Iraqi insurgent uprising

[RBWhite]

I seem to see a parallel developing in Iraq. In the 1968 TET offensive the Viet Cong were foolish enough to take on the US Army and Marine Corp head on they were also put up to it by there so called friends in the North.

After the TET offensive was put down the VC pretty much no longer existed as a fighting force and were no longer a threat. Enter the NVA.

After this it should be interesting.

Let see what happens

Rick White

[IronDuke_slith]

Rick,
Very interesting point, although we'll have to be careful to keep it historical and neutral.

This strikes me as a worrying parallel if correct.

How far does the parallel go, though? I always thought that the Tet offensive, although a military failure, was a propaganda success, because it convinced US domestic opinion that the war could not be won (whether they were right or wrong is immaterial to the point and probably something to steer clear of in this thread). However, a battle militarily won could not prevent the strategic point of the war being lost.

Likewise, the NVA only turned up in a conventional sense (ie invasion and takeover) when the US ground forces had gone home. The country then became a communist stronghold of our cold war enemy.

As I think through this parallel, I see some worrying implications if it is accurate.

Regards,
IronDuke

[gunny]

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say the US knew of the insurgence gaining strength, and basing themselves in Faluja. Even go so far as to say the U.S. forces allowed and encouraged this. The US forces did not want irregular forces to melt away, and therefore never mounted fighting patrols into the heart of the city.

The Terrorists/Guerrillas themselves massed in one place over time. Then the Coalition encircled the city, and were given the green light to mount a large scale combat operation, without the usual ROE's. In hopes of finally inflicting some serious casualties on the insurgency. As opposed to dropping bombs on suspected targets in the middle of the night.

[RBWhite]

IronDuke


I agree completly.

It depends I quess on your point of view about was it right or wrong to remove a tyrant that kept the masses in check. Don't much care for the way he did it. Hes a pig.

My personal opinion is the whole country is going implode and I don't think it will be controllable, to much ethnic diversity to much hatred.

I guess we should excellerate the training of the Iraqi armed forces, make sure they are capable and take a back seat. I think they alone are the only ones who can make things come together.


Regards

Rick White

[a19999577]

I'd really like to know if anyone's developing a wargame on the insurgency. Now that would be an interesting contemporary scenario.

And please, I really expect better responses than "It would be insensitive to make a game out of the suffering of our brave Marines"... If we can make and play games with Waffen-SS divisions overruning Eastern Poland (with all the implications we know that entails), the mere fact that it was less than an entire generation away doesn't make it any less insensitive.

Cheers!

[RBWhite]

Rainbow Six

[a19999577]

Cool, looks like a fun action-packed game, Rainbow Six.

But I was actually thinking about a more strategic or operational thing. You know, as in being the Al-Qaida high command and deciding where to send resources (Iraq? Afghanistan? Somewhere else?), bombings (where and when? Spain right before elections = one country knocked out of the war), recruitment, training, financing, weapon purchases, combat (stand up and fight in Fallujah? Withdraw your best cells to keep fighting somewhere else? Take over Mosul?)

And of course, you would also get to play the other side.

Now that seems like one great game...

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: RBWhite

I seem to see a parallel developing in Iraq. In the 1968 TET offensive the Viet Cong were foolish enough to take on the US Army and Marine Corp head on they were also put up to it by there so called friends in the North.

After the TET offensive was put down the VC pretty much no longer existed as a fighting force and were no longer a threat. Enter the NVA.

After this it should be interesting.

Let see what happens

Rick White

Does anyone else see the similarities between the ARVN and the "Iraqi National Guard" that seem obvious to me?

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

And please, I really expect better responses than "It would be insensitive to make a game out of the suffering of our brave Marines"... If we can make and play games with Waffen-SS divisions overruning Eastern Poland (with all the implications we know that entails), the mere fact that it was less than an entire generation away doesn't make it any less insensitive.

Hmm.... I recall when some folks were developing a (very good) "Black Hawk Down" mod for Ghost Recon. They heard from a couple of ex-Rangers who had participated in the action asking them to drop it, so they quite rightly did (quite what they thought of the subsequent Novalogic game is unknown - not much, I suspect).

There is an issue here. Sure, a wargame/strategy game is different from a shooter but the taste issue should be acknowledged. Personally I find Kuma War a pretty unpleasant concept - an opinion that didn't change much after having tried it.

I disagree totally on you historical point - WW2 gaming is very different. I can see the logic, but this isn't a philosophical debate, it's about how people feel and maybe those feelings should be respected.

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: a19999577

And please, I really expect better responses than "It would be insensitive to make a game out of the suffering of our brave Marines"... If we can make and play games with Waffen-SS divisions overruning Eastern Poland (with all the implications we know that entails), the mere fact that it was less than an entire generation away doesn't make it any less insensitive.

Hmm.... I recall when some folks were developing a (very good) "Black Hawk Down" mod for Ghost Recon. They heard from a couple of ex-Rangers who had participated in the action asking them to drop it, so they quite rightly did (quite what they thought of the subsequent Novalogic game is unknown - not much, I suspect).

There is an issue here. Sure, a wargame/strategy game is different from a shooter but the taste issue should be acknowledged. Personally I find Kuma War a pretty unpleasant concept - an opinion that didn't change much after having tried it.

I disagree totally on you historical point - WW2 gaming is very different. I can see the logic, but this isn't a philosophical debate, it's about how people feel and maybe those feelings should be respected.

I agree that these issues be respected in the way they are dealt with. Obviously, a shooter game isn't the best way to go about it. Us wargamers should also be careful as to the terms we discuss our games in, particularly with people unfamiliar with our hobby. But dropping a conflict or era because someone is unhappy about it wouldn't be the best road to follow, as taken to the ultimate consequence, we would have to drop our hobby altogether in order to cater to Pacifists' viewpoints...

[As a historian, I study war, but it doesn't mean I'm a belicist, just as much as studying the Spanish Inquisition doesn't mean I'm in favor of censorship or such stuff. Actually, I'm something of a pacifist, but I find wargames useful inasmuch as they can sometimes offer insight into the phenomenon of war...]

[RBWhite]

I do see some similarities between the ARVN and the Iraqi National Gaurd.

At first the ARVN ran from a fight or didn't put up a good one so did the first group of Iraqi National Guard. But I think were seeing that change pretty quickly. I would contribute that to tactics of the insurgents.

The problem in South Viet Nam was that at a certain point we were not there in any large number to watch them. In order to get more aide they created a large paper army. As you know paper Armies don't fight. Good-bye South Viet Nam. I don't see that happening in Iraq.

The Iraqi National Guard will be effective regionally, by ethnic make up.

I don't foresee any superior organized military force challenging them from within. I think the only external force to be wary of would be Iran.

Regards

Rick White

[a19999577]

As far as reports from mainstream media go, it seems Iraqi National Guard units fight well enough when deployed alongside US troops. During the initial Mosul takeover during the Fallujah offensive, however, it seems that both the Police and the National Guard either melted away or defected to the insurgents.

It seems like the perennial problem in Vietnam, doesn't it (Both the Indochina war 1945-1954 and the Unification War 1960s-1975)? The medium-term objective is probably to build up a 'national' army that can handle the insurgency on its own. Of course, you can have crack troops in the 'national' army, in which ethnic makeup can play a large part. The Kurds are looking like a good prospect as an elite 'national' pro-US fighting force. But as far as I recall, the ARVN and the 'National Army of Vietnam' [French supported] also had a few elite units here and there, but they weren't enough to change the overall course of the war.

And I agree that no matter how strong the insurgency might get, it might not be able to topple the pro-US government on its own. I don't think that Syria or Iran would step into the conflict while US troops are still in Iraqi soil. But like Vo Nguyen Giap knew in Vietnam, US troops will have to pull out sometime... and non-Westerners are very patient men...

Regards

Jorge Bayona

[RBWhite]

I would almost say that the defections in Mosul of the Police and National Guard were expected, probly planned. Same mentality as Fallujah. It just happened faster than expected.

The ARVN units Elite or Regular fought well after a time as long as they knew US forces weren't far away.

The Kurd elite units, [hows that spelled, Peshmerga] no doubt about their future prospects, but I don't think they could deploy to far south.

I think in terms of Syria, I look at them joining the fold in the very near future, they the Syians have far more to loose and whole lot to gain by making nice, nice. Its just that the time has to be right for them to make some serious changes. I think that time is close.

As for Iran I see no useful prospects coming from them. Only Trouble.

Regards

Rick White

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: RBWhite

I would almost say that the defections in Mosul of the Police and National Guard were expected, probly planned. Same mentality as Fallujah. It just happened faster than expected.

The ARVN units Elite or Regular fought well after a time as long as they knew US forces weren't far away.

The Kurd elite units, [hows that spelled, Peshmerga] no doubt about their future prospects, but I don't think they could deploy to far south.

I think in terms of Syria, I look at them joining the fold in the very near future, they the Syians have far more to loose and whole lot to gain by making nice, nice. Its just that the time has to be right for them to make some serious changes. I think that time is close.

As for Iran I see no useful prospects coming from them. Only Trouble.

Regards

Rick White

Exactly. Kurd units are something of a double-edged sword. On one hand they are the ones with the most to lose in the event of a US withdrawal, so they are almost completely reliable for the occupying forces [One of their strongest parties is socialist though, isn't it?]. On the other, however, depend on them too much and too evidently and it won't be a good sign for pro-US or fence-sitting sunnis and shiites.

Iran is a very interesting factor in the equation. It has a sort of 'pan-shiitism' reminiscent of Imperial Russia's panslavism. I do believe that after a US withdrawal, its forces could move into Iraq to 'restore order' in view of an insurgency that Iraqi 'national' forces couldn't handle. And then help set up an Islamic Republic. Combine that with coups leading to Islamic Republics in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the scenario looks a lot better for the non-Western world.

I expect a nuclear-capable Iran to be able to deter further US 'interventions' in the Middle East.

[RBWhite]

Well spoken a19999577


Best Regards

Rick White

[2ndACR]

I disagree about a nuclear Iran. IMO, that would be a direct provocation of both Israel, the US and every other muslim country over there that fears Islamic Iran (which is just about all of them). All it would do is quicken the Mullahs downfall. But they can feel free to open that Pandoras box if they wish.

There a couple reasons why everyone thinks that a nuke is the ultimate deterrent to the US, but that can not be gone into over here at Matrix.

[RBWhite]

2ndACR

For that reason I choose not to respond in any length to; a19999577 and pretty much ended the thread stating I had had a good discussion.

Also, I didn't want to go there, don't want to go there.

My intent was a calm discussion devoid of politics and religon.

Also, I could not agree more with Paul Verbber's recent responces.

I guess my question to Paul would be is what type of Intellectuals [ had to look that up in the dictionary] you would run into at this meat grinder The Steakhouse?

Best Regards

Rick White

[IronDuke_slith]

Lots of points here to keep politics free...here goes.

A game about the IRAQ conflict (or the war on terror) is out for the time being, I'm afraid, in whatever shape or form. I appreciate that some serious gamers and Historians here are after something serious and not something that was tasteless, but I don't see how you could get that.

You cannot game something whilst people are still putting their lives at risk, I think it's that simple. I'd be surprised if as a gaming subject we saw anything for years. The insurgency in Iraq can be very effective and I'm sure they make numerous decisions every day about whatto do, but if you think about the methods and targets involved (carbombs, hostage taking and murder etc), then does anybody really want to make those sorts of decisions within a game?

I just think that when you sit down and start to think coldly about what sorts of decisions a commander would be asked to make, then you'd quickly turn off. I admit, the point about the Waffen SS and the 2nd world war is well made. I do occasionally feel uncomfortable playing Wehrmacht or IJN and then seeing some images of the camps or Russian villages in flames on the TV. However, new alliances and friendships and 60 years puts a lot of distance into the subject for those of us not old enough to have experienced it.

Re the ARVN and the Iraqi National Guard, I don't see that much of a similiarity, I'm afraid. I noticed during the recent battle in Fallujah one statistic that suggested 51 Marines killed and just a handful of Guardsmen. If anyone has the latest figures, then I'd be happy to reconsider this point, but they are some way off being able to handle this alone. The tactics of targeting their recruiting stations and ambushing their buses are (I'm afraid to say) going to be too effective as well.

I also don't see the Kurds as the answer. The other two major groups (or the violent members at least) in Iraq will not accept them any more than they accept the Coalition. What happens in Iraq depends on the US. If they stay for several years, then there's a chance the democratic institutions might embed, if they leave in any numbers before the end of 2006 then the country will shortly thereafter split into three parts in the north, south and west along ethnic and religous lines. The split will probably be accompanied by a great deal of violence.

I find a nuclear Iran a disturbing prospect. I do think it restricts outside intervention to some extent, because even a small device could make troop concentration difficult and dangerous to attempt. Even without it, I don't see anyone being prepared to attempt to occupy the place. Iraq was considered relatively moderate and secular and has still cost over 1200 lives and a large number of Iraqis (I think any conversation as too how many and what their status was should be avoided here). Iran would be far worse, though. I suspect Israel will getinvolved if they look like producing a device, anyway, so it could be academic.

As for the steakhouse, I would encourage everyone to take a look at least. I've seen a few threads over the months but never participated. My feel was that it was broadly to the right of the political spectrum [;)], with the odd conspicuous exception, and whilst I don't object to rough, I think debate can become more trouble than it is worth in those situations. However, everyone should decide for themselves. Get along, smell the roses, decide for yourself.

Regards,
IronDuke

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

You cannot game something whilst people are still putting their lives at risk, I think it's that simple.

Sounds quite reasonable, at least for commercial wargames. I must admit that the prospect of someone profiting from covering a war in which people are not only risking, but also actively sacrificing their lives for their cause seems raises certain concerns... The media is something of an issue as well. On one hand, they are 'doing their duty' while covering the war, but I guess someone somewhere is profiting from the ads run in the networks right? Not an easy thing, that...

I'd be surprised if as a gaming subject we saw anything for years. The insurgency in Iraq can be very effective and I'm sure they make numerous decisions every day about whatto do, but if you think about the methods and targets involved (carbombs, hostage taking and murder etc), then does anybody really want to make those sorts of decisions within a game?

I just think that when you sit down and start to think coldly about what sorts of decisions a commander would be asked to make, then you'd quickly turn off. I admit, the point about the Waffen SS and the 2nd world war is well made. I do occasionally feel uncomfortable playing Wehrmacht or IJN and then seeing some images of the camps or Russian villages in flames on the TV.

Quite right. And that's not even talking about deciding whether to bomb London, Coventry, Dresden or Hiroshima!

Re the ARVN and the Iraqi National Guard, I don't see that much of a similiarity, I'm afraid. I noticed during the recent battle in Fallujah one statistic that suggested 51 Marines killed and just a handful of Guardsmen. If anyone has the latest figures, then I'd be happy to reconsider this point, but they are some way off being able to handle this alone. The tactics of targeting their recruiting stations and ambushing their buses are (I'm afraid to say) going to be too effective as well.

Agreed. I'm afraid the Iraqi National Guard might be headed the way the ARVN paved.

I also don't see the Kurds as the answer. The other two major groups (or the violent members at least) in Iraq will not accept them any more than they accept the Coalition. What happens in Iraq depends on the US.

I agree. I don't think Kurdish separatism only responded to a particularly anti-Saddam attitude [although they certainly were quite against him, after all, gassing them is no small thing...]. I believe active (and possibly violent) Kurdish separatism will probably reemerge as soon as coalition troops leave the country. And Arabs, Sunni or Shiite, will probably look suspiciously at them, Saddam or no Saddam. And I agree with Rick White, that's what makes it troublesome to deploy these completely reliable troops for the coalition too far south.

If they stay for several years, then there's a chance the democratic institutions might embed, if they leave in any numbers before the end of 2006 then the country will shortly thereafter split into three parts in the north, south and west along ethnic and religous lines. The split will probably be accompanied by a great deal of violence.

I'm not quite so optimistic about that. Vast parts of the world (Latin America included) have been ruled by democracy-promoting elites for long periods; Latin America, particularly Central America and the Caribbean have had to deal with periodical US occupations and democratization programs, and yet they are all still plagued by intermitent warfare and coups. I'm not overtly confident that one can 'implant' a democracy in a country as complex as Iraq, in the midst of such ill-will by vast sectors of the population with such ease, even with a 10-year or longer presence.

I find a nuclear Iran a disturbing prospect. I do think it restricts outside intervention to some extent, because even a small device could make troop concentration difficult and dangerous to attempt. Even without it, I don't see anyone being prepared to attempt to occupy the place. Iraq was considered relatively moderate and secular and has still cost over 1200 lives and a large number of Iraqis (I think any conversation as too how many and what their status was should be avoided here). Iran would be far worse, though. I suspect Israel will getinvolved if they look like producing a device, anyway, so it could be academic.

Iran. Quite a large country, larger than Iraq anyway. Very tough terrain. Much tougher than Iraq anyway. I'm not all that confident that the US Army and Marine corps would be able to execute a Blitzkrieg reminiscent of Iraq 2003. On the other hand, the collapse of the Taliban in mountainous Afghanistan was fairly quick, wasn't it? But let's face it, the Taliban were something of an irregular militia, right? And they probably didn't really have much in planning in case of a US intervention. The Iranians have probably been seriously studying how to defend themselves in case of a US invasion since 9/11, and all the more since the invasion of Iraq. What the US has in its favor is the possibility of making a two-front invasion of Iran [from Iraq and Afghanistan]. But on the other hand, it'd be a third war front for the US, how many wars can it handle?

Cheers.

[RBWhite]

Looks really good!!

If you would refrain from the terms Sunni & Shiite, I think it adds a religious aspect [Kurds, Turkaman are also Sunni, there are also Christians ] to the thread.

So a discription by ethnic group would be more appropriate, Turkaman, Kurds, Arabs and possible Iranian Persians.

I think the thread should steer clear of division by religious sect.

As we all know there way to much sects in the world already. [just a little humor][:D]

Thread look good Keep it going[:)]

Thanks

Rick White