Sunday, October 09, 2005

US army in retreat, destroys Euphrates bridges to deny them to the enemy: "For the first time I believe we have lost. For the first time as a military professional I think we have no way of winning this. We are willing to destroy the basic structures of the country to deny the enemy their use."

9 comments:

The Troll said...

Warfare has always included measures to restrict movement: road blocks, curfews, destruction of bridges and rail lines. These measures are used equally by winning teams and losing teams. Destruction of a bridge, in and of itself, does not show who is winning or losing.

The Troll said...

Your source doesn't mention retreat. That is apparently your embellishment. How is destroying some bridges an indication of retreat?

You are sloppy about blending facts and opinions.

The Troll said...

From The Fourth Rail blog:

"In an effort to contain the terrorists on the southern banks of the Euphrates, the Coalition has severed the bridges across the Euphrates (marked on the map).

Operation River Gate began yesterday with predawn air strikes on the Dulab, Haditha and Barwana bridges which span the Euphrates River. The strikes were carefully executed to disable the bridges and limit the insurgents’ ability to flee the cities.
The denial of bridges is an important piece of the Coalition strategy to deny freedom of movement to al Qaeda and the insurgency. The tactic of destroying bridges has been used in western Iraq. The Coalition is carefully funneling all traffic north and south of the river through Rawah, where it maintains a strong presence. Wretchard outlined the strategic significance of Rawah - it sits along the boundary of the steppe and desert to the west, where travel is not restricted to the roads, and riverene Iraq to the east, where roads are vital as a line of communications. Rawah has become the river gate of the Euphrates - those wishing to travel north, south, east or west of the river must now pass through Rawah."

Big Gav said...

I wonder what the Iraqi government thinks about the loss of their infrastructure ?

Big Gav said...

At least two more American analysts have come to the same conclusion about the result of this war.

http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/10/war-is-lost.html

The strategy has been a disaster from day one and there is only on solution in the long run - reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil to the point where we can withdraw without having to worry about the supply to the west getting cut off.

The Troll said...

big gav
here is what the spokesman for the iraqi prime minister had to say recently about the iraqi government's intentions re: foreign fighters in the syria euphrates border area.

/http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1459150.htm

The Troll said...

big gav: concerning jeffvail. Their command and control may very well be rhizome-like. But their physical supplies must cross the river by some physical means. Bridges have typically served this purpose.

Bernard said...

Mr. Troll, when you are advancing, you seek to capture bridges intact to further your advance; when you are retreating you blow them to deny them to the enemy. This development suggests the military has lost control of portions of Iraq and has no plan to recapture the lost territory.

gav, the aggressors need to withdraw ASAP, with or without oil supply guarantees (and paying reparations also.) Countries do not have the right to attack other countries in order to steal their resources.

Big Gav said...

Troll: don't ordinary iraqi civilians also need supplies that arrive via those bridges ? Is it just (or even realistic) to try and interdict the insurgency by making the population suffer (and thereby most likely creating even more insurgents) ?

Bernard: Sorry - I wasn't meaning to imply that we had any right to Iraq's oil or that the invasion was justified - however those actually making the decisions at the moment (and their most likely replacements) are basing their actions on US dependence on oil and the value control over it has as a lever over competing powers. This is the ugly reality of the situation as I see it - so the only solution that is going to satisfy both hawks and doves is changing our reality so the middle east isn't important to us - then the poor buggers over there may be free of us interfering...