hi, Blitz comes with high casualities.Shock and awe technique can use troops paratrooping into baghdad.But casualities are always unacceptable to the U.S. So they do it the conventional way.
Sarath. --- Ken Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tyler Durden wrote: > > [...] > > > PS: Anyone notice the conceptual similarity > between "shock and awe" and > > "blitzkrieg"? > > Yes, similar in some respects, though not the same. > "Shock and awe" > (terrible name for a quite sensible idea) was about > a military force > which is overwhelmingly stronger than its opponent > attempting to win > quickly and with minimum casualties on either side > by rapidly and > completely disrupting the enemy's ability to respond > intelligently. > > Blitzkrieg (not a word the Germans used officially > in 1939 & 1940 - I'm > told it was coined by an Italian journalist) was > about a quick victory > over an opponent of similar strength to oneself, by > a deep and rapid > penetration, close co-operation between arms, and > continual > re-evaluation of objectives by field officers on the > ground. > > Blitzkrieg is one of the roots of S&A - but it has > others including the > punitive expeditions of colonial times, the British > attempt to support > indirect rule in Iraq by airpower alone in the > 1920s, the massive aerial > bombardments of Germany and Japan in WW2, the nukes > at Hiroshima and > Nagasaki, unrelenting Israeli pressure on the > Palestinians, and even US > actions in places like Grenada and Panama. > > The US has *not* used "shock and awe" in this > campaign. If it had it > might have thrown everything at Iraq in the first > few hours - all the > MOABs, all the cluster bombs, all the > bunker-busters, all the B1s, B2s, > B52s can drop. It might have sent airborne troops in > on the first day, > ignored Basra, dropped men in Baghdad. The ideal > "shock and awe" opening > to the war would have had the citizens of Baghdad > see those 3000 > missiles go off more or less simultaneously, in the > first 30 minutes, > not the first 3 days, a ring of fire round their > city, to the > background of the exploding bombloads of 100 B52s. > The TV and radio and > military communications would have been knocked out. > The presidential > palaces and guards barracks would not have been just > hit, but removed. > The dazed citizens would have wandered into the > streets in the morning > to find them already patrolled by Americans. If > Saddam Hussein had > survived the bombing he'd have woken screaming to > see not his own > bodyguard but the SAS. > > In fact the war has been run like a classic tank > campaign, a blitzkrieg > - tightly controlled armoured penetration over > narrow fronts, avoiding > easily defensible places, keeping on the move, > attempting to catch the > enemy in the open and destroy him by rapidly > bringing together local > massive concentrations, but just steaming past an > enemy unwilling to > fight or hunkered down in cities or fortifications. > Guderian or > Tukachevsky or Tal would have recognised the > strategy instantly. > (Zhukov or Montgomery might have wanted larger, > heavier formations). > The tremendous advantage given by the total air > superiority has been > used just ahead of the attack, as a sort of updated > version of the > moving barrage of WW1. > > It has actually been quite a successful blitz. They > are still making > better time than the Germans did on the road to > Warsaw. > > I don't know why they are not trying the shock and > awe strategy. I can > think of a number of possibilities. They aren't > mutually exclusive. In > declining order of likelihood: > > - perhaps they have a greater respect for the Iraqi > military than they > let on > > - maybe, despite the hype, the battlefield > technology is not yet in > place, or not in great enough strength. The news > over here has > mentioned British marines trying to find the launch > sites of the > missiles aimed at them and that hit Kuwait. The > pre-war propaganda was > all about JSTARS or whatever spotting the launch > site instantly and > targeting retaliation within seconds. But we're > still using blokes with > binoculars. > > - maybe shock and awe is a bad idea anyway. It might > just be too risky. > If you throw everything you have got at them on day > one, what do you do > if they don't cave in on day two? OK, you make sure > you have enough kit > to keep on doing it - that's actually part of the > doctrine - but sooner > or later it runs out. And there are loads of other > countries out there > who need their dose of S&A. It is a very expensive > kind of warfare. > > - it could be that the military is just too innately > conservative for > the much-hyped S&A > > - perhaps there are some new tricks they didn't want > to use in sight of > Iran - which (rumour has it) the PNAC types want to > invade next (I hope > to God they don't) > > - perhaps they're saving it for a final attack on > Baghdad > > - maybe they wanted to use all their nice tanks > before they were > obsolete. They haven't had a real fast-moving large > scale tank battle in > ages. They never got to fight the Russians, in 1991 > they were mostly > shooting at the backs of men running away. It would > have been a shame > to let an entire generation of big boy's toys rust > unused. The RAF > somehow found a role for the last Vulcan bomber in > the Falklands... > > - perhaps the generals took one look at the likes of > Rumsfeld and Cheney > and Perle and the other PNACs and thought to > themselves, without moving > their lips: "Fuck you, Sir! We'll do it our way, > Sir!" > > - maybe they realise that treating the whole world > the way a crackhead > pimp treats last year's whore who tries to steal his > stash isn't going > to stop terrorism. > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
