Slashdot Mirror
Major Strike on Iraq Underway
The major news sources are reporting that much larger scale attacks are now underway in Iraq. Here is CNNs story. Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier. In other words, it starts now. Update: 18:01 GMT by CT : Iraq has apparently ordered
CNN out of Baghdad.
Updates as events warrant.
I'm watching ABC and they arent saying anything like that. They're actually saying "Shock & Awe" might be delayed because of possible successes in the strikes the other night.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Strategic wise, it causes a lot of smoke, attempting to make it hard for planes and ground forces to form a strike. It is far more efficient against the ground units than the planes, which use Sattelite imaging and such to target, not visual.
How Jaded Are You?
boop - wrong
D-Day was in fact the fourth possible day that the Allied invasion of France was planned for. The first three (A-Day, B-Day and C-Day) where in fact called off due to weather problems in the English Channel.
Hence the Pentagon using the A-Day terminology again.
I don't know the reasons why, but I find it interesting that he told Dan Rather just a few weeks ago that he wouldn't set fire to the oil fields under any conditions.
Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
It screws up visibility pretty badly. This matters a lot for aircraft navigation. Poor visibility also hinders laser guided bombing.
Not that it matters much now. Apparently most of the prediction ordinance uses GPS and inertial guidance now, which obviates lasers. However, I'm sure this isn't yet universal.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
It isn't clear that Saddam ordered this, or really had anything to do with the oil pumps (and it was a few pumps, not fields) being lit on fire. It was probably some scared troops, acting independantly.
Do not read this sig.
But isn't "Shock and Awe" what the US Military (oops, the Coalition Forces) coined it, NOT CNN?
Boop, wrong.
It doesn't stand for anything. Much like the S in Harry S Truman.
An explanation according to Joint Chiefs
D-day. The unnamed day on which a particular operation commences or is to commence
Never confuse volume with power.
How about:
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
I've run across this little tidbit of history a couple times now. I figure those who haven't should read it now. I didn't write this, and I'm not claiming credit. Reading on BBC (a couple hours ago) that the US was using a "Shock and Awe" technique is especially disturbing.
------
Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric
offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over
><));>
Just so everyone else knows, the BBC has free feeds and news about the war in Iraq that you do *not* have to register for.
Or so the history channel claims. I have no idea what A-Day means.
And going to the paper that seems to be the source of the Shock and Awe terminology:
Key words here: adversary's losses in both manpower and material could be relatively light
The paper is a long read, but it's extremely insightful.
The paper describes many ways of inflicting Shock and Awe on an opposing force, and they do not necessarily require the complete and utter (military) devastation of the opposing force.
(Then again, just as I was about to click "Submit", I saw most of the government buildings in Baghdad get the absolute shit blown out of 'em. Consider me shocked and awed either way. :)
Shock and Awe
The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force. War, of course, in the broadest sense has been characterized by Clausewitz to include substantial elements of "fog, friction, and fear." In the Clausewitzian view, "shock and awe" were necessary effects arising from application of military power and were aimed at destroying the will of an adversary to resist. Earlier and similar observations had been made by the great Chinese military writer Sun Tzu around 500 B.C. Sun Tzu observed that disarming an adversary before battle was joined was the most effective outcome a commander could achieve. Sun Tzu was well aware of the crucial importance of achieving Shock and Awe prior to, during, and in ending battle. He also observed that "war is deception," implying that Shock and Awe were greatly leveraged through clever, if not brilliant, employment of force.
In Rapid Dominance, the aim of affecting the adversary's will, understanding, and perception through achieving Shock and Awe is multifaceted. To identify and present these facets, we need first to examine the different aspects of and mechanisms by which Shock and Awe affect an adversary. One recalls from old photographs and movie or television screens, the comatose and glazed expressions of survivors of the great bombardments of World War I and the attendant horrors and death of trench warfare. These images and expressions of shock transcend race, culture, and history. Indeed, TV coverage of Desert Storm vividly portrayed Iraqi soldiers registering these effects of battlefield Shock and Awe.
In our excursion, we seek to determine whether and how Shock and Awe can become sufficiently intimidating and compelling factors to force or otherwise convince an adversary to accept our will in the Clausewitzian sense, such that the strategic aims and military objectives of the campaign will achieve a political end. Then, Shock and Awe are linked to the four core characteristics that define Rapid Dominance: knowledge, rapidity, brilliance, and control.
The first step in this process is to establish a hierarchy of different types, models, and examples of Shock and Awe in order to identify the principal mechanisms, aims, and aspects that differentiate each model as unique or important. At this stage, historical examples are offered. However, in subsequent stages, a task will be to identify current and future examples to show the effects of Shock and Awe. From this identification, the next step in this methodology is to develop alternative mission capability packages consisting of a concept of operations doctrine, tactics, force structure, organizations, and systems to analyze and determine how best each form or variant of Shock and Awe might be achieved. To repeat, intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain by the threat of use or by the actual application of our alternative force package. Then the mission capability package is examined in conditions of both MRCs and OOTW.
For discussion purposes, nine examples representing differing historical types, variants, and characteristics of Shock and Awe have been derived. These examples are not exclusive categories and overlap exists between and among them. The first example is "Overwhelming Force," the doctrine and concept shaping today's American force structure. The aims of this doctrine are to apply massive or overwhelming force as quickly as possible on an adversary in order to disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties and losses to ourselves and to non-combatants as possible. The superiority of American forces, technically and operationally, is crucial to successful application.
There are several major criticisms and potential weaknesses of this approach. The first is its obvious reliance on large numbers of high
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
And just remember all you anti-war types, you're still an infidel that needs to die in the eyes of a militant islamic terrorist.
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
Nope, he said he didn't have any SCUDs, and that's what was fired (according to what Hans Blix said last night at least).
Unless it is just my browser, the correct link has an "_" in it...
/.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
apparently the "_" is taken out by
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
Well, on the British side: HMS Ocean, a 21,000 tonne assault/helicopter landing platform with a complement of Commando Sea Kings and Merlins.
HMS Ark Royal, 20,000 tonne aircraft carrier with a complement of Sea Harriers and Merlins.
HMS Argus, hospital ship, with 150 surgeons of varying specialties plus support staff.
Assorted type 22 and type 23 frigates, armed with Tommahawk Cruise Missiles.
3 Commando Brigade and 35 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines, along with a shed load of armour from the army.
There are a few other ships out there, as well as Trafalgar class submarines, but Ocean and Ark Royal are the main ships.
We might have small ships comapred to the US, but we're right there.
I saw a Nimitz class US aircraft carrier on the news this morning (these are the biggest military ships afloat, capable of deploying 200 aircraft and helicopters).
I also saw eight B52-G/H bombers take off from RAF Fairford in Oxfordshire this morning, presumably on the way to Iraq, each capable of holding 70,000 lbs of assorted ordinance. I would imagine they were carrying Tommahawk Cruise missiles though - each one can carry 20.
In the capture of Umm Kasar port in the early hours, an armour column was needed to shift a few gun positions that they weren't expected. Both American M1-A2 Abrams and British made Abbot self propelled guns were used to get through - both have the ability to fire twice as far as the Iraqi's Russian made T72 tanks, so they can park up 4km away, well out of firing rane of the Iraqis and pound away with 120mm guns until they're eliminated.
The M1-A2 can also fire that mammoth gun in the dark and in zero visibility weather since it has a very good thermal camera and a military grade GPS system with connection to the battlefield CCC, so they know exactly where they are in relation to other friendly forces and in relation to fixed enemy positions.
Fox cable news is showing Al-Jazeera feeds as I speak/type.
Check out his weblog. It is interesting view of life in Baghdad now.
To quote what a general just said in a news conference:
"We are very close to securing the remaining oil fields. These are the property of the people of Iraq, and will be a very important asset to the Iraqi people as they build a free society."
More or less anyway, I might have got a minor word or two wrong.
_sig_ is away
Boop.
I don't know if your wrong, but I just wanted to say "boop".
He gassed 2 million people in his own country.
He gassed 4000 Kurds with US knowledge. (And with US gas...)
A long read, but well worth it if you can spare the time. And, heck, it's Friday. You're not going to get any work done anyway.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
That's not what's happened. We're hitting military and leadership targets, we're not destroying a city. The difference is sometimes hard to tell from the ground-- stuff blowing up is stuff blowing up-- but it's important. The city, for all intents and purposes, is and will remain totally intact.
I write in my journal
From Chapter 2 of the book (re: examples of Shock and Awe):
"Fourth is the "Blitzkreig" example. In real Blitzkreig, Shock and Awe were not achieved through the massive application of firepower across a broad front nor through the delivery of massive levels of force. Instead, the intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale. The German Wehrmacht's Blitzkreig was not a massive attack across a very broad front, although the opponent may have been deceived into believing that. Instead, the enemy's line was probed in multiple locations and, wherever it could be most easily penetrated, attack was concentrated in a narrow salient. The image is that of the shaped charge, penetrating through a relatively tiny hole in a tank's armor and then exploding outwardly to achieve a maximum cone of damage against the unarmored or less protected innards.
To the degree that this example of achieving Shock and Awe is directed against military targets, it requires skill if not brilliance in execution, or nearly total incompetence in the adversary. The adversary, finding front lines broken and the rear vulnerable, panics, surrenders, or both. Hitler's campaign in France and Holland and the seizure of the Dutch forts and the occupation of Crete in 1940 are obvious illustrations. The use of Special Operations forces in significant numbers is an adjunct to imposing this level of Shock and Awe."
Got to love how they mispell "Blitzkrieg".
I'll wait 10 mins for a nice quality picture of Baghdad in flames. I find it crazy that one should have to pay CNN and MSNBC and ABCNEWS for live video. Sorry, Ill go to bbc.com for live (as crappy as it is) and www.reuters.com for the high quality stuff after 15 mins.
Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
I was wondering what has convinced fellow Slahshdoters to take the stance they have now on the state of affairs with Iraq?
g road/
For me it was the Frontline documentaries on PBS which focused on the history of Saddam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lon
Some things that caught my attention:
1. Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
2. The Ba'ath Party killed Gen. Kassem and staff and seized the country in a coup. Saddam became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. In interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people to the amount of 700 documented deaths.
3. Two weeks after they took over power on the 17th of July 1968, there was what they call "the correction movement." That meant getting rid of the non-Ba'ath elements in the coup, and Saddam was prominent in that. As a matter of fact he held a gun to the head of the prime minister and said, "You're going with me to the airport because you're leaving this country." And the guy pleaded with him, said, "I have family, I have a wife and kids." And Saddam said, "Well as long as you behave, they'll be fine." He took him to the airport, he put him in a plane, he deported him, and of course years after, he assassinated him in front of the Intercontinental Hotel in London. The man couldn't escape him in the long run.
4. In 1970 Saddam was head of the Peasants Department and the Department of General Relations (security), the military, and several other departments. And of course soon enough, like all people who are dictators, who are jealous of the army, he appointed himself general and eventually like Stalin he became field marshal.
5. In 1979 he removed Bakr (the President he helped instate) rather unceremoniously and made himself president. And he reshaped the Ba'ath Party in no time at all by executing half of the command of the party.
6. During the 7 month occupation of Kuwait, Saddam ruled there as head had for years, with oppression and death. Some Kuwaitis were tortured and murdered, others lined up and shot.
6. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had uprisings in the North and South. This is where Saddam used chemical weapons and killed over a thousand Iraqi men, women, and children. This was the second time he had used chemical weapons, the first time was in the war against Iran. Uses of chemical weapons are forbidden by UN treaties.
7. At the end of the initial round of inspections by the UN weapons teams, Saddam's brother-in-law and cousin defected to Jordan and announced that they had documents that would indicate that the inspectors had not seen all the weapons Saddam had. Saddam told his sons-in-law that, if they came back to Iraq, they would be completely safe. They foolishly believed Saddam. So, as military officers, they donned their uniforms, and they went back to Iraq. The moment they entered Iraq, they were separated from their families. Their families were taken to Baghdad, and they were taken out of the city. Like Saddam, they are very tribal, so they surrounded themselves with bodyguards, not trusting him completely. Two days later, there was an attack on the house by members of the family, to avenge the family honor. So Saddam claimed that he kept his word, as the chief of the armed forces, as the president of Iraq, that he would do nothing to them. So, when it was finally done, the attack succeeded and they were captured and killed. Saddam said, "I didn't go back on my word. This happened according to tribal tradition. The family had to avenge itself. The family had to recover its honor." That's how he explained what he did to them.
After watching this I felt awful that the people of Iraq have who have had to endure fear for so long and I felt I was fortunate to be an American.
-An American Revolutionary
Live war videoe edroom.com
http://reuters.feedroom.com
http://nbc4.f
most of the iraqi air force has been french. in fact, they've been accused of shipping replacement fighter parts to Iraq as recently as JANUARY 2003.
7 0. htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-5455
The main site of the government of Iraq, Uruklink, is down, unsurprisingly. If you do a traceroute, you can see that it connects via a satellite link, but that link is down.
Come on. There are only two other countries putting troops on the ground. The U.S. government has to make it look like we have a lot of support, but if that was the case, getting UN support should have been easy.
1 3, 87~11268~1259840,00.html
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,14
I hope the war is brief and Iraq benefits in the short and long term. But I still think the war was premature.
No, blitzkrieg was about utter destruction before the enemy could retaliate.
Actually the blitzkrieg was not about total destruction. It was about swiftly moving in and attacking(mostly using air superiority) to intimidate and scare the cicvillian masses to create a chaotic and unorganized evacuation. This in turn would bog down the transit systems, which led to the inability to move troops, armor, supplies, etc. This in turn made the invasion and occupation by the Nazi troops easier. Tactically, it was the best and most effective startegy of its time, and still can be effective today.
What scares me is the reason the Nazis lost WWII, is that Hitler did not follow his own advice. He worte in Mien Kampf that a nation could not win a 2 front war. Currently the US is in that same situation. We are invading Iraq, but don't forget, we are still activelly fighting in Afghanistan. I hope history doesn't repeat itself.
This is patently false, as will be demonstrated later. As for the worldwide economic crisis, the economy of the Weimar Republic was actually improving.
Also a load. Chancellors, like Hitler, were not elected, but appointed by the Reichstag and the Weimar Republic president. And while not having a solid majority, the Nazis did hold the most seats in the Reichstag. In fact, Goering was president of that body.
Yet another error... Hitler railed against the Communist Party, which held the second greatest number of seats in the Reichstag. He declared a state of emergency and had his political opponents arrested. Not Jews.
As mentioned above, Hitler's political opponents, including the leaders of the Communist and Democratic Christian parties were the first to meet the 'police', most of whom were SA brownshirts. As for the rest, Hitler was always a brilliant orator and propagandist. How did you think he took control of the Nazi party (he didn't found it-he joined when it was an insignifigant group of about 20 persons).
Really? Are we talking about the same Germans who have always been violently xenophobic? Who have a word (auslander) in their language that means 'everyone who is not German', and is considered to be a derisive term?
The German media, with the exeption of some newspapers and magazines, was a state institution long before Hitler came onto the scene. You know, kind of like the same way it is in Europe now.
Actually, the Iraqi's outnumber us 2 to 1.
g raphi cs/attack/zone_35.html
a li tion/index.html
Look at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/
and
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/co
You can see the breakdown of all the forces on both sides. The US is outnumbered almost 2 to 1, but the technology more than makes up for that.
Democracy cannot be just about the majority
*blink* but that is the very definition of democracy!
Once minorities start to rule, we call it "theocracy", "plutocracy" or one of many other words - in the most extreme case, we call it "dictatorship", which is what Iraq has. Maybe you would prefer one of those?
Because of faith! Baja California dirt isn't GOD'S SPECIAL DIRT.
Peace is not as important as being the A#1 special people that God (not their fake gods, our God, dur!) said in his special book (not their fake books, our Special Book, dur!) with all its contradictions and provably false statements (not their nonsensical contractions and provably false statements, but our Holy Mysteries, dur!) were allowed to live on our special dirt (not their fake special dirt, our special dirt, dur!).
If the heathens lay claim to our special dirt, obviously that's because their fake gods' fake holy books' nonsensical contradictions and provably false statements mistakenly said that it was their special dirt. Obviously they're wrong. Never mind the fact that they say the exact same thing about our clearly valid claim to our special dirt.
Everyone who is not German, who does not have a connection to German soil through blood, and who does not share in the moral and genetic superiority of the German people.
Pretty big fucking difference, if you ask me.
BTW, you might keep in mind that all of those 'irrelevant little facts' are what make up the big picture. Idiot.