U.S. Uses Lethal Aircraft to Try to Break Sadr

[bemildred]

More displacement activities. I'm sure glad they didn't
use the non-lethal aircraft. One has to wonder as well whether
the militias have any SAMS handy. No real new news here I'm
afraid.

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military pounded
positions held by radical clerical(sic) Moqtada al-Sadr's lightly
armed militiamen early Friday, unleashing one of its most
terrifying aircraft in a bid to break their will to fight.

The unmistakable menacing buzz of the AC-130 gunship
equipped with everything from rapid fire machineguns to
deadlier howitzers was followed by thuds around a holy
shrine and ancient cemetery where Sadr's men are holed up.

Houses as far as five km (three miles) away shook as the
fierce attacks sent up orange flashes.

Bradley fighting vehicles could be heard firing, while
armored machines advanced toward militants who are full of
zeal and hatred but short on weapons that can repel that
kind of pressure.

Reuters (more terrifying blather)

Edit: link

[frylock]

1. those gunships are incredibly accurate..

they only kill militiamen, insurgents, Saddam loyalists, dead enders...

[bemildred]

2. and pound sand. nt

[REVOLT823]

6. Yeah, exactly

Firiing a howitzer mounted on an aircraft travelling at least 300 mph does not sound like precision bombing to me.

[JSJ]

13. and those children aren't really dead- they're just play-acting as...

...kids will often do.

[HawkerHurricane]

3. Are there non-lethal aircraft?

This is a newstory that someone has added unneeded adjectives to.

And does it really matter if the peice of metal that kills you came from a 'rapid fire machine gun' or a 'deadly howitzer'?

[Endangered Specie]

4. reconissance drones?

[HawkerHurricane]

5. OK, you got me.

Even Piper Cubs have carried weapons and used them, though.

[RivetJoint]

15. Predator (A recce "drone")

carries hellfire missiles.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. Here's a non-lethal aircraft...

(this landed in my back yard on Tuesday, no fatalities ;))

[RedEarth]

7. Actually is is just a slaughter....

It's sickening to think they would resort to this and not continue talking....I guess talking takes too long.

[bemildred]

That too.

But I will be surprised if is "militarily significant".
They are pounding flat a centuries old cemetary, miles in size,
with lots of hiding places and tunnels and such.

NAJAF, IRAQ -- Unexploded rockets stick out of tombstones. Booby-trapped artillery
shells lie buried on narrow lanes lined with crypts. Guerrillas hide in a vast sea of
pockmarked graves filled with underground tunnels, letting loose with rocket-propelled
grenades and mortar fire before scampering back to their holes.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4923021.html

[Nile]

14. Talk has not worked.

Why keep talking when the other side does not want to.

[ze_dscherman]

18. Ever looked at what the other side wants to?

Please don't fall for the propaganda crap that Sadr is a madman that just has to be dealt with militarily. The situation is far more complicated.

Please read http://www.juancole.com. I especially recommend the "What does Muqtada al-Sadr Want?" post.

[RedEarth]

24. You and I read the same site(Juan Cole)...it is far more complicated than

most people realize.....trying to kill off Sadr and his supporters is totally fruitless. If only the US would have consulted people like Cole prior to this disaster in Iraq.....

[bemildred]

19. Mr. Al Sadr is more than willing to talk.

He will talk all day and all night if we like.
And talk does have the advantage that it does not destroy
anything or piss anybody off. It's cheaper. It's like
when you have an argument with your spouse. Do you keep
talking or just try to beat the shit out of them?

[Red State Rebel]

23. That depends on if he is shooting at you or not....

Al Sadr has no respect for any holy shrine when he uses it for a fortress. He has no respect for the residents around the shrine when he brings this onto their homes. He is mad because he has not been included in the new Government in Iraq and he is throwing a temper tantrum.

[bemildred]

25. No, it doesn't. Talk and fighting are not mutually exclusive.

But you are right, and he has no respect for us either. However
you are wrong about his attitude towards the new "government"
(and I use the term loosely, they govern nothing that is not
protected by $1000-a-pop concrete blast walls and $200,000 a
year mercenaries), he has steadfastly refused to have anything
to do with it other than to order it to resign.

[0007]

33. We will tell you what you need or we will slaughter every last one of

you in the name Democracy. Freedom for everyone!! Except those that get in our way and want to talk nonsense.

please play our game so we can take our OIL.

[jmcgowanjm]

8. We have just made enemies out of 90+% of Muslims

That's about 1.1 billion.

The USMilitary should be at battlestations in any
Muslim country.

The CVS JFK should be exiting the Persian Gulf now.

The IDF might as well send 2500 soldiers to Najaf
and 7500 to Ramadi, Fallujah.

Israel and the US are now seen as one and the same.

[Zhade]

9. "full of zeal and hatred" - what a joke.

Yeah, I suppose nothing heats up the blood as much as ONE'S COUNTRY BEING INVADED, ITS RESOURCES AND ANTIQUITIES LOOTED, AND ITS WOMEN AND CHILDREN RAPED AND MURDERED!

Gee, you think they MIGHT be a little bit pissed, guys?

[Laughing Mirror]

12. Full of zeal and hatred is an apt description of Bushco

and the bias or racism or whatever you want to call it in this Reuter's article certainly did jump out of the page at me too. What gall!

[Kinkistyle]

32. OUR death machines of full of LOVE and JOY!

Whee! Enjoy the rainbow of colors that erupt when our bombs explode on your head!

[Just Me]

10. Mass destruction to "break" one person?

Interesting.

[tlcandie]

20. Ya, kind of like going after Saddam only now it's moved to something

else!

[psychopomp]

31. Actually, no

This time, it is not personal--there was no vendetta this time around. Also, this battle is not directed at taking the fight out of one man, it is more about proving to those thinking of picking up a gun that they will just be killed should they do so. What do you think of this idea?

The problem is, the idea was fatally flawed from the outset. Sadr chose to make a stand in a very symbolic and sensitive place and the US took the bait. Or, seen another way, we were led by our bluster to a calamity.

[al bupp]

11. With Every War It's the Same Thing

The morality of bombing aside (and I'm not suggesting we forget it entirely) but from a purely practical point of view, it just doesn't work. Generals have been touting the wonders of aerial bombing to quickly and "painlessly" end conflicts since the 20's. They keep trying the same tactic in different guises, trying to bomb the enemy into submission. I thought the military folks had accepted that this typically fails, but apparently not, or else the it still looks better than all the other alternatives.

Look at Britain during the Blitz. The Luftwaffer's assaults hardened the British will to resist. Likewise, the later carpet bombing of Germany caused them to dig in, with literally entire factories going underground. Read Speer, German armaments production actually increased in '44 despite the Allies air superiority.

The Vietnamese, too, faced w/ overwhelming air power moved whole battailions, along w/ their support logistics, underground. Sure Hanoi was bombed into rubble, but it meant little or nothing militarily. The firebombings of Dresden & Tokyo consumed civilians and old, sometimes historic buildings, but didn't end people's will to fight, or more importantly destroy their war economies.

About the only time it can be said that bombing brought about actual political goals would have been following Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Somehow, I think even the current admin shrinks from this extreme, though sometimes I wonder. I suppose they'd first have to find a big enough target which also lacked any important shrines or oil fields.

[RivetJoint]

16. Kosovo N/T

[al bupp]

21. Good Point

I wonder why it apparently worked there while simular tactics have failed elsewhere? Perhaps it says something about the nature of the resistence?

[RivetJoint]

22. The more technologically advanced

an adversary, the easier it is to use technologically advanced weaponry to disrupt their lives and cause unacceptable hardship. Surgical bombing can be effective if it can be leveraged against the right targets and the right adversary. Serbia didn't think Kosovo was worth having their power plants, bridges, and LOCs destroyed.

[al bupp]

26. OK then, an equation for this...

...might look something like this:

Chance Bombing Works = Opponents' Level of Technology * (1 / Ability to Hit Targets that Matter To the Opponent) * (1 / Opponents' Willingness to Resist)

Meaning that if either one can't actaully hit things the other guy cares about or they want to resist even if one can, then the chances of bombing doing any good become small, although in either case the chances get better the more targets the opponent offers.

If this holds any water, then I'd say the the chances of it working in Iraq are vanishingly slim.

[happyslug]

27. Bombing failed in Kosovo

During the Kosovo Action, Serbia was isolated from any potential support. The bombing appears to have been a failure (Most of the Serbian Equipment survived the bombing). The leadership of Serbia was replaced AFTER the conflict (By a person who attacked from the RIGHT i.e. The Communist leadership gave up TO much in the peace treaty).

Now the bombing had failed to break the will of the Serbs, what caused the Serbs to sign on the dotted line? While the US moved Apache Helicopter and Black Hawk Helicopters into neighboring Albania. These were used to supply the Kosovo Moslems who were fighting the Serbs. This GROUND force forced the Serbs to concentrate their forces (and making them easier targets for any Air Attacks).

On top of this Serbia was NOT being threatened with attack only Kosovo. In Kosovo you had a large group of people FIGHTING the Serbs on the ground. Thus US Air Power neutralized the Tanks and superior conventional Might of the Serbian Army and reduced the fight to one of pure Infantry. Here the Kosovo Moslems had an advantage in Numbers AND Supply (Being supplied by the US out of Albania).

Even with this it appears the Serbia Army was holding its own in Kosovo. The US than made an offer that the Serbs Accepted, NATO Peacekeepers were to be put into Kosovo, but it was recognized that Kosovo was an inseparable part of Serbia. Since the Serbs were only fighting to keep Kosovo as part of Serbia (and to protect the Serb and Roma Minorities in Kosovo) this was acceptable to them and they signed on the dotted line.

Notice the keys to "Winning" Kosovo:
1. GROUND forces had to be built up and used (Kosovo Moslems instead of US forces but Ground forces none the less).
2. The Area in dispute was NOT overwhelming supporting the Serbs (The Moslem Majority OPPOSED the Serbs).
3. A major concession to the Serbs as to the final disposition of Kosovo (i.e. IT WAS AGREED THAT KOSOVO WAS AND WILL BE PART OF SERBIA).

IT was the combination of all three that forced the Serbs out of Kosovo (and given Number 3, not permanently).

Remember Air Power trumps tanks (Which the Serbs were using in Kosovo), tanks trump Infantry, but Air Power has little affect on Infantry provided the Infancy keep their supply lines open and do not attack when planes are in the sky.

Air Power has a great affect on Tanks for there are hard to hide quickly and need EXTENSIVE supply support (which can be knocked out by Air Power). On the other hand if the Infantry can feed itself in the area it is operating in (i.e. Serbia, Vietnam, and Iraq) Air Power has little to no affect on its military operations.

Thus Air power had a GREAT affect on our TAKING Iraq (it was the key reason we could take Iraq so quickly) but in the type of fighting we are doing now it is almost useless for the Iraqi are being supplied locally and thus air power can NOT cut off their supplies.

[al bupp]

28. Also Good Points, Mr. HappySlug

My understanding of the military history of the Kosovo conflict was insufficient to contradict Mr. RivetJoint's assertion, and it seemed consistent w/ what I did know.

I appreciate your stepping into the conversation to clarify matters. As w/ most things, there's more nuance than might first meet the eye. I find your explanation of the hierarchy among forces interesting. Might we draw the conclusion that the best supplied ground, which trumps everything else, would be a locally supported guerilla army?

On your last point, I would add that worse than being totally useless, in the current situation, air power will have unintended consequences such as a likely stiffening of resistence. Along w/ other advantages in fire-power, bombing certainly is causing them to seek refuge on places considered off limits, such as shrines and civilian residences. Attacking those sites only serves up the ante on inflaming more opposition. This was essentially the argument of my initial message in this thread.

[happyslug]

30. The best supplied army generally wins

In a Guerrilla war the Guerrillas rarely are the best supplied, but supplied enough to attack the enemy supply lines. Thus Guerrilla Wars become a battle for Supplies and Supply lines. Without Supplies an Army will have to withdraw or find itself destroyed. Thus in Iraq you see the attacks on the Supply Convoys (and the US Efforts to protect those convoys).

Now while the Guerrillas are attacking the US Supply lines, the US is trying to destroy the supply chain of the Guerrillas. I use the term Supply Chain for Guerrillas rarely have formal supply lines and if they do it is for items they can NOT get locally. The Supply chain is to provide what is needed daily (food, Clothing, ammunition etc) but are items obtain locally i.e. from the people the Guerrillas are among and fighting for. For this reason to have a successful Guerrilla war you must have popular support, thus ALL successful Guerrilla leaders have been politicians first and soldiers second. You have to maintain the support of the people.

On the other hand the occupying forces is trying destroy that support. If you read the stories of Vietnam you hear of our Special Forces going after Viet Cong "Tax Collectors". These were copied by the Viet Cong From the Chinese Communists. You need money to fight a war, to get money you have to collect taxes, people always complain about paying taxes but will do so if they are reasonable and going for a good cause (a cause they believe in).

To collect these taxes, Mao developed a system of collecting taxes and keeping a ledger of who has or has not paid. The Viet Cong did the same. A Viet Cong leader could NOT just take things from the peasants he was living with. He had to pay them for what he took. He paid them from the proceeds of the tax collectors. The tax collectors kept a log of everyone in his district and how much tax each had paid. Once you paid the amount you owned you did not have to pay again (Tell the next year just like taxes in the US). Thus Viet Cong Units would stop buses on a road and have their tax collectors collect any taxes due.

The US realized these Tax collectors where the key to the Viet Cong. Without them the Viet Cong could not pay for their supplies. This would force the Viet Cong to either dissolve OR raid the peasants. Either way destroy the Viet Cong (For without the support of the peasants who paid the taxes, the Viet Cong would have died out as a fighting force). The US in Vietnam and other areas where Maoist types of Guerrilla fighting have taken place, have always tried to kill these Tax Collectors. We made a serious effort to destroy them. They were the key to the Resistance and how the Resistance were kept supplied.

In Iraq, Sadr ha a weak ability to keep his troops supplied. Thus his willingness weekly to disperse them provided he is not to be killed. On the other hand like all Guerrilla leaders he is a politician first and trying to show he is a reasonable person (and also showing he will NOT waste his troops for nothing). In this situation, like the tax Viet Cong collectors, air power can NOT help us. We need to destroy his hold over these Guerrillas WITHOUT inciting them to open rebellion.

From a Guerrilla point of view Sadr is trying to show he CAN fight and thus forcing the US to deal with him as a military threat. On the other hand, Sadr knows that to be a successful Guerrilla leader he has to be a politican first, a politican who keeps his supporters supporting him. Thus the up and down issues, he will NOT permit his troops to fight a battle they can not win, but at the same time what to show both the US and the Iraqi People his Military strength.

Everyone knows Sadr can not drive out the Americans, that is NOT what he is doing. He is showing to the IRaqi People he is the center of the opposition to the Occupatuon. If you want to oppose the occupation support me. The US Forces know they can kill him any time they want to, but all it will do is make him an martry to his cause. His forces are fighting the Americans, but in destroying the convoys not what is happening in Najaf. The Americans want him destroyed and his forces destroyed hoping that will end the attacks on the Convoys, but without increasing the POLITICAL stature of Sadr.

This is what is going on in Najaf, Sadr forces are winning but in the fight against the CONVOYS and the supply lines of the US Forces NOT against the forces aligned against them in Najaf. The US is hoping to somehow destroy his army WITHOUT increasing Sadr's political strength in Iraq.

In my opinion (and apparantly in Sadr's opinion also) the US will attack. The attacks on the Convoys are excessive and the US has to stop them or withdraw from Central Iraq (and Iraq as a whole). To stop the attacks means destroying Sadr's Army. Sooner or later the cost of increasing the political strength of Sadr will seem minor in comparison to the convoy situation and an attack on Sadr will occur. Probally after the election for once the attack occurs all hell will break loose over the Middle east and Bush does not want that before the election (On the other hand the Military want the attacks on the Convoys to stop thus will continue to "face off" with Sadr till the Troops get the word to attack.).

[Strelnikov_]

29. Agreed, Successful Offensive Cannot Be Undertaken Without Air Superiority

But an effective defense can be effected exclusive of the control of the air.