Media portrayal of Iraqi tactics

[Clarkmeister]

As I'm sure everyone knows, Saddams troops and other armed supporters are resorting to guerrilla like tactics against the 'coalition' forces.

Things like faked surrender, wearing civillian clothing, using human shields, using hospitals as bases, etc have become common Iraqi tactics. Of course, the US government describes these tactics as "illegal", "terrorist" and "deplorable" in nature.

The media, of course, seems to agree. Supposedly unbiased reporters and anchorpersons shake their heads in dismay when relating these reports, saying its more proof that this is a dispicable regime and more proof that our invasion is justified.

But what are the Iraqis supposed to do? Their country is being freaking invaded. They are quite aware that the invading force has superior training and equipment. All they need to do is see the first few open battles where the casualty counts tended to look something like "Iraqis 100, Coalition 1" and they see that fighting in the open isn't going to get the job done.

So while I agree with the media that these are regrettable tactics by the Iraqis, I can't agree with all the hand wringing and head shaking that is going on. I mean, when we were in a similar situation against England we resorted to guerrilla tactics as well. This is war, not football. There are certain "rules" that go out the window when you are being attacked on your own soil. When defending your homeland against a superior invading force, you use whatever defense strategy is going to be most effective.

For the Iraqis, that strategy clearly is urban guerrilla warfare and avoiding pictched open battles. Can you really blame them for using it?

I can't.

Do I wish they wouldn't resort to such tactics? Of course. I also wish they'd just all lay down their arms and give up. Wouldn't that just be ducky? I do know this, however. In war, if your enemy wishes you'd stop doing something, that "something" is probabaly a good idea for you to keep doing.

[brad]

"Iraqis 100, Coalition 1"

did u hear about iraqi 'militia' in pickup trucks with .50 cals in the back?

they charged our tanks and helicopters and got wiped out. (i think maybe one american death, a soldier who fell out of a helicopter, but i could be wrong.)

all iraqis killed.

well at least we know theyre not cowards.

and that bridge in that one place (basra?) we were counterattacked by elements of 'unorganized militia' and lost the bridge for a while.

not to mention that group of farmers who shot down apache. (ok i know it probably had mech. problems.)

from what i hear its not the organized iraqi thats causing these problems, its the iraqi civilian armed population.

[HDPM]

Here's a problem. Iraq won't win this war. The tactics they are using make surrender of their troops harder. Which means the fight will last longer. It also means more civilians (and I don't even think they are guaranteed to be "innocent") will be killed. Particularly if the army dresses as civilians and uses hospitals as bases. So all the tactic does is hurt the people more, many of whom can be considered "innocent" and does not achieve any military goal. The media will play up any collateral damage for the anti-war crowd when it happens. And it's guaranteed to happen more given the tactics the Iraqis are using.

[Clarkmeister]

"The media will play up any collateral damage for the anti-war crowd when it happens. "

Likely the case. However at present they are playing to the pro-war crowd by repeatedly playing up the "terroristic" Iraqi tactics. Anything for ratings.

I do take issue with the general notion that "they can't win so why should they fight". I mean, come on. Is it really necessary to get into why thats a ridiculous concept?

[HDPM]

Sure. Iraq is a sovereign country in name alone. It has no moral right to exist in its current form. But the people have a right to live. Any tactics that Saddam orders that jeopardize their survival and achieve nothing militarily really are wrong.

[Clarkmeister]

"Iraq is a sovereign country in name alone. It has no moral right to exist in its current form."

Try telling that to Saddam and those who are defending the country. Just because I agree with the statement doesn't mean that others don't strongly disagree. I strongly suspect other countries in the immediate vicinity of Iraq also disagree with the above quote.

"But the people have a right to live. Any tactics that Saddam orders that jeopardize their survival and achieve nothing militarily really are wrong."

But that assumes that he knows that he can't win. I firmly believe that Saddam thinks he can either win, or force some sort of truce/deal due to international pressure. Otherwise he would have run by now. To that end, he is utilizing the most effective tactics available to him.

[B-Man]

When defending your homeland against a superior invading force, you use whatever defense strategy is going to be most effective.

Are there no limits? What about WMD? Are you advocating for the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, like Irishhand?

If Iraq uses WMD against the U.S., the only result will be more dead soldiers on our side, and far more dead soldiers and innocent civilians on there side.

When is a government obligated to do what is best for its people, rather than what is best for the government's survival?

[brad]

'When is a government obligated to do what is best for its people, rather than what is best for the government's survival?
'

never. thats why US is supposed to have a system of checks and balances. too late now though.

[Clarkmeister]

"Are there no limits? What about WMD?"

As I've said before, I'm not sure there's a difference between chemical/biological weapons and conventional weapons. Dead is dead. The only clear line I see is nukes.

Its awful arrogant for us to invade their country and then dictate how they can/cannot defend themselves, don't you think?

"Are you advocating for the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, like Irishhand?"

I've never seen him say anything like "I encourage Iraq to use chemical weapons", so you statement seems more than a little slanderous to me. There is a difference between approving of something, and understanding something. I wouldn't approve of Iraq using chemical weapons against US troops, but I would certainly understand. It would be nice if war had all these neat little rules we talk about all the time, but its war. The lines are way more blurry than we would like them to be.

[Clarkmeister]

[adios]

IMO the civilian casualties are a big issue irregardless of the legitimacy of Saddam's regime. Certainly those who opposed the war will point to containment as a better alternative and will have their positions strengthened if the civilian casualties are high enough.

[B-Man]

Its awful arrogant for us to invade their country and then dictate how they can/cannot defend themselves, don't you think?

We aren't dictating how they can defend themselves, the world is. Chemical weapons have been outlawed for decades. He doesn't have to go along with that, but he will only be bringing about the death of many innocent Iraqi civilians if he uses WMD, because the U.S. response is sure to be overwhelming. Right now we are going out of our way not to harm civilians. I don't know what will happen if WMD are used against us...

I've never seen him say anything like "I encourage Iraq to use chemical weapons", so you statement seems more than a little slanderous to me.

I wasn't slandering Irishhand, I was quoting him. He believes Iraq should use chemical weapons: " Of course, I'll be waiting for the explanation about how they had those WMD and didn't use them in a situation that clearly dictates they can and should. "

[adios]

I see many items reported by the news that would "turn people off" to the war as well. The news media tends to sensationalize as well IMO.

[Clarkmeister]

"IMO the civilian casualties are a big issue irregardless of the legitimacy of Saddam's regime. Certainly those who opposed the war will point to containment as a better alternative and will have their positions strengthened if the civilian casualties are high enough. "

Exactly. Further, I think Saddam understands this and it is a big reason why his troops are utilizing said tactics. I've also heard some of these retired Generals commenting on the various news networks state that we would avoid going street to street in Baghdad "at all cost". This also makes the current Iraqi gameplan seem pretty smart.

The point I was trying to make in my initial post, and I didn't do a very good job, is to ask why the US Media isn't discussing the issue in these terms. Rather than objectively analyzing what Saddam hopes to accomplish with these 'illegal' tactics, they merely pass judgement on them as 'immoral' and shake their heads sadly. What happened to objective journalism?

[Clarkmeister]

"The news media tends to sensationalize as well IMO"

Oh, I agree with this 100%. One could argue that the only media bias isn't pro-war or anti-war, it is pro-ratings.

[adios]

Certainly the quality of news coverage or lack thereof isn't a big surprise to you.

[Clarkmeister]

"Right now we are going out of our way not to harm civilians. I don't know what will happen if WMD are used against us..."

I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think that WMD would change our overall attitude towards civillians. Just when we get the world on our side ('See? We told you he had WMD!") we aren't about to piss them off by then offing thousands of civillians if we can at all avoid it.

As far as Irish, there is a big difference IMO between 'advocating' the use of WMD and acknowledging that there are situations where they can be used if it is the only recourse left. I'm sure Bush doesn't feel he was 'advocating' war, but does feel it was his only option. Similarly, if using chemical weapons is the last line of defense for Iraq, I wouldn't approve of it, but I would think it hypocritical of us to tell them they can't use it. Death is death.

Look, our media is actually MAD at those 'tricky Iraqi bastards' for using ambushes, etc. Don't you find that at least a little laughable?

[Glenn]

Yep. I am pro war and I think these "rules of war" are ridiculous. If China invaded the US the army better use VX, Sarin, and everything else they have against them, ESPECIALLY if we knew they wouldn't retalitate with the same. Our best defense would be armed citizens launching small scale attacks against occupiers. I don't like the Iraqi regime, but they are doing what they need to do. Some people are forgetting that our enemies are not supposed to let us win.

[Mark Heide]

The major media in the US is force fed it's information from the US administration. But, it's perfectly fine when the US employs propaganda tactics. The US was the first to show captured Iraqis on TV.

Anyway, it should be expected that the Iraqi military is capable of doing anything at this point, and it would be a mistake to think otherwise. They have been told by our administration that they are not included in the regime change. Which essentially means that they are not going to live once the US takes over, so they might as well prolong it to live a few more days.

Mark

[IrishHand]

I love my pretty quotes being taken out of context. Fortunately, in this case it doesn't matter. (For the record, I was referring to the inevitable US "discovery" of hordes of WMD, and then imagining my amusement at the ridiculousness of this scenario since the same people who would be finding the WMD are the ones who're convinced that he'd use them. If he wouldn't use them while his nation is being steamrolled and his people and military are being slaughtered, when, exactly, did you think he was going to use them?)

What do I actually think? I think that if I were the leader of a nation (or the leader of it's military) which had been attacked without provocation by a vastly superior military power who's stated goal was the destruction of my nation's government, I would absolutely use every means at my disposal to repel or discourage the invaders. If I knew I couldn't fight in open battle, as they clearly can't, I'd resort to commando-style, guerrilla-style tactics - basically anything I could use to try to balance the gross disparity in military power. I would blow up bridges and mine roads to slow the enemy. I would post snipers in houses in harmless-looking villages to either slow the enemy further or demoralize him if he wasn't slowed. I would launch my few localized attacks at night. I would allow him to advance his forces to a point where his supply issues would decrease his power somewhat, and where my smaller quantities of artillery and other short-range weaponry would be more effective. I would certainly do everything in my power to encourage urban warfare - this has the double benefit of neutralizing many offensive weapons and also galvanizing the populace against the invader. Ultimately, if the enemy had occupied the vast majority of my country and was unwilling to negotiate, I would use every single means at my disposal in an effort to either repel him or force some sort of stalemate or negotiation.

So yes, if Iraq has nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or biological weapons or any other types of weapons, I would fully expect them to use them to defend their land in the situation described above. Do I think this is a good, humanitarian thing to do? Of course not. I just understand the military code which prescribes resisting to the last with every means at your disposal.

[Chris Alger]

"The media will play up any collateral damage for the anti-war crowd when it happens."

What do you mean, "play up?" Do you mean "exaggerate" or the mere mention of it while (1) citing (presumably discredited) Iraqi officials as their source or (2) following it with the usual statements by US officials about how they haven't verfied it, hard they try to prevent it, etc.

If the first, can you think of a single example where the press has done this?

[HDPM]

By "play up" I mean reporting it in a way that evokes excessive emotion against the bombing almost to the point of editorializing against it. And I am mostly speaking of TV journalism. I just saw part of a segment where the reporter was dutifully getting the party line from some miscellaneous ex-colonel. But all the pictures were of forlorn looking civilians and the tone of voice of the reporter and the overall effect was to build up sympathy for those who get bombed by living too close to military installations. I'm not arguing for the deliberate bombing of civilians here or saying it is a happy fun event when civilians get bombed. But all thinking people know this happens in a war. That is one reason why some are so much against war. But to report on the collateral damage in the inherently emotional, shallow, and out of context way of TV journalism is to "play up" the collateral damage. I'm not saying the reporters are now deliberately giving out false information to undermine the American effort as Walter Cronkite did. Mostly they just go for ratings and sad looking people in bombed out neighborhoods are good for this. So it's played up when it happens.