The Fog of War

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Oct 21, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Moral of the story - Don't upset a neighbour who has a Dime and the phone number of the local FAC.
  2. Interesting juxtaposition there, would love to find out which is the correct version, but since both sides (i.e the US Army and the Beeb) seem to be engaged in their own propaganda campaign, doubt we will!
  3. Air strikes in Falluja are the result of intel from locals. I certainly wouldnt believe the bBC account. Even during Saddam's time he had trouble with Falluja. There isnt alot of symapthy in Iraq for the inhabitants of that fair city and there would be no tears shed if the city was reduced to rubble. Of course that view isnt expressed publicly as it isnt very pc.
  4. I might regard the BBC report with some doubt too T6

    If it hadn't of been for all the imagery flying round the news from the scene as the bodies were carried out.

    My point, is not whether Centcom or BBC believe they have the truth.

    My point is, how many dubious calls are we getting leading to a strike?

    Is it impossible , that Zarqawi's team are deliberately feeding false target information?

    After all , zap 6 innocent civilans , and voila! A whole bunch of pissed off relatives looking to get some revenge :cry:
  5. From a personal perspective and not having been there I can't help but think that perhaps airstrikes are not quite as clean and tidy as is normally required in a peace support op and that, as has been pointed out above, it doesn't seem to be particulary helpful in winning the hearts and minds, either here or abroad.
  6. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    Chicken Jim's point is well made. It doesn't matter whether WE believe CENTCOM or the BBC. Who do the Iraqis believe??
  7. The other problem with airstrikes is that to a lot of onlookers - including the locals, neighbouring countries and others we'd like to help us - they come across as institutionalised cowardice. (NB: I'm talking other people's perceptions here, not my beliefs)

    Why is it (they ask) that the world's only superpower, the most powerful military force on the planet, in a part of the world that they occupy and claim to control, has to resort to lobbing a ton of steel and high explosive into residential areas from 20kfeet ? Why not drive some armoured vehicles up to the front door - or use helicopters - and take the bad guys out personally ?

    So it doesn't really matter what actually happened, we've lost this round as the people we wish to influence don't believe us. And that matters because this conflict will not be resolved by purely military means. Besides, if you filmed a raid you could show exactly what was there, release the film and convince others.

    Finally, on a personal note I could believe either side. The locals are ruthless enough to hide behind civilians, and US humint poor enough that they'll believe any old tripe as long as it is the sort of thing they want to hear about. Just look at the nonsense they paid millions for from a few Iraqi exiles. "You want to hear about WMD, of course, just make the cheque out to ..."