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]