Four years ago today

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2007-04-09 01:10pm

Bagdad fell to the US forces.

Sutch a good start, sutch a bad followthrough.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2007-04-09 01:51pm

I dont want to nitpick but wasnt there looting the same day as Bagdad fell?

It didnt even started good.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-04-09 01:53pm

IIRC, the invasion was executed well; the followthrough, not so much.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-04-09 04:01pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:IIRC, the invasion was executed well;

No, not really. If the objective was simply to destroy the Hussein government, then yeah, it was an amazing blitzkrieg. But since our implied intentions were to occupy, hold and control the country, the war was a fuckup from day one. Secretary Rumsfeld and his G.I. Joe-sized army bypassed the enemy's defenses and nailed their construction yard. However, unlike Command & Conquer, the hostile elements remained in place after the mission was "accomplished". A much better strategy would have been to deploy an absolutely massive invasion force and take the country at a very slow but very thorough pace.

But yeah, most of the mistakes were made afterwards. "Hurr, de-Baathification!" *disbands army*

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-04-09 10:11pm

Honestly the invasion still had an outside chance of success...IF they had deliberately gone and cleared city by city eliminating nascent resistance and leaving following troops to spend a month or so getting the local police back up to speed and then bring the contractors in with money to seed some goodwill. It is a ludicrous idea that we could topple the whole country and then rebuild it with what we took but with small bites and slow but steady progress (like WWII in Europe style with a full year from Normandy to surrender) you get a chance to root out all the undesireables while leaving your opponents struggling to hang on just a bit longer everywhere you haven't been. Basically it was executed for shit given the force size and objectives.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-04-09 10:23pm

We wouldn't have had enough troops, what with Rumsfield haggling against himself on the numbers that should be sent, he wanted to do it with as little men as possible, not what was most efficient.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-04-09 11:01pm

Darth Raptor wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:IIRC, the invasion was executed well;
No, not really. If the objective was simply to destroy the Hussein government, then yeah, it was an amazing blitzkrieg. But since our implied intentions were to occupy, hold and control the country, the war was a fuckup from day one. Secretary Rumsfeld and his G.I. Joe-sized army bypassed the enemy's defenses and nailed their construction yard. However, unlike Command & Conquer, the hostile elements remained in place after the mission was "accomplished". A much better strategy would have been to deploy an absolutely massive invasion force and take the country at a very slow but very thorough pace.

But yeah, most of the mistakes were made afterwards. "Hurr, de-Baathification!" *disbands army*

Eh, thats how I prefer to look at it - removing the govt, we did professionaly on. The rest -shrugs- we had the deck stacked against us, mostly cause of the republican party.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2007-04-10 05:30am

If the objective was to get rid of Saddam and his goverment wouldn't a few well placed snipers have done a more efficient job?