that goal (laudable in itself) was not achieved by the sanctions, which tended to strengthen rather than weaken the regime, as the smuggling opportunities enriched Saddam and his cronies while simultaneously allowing them to use the suffering of the Iraqi people for propaganda purposes. The result was a uneasy and at times violent stalemate.
These events probably account for the bias of US and to a lesser extent UK intelligence services, who found themselves with a mission to justify official policy by finding evidence for continued Iraqi WMD programs. And if you search hard enough and are gullible enough, you can always find evidence for anything. In any case, the survival of Saddam's regime became a continuous and grating reminder of the limitations of US power.
Then came 9/11, and found the USA and its allies poorly prepared for a counter-terrorism campaign. As is a usual pattern in history, money had been spent to prepare for the wrong war; lots of it had been spent on sophisticated weaponry for conventional warfare and on political sacred cows such as missile defense, but very little on human intelligence and counter-insurgency warfare. Governments then opted to, instead of equipping themselves with the weapons for the war they had to fight, to fight the wars that suited their weapons. Iraq was high on the list of opportune targets. The justifications that were produced, and the debate on legality, are largely red herrings: Like most wars, this one had a political goal, and the goal was simply to overthrow the current regime in Baghdad.
A vaporous kind of idealism also played a role. According to this reasoning, the toppling of one of the harshest and longest enduring dictatorial regimes would result in an outbreak of democracy all around. This would remove one of the major factors that make the Middle East a breeding ground for terrorist organizations (authoritarian government) and solve that problem as well. And, of course, the new democratic regimes would show themselves to be faithful allies of the powers that liberated them, showing gratitude by selling them oil plentifully and cheaply.
As hare-brained as it all sounds today, some of it might actually have been achieved if the US and UK had given themselves time to prepare for this action. There was no real reason for haste, and with hindsight a year of proper preparation would have been worth three years of figuring out what to do amid bloodshed and destruction. -
Message 34
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
"a fully-fledged US serviceman is about as capable as his/her British equivalent on day one of training."
That may or may not be true, but certainly it doen't apply across the board to all those serving in the US armed forces. For example, the pilots of the USN are recognised to be pretty well right up there. -
Message 35
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
the pilots of the USN are recognised to be pretty well right up there.Μύ
Right up their own rear ends, if 'Top Gun' is owt to go by...
How would they fare against the Fleet Air Arm? How does the record of USN pilots during the recent turkey shoots in the Middle East compare with the FAA's record since the Argie invasion of the Falklands? -
Message 36
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Well I wouldn't base my opinions on a movie; more on what Eric Brown and Nigel Ward have to say about them...
Just finished reading "Fly Navy - Naval Aviators and Carrier Aviation; A History" by Phillip Kaplan. It covers both the FAA and the USN and has quite a bit of a personal focus and its hardly "Top Gun". One of the most interesting pilots in it flies COD; not sexy, never going to be made into a movie, but she loves doing it. -
Message 37
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Re: Message 33.
Mutatis Mutandis,
thank you for this thought provoking survey. I read it with great interest and it is a good start to think further about the subject (in my humble opinion).
Kind regards and with high esteem,
Paul. -
Message 38
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
An excellent summary, Mutatis, and the final point is telling - the US belief that their system is so brilliant that everyone will jump at the chance to imitiate it. All you gotta do is bump off the bad guys, and Peace, Democracy, and the American Way will blossom in the desert!
In most places, the first thing they do with their 'freedom' is to have a Good Ol' Civil War, to decide who becomes the new 'oppressors', and the 'even more oppressed'. Surely someone should have noticed that Saddam's boot on their neck was all that was holding the extremists from killing each other, and when we took it away there would be a fairly predictable reaction?
With a lot of calm, sensible, kid-glove treatment, and long-term planning, we might HELP these countries to evolve into democracies, but those are not the first qualities that spring to mind when one mentions US politicians and military. -
Message 39
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
Nevertheless the US seems to have had a better long-term record of bringing democracy and economic prosperity to countries such as Germany and Japan than the Soviet Union did of bringing communism to Eastern Europe.
-
Message 40
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
Very true Allan, although certainly with Germany they were going to be a very prosperous country anyway until Mr Hitler got involved - thier industrialisation and scientific achievement pre 1914 was astonishing. I'd say in alternative history where WW2 never happened they would be a prosperous country today with a thriving democracy.
-
Message 41
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
Until after WWII the German record on both democracy and economic management was patchy to say the least. The Weimar Republic was akin to present-day Russia - "a democracy without democrats".
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.