Sgt Joch

Steve, I basically agree with your assessment. We will have to see what happens. You realize of course that this thread has long ago crossed the line into pure politics and now has only the remotest link to CMSF.

I posted this earlier, but the growing reports that the Iraqi government is semi-officially using police "death squads" is a shocking development. As many as 700 Sunni men are alleged to have been kidnapped and killed. It looks like a deliberate attempt by the Shiite government to intimidate the Sunni population. In my naive small "l" liberal fashion, I had hoped that somehow Iraq could become a semi-democratic country like Turkey or Pakistan, but now that the "new" Iraqi goverment is already using such brutal repressive methods against the Sunni minority, I don't see how this could lead to anything but a bloody civil war. Killings linked to Shiite Squads in Iraqi Police Force Sunnis accuse Iraqi Military of Kidnappings and Slayings

The fact that the new Iraqi government is using "death squads" against opponents does not bode well for the future. Killings linked to Shiite squads in Iraqi Police Force

:eek: shocking! I refuse to believe it.

Back to the topic. When evaluating the Syrian army, you have to remember the quote in Runyan99's first post. I am currently reading "Six days of War" by Michael Oren on the June 1967 war. You see the same pattern, Israeli forces running circles around the Arab armies at the operational level but facing tough tactical battles against individual Arab units. Also don't forget that Israel suffered 800 dead in 6 days of fighting in 1967. Proportionally, that is the equivalent of 80,000 US dead. At the CMSF level, I would expect the Syrian army to be a tough opponent.

Here is one article: Outside Iraq but deep in the fight What is not clear is whether Syria is actively supporting the insurgency or merely turning a blind eye to what is going on in its territory.

just to put my 2 cents in. the Vietnam war was very messy and the parallels to Iraq are uncanny. Cambodia and Laos were unwilling or unable to stop Vietcong forces from using their territories as bases for their attacks in South Vietnam. The US was therefore justified militarily in attacking those bases even if they were located in a "neutral" country. Another example, in the spring of 1967, US forces started attacking north vietnamese airfields. North Vietnam promptly flew their migs to China. For the next year, North Vietnamese migs were taking off and landing from bases in Communist China to attack US aircrafts flying into North Vietnam. This was a clear act of war by China against the US, which the US ignored because it did not want Vietnam to become WW3. If we go back to Iraq, Syria is either actively helping guerillas to use its territories to stage attack against forces in Iraq or turning a blind eye to it. For example: Outside Iraq but deep in the fight The US is therefore justified in sealing off the border and even taking punitive military action against Syria. We have to remember that the whole concept of what is permissible conduct between nation states is fluid and depends on circumstances. For example, in 1967, Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt, Syria and Jordan which resulted in a big territorial gain. Yet Israel was able to convince most of the international community that its action was justified as a pre-emptive attack against a Arab invasion. Considering Syria's international reputation, you could even say that the US has been restrained in its response. It could easily start launching air strikes against insurgent targets in Syria without raising a big international fuss. After all, Israel has been getting away with the same thing for years.

I also found this interesting article, Battlefront may be more prescient than we thought: Los Angeles times: Despite warnings, US leans on Syria

New York Times: GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

it's too bad things turned out as they did. Before the Iraq invasion, Syria was giving the US very valuable information about Al Qaeda: there's also this interesting tidbit: from: The Syrian Bet

based on various reports, substantiated or not, there seems to already be some sort of undeclared low-level war going on between the US and Syria. Syria accuses US of launching lethal raids over its borders Is US planning an Iraq-style 'regime change' in Syria? GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border The Syrian Bet

I thought it was LBJ that said that

I would think these guidelines are meant to be used in non-combat situation, where U.S. forces would not want to inadvertently offend or harm unarmed and non-threatening civilians.(i.e. winning of hearts and minds) for example, this tidbit: "To signal a vehicle to stop, place arm in front of you, palm down, and then move entire arm up and down. If you simply face the palm toward a person, it means hello, not stop, as in America." could mean the difference between life and death for an Iraqi motorist. In potential combat situations, I presume the gloves come off.

Stalin was a smart, ruthless politician. He would not have started a war, unless he was certain of winning. In 1945, the Soviet Union was in no shape to fight another war: -they had lost between 20-40 million killed; -about 30-40% of their pre-war industrial capacity was gone; -the whole area of the USSR which had been fought over was devastated. In many towns, not one building was still standing and famine was rampant; -only lend-lease supplies of weapons and food had prevented the USSR from collapsing and these ended as soon as the war was over; -the Red Army was fighting a guerrilla war in western ukraine against anti-communist partisan groups; -in eastern europe, most countries were ruled by coalition government, where the communist party was often in the minority. It would take a few more years to turn them into proper soviet puppet states; and - the USSR did not have the atomic bomb. 1950 however, would have been the ideal time, alot of these problems were resolved and Western Europe had very few troops.

I meant "cute" in terms of interesting. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that U.S. forces realize the importance of being aware of cultural differences, something which is often sorely lacking in Canada. Michael, if you ever come to Montreal, I will be glad to give you a guided tour of Montreal's famed fleshpots. [ November 23, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

Slightly off topic, but I thought it was cute: this is my favorite: "General rule: Treat every Iraqi as if he were a colonel." from: US Culture Corps

Journalists are notoriously unreliable. The Israeli press, these days, usually refers to anything fired into Israel as a Kassam (or Qassam) rocket, which is why I was surprised by the reference to a ATGM in the story.

Yes you do, two men to carry the bloody thing and two men to give moral support.

Akd, you would'nt need a four man team to carry a RPG. They were probably looking for a spot to fire the rocket from Lebanon into Israel, although I agree that it would'nt make any sense that it was a ATGM. It might have been a Kassam homemade rocket, which would partially explain why it exploded. Is it me or are we running out of interesting topics to talk about? We need Steve to release another juicy tidbit about the game.

I was reading a news story about a IDF sniper who foiled a terrorist attack when this paragraph caught my attention: I did'nt know you could explode a ATGM with rifle fire. That would be neat to see in CMSF. full link here: paratrooper sniper becomes hero

That is something we also don't hear often around here.

Tawakalna 'ala Allah! (translation: In God, we trust...everyone else pays cash)

The Syrians are rapidly running out of weapons: -their Air Force has been abolished; -their tanks will fall easy prey to M1A tanks and Javelin missiles; -their artillery will be less flexible and responsive than US artillery and will probably have a high percentage of duds; -their Anti-tank missiles and RPGs will fail to fire or detonate on impact, because they can't be bothered to store them properly or don't know which way to point them; that only leaves them with small arms, machine guns, mortars and booby traps :eek: ...but it won't be a Turkey shoot ..but I don't care, I will fight the Infidels even if it's just with a toothpick, if the finns can do it, so can the Syrians.

Steve, Are the reports you mentioned about Syrian weapon failures available online and if yes, could you post a link? the only thing I found is what I posted earlier: from here: web page [ November 21, 2005, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

While I personally think duds are a good idea, we are dealing with an area which is totally guesswork, unless anyone has a study on this area. Are we talking about minor annoyance (i.e 1-5%), major annoyance (i.e 10-20%) or major malfunction? (i.e 30-50% of firings). I would think a missile failure rate somewhere between minor and major annoyance would be about right. Anything higher would seriously neuter the Syrian side. [ November 20, 2005, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]