The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching TV yesterday. My flatmate walks in, stares at the screen for a couple of minutes, and says,
"I don't know why they're bothering protesting now. It won't change anything. We're not going to pull out now."
I asked her to consider a scenario where things were going badly for US and British forces, where the government was considering pulling out rather than lose any more lives. Maybe it's pretty unlikely, but not impossible. Then the protests may sway the government in their decision, maybe even encourage the government to pull out weeks earlier than it otherwise would have.
Typically for her, the rsponse was,
"No, no, no. It won't happen. It won't change anything."
No justification. Just dug her heels in and burried her head in the sand.
But I'm not here to whinge about the people I get to live with.
After the conversation I thought about it. How unlikely was the scenario?
I don't see any figures I've heard on Iraqi troop numbers as all that reliable, but all estimates I've heard have put them fairly close, one side or the other, to allied numbers.
So assuming manpower to be 'similar', lets look at some of the pros and cons facing Iraqi forces. (This is what's occured to me. Feel free to add your own).
Pros:
The home-team will have the advantage of local knowledge and experience of the conditions.
The allies seem to be halping them out by killing themselves off at astonishing rates. Certainly only a drop in the ocean at the moment, but if the rate continues over a longer time it'll significantly weaken their forces, and shift moral to Saddam's side.
Nothing on the scale of the hunt for bin Laden, but mixing with civilians, operating in and around civilian settlements, it'll be difficult for the allies to sift the enemy from the innocent, and effectively largely denies allies the option of using their own WMDs, or other such weapons that can clear an area without getting their hands dirty.
Cons:
The allies have better resources, technology and training.
A (perceived?) lack of loyalty in Iraqi troops, particularly in high-ranking officials, resulting from Saddam's treatment of them, should serve to weaken moral, and is probably largely responsible for the numbers of troops who have already surrendered.
There are no doubt pleanty more considerations that I've missed, feel free to point them out.
But while it's difficult to judge, perhaps an allied defeat simply doesn't look quite so certain as we'd all hope.
So is there a realistic chance we could lose?
(Just don't answer 'No, no, no. It won't happen')
"I don't know why they're bothering protesting now. It won't change anything. We're not going to pull out now."
I asked her to consider a scenario where things were going badly for US and British forces, where the government was considering pulling out rather than lose any more lives. Maybe it's pretty unlikely, but not impossible. Then the protests may sway the government in their decision, maybe even encourage the government to pull out weeks earlier than it otherwise would have.
Typically for her, the rsponse was,
"No, no, no. It won't happen. It won't change anything."
No justification. Just dug her heels in and burried her head in the sand.
But I'm not here to whinge about the people I get to live with.
After the conversation I thought about it. How unlikely was the scenario?
I don't see any figures I've heard on Iraqi troop numbers as all that reliable, but all estimates I've heard have put them fairly close, one side or the other, to allied numbers.
So assuming manpower to be 'similar', lets look at some of the pros and cons facing Iraqi forces. (This is what's occured to me. Feel free to add your own).
Pros:
The home-team will have the advantage of local knowledge and experience of the conditions.
The allies seem to be halping them out by killing themselves off at astonishing rates. Certainly only a drop in the ocean at the moment, but if the rate continues over a longer time it'll significantly weaken their forces, and shift moral to Saddam's side.
Nothing on the scale of the hunt for bin Laden, but mixing with civilians, operating in and around civilian settlements, it'll be difficult for the allies to sift the enemy from the innocent, and effectively largely denies allies the option of using their own WMDs, or other such weapons that can clear an area without getting their hands dirty.
Cons:
The allies have better resources, technology and training.
A (perceived?) lack of loyalty in Iraqi troops, particularly in high-ranking officials, resulting from Saddam's treatment of them, should serve to weaken moral, and is probably largely responsible for the numbers of troops who have already surrendered.
There are no doubt pleanty more considerations that I've missed, feel free to point them out.
But while it's difficult to judge, perhaps an allied defeat simply doesn't look quite so certain as we'd all hope.
So is there a realistic chance we could lose?
(Just don't answer 'No, no, no. It won't happen')
It is entirley possible that we could lose. We are fighting not only the Iraqis, we are also fighting media, European and Worldwide public/government perception, we are desperately trying to avoid any civilian casulties, we are fighting an enemy who won't stick to the Geneva convention and is preparded to disguise troops as women, surrendering soldiers and even Allied soldiers. They are happy to ensure that they place artillery next to hospitals and schools, human shields (willing or otherwise) in front of strategic targets, they know our plan, know that they can delay us by setting oil fields alight, they know that we are scared of a chemical attack on troops and they know that this is their last stand.
We also have to ensure that any prisoners we capture are looked after, or if they are let go, that they do not simply re-arm and fight us another day, we must ensure that "liberated towns" or those who uprise, do not become targets of retalitory strikes from Iraqi Republican guard or the Ba'ath party, we must ensure that the Iranians and Turks do not attempt to carve up North and South for their own gains, we must adapt out plans to take into account Turkey's refusal to allow the coalition to deploy its heavy armour from the North and we must try to hold precarious supply line open to support both troops and to provide humanitarian aid.
Never before in war (since Vietnam-USA was not able to bomb Hanoy) has a superior force had its advantage handicapped in such a way.
We also have to ensure that any prisoners we capture are looked after, or if they are let go, that they do not simply re-arm and fight us another day, we must ensure that "liberated towns" or those who uprise, do not become targets of retalitory strikes from Iraqi Republican guard or the Ba'ath party, we must ensure that the Iranians and Turks do not attempt to carve up North and South for their own gains, we must adapt out plans to take into account Turkey's refusal to allow the coalition to deploy its heavy armour from the North and we must try to hold precarious supply line open to support both troops and to provide humanitarian aid.
Never before in war (since Vietnam-USA was not able to bomb Hanoy) has a superior force had its advantage handicapped in such a way.
I was watching TV yesterday. My flatmate walks in, stares at the screen for a couple of minutes, and says,
"I don't know why they're bothering protesting now. It won't change anything. We're not going to pull out now."
I asked her to consider a scenario where things were going badly for US and British forces, where the government was considering pulling out rather than lose any more lives. Maybe it's pretty unlikely, but not impossible. Then the protests may sway the government in their decision, maybe even encourage the government to pull out weeks earlier than it otherwise would have.
Typically for her, the rsponse was,
"No, no, no. It won't happen. It won't change anything."
No justification. Just dug her heels in and burried her head in the sand.
But I'm not here to whinge about the people I get to live with.
After the conversation I thought about it. How unlikely was the scenario?
I don't see any figures I've heard on Iraqi troop numbers as all that reliable, but all estimates I've heard have put them fairly close, one side or the other, to allied numbers.
So assuming manpower to be 'similar', lets look at some of the pros and cons facing Iraqi forces. (This is what's occured to me. Feel free to add your own).
Pros:
The home-team will have the advantage of local knowledge and experience of the conditions.
The allies seem to be halping them out by killing themselves off at astonishing rates. Certainly only a drop in the ocean at the moment, but if the rate continues over a longer time it'll significantly weaken their forces, and shift moral to Saddam's side.
Nothing on the scale of the hunt for bin Laden, but mixing with civilians, operating in and around civilian settlements, it'll be difficult for the allies to sift the enemy from the innocent, and effectively largely denies allies the option of using their own WMDs, or other such weapons that can clear an area without getting their hands dirty.
Cons:
The allies have better resources, technology and training.
A (perceived?) lack of loyalty in Iraqi troops, particularly in high-ranking officials, resulting from Saddam's treatment of them, should serve to weaken moral, and is probably largely responsible for the numbers of troops who have already surrendered.
There are no doubt pleanty more considerations that I've missed, feel free to point them out.
But while it's difficult to judge, perhaps an allied defeat simply doesn't look quite so certain as we'd all hope.
So is there a realistic chance we could lose?
(Just don't answer 'No, no, no. It won't happen')
"I don't know why they're bothering protesting now. It won't change anything. We're not going to pull out now."
I asked her to consider a scenario where things were going badly for US and British forces, where the government was considering pulling out rather than lose any more lives. Maybe it's pretty unlikely, but not impossible. Then the protests may sway the government in their decision, maybe even encourage the government to pull out weeks earlier than it otherwise would have.
Typically for her, the rsponse was,
"No, no, no. It won't happen. It won't change anything."
No justification. Just dug her heels in and burried her head in the sand.
But I'm not here to whinge about the people I get to live with.
After the conversation I thought about it. How unlikely was the scenario?
I don't see any figures I've heard on Iraqi troop numbers as all that reliable, but all estimates I've heard have put them fairly close, one side or the other, to allied numbers.
So assuming manpower to be 'similar', lets look at some of the pros and cons facing Iraqi forces. (This is what's occured to me. Feel free to add your own).
Pros:
The home-team will have the advantage of local knowledge and experience of the conditions.
The allies seem to be halping them out by killing themselves off at astonishing rates. Certainly only a drop in the ocean at the moment, but if the rate continues over a longer time it'll significantly weaken their forces, and shift moral to Saddam's side.
Nothing on the scale of the hunt for bin Laden, but mixing with civilians, operating in and around civilian settlements, it'll be difficult for the allies to sift the enemy from the innocent, and effectively largely denies allies the option of using their own WMDs, or other such weapons that can clear an area without getting their hands dirty.
Cons:
The allies have better resources, technology and training.
A (perceived?) lack of loyalty in Iraqi troops, particularly in high-ranking officials, resulting from Saddam's treatment of them, should serve to weaken moral, and is probably largely responsible for the numbers of troops who have already surrendered.
There are no doubt pleanty more considerations that I've missed, feel free to point them out.
But while it's difficult to judge, perhaps an allied defeat simply doesn't look quite so certain as we'd all hope.
So is there a realistic chance we could lose?
(Just don't answer 'No, no, no. It won't happen')