US dramatically increases military commitment to Iraq

[IrishHand]

Another 120,000 troops, and a large amount of armor and artillery was ordered to be deployed for use in the Iraq invasion today. I'm actually pretty surprised we took this step - I can only imagine it was precipitated by the fact that we expected zero resistance before we hit Baghdad and failed to plan for the possibility of any coordinated resistance.

Any thoughts?

[Stu Pidasso]

I believe invading Iraq is a good strategic move for the United States. That being said.

My thoughts so far are

The diplomacy leading up to the war was a complete cluster f***, and I kinda get the feeling this military campaign is headed down that road as well. In the end however, we will accomplish our goals.

Stu

[Clarkmeister]

Lets put it like this. If we could bet on the war, Iraq is easily covering the spread right now. Their plan is working beautifully:

1. Let the bulk of the US forces go past.
2. Avoid pitched battles and only take on smaller bits of the US forces and the more vulnerable supply lines.
3. If coalition forces in the area are overwhelming, drop back and mix into the city.

It won't be enough for them to win, but It'll sure drag things out a lot longer. Even more critical IMO than their solid counter-strategy has been the fact that the Iraqi people aren't revolting and welcoming us as we had hoped. In fact, it seems that even those who dislike Saddam are willing to fight to defend their country and their homes. Go figure. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Dynasty]

Clarkmeister,

Fox News said a few days ago that the current estimate for Iraqi KIA's was about 25,000. That actually took me by surprise since it's hardly being reported. All the focus is on how many U.S. and British casualties there have been. That does't sound like their plan is working beautifully. They're getting slaughtered.

[Dynasty]

I believe those 120,000 troops were being held in the U.S. with the intention of sending them to Turkey for a land invasion from the north. When Turkey denied our use of their country for a land invasion, the troops were deployed according to "Plan B". It would be a mistake to interpret their deployment as an underestimate of Iraqi resistance.

Sending them into Iraq through the south is only going to cause a slight delay compared to a northern invastion.

BTW, there is no significant Iraqi resistance. The Iraqis are getting slaughtered. The kill ratio has to be over 1000:1.

[Jimbo]

I was gonna let you slide on this one Clarkmeister but since Dynasty commented I figure I would add a little myself.

You wrote "1. Let the bulk of the US forces go past."

This is the same way an ant colony allows you to pitch your picnic blanket on their anthill and later retaliate when you aren't looking. In other words I don't think they let us do anything.

[Clarkmeister]

I haven't seen any report that claims casualties that high. Can you provide a link to a source? I know you heard it on TV, but it should be corroborated somewhere. Given that I haven't heard any number remotely that large despite tons of TV watching and internet surfing, I'm a bit skeptical.

[Dynasty]

I'd have to search for a link to find it. O'Reilly uses "high level sources" (or something like that). Last night the estimate was 25,000-35,000. Maybe O'Reilly's website has it.

[ACPlayer]

About as reliable as Iraqi TV.

[Chris Alger]

It's not being reported because it isn't true. I couldn't find any total estimates of Iraqi war dead from the net, including a review of all the DOD press releases. I doubt that anyone knows, although a few thousand appears to be the high end.

25,000 would be equal to two Republic Guard divisions, or 3 times the number killed on both sides at Gettysburgh. It would also mean that at least 50,000 Iraqis were wounded. And you heard it a few days ago, meaning that in the first few days of the war we turned about a third of Iraqi military forces into casualties? Where do you suppose they hid all the bodies?