Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosives? (1 Viewer)

[::Major_Baker::]

What do you think?
Would Iraqis be able to fight effectively against US military with small arms only?

I posted something in another thread that some took offense to. I mentioned effectively that the insurgents in Iraq are 'making progress' militarily via use of explosives. (roadside bombs, car bombs, etc)

Apparently we are not supposed to speak of this:shock:

However, If you really pay attention, you cannot deny the importance of this tactic in the Iraq theatre.
I attached two graphs here.
Although the months are not the same time ranges, it shows the total number of US troops killed by month, compared to the number of US troops killed by IED by month. You can see that IEDs are proving quite effective against such a superior army. For example, in October 2005, 57 of the 96 US troops killed were killed by explosives.

We all know how advanced the US military is with night vision, thermal, guided bombs, c130 spectre gunships, bradley fighting vehicles, armored humvees, etc.

So the question is, do you think that without explosives as a tactic, would the Iraqis even stand a chance against us?


graph data from: http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[jfuh]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

It all comes down to how determined either side is to win. Though the small arms are completely incapable of any effect militarily, however their constant attacks have prooved devastating to moral. Ppl at home are tired of this conflict and the administration has done little in terms of any change in strategy.
Tactically thier inferior, strategically, they're out manuvering us. Looks like it's becoming a case where we win all the battles, but loose the war.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

With or without explosives the answer still no. These same people you think are making headway by targeting there own civilians and a few soldiers are just night stalking terrorist. We are playing a game of cat and mouse to keep this war PC. If we decided to actually fight this war all the IED's in Iraq wouldn't make a difference. It's not the terrorist aqnd there IED's making a difference. It's our unwillingness to jump into this war with both feet and a 110% that is

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

It all comes down to how determined either side is to win. Though the small arms are completely incapable of any effect militarily, however their constant attacks have prooved devastating to moral. Ppl at home are tired of this conflict and the administration has done little in terms of any change in strategy.
Tactically thier inferior, strategically, they're out manuvering us. Looks like it's becoming a case where we win all the battles, but loose the war.

I agree determination is a key factor--the iraqis are a proud people, and are justifying their attacks on amercians as 'protecting their country', which I assume any of you with any balls would do as well.

but let's talk about tactics. Determiniation aside, would they have been able to create a formidable opponent without using explosives?
Some call these guerilla tactics cowardly.

Too bad it's our boys that are taking the brunt of it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

What do you mean by "stand a chance?"

It's not like they're fighting to win militarily. All that they have to do is keep the Iraq govt from obtaining legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. To do that they try to keep the Iraqi govt from being able to supply the basics of a govt, like security, sewage disposal, clean water, etc.
It's a political fight that's being waged via violent means.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

What do you mean by "stand a chance?"

It's not like they're fighting to win militarily. All that they have to do is keep the Iraq govt from obtaining legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. To do that they try to keep the Iraqi govt from being able to supply the basics of a govt, like security, sewage disposal, clean water, etc.
It's a political fight that's being waged via violent means.

Good explanations

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

What do you mean by "stand a chance?"

It's not like they're fighting to win militarily. All that they have to do is keep the Iraq govt from obtaining legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. To do that they try to keep the Iraqi govt from being able to supply the basics of a govt, like security, sewage disposal, clean water, etc.
It's a political fight that's being waged via violent means.

You are right, they are trying to win by attrition. Whether it will work is arguable. Militarily, it won't--politically/economically, it might.
However, if they were unable to kill occupying troops, would the resistence be nearly as effective?

Stand a chance, I mean would they be able to be a formidable enemy?
Before the Afghans were given anti-air missles by the USA, the Soviet Union was owning them. Once they got these missles, they were able to shoot down HINDs and cause a weakening int he Soviet war machine.

Iraqis' 'anti-air missles' are their explosives, and the ability of these explosives to disable/destory military vehicles quite effectively.

 

[massive_attack]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

I think they would.

Without the use of IEDs on their side they would probably adapt and over come.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

I think they would.

Without the use of IEDs on their side they would probably adapt and over come.

:rofl

Who the hell are you talking about? What great military minds are present to learn to adapt and overcome. If these stupid animals don't kill themselves making this device. THey hide it under a can at night. Wow ... thats some great adaptation...LOL If there not hiding **** there driving into there own people. If you removed the IED's they would spend there days driving there vehicles into crowds on the street.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

:rofl

Who the hell are you talking about? What great military minds are present to learn to adapt and overcome. If these stupid animals don't kill themselves making this device. THey hide it under a can at night. Wow ... thats some great adaptation...LOL If there not hiding **** there driving into there own people. If you removed the IED's they would spend there days driving there vehicles into crowds on the street.

Do you consider the Iraq resistance, (the ones fighting US troops only) to be stupid animals? Would you turn your country over to invaders? Would you lay down and die?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

Before the Afghans were given anti-air missles by the USA, the Soviet Union was owning them. Once they got these missles, they were able to shoot down HINDs and cause a weakening int he Soviet war machine.

While the SAMs did increase the costs to the USSR more quickly it's arguable that the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan would have fallen apart eventually anyway. The Soviets screwed their own pooch on that one. They were widely critcized (outside the USSR) for taking in to few troops to stabilize the place. They counted on the removal of an unpopular govt to help them win the hearts and minds of the Afghanis. The Soviets made efforts to keep the levels of troop commitment from the Soviet people as the official line was that they were greeted as liberators and that things were going well in the newly liberated and largely peaceful Afghanistan. They even went so far as to conceal the rank of the military guy in charge. Soviet soldiers returning from the front were forbidden to talk about their time in Afghanistan.

The USSR did "jump into this war with both feet and a 110%," as some would say, and ravaged the countryside destroying the homes and farmlands not just of villages that were suspected of supporting one or more of the various rebel groups, but of villages who failed to positively act against rebel groups. The result was that the economy of Afghanistan was decimated. Their exports dropped dramatically. And without the cash from exports, their ability to import was also crippled. The USSR attempted to prop this up by a series of barter deals (that heavily favored the Soviets). The USSR also took to providing major grants and low/no interests loans. In essence, the USSR acquired a major new expense that drug it's corrupt and inefficient economy down even further than it had been.

The advent of the military victories of the rebel groups did enable the groups to maintain and in several instances increase their funding from the various sources. No one wants to back a losing horse. If any of the several attempts to create a unified resistance movement had succeeded, their funding would have increased exponentially.
Political cohesiveness would have been a far more effective tool than any of the SAMs as it would have allowed them access to more funds and more weapons.
Interestingly enough, the bulk (by quantity) of the weapons used by the resistance were of Soviet origin. The Afghanis bragged about this on numerous occasions gainsaying the Soviets repeated assertions that the resistance was primarily a non-Afghani phenomena.

The Soviets kept blaming China and the US for the Afghani resistance movement. They said they'd pull out of Afghanistan in return for assurances from the int'l community in general and the US in particular that the resistance would end and once their puppet regime had obtained security and stability for itself. However, since the resistance was an indigenous movement (despite the USSR's party line that it was the result of imperialistic polces of the US), their was really no way that the int'l community could offer any such guarantees.

Iraqis' 'anti-air missles' are their explosives, and the ability of these explosives to disable/destory military vehicles quite effectively.

This may bring about the US's departure more quickly than if they didn't have access to the vast stores of munitions that were left unguarded in Iraq. But the bottom line is the bottom line. We can't afford (or aren't willing to afford) staying in Iraq indefinitely.

Domestic pressures have already brought forth statements to the effect that we're not going to commit any more money to the Iraq rebuilding efforts than what we've already allocated. In the neighborhod of 20% of that has gone to fund private military forces. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that these private forces will be the source of unfortunate blowback in teh decaeds to come. Executive Outcomes on (American taxpayers) steroids

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

Wow, Simon, impressive. You know your history. I couldn't help but highlight a few things in your past though as they sound alot like the US involvment in Iraq:

They were widely critcized (outside the USSR) for taking in to few troops to stabilize the place.
Much like we were.

They counted on the removal of an unpopular govt to help them win the hearts and minds of the Afghanis(Iraqis).
Much like we did.

The result was that the economy of Afghanistan was decimated. Their exports dropped dramatically. And without the cash from exports, their ability to import was also crippled. The USSR attempted to prop this up by a series of barter deals (that heavily favored the Soviets). The USSR also took to providing major grants and low/no interests loans. In essence, the USSR acquired a major new expense that drug it's corrupt and inefficient economy down even further than it had been.
Iraq is a major new expense for us, and will continue to be for years. How will this affect future economic considerations?


The Afghanis bragged about this on numerous occasions gainsaying the Soviets (USA)repeated assertions that the resistance was primarily a non-Afghani(Iraqi) phenomena.

The Soviets(USA) kept blaming China(Syria) and the (Iran)for the Afghani(Iraqi) resistance movement.
Things sounds eerily familiar.

This may bring about the US's departure more quickly than if they didn't have access to the vast stores of munitions that were left unguarded in Iraq. But the bottom line is the bottom line. We can't afford (or aren't willing to afford) staying in Iraq indefinitely.
Yup, you are right on that.

Thansk for the insight, and showing your knowledge of the conflict.

 

[PeteEU]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

We have to be clear on who we are talking about as the resistance is many folded as I see it.

There are the Iraqi insurgents who target occupation forces and thier allies. This does not include for the most part, damaging local population or facilities as they often live in those areas. These are the "resistance fighters" we have seen in movies and heard off from WW2.. fighting an occupation force.

Then there are the terrorists who want to creat instability by targeting anything and anyone that can bring this to a reality. These have a geo political and global agenda which happens often to be the same as Al Q and Osama. They thrive in instability and will do anything to make sure said instability remains.

There are also the criminal gangs who are in it for the money and power. Lack of police and security have brought these around and they have ruled the streets for far to long. Probally the easiest to get rid off.

Then there are the religious zealots who are gunning for religious rivals. One word.. Iran.

And lastly there is the tribal system... now thats one hard nut to crack. Best way is to earn their trust and respect.. but that went out the window long ago in many areas due to US actions and regaining that is hard as hell.. but not impossible.

All of the above have the following in common to some sort of degree and its damn hard to remove these "positives" in thier favor unless you go totaly Nazi/Stalin brutal.

But all have things in common.

First off they have a near unlimited supply of explosives and weapons, in part the US own fault for not securing Saddams weapon compounds.

Secondly they are the locals, hence they have local knowledge and know the lay of the land. Only the non Iraqi terrorists dont have this advantage and are in many ways on the same playing field as coalition forces.

Thirdly they have sympathy in some parts of the country and are feared in other parts. In the both instances the locals hide and support thier efforts to beat off the invaders. This is also mostly the coalitions own fault because of its idiotic actions during and after the invasion. Image is everything and the coalitions image was destroyed by thier own inability to understand the situation on the ground during the first months.

All these provide a very powerfull positive for the resistance and a huge handicap for the coalition forces.

When you have failed in winning the hearts and minds of the local population as the US has done, then its a upward battle and very hard.

So can the usuage of bombs and handguns bring the US to its knees? You bet it can in a hostile country which Iraq is. The US goverment lost the heart and minds of the people they "freed" and have now all but lost the hearts and minds of its own people in this fruitless war. Would not have been an issue if say WMD had been discovered as then the justification for going in was there, but with no WMD, no links to Osama and no real threat to the US or the world.. well asking why the hell one is there is only natural.

In the end it will not be the Iraqies who will defeat the US, it will be the US who defeats itself with a lot of help from the Iraqies. One could say.... Vietnam over again.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

Do you consider the Iraq resistance, (the ones fighting US troops only) to be stupid animals? Would you turn your country over to invaders? Would you lay down and die?

But you can't prove they exsist. There isw no evidence that I have heard of stating there is a group that is solely fighting soldiers. Your assuming that all the people who crossed te borders into Iraq are not fighting anymore. WHat makes you think that this is strictly an IRAQI fight. And to answer your question in some form. I think these would be people (if they actually exsisted) who were loyal to Saddam. Meaning that they are not fighting for there country, or whats best for it. BUt fighting to destabilize it so they can further there political and most;ly religious agenda

 

[ProudAmerican]

With or without explosives the answer still no. These same people you think are making headway by targeting there own civilians and a few soldiers are just night stalking terrorist. We are playing a game of cat and mouse to keep this war PC. If we decided to actually fight this war all the IED's in Iraq wouldn't make a difference. It's not the terrorist aqnd there IED's making a difference. It's our unwillingness to jump into this war with both feet and a 110% that is

spot on.

as long as we tie the hands of our military to satisfy the anti american element in our country, we are doomed to fail.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

spot on.

as long as we tie the hands of our military to satisfy the anti american element in our country, we are doomed to fail.

by anti-american i assume you mean war protestors?
So now Iraq's failure to be as easy as we hope is the liberal's fault?

unreal! You guys just keep shifting and shifting the blame away. What happens when you run out of scapegoats?

 

[ProudAmerican]

by anti-american i assume you mean war protestors?
So now Iraq's failure to be as easy as we hope is the liberal's fault?

unreal! You guys just keep shifting and shifting the blame away. What happens when you run out of scapegoats?

THE ONLY way this country can fail in Iraq, is if we allow the anti American element to dictate the rules, and the pace of the war.

to think these rogue animals could ever compete with the full force of Americas military might is simply ludicrous.

and the last time I checked, it was the LIBERALS demanding we leave Iraq before the job is done.

so of course, it only makes perfect sense to blame the right for our early withdrawl (when it happens....and it will happen)

 

[cherokee]

Re: Would the Iraqi resistance have a chance against US forces without using explosiv

I agree determination is a key factor--the iraqis are a proud people, and are justifying their attacks on amercians as 'protecting their country', which I assume any of you with any balls would do as well.

Yes they are proud.....Proud to kill 30 innocent people to kill one or two US troops or an elected government official. ...:roll: Yep fighting the evil Americans I guess the have to kill off as many of the Iraqi police as they can....:roll:

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
With or without explosives the answer still no. These same people you think are making headway by targeting there own civilians and a few soldiers are just night stalking terrorist. We are playing a game of cat and mouse to keep this war PC. If we decided to actually fight this war all the IED's in Iraq wouldn't make a difference. It's not the terrorist aqnd there IED's making a difference. It's our unwillingness to jump into this war with both feet and a 110% that is

Yes.....