Gorbachev had convinced Saddam to vacate Kuwait, and he was doing so when the US hit. The US had to move up the invasion by at least 24 hours do to this withdraw. We know this by the actions of the Navy and the Marines. Off the coast of Kuwait, Iraq had planted old fashion but effective mines. When mines exist, the invading force leave them there till the day before the invasion (D-1) when the mines are removed so the invading ships can get to the beach. The navy tried to force a way through those mines on the day of the invasion for they had NOT be removed. Why? Because the invasion date had been moved up at least a day and thus there was no time to remove the mines. A US ship hit one of the mines and stopped any seaward assault, and the marines had to invade via the Saudi Arabia.
Thus we know the invasion was moved up one day, a act denied by the Pentagon but it is clear given the fact the Navy did NOT remove the mines (A job the navy has been doing since WWII). Why was the invasion moved up? The most logical reason is Saddam was pulling out, and the best time to hit an enemy force is as it is withdrawing. The enemy forces would have withdrawn from their defensive positions and be in open country, given US Air Superiority an easy target. Saddam's plan appears to have been to engage in an infantry fight as had the Egyptians in the Sinai in the Yom Kipper War. Light Infantry with anti-tank weapons, fighting from prepared positions, with cover from artillery and tanks. Could have worked, but given the decision to withdraw, the artillery was pulled out first, then the infantry then the tanks. This forced Saddam to order a tank attack against the Americans to Cover the rest of his forces withdraw, and lead to huge US roll up in tank kills (From the pictures I saw mostly T-55s, but I heard reports of T-62s and T-72s (the T-62 came out as a success for the Iraqi forces, the rest of the T-62s had run their engines to keep warm, the engines were detected by US heat detectors and destroyed, one T-62 commander did NOT run his engine and when the US went by the "Destroyed" unit he fired one of his rounds and destroyed one of the only US tanks hit by anything in the War, the T-62 was quickly destroyed but it did hit a M1, such an incident is NOT explicate in the reports of US losses of m1 during Desert Strom but a couple of the losses could be this incident).
Loses of M1 in Desert Strom (again none are started to have been lost to a T-62, but the round may NOT have knocked out the M1 or it is covered by one of the incidents listed but under another cause):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operation_Desert_StormAnyway, back to my topic, the US moved up the Invasion to hit the Iraqis as their withdrew, the US forces hit Saddam's forces at the best time to do the most damage. My favorite story was of the "Death Road" with all of the destroyed trucks. This was shown to be a huge victory for US forces. But these trucks were heading for IRAQ not KUWAIT and thus NOT a factor in the war to free Kuwait (Known in some circles "As the war to make the world safe for Monarchies" a play on Wilson's WWI comment that WWI was a war fought "to make the world safe for Democracy"). When I first saw it I realized something was wrong, not only were they no bodies, but the trucks were in line. When I was in the Military and driving trucks, when we were attacked we went into "herringbone formation" i.e. if the truck in front went to the left you went to the right, thus NOT giving a straight target to the enemy. This had been introduced into the Army during Vietnam (and it was used informally i.e. not doctrine since WWII). It was found to be the best way to minimized losses in an attack. The fact the trucks were NOT in that formation told me one simple fact, the area had to much sand for the trucks to operate off road so the drivers stopped the trucks and headed for the nearby desert for protection. Later on it came out what I had guessed was what had happened, the drivers and their passengers all abandoned the trucks and watch them be attacked by US Planes. Once the show was over they walked the rest of the way to Iraq. The trucks were gone, but the operators and the troops trained in their use were not. Another fact ignored since 1990.
Bush and Company wanted that war to get a base in the Middle East. No one wanted the US, so Bush sr forced the issue and the House of Saud fell for it. When it became clear even to Bush jr that the situation was unsustainable (bid Laden had to much support do to the US forces being in Saudi Arabia) Bush and company looked for a replacement, and Iraq looked like the best opportunity. Thus Bush's desire to attack Iraq even when it was clear bid Laden had used Afghanistan to attack the US NOT Iraq.
AS to aerial bombs, that has been US doctrine since WWI (and we learned it from the French) and that was to drop as much bombs as you can on the enemy no mater the costs in terms of civilian deaths. The Germans actually had a more humane method of war, when it comes to civilians, do to their lack of industrial might to produce the bombs needed. The British Blitz was no were near the level of what Britain wanted to do and later did to Germany (In fact British Bomber Command, in the early days of WWII complained of the restrictions imposed on it, Bomber Command wanted to bombs cities and the Cities civilian populations while FDR had told Churchill NOT to do it, only when a German unit accidental bombed London did Churchill un-leased Bomber Command, as to the German unit that first bombed London, the members of the unit was court martial-ed for violating a order, Britain made an effort to ignore the court marital and continue to bomb German Cities, which the US followed when it entered the war in December 1941. The US Air Force preferred daylight bombing but still through nothing of killing civilians, the US liked bombing factories and if the houses next to it was hit that was those people's bad luck).
The US has always preferred to hit the enemy with bombs and artillery, even at the cost of Civilian lives. Some Philippines citizens never forgave the US for the salvage use of Artillery during the taking of Manila in 1945, a Japanese unit had decided to hold out in the city, and the US decided to drive them out, but to reduce US losses artillery was always being called in even if Civilians were still in harms way. We did the same in Korea and Vietnam. The US has always preferred to kill other countries civilians for they do NOT vote in US elections, US troops do, as do their families. Foreign Civilians rarely have family members in the US, so are viewed as less worthy of living then people who vote in US elections.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
