NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't seen a web story of it yet, but I saw it on the news. I'll give you the lowdown;

Al-Zarqawi, the feared Iraqi insurgent, is actually incompetant. The US captured a film reel showing outtakes from one of their propaganda films. In it, Al-Zarqawi attempted to fire a machine gun, but didn't know to chamber the first round, and a henchman did it for him. Later, one of the henchmen tried to carry the MG by the barrel, burning his hands.

A little bit pathetic, no?

He's a turd without this proof that he and his winged monkey henchmen are inept with weapons.

But have no fear, I'm sure some footage of US soldiers making similar mistakes will soon be provided.

He's a turd without this proof that he and his winged monkey henchmen are inept with weapons.

But have no fear, I'm sure some footage of US soldiers making similar mistakes will soon be provided.

US troops have an excuse though; you'd get better training as a life saver.

Oh good. Al Qaeda's funniest home videos. Now all they need to do is show a suicide bomber being hit in the nuts and they'll win the $500 prize.

us soldier = lifesaver = lololololololroflololon00blololfag

how many lifesavers drop bombs or throw grenades? the last time i went to the doctors office, he didnt have an m16 in his medicine cupboard. unless the soldiers a medic, then hes just a medium of us propaganda, fuck him if he says hes a lifesaver.

us soldier = lifesaver = lololololololroflololon00blololfag

how many lifesavers drop bombs or throw grenades? the last time i went to the doctors office, he didnt have an m16 in his medicine cupboard. unless the soldiers a medic, then hes just a medium of us propaganda, fuck him if he says hes a lifesaver.
Reading comprehension issues?

Reading comprehension issues?

Probably. I was implying that US training isn't that good. Not as good as some nations. My dad told me a few stories from 'Nam which highlighted the fact that Aussie training and leadership was better that American.

Probably. I was implying that US training isn't that good. Not as good as some nations. My dad told me a few stories from 'Nam which highlighted the fact that Aussie training and leadership was better that American.

Americans rely too much on standing back and killing the enemy with massive firepower. Of course, since that actually works a lot of the time, it's a bit of a moot point. But yeah, Israel and Australia are supposed to have the best soldiers, although most of the U.S. troops in Vietnam were conscripts with not a lot of training so you can't expect them to be as good as professional soldiers. (New Zealanders used to be better than Australians but once we caught onto the concept of ducking we pulled ahead. And since the New Zealanders enjoyed having us ahead of them, both groups were happy.)

NB: Post is tongue in cheek. Please do not lob anything from a great distance at me, or even a short one.

Probably. I was implying that US training isn't that good. Not as good as some nations. My dad told me a few stories from 'Nam which highlighted the fact that Aussie training and leadership was better that American.

With all due respect, Viet Nam was how many decades ago?

Our average soldier has come a long way since then.

Reading comprehension issues?

reading is likely closer to the end of the line of issues there.

With all due respect, Viet Nam was how many decades ago?

Our average soldier has come a long way since then.

Fair enough, but I still reckon US training is pretty average.

I would rate the US Marines and The US army Rangers as "THE " ELITE regular forces in the world . A well tained slodier is well well trained soldier though and its complete and utter bullshit to even dream of a United States soldier who has went through training and has been sent to into combat ..any Soldier for that matter from any army either from Western -Eastern or Oceania ...to be unfamiliar with his weapon.

ASSwipe Zarqui most likely never had an M-60 in his hands in his life and should have at least had his goons famiiarize him with it before he fucked with it..he's an arrogant moron..so what ..like thats something new ?
so who cares the bastard can use an AK -47 and other weapons fairly well

and from what I have seen can Use a knife / sword on helpless bastards really well..AND he's a leader ..not a front line soldier..

Bottom line //the video was good for a chuckle but provides no comfort..because it proves the bastards still alive..

Send me the one with his head on a stick . I'll savor that one .

I would rate the US Marines and The US army Rangers as "THE " ELITE regular forces in the world.

I wouldn't. I'd give the award to either Australia or Israel. I hear Europe has some good professional armies, but they haven't had a chance to try them out for... oh, I dunno, 61 years?

So Al-Zarqawi can't fire a gun very well. Big deal. Just because you don't know how to use a gun doesn't mean you can't convince other people to use them. Al-Zarqawi's use lies in recruiting and thinking up new tactics to kill Americans, not killing people himself.

Bottom line //the video was good for a chuckle but provides no comfort..because it proves the bastards still alive..

Send me the one with his head on a stick . I'll savor that one .


Thats the one I'm looking foward to- Him dangling on a hook, swaying gently in the breeze, with a raw pork chop jammed in his mouth.

I wouldn't. I'd give the award to either Australia or Israel. I hear Europe has some good professional armies, but they haven't had a chance to try them out for... oh, I dunno, 61 years?

I hear the French army is the most leathel in Europe, but we might have to wait a while to see it in action.

Israel's army is pretty hardcore as well.

So Al-Zarqawi can't fire a gun very well. Big deal. Just because you don't know how to use a gun doesn't mean you can't convince other people to use them. Al-Zarqawi's use lies in recruiting and thinking up new tactics to kill Americans, not killing people himself.

I never said that they weren't dangerous. Just dickheads.

I mean, seriously. I've never seen a gun in my life (well, in pictures I have), but I'd instinctively go to chamber a round first. Al-Zarqawi is the most wanted man in Iraq, a terrorist mastermind. You think he'd at least know how to use a gun.

I hear the French army is the most leathel in Europe, but we might have to wait a while to see it in action.

[insert surrender joke here. Oh the wit!]

I never said that they weren't dangerous. Just dickheads.

I mean, seriously. I've never seen a gun in my life (well, in pictures I have), but I'd instinctively go to chamber a round first. Al-Zarqawi is the most wanted man in Iraq, a terrorist mastermind. You think he'd at least know how to use a gun.

Not nessasarily. Lots of tactical masterminds were inept with weapons; Saladin, the greatest Muslim leader during the Crusades, couldn't use a sword for his life, but damn, could he outclass the Christians in tactics.

I've heard Napolean was a poor rifleman, too, but he was more fond of cannons anyways.

Anywho, you're right, he is a dick.

[insert surrender joke here. Oh the wit!]

Heh, I was expecting that. Glad you played along.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3557/bushbinoculars5qd.jpg

I rest my case:p

A little bit pathetic, no?
And this is the guy beating you? Yeah, it's pathetic alright. :rolleyes:

Zarqawi is incompetant...

...yet he still can't be found or defeated....

Doesn't that tell you something even worse about thsoe trying to defeat him!?

Its a rather odd form of victory Zarqawi is getting. He has accomplished none of his goals, he has not prevented his enemy accomplishing his goals, and he is reduced to slaughtering Iraqi civilians as his main activity.

Its a rather odd form of victory Zarqawi is getting. He has accomplished none of his goals, he has not prevented his enemy accomplishing his goals, and he is reduced to slaughtering Iraqi civilians as his main activity.
America is accomplishing its goals in Iraq? Give me a break. Its goal was to have been out of there with a client state installed two years ago. :rolleyes:

Its a rather odd form of victory Zarqawi is getting. He has accomplished none of his goals, he has not prevented his enemy accomplishing his goals, and he is reduced to slaughtering Iraqi civilians as his main activity.

His 'victory' is still being able to operate with impunity.

[insert surrender joke here. Oh the wit!]

2 things you'll never hear the french saying:

1, ...then dispose of that part of the animal.
2, We knew we weren't going to win, but we tried anyway...

The SAS are pretty well trained by all accounts, I was chatting to a navy seals guy that was telling me a bit about the training they did with the SAS. But then soldiers are useless when you have a big red button..;)

2 things you'll never hear the french saying:

*snip*
2, We knew we weren't going to win, but we tried anyway...
Uh, that's what they said about WW2 when they lost a quarter million men in a month. They didn't manage that by surrendering at the first shot. The defence of France was actually conducted with determination by men who knew well that they would be defeated. The air force for example, was still flying after air superiority had been lost and more than half of it had been destroyed.

The Muslim terrorists won't last long against the Great Holy Crusading US Army! Bless our troops abroad!

Uh, that's what they said about WW2 when they lost a quarter million men in a month. They didn't manage that by surrendering at the first shot. The defence of France was actually conducted with determination by men who knew well that they would be defeated. The air force for example, was still flying after air superiority had been lost and more than half of it had been destroyed.

To be honest, I think that if France hadn't wasted their time with that stupid "Maginot Line" idea, the defence of France might have been a little easier.

Anywho, the French are DEFINETLY not 'surrender monkeys.'

To be honest, I think that if France hadn't wasted their time with that stupid "Maginot Line" idea, the defence of France might have been a little easier.

Anywho, the French are DEFINETLY not 'surrender monkeys.'
Yeah. Those with the white flags are all dead by the time they want to quit. ;) :p just kidding....Or am I?

The Muslim terrorists won't last long against the Great Holy Crusading US Army! Bless our troops abroad!

I didn't realize that a new crusade had been started. The Christians didn't fare too well in the last ones, if I remember correctly.

I didn't realize that a new crusade had been started. The Christians didn't fare too well in the last ones, if I remember correctly.

Yeah. If memory serves, they had really spotty supply lines and paid heavily for that.

I wonder, who will be the next Emmanuel Goldstein after this Zarqawi guy is caught/ killed/ forgotten?

Fair enough, but I still reckon US training is pretty average.

US training, compared to UK training is not up to much. UK armed forces of the rank and file recieve a simmilar level of training as much of the US special operations soldiers.

Al-Zarqawi is dead anyway. Supposedly he blew himself up months ago when US Troops stumbled on his hideout. I must say I was first sceptical but I haven't heard anything about Al-Qa'eda or Zarqawi since then.

The Muslim terrorists won't last long against the Great Holy Crusading US Army! Bless our troops abroad!

Who do you work for? Who sent you? Who among us is using you as a petty excuse for a laugh?

US training, compared to UK training is not up to much. UK armed forces of the rank and file recieve a simmilar level of training as much of the US special operations soldiers.

only leaving out the hooting like a bunch of baboons part

America is accomplishing its goals in Iraq? Give me a break. Its goal was to have been out of there with a client state installed two years ago. :rolleyes:

They've a government in place, the main problem terrorist-wise has always been Sunni Arabs, and if you think that they need al-Qaeda, you're wrong, and the biggest obstacle to forming Iraqi governments now is Iraqi politicians.

Well turd though he may be, he's as hard to catch as Mr. Hanky.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/MrHankey.jpg
Apparently.

Oh good. Al Qaeda's funniest home videos. Now all they need to do is show a suicide bomber being hit in the nuts and they'll win the $500 prize.


You forgot Al Qeada having sex with a Tyrannosaurus Rex!

I wouldn't. I'd give the award to either Australia or Israel. I hear Europe has some good professional armies, but they haven't had a chance to try them out for... oh, I dunno, 61 years?


yep...OK so you can rate an army by ,,,what mental telepathy ?

the US and britain and the rest of the coalition has the only " Battle " tested veteran army in the world .

Thats a fact JACK . ..

How exactly do you RATE an army ? :)


Cripes this is sooooo friggin stupid..


lets all wave our dicks and see who wins...
bet you get the same friggin opinions .

A soldier is the same ...no mattter what country makes them.. flesh and blood..they all bleed red .

The individual matters ..and it wouldnt matter less wher the INDIVIDUAL comes from .


Just look at the make up of a typical US unit .

So its not racial...


Hmmm so what is it ?


Doctrine and tactics .
Training and hard ass bastards willing to die for their brothers in arms .

no fucking nation has a monopoly on hard ass brothers willing to die ...

so whats left.

Stupid friggin argument .

The only BATTLE tested Veteran army in the world .

Is the COALTION forces from IRAQ .

the rest are just waiting to learn . Or die .

ask the people who know ...and they will name all the "special" forces from the western nations as " the BEST ".....now who is best as what " specialty' ?


Dick wave begin !!!

they are all life stealers and death dealers par excellance .....so whats the point ?

Probably. I was implying that US training isn't that good. Not as good as some nations. My dad told me a few stories from 'Nam which highlighted the fact that Aussie training and leadership was better that American. My Dad is a PTI (Physical Training Instrcutor) in the Army. I can definitely back that one up with some first hand stories. The Aussie army is well trained in comparison to most nations, but the US army is poorly trained in comparison to many nations. This wouldn't be too huse of a problem if they also didn't have the most advanced and lethal technology under their control.

the US and britain and the rest of the coalition has the only " Battle " tested veteran army in the world .

If you must insist of being a dolt, please do so in your own time. Regardless of how I feel personally about Israel, I freely acknowledge that their army has been in virtual constant use for the past what, 40 years? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has resulted in an army and weapons development drive that is stronger comparatively to many larger nations.

And Israel is not part of any US coalition.

Russia also has had it's armed forces tested in battle in a long running guerilla war against the various Chechen forces, much like how the US is experiencing now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russia is also not part of any US coalition.

Now then, please go get an education. Blatant ignorance brings down the average IQ of the people here.

Not nessasarily. Lots of tactical masterminds were inept with weapons; Saladin, the greatest Muslim leader during the Crusades, couldn't use a sword for his life, but damn, could he outclass the Christians in tactics.

I've heard Napolean was a poor rifleman, too, but he was more fond of cannons anyways.

Anywho, you're right, he is a dick.


Bingo. And Napoleon I (;)) rather ought to dispell the erronious idea of the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" - preferably with the proiverbial "whiff of grapeshot", for a nice sense of ironic justice. :D



yep...OK so you can rate an army by ,,,what mental telepathy ?

the US and britain and the rest of the coalition has the only " Battle " tested veteran army in the world .

Thats a fact JACK . ..

How exactly do you RATE an army ?


Cripes this is sooooo friggin stupid..


lets all wave our dicks and see who wins...
bet you get the same friggin opinions .

A soldier is the same ...no mattter what country makes them.. flesh and blood..they all bleed red .

The individual matters ..and it wouldnt matter less wher the INDIVIDUAL comes from .


Just look at the make up of a typical US unit .

So its not racial...


Hmmm so what is it ?


Doctrine and tactics .
Training and hard ass bastards willing to die for their brothers in arms .

no fucking nation has a monopoly on hard ass brothers willing to die ...

so whats left.

Stupid friggin argument .

The only BATTLE tested Veteran army in the world .

Is the COALTION forces from IRAQ .

the rest are just waiting to learn . Or die .

ask the people who know ...and they will name all the "special" forces from the western nations as " the BEST ".....now who is best as what " specialty' ?


Dick wave begin !!!

they are all life stealers and death dealers par excellance .....so whats the point ?

First point: the coalition forces in Iraq are certainly not the only battle tested veteran army right now. The armies of Eritrea, Ethiopea, Russia, various Balkan states, Israel, India, and Pakistan (to name a few) have all seen combat in the last 10 years.

Second point:
There are several means by which one can measure the effectivness of a military force. Here's one that I have found reliable:
http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

I would rate the US Marines and The US army Rangers as "THE " ELITE regular forces in the world.

The SAS for the win!

But wait a tick... does that mean that you wiped out several suburbs of Falluja with white phosphorous, killing thousands, in an attempt to kill him, but he's actually still alive?

Cripes. That was rather foolish.

Bingo. And Napoleon I (;)) rather ought to dispell the erronious idea of the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" - preferably with the proiverbial "whiff of grapeshot", for a nice sense of ironic justice. :D

Napoleon was Corsican, though. So he was probably of Genoese descent.

The SAS for the win!

But wait a tick... does that mean that you wiped out several suburbs of Falluja with white phosphorous, killing thousands, in an attempt to kill him, but he's actually still alive?

Cripes. That was rather foolish.

Where to even begin correcting the falsehoods...

Where to even begin correcting the falsehoods...

Go on, then, let's have some corrections.

Napoleon was Corsican, though. So he was probably of Genoese descent.

Fair enough, he was a Frenchman of Genoan heritage. (Unless you want to open up a whole other nasty can of squirmiy worms, that'll do.). But what of the two million Frenchmen who served the armies he commanded? Those armies that defeated, at various times, each of the armies of all the major states of Europe.

I wouldn't. I'd give the award to either Australia or Israel. I hear Europe has some good professional armies, but they haven't had a chance to try them out for... oh, I dunno, 61 years?

Oh dear, wrong again. The UK went to war in the Falkland islands, and wiped the floor with the Argies. We also were there in both the first and second Gulf War conflicts. UK troops hold Basra, are in Afganistan. Think before you post.

Go on, then, let's have some corrections.

[QUOTE=Yootopia]The SAS for the win!

At the level of SOFs you're talking about, it is functionally impossible to make such a comparison. One shouldn't compare the USMC and Rangers to the SAS. A fare comparison would be the SEALs or Delta.

wiped out several suburbs of Falluja

This implies massive civilian casualties that simply didn't happen. If several suburbs had been wiped out, there is no possible way that the US military would have been able to conceal it from the mainstream US media.

with white phosphorous,

WP munitions were used on a tactical scale. They were not used on a scale that would wipe out "several suburbs". Not unless small shells and grenades are more powerful than reality.

killing thousands,

There were not thousands of KIAs. Around 1,200 Iraqis were killed.

in an attempt to kill him,

The operations in Fallujah you appear to be allueding to were not an attempt to capture or kill Al-Zarqawi.

To be honest, I think that if France hadn't wasted their time with that stupid "Maginot Line" idea, the defence of France might have been a little easier.


And thier excuse for every other war they lost?

And Israel is not part of any US coalition.



Didnt you mean to say that Israel is in extremly tight coordination with the US in any and all events that occur in the Middle East? Yea i thought you did.

Oh dear, wrong again. The UK went to war in the Falkland islands, and wiped the floor with the Argies. We also were there in both the first and second Gulf War conflicts. UK troops hold Basra, are in Afganistan. Think before you post.

Yes, because Argentina, Iraq, and the Taliban are truly formidable enemies,

Fair enough, he was a Frenchman of Genoan heritage. (Unless you want to open up a whole other nasty can of squirmiy worms, that'll do.). But what of the two million Frenchmen who served the armies he commanded? Those armies that defeated, at various times, each of the armies of all the major states of Europe.

Men are men. Wars are not fought with men, they are fought with minds.

Isn't it ironic that all the most famous dictators are never from the countries they lead? Napoleon was Corsican, Hitler was Austria, Stalin was Georgian...

Men are men. Wars are not fought with men, they are fought with minds.

Isn't it ironic that all the most famous dictators are never from the countries they lead? Napoleon was Corsican, Hitler was Austria, Stalin was Georgian...

Well, Corsica is not technically a country so...

Didnt you mean to say that Israel is in extremly tight coordination with the US in any and all events that occur in the Middle East? Yea i thought you did.

All events? Are you suggest the USS Liberty incident was orchestrated?

Well, Corsica is not technically a country so...

Yeah, but the whole "country" concept wasn't something that was really solidified until about the 19th Century. And he was born one year after it was sold to France. So, while technically French, you know...

Yeah, but the whole "country" concept wasn't something that was really solidified until about the 19th Century. And he was born one year after it was sold to France. So, while technically French, you know...

There's the crux though. He was born on French territory.

He was French. Stop being pedantic for the sake of it.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Yootopia]Go on, then, let's have some corrections.



At the level of SOFs you're talking about, it is functionally impossible to make such a comparison. One shouldn't compare the USMC and Rangers to the SAS. A fare comparison would be the SEALs or Delta.
So if you can't really compare, he can have a random opinion.



This implies massive civilian casualties that simply didn't happen. If several suburbs had been wiped out, there is no possible way that the US military would have been able to conceal it from the mainstream US media.

Or means what it says, that a lot of buildings were destroyed.



There were not thousands of KIAs. Around 1,200 Iraqis were killed.

To be pedantic, 1.2 thousands


There, my pointless, pedantic rebuttal quote filled for the day.

There's the crux though. He was born on French territory.

He was French. Stop being pedantic for the sake of it.:rolleyes:

And Stalin was born on Russian territory. Your point?

And Stalin was born on Russian territory. Your point?
Georgia is and was a seperate country (before and after the existence of the USSR).

Corsica was never recognised as a seperate country (always being a dominion of either the Catholic Kings and I think Naples) and today is not a sepaerate country.

Stalin was Georgian not Russian. Stalin was never born on Russian territory, he was born on Georgian territory.

Georgia is and was a seperate country (before and after the existence of the USSR).

Corsica was never recognised as a seperate country (always being a dominion of either the Catholic Kings and I think Naples) and today is not a sepaerate country.

Stalin was Georgian not Russian. Stalin was never born on Russian territory, he was born on Georgian territory.

Incorrect. Before 1917, Georgia was part of the Russian Empire. The long period of annexation lasted from 1800 to 1859.

Incorrect. Before 1917, Georgia was part of the Russian Empire. The long period of annexation lasted from 1800 to 1859.

Oh mercy.

And before Russian Annexation...

Between 1008 and 1466 all Georgian principalities were united into the unified Kingdom of Georgia.
It then feel into decline and began to be carved up by both the neighbouring Persian and Ottoman Empires. In was only in 1783 that the Kara-Khitai portion of the Georgian Kingdom was annexed by the Russian Empire with the rest of the Kingdom finally subsuming to Tsarist control (although contestedly) in 1804.

Now, when referring to Stalin, we call him Georgian because the state of Georgia that exists today is more or less similar to the historical Kingdom of Georgia that exited throughout the middle ages. If Georgia had ceased to exist then we would merely call him 'Russian'.

Corsica did not have the historical independence of Georgia.
With the collapse of Byzantine control, the island came under various influences before it finally fell to Genoa in 1282 following the Battle of Meloria against Pisa. Ownership then switched from French to Spanish given the ruler of Genoa at the time. It was finally controlled by the French (by buying it from the Spanish) in 1768.

We done here?

The SAS for the win!

At the level of SOFs you're talking about, it is functionally impossible to make such a comparison. One shouldn't compare the USMC and Rangers to the SAS. A fare comparison would be the SEALs or Delta.

So if you can't really compare, he can have a random opinion.

So comparing my local high school gridiron football team and Arsenal F.C., and concluding that the later is a better team is somehow a meaningful comparison because it's a "random opinion"? That's the equivilant to what's been done here.

Or means what it says, that a lot of buildings were destroyed.

Do you honestly believe that the simple destruction of buildings would really qualify as "wiping out several suburbs"?

To be pedantic, 1.2 thousands

Seeing as how the plural form indicates multiple sets, thousands would indicate at least 2,000. 1,200 is "one thousand two hundred". It is not "one thousands two hundred".

He's a turd without this proof that he and his winged monkey henchmen are inept with weapons.

But have no fear, I'm sure some footage of US soldiers making similar mistakes will soon be provided.
Not likely! :D

US troops have an excuse though; you'd get better training as a life saver.
And you know this ... how? FYI, American soldiers get some of the best training in the world. :p

us soldier = lifesaver = lololololololroflololon00blololfag

how many lifesavers drop bombs or throw grenades? the last time i went to the doctors office, he didnt have an m16 in his medicine cupboard. unless the soldiers a medic, then hes just a medium of us propaganda, fuck him if he says hes a lifesaver.
Congratulations! You have just been awarded "The Eutruscan Booby Prize for Least Informed NS Generalite!" :p

With all due respect, Viet Nam was how many decades ago?

Our average soldier has come a long way since then.
Four decades, give or take a couple years. :(

I have nothing but complete admiration for the quality of the young men and women currently in the armed forces of America. If ever I had doubts about the upcoming generation, they quickly dispelled them. :)

Hehehe - thanks Eut. - I missed having a good laugh at this idiot.

us soldier = lifesaver = lololololololroflololon00blololfag

how many lifesavers drop bombs or throw grenades? the last time i went to the doctors office, he didnt have an m16 in his medicine cupboard. unless the soldiers a medic, then hes just a medium of us propaganda, fuck him if he says hes a lifesaver.

Combat Lifesavers are what the layman would call a medic. And my family doctor from when I was 6 until I was 16, was a veteran of Korea and Vietnam. EVERY military has medical personel.

Not likely! :D

I'll bet we could. Even given the relatively high degree of training in the US military, there's still going to be enough "Gomer Pyle"s running around to embarass us.

Oh mercy.

And before Russian Annexation...

Between 1008 and 1466 all Georgian principalities were united into the unified Kingdom of Georgia.
It then feel into decline and began to be carved up by both the neighbouring Persian and Ottoman Empires. In was only in 1783 that the Kara-Khitai portion of the Georgian Kingdom was annexed by the Russian Empire with the rest of the Kingdom finally subsuming to Tsarist control (although contestedly) in 1804.

Now, when referring to Stalin, we call him Georgian because the state of Georgia that exists today is more or less similar to the historical Kingdom of Georgia that exited throughout the middle ages. If Georgia had ceased to exist then we would merely call him 'Russian'.

Corsica did not have the historical independence of Georgia.
With the collapse of Byzantine control, the island came under various influences before it finally fell to Genoa in 1282 following the Battle of Meloria against Pisa. Ownership then switched from French to Spanish given the ruler of Genoa at the time. It was finally controlled by the French (by buying it from the Spanish) in 1768.

We done here?

Where'd you get that from? Corsica was Genoese for a long time, with short occupations by Aragon and France. Although Genoa ceases to exist as a nation state, Corsica had only been French for a single year when Napoleon was born. He was Genonese.

Hehehe - thanks Eut. - I missed having a good laugh at this idiot.



Combat Lifesavers are what the layman would call a medic. And my family doctor from when I was 6 until I was 16, was a veteran of Korea and Vietnam. EVERY military has medical personel.

i understand that, that is why i said "UNLESS that soldier is a medic"

my father was a medic in the army, and he now is a family doctor.

n00b, read carefully next time

Bingo. And Napoleon I (;)) rather ought to dispell the erronious idea of the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" - preferably with the proiverbial "whiff of grapeshot", for a nice sense of ironic justice. :D



First point: the coalition forces in Iraq are certainly not the only battle tested veteran army right now. The armies of Eritrea, Ethiopea, Russia, various Balkan states, Israel, India, and Pakistan (to name a few) have all seen combat in the last 10 years.

Second point:
There are several means by which one can measure the effectivness of a military force. Here's one that I have found reliable:
http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

I consider the invasion of Lebenon the last time the Israeli army was as a whole in combat. And use Major conflicts as a criteria..including the resourses ..combined force operations..air sea and land..logistics on a huge scale and percentage of total force in combat against op force.

Russia didnt meet that criteria since Afghanistan . sorry the Chechnia operation IMO was not an operation on the scale of say Falluja..consider both the size of the forces involved and the PERCENTAGE of Russian forces that actually saw combat of any type.

The US invasion of Granada and Panama...was a better example .

The Balkans is a tricky one because of the severe limitations of the army and type of forces it can project. But I would describe those forces as very well battle tested ..but of limited effectivness if it ever came to PROJECTING force.

India and Pakistan had a large scale conflict...ummm when ? How long ago ?

I dont think even they consider their Army a " Veteran battle tested force .
Again ..its my fault I keep using " Army " as opposed to Military .
I weigh heavily the military ability to project force ..and I deliberately didnt even consider armys in Africa and the Phillipenes and all the other area's that small scale rebel conflicts ..genocide and what have you have been going on for years...otherwise I would have said Somallia has a battle tested Army..

attack my argument if you like ...but do not attack me personally. either grow up and edit your post to take out the personal attack or I'll have the mods do it for you . ( Not directed at the above quoted poster )

BTW nice find...although I find it amusing that they Rate the "Tradition" of Turkeys armed forces higher than that of Germany .

At any rate when rating the US military you must rate its different components ..reserve..national Guard..Special forces from all branches ..regular ARMY and Marines . ETC.
standards of training are not the same for all...nor is the mission .

Other western forces have much smaller armies than the US and can ..or have to ..provide more intensive training to get the best bang for the buck

I'd compare a scottish regiment to the quality of A US Marine unit for example and superior to a US National Guard unit..no offense intended to the Guard .
And I aggree on a whole the Australians get the level of training comparable to US Army Rangers .

But ask Australia to defend Taiwan from China ?

Would Russia be capable of invading Cuba ? Or even France ?

France has excellent special forces BTW .

If you must insist of being a dolt, please do so in your own time. Regardless of how I feel personally about Israel, I freely acknowledge that their army has been in virtual constant use for the past what, 40 years? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has resulted in an army and weapons development drive that is stronger comparatively to many larger nations.

And Israel is not part of any US coalition.

Russia also has had it's armed forces tested in battle in a long running guerilla war against the various Chechen forces, much like how the US is experiencing now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russia is also not part of any US coalition.

Now then, please go get an education. Blatant ignorance brings down the average IQ of the people here.


Here's a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black .

The SAS for the win!

But wait a tick... does that mean that you wiped out several suburbs of Falluja with white phosphorous, killing thousands, in an attempt to kill him, but he's actually still alive?

Cripes. That was rather foolish.


The SAS is the gold standard among special forces. And several nations meet it .

Rangers and Marines are not " special forces " . Although components of these forces can be used as such .


But then again considering what your post says about Falluja...well I guess I should'nt have high expectations anyway .

Here's a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black .

Until you can provide evidence to back your statements, you are only talking to a mirror.

You claimed that only the US and coalition forces are veteran armies. I call that bullshit which strongly ignores experience by other non-coalition forces in conflict and outright war.

Either you are ignorant or a history revisionist.

Until you can provide evidence to back your statements, you are only talking to a mirror.

You claimed that only the US and coalition forces are veteran armies. I call that bullshit which strongly ignores experience by other non-coalition forces in conflict and outright war.

Either you are ignorant or a history revisionist.



I consider the invasion of Lebenon the last time the Israeli army was as a whole in combat. And use Major conflicts as a criteria..including the resourses ..combined force operations..air sea and land..logistics on a huge scale and percentage of total force in combat against op force.

Russia didnt meet that criteria since Afghanistan . sorry the Chechnia operation IMO was not an operation on the scale of say Falluja..consider both the size of the forces involved and the PERCENTAGE of Russian forces that actually saw combat of any type.

The US invasion of Granada and Panama...was a better example .

The Balkans is a tricky one because of the severe limitations of the army and type of forces it can project. But I would describe those forces as very well battle tested ..but of limited effectivness if it ever came to PROJECTING force.

India and Pakistan had a large scale conflict...ummm when ? How long ago ?

I dont think even they consider their Army a " Veteran battle tested force .
Again ..its my fault I keep using " Army " as opposed to Military .
I weigh heavily the military ability to project force ..and I deliberately didnt even consider armys in Africa and the Phillipenes and all the other area's that small scale rebel conflicts ..genocide and what have you have been going on for years...otherwise I would have said Somallia has a battle tested Army..

attack my argument if you like ...but do not attack me personally. either grow up and edit your post to take out the personal attack or I'll have the mods do it for you . ( Not directed at the above quoted poster )

BTW nice find...although I find it amusing that they Rate the "Tradition" of Turkeys armed forces higher than that of Germany .

At any rate when rating the US military you must rate its different components ..reserve..national Guard..Special forces from all branches ..regular ARMY and Marines . ETC.
standards of training are not the same for all...nor is the mission .

Other western forces have much smaller armies than the US and can ..or have to ..provide more intensive training to get the best bang for the buck

I'd compare a scottish regiment to the quality of A US Marine unit for example and superior to a US National Guard unit..no offense intended to the Guard .
And I aggree on a whole the Australians get the level of training comparable to US Army Rangers .

But ask Australia to defend Taiwan from China ?

Would Russia be capable of invading Cuba ? Or even France ?

France has excellent special forces BTW


Excuse me ?

You were saying?

Where'd you get that from? Corsica was Genoese for a long time, with short occupations by Aragon and France.
It depends on what your definition of 'a long time' is.

In 1077, Pope Gregory VII ceded Corsica to Pisa. Pisa and Genoa, later Genoa and Aragón, battled for control. In the mid-15th cent. actual administration of the island was taken up by the Bank of San Giorgio in Genoa.
It was in 1755 that a fellow by the name of Pasquale Paoli headed a rebellion against Genoa- but he only succeeded in gifting Corsica into French control (in 1768) where it has remained ever since.

Corsica, while having some nationalistic aspirations, has never been an independent territory. It went from the Byzantines, to the Lombards and then was granted to the Papacy by the Franks in about the late 8thC.


Although Genoa ceases to exist as a nation state, Corsica had only been French for a single year when Napoleon was born. He was Genonese.

Corsica was never a nation state- Genoa was neither. A more fitting description of the latter would be city-state with Imperial aspirations, even though it was a Republic. Genoa was actually controlled by varying European powers in its decline- Spanish, French and Austria (who only left in 1746). And as I have said, Corsica was French/Frankish much longer then it was directly controlled by the Genoese (if you want to say Genoa controlled it while under the guise of Aragon, French, Austrians or the Papacy then fine)

Calling Napoleon Genoese would be incorrect and trying to indicate that Corsica was a seperate independent state would be tenuous at best.

Right, we done?

Excuse me ?

You were saying?

All aspects of the armed forces?

Chechnya did involve all aspects of the Russian armed forces, including both ground and air units. I doubt naval units were deployed, but that would be more of a geographical and practical issue. The level of destruction and fighting at Chechnya was far more thorough than what happened at Fallujah.

Israel does use it's army and airforce to suppress Palestinian resistance as well as punish. They have faced a guerilla war for much of the last decade and beyond. The Israeli navy (don't know what that consists of), isn't in use simply because it's not needed for such short range operations.

And if you're using percentage scale of forces deployed as an indicator of how "veteran" an army is, then I assert that the US army is even more green than the Serbian army (or whatever they're calling it these days). Why? Because the percentage of armed forces the US is capable of deploying is simply not on par with the number deployed.

You call it a small scale rebel conflict, but experience gained does not detract simply because you had 5,000 soldiers as opposed to 5,000,000,000 soldiers deployed. A veteran army is one that has experienced war and gets to live to talk about it.

And now you also argue that the various components of the US armed forces must be rated seperately while you use a generalization for other nations armies. You're bias is both obvious and hypocritical.

Now onto US armed forces and the veteran status. What constitutes veteran status? Gunning down people with AKs from attack choppers and saying that makes you a veteran is about as ass of a statement as Bush jr declaring himself a Vietnam Vet. It doesn't. The Iraqi insurgency so far has been mostly via IEDs and ambushes with low level infantry.

Has the US armed forces faced naval assets with combat power parative to their own? Have they fought in the skies above with an enemy airforce that is both competent and adequately equippred? Have they suffered from sustained enemy shelling and bombing? Have they even fought in a tank battle where the opponents are not antiquated machines?

No. None of these actually happened. Thereby, I would argue that the majority of the US armed forces are not veterans. Yes, there will be infantry veterans, but the US army is not, and I repeat again, NOT a veteran army.

Lastly, numerical deployment strength. What on earth does the amount of resources an army has have to do with its veteran status? Trying to say one is more veteran than the other because it's got more cash/soldiers to spend is nothing short of ludricous.

You still need an education. It's sorely lacking.

I consider the invasion of Lebenon the last time the Israeli army was as a whole in combat. And use Major conflicts as a criteria..including the resourses ..combined force operations..air sea and land..logistics on a huge scale and percentage of total force in combat against op force.

Russia didnt meet that criteria since Afghanistan . sorry the Chechnia operation IMO was not an operation on the scale of say Falluja..consider both the size of the forces involved and the PERCENTAGE of Russian forces that actually saw combat of any type.

The US invasion of Granada and Panama...was a better example .

The Balkans is a tricky one because of the severe limitations of the army and type of forces it can project. But I would describe those forces as very well battle tested ..but of limited effectivness if it ever came to PROJECTING force.

India and Pakistan had a large scale conflict...ummm when ? How long ago ?

I dont think even they consider their Army a " Veteran battle tested force .
Again ..its my fault I keep using " Army " as opposed to Military .
I weigh heavily the military ability to project force ..and I deliberately didnt even consider armys in Africa and the Phillipenes and all the other area's that small scale rebel conflicts ..genocide and what have you have been going on for years...otherwise I would have said Somallia has a battle tested Army..

attack my argument if you like ...but do not attack me personally. either grow up and edit your post to take out the personal attack or I'll have the mods do it for you . ( Not directed at the above quoted poster )

BTW nice find...although I find it amusing that they Rate the "Tradition" of Turkeys armed forces higher than that of Germany .

At any rate when rating the US military you must rate its different components ..reserve..national Guard..Special forces from all branches ..regular ARMY and Marines . ETC.
standards of training are not the same for all...nor is the mission .

Other western forces have much smaller armies than the US and can ..or have to ..provide more intensive training to get the best bang for the buck

I'd compare a scottish regiment to the quality of A US Marine unit for example and superior to a US National Guard unit..no offense intended to the Guard .
And I aggree on a whole the Australians get the level of training comparable to US Army Rangers .

But ask Australia to defend Taiwan from China ?

Would Russia be capable of invading Cuba ? Or even France ?

France has excellent special forces BTW .

Whew! A lotr of good comments there that deserve a reply. Unfortunately, I'm off to bed soon, so just a couple of quick ones with the rest to be tackled later.

Re Chechenya, the First and Second Battles of Grozny exceeded Fallujah for sure, and were arguably a match for most of the fighting in the early parts of the invasion of Iraq.

Operation al-Fajr involved 10-15,000 US forces and up to 2000 Iraqi forces.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm

As far as I know, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah had no heavy artillery ar tanks.

Contrast this with the forces arrayed in the First Battle of Grozny. The Russians had over 23,000 forces. The size of the Chechens is in question, however it appears that 5,000 is a safe number. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTThomas.htm

Furthermore, the Chechens had tanks and heavy artillery.

Chechens had 40 to 50 T-62 and T-72 tanks, 620-650 grenade launchers, 20-25 "Grad" multiple rocket launchers, 30-35 armored personnel carriers and scout vehicles, 30 122mm howitzers, 40-50 BMP infantry fighting vehicles,[3] some 200,000 hand grenades, and an assortment of various types of ammunition.

www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/thomas.htm

As for Strategypage, yes, it's generally good stuff. I'm familiar with the author from way back. (His text How To Make War was one of the few books I didn't have to purchase for my Poli Sci IR seminar that became a case study of a certain war in 1991. ;)) And yes, like any good analyst, he's not always exactly spot on.

The 1999 Kargil War (India-Pakistan) resulted in over 1000 deaths. It involved divisional scale movements, over 5000 IAF sorties, and sustained artillery bombardments on a scale which "had not been witnessed anywhere in the world since the second World War".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm

Finally, to cover quite a lot of the commentary, a lot depends on what you consider to be a major military operation. If you're are correct in discounting Russia's divisional scale operations in Chechenya and long term experience, then yes, you are correct in discounting quite a bit of what I listed. However, I disagree. The countries I listed above have all had at least some recent experience in moderately large scale military operations.

Calling Napoleon Genoese would be incorrect and trying to indicate that Corsica was a seperate independent state would be tenuous at best.

What, so we just say, "Fuck it, let's call him French."? I'll call him Corsican.

What, so we just say, "Fuck it, let's call him French."? I'll call him Corsican.

You can call him 'Billy Jim Bob' for all it matters. Fact is, he's French and only people who think they are being 'clever' by making fun of the French use the "He's a Corsican" line.

Corsica is not, and never has been, a 'country'. He is French first- then you could say "from the department of Corsica" (Much like saying 'He's from Paris or Brittany'- still French)

I wouldn't. I'd give the award to either Australia or Israel. I hear Europe has some good professional armies, but they haven't had a chance to try them out for... oh, I dunno, 61 years?

The British Army has some of the best trained soldiers in the world, and our Special Forces training (ie the SAS) has been copied by nations throughout the world, including the US. Delta Force training was copied almost completely from the SAS.

I wouldn't. I'd give the award to either Australia or Israel. I hear Europe has some good professional armies, but they haven't had a chance to try them out for... oh, I dunno, 61 years?

The Dutch Marines and KCT (Special Forces) are supposed to be world class, and they are send abroad often, so...

Whew! A lotr of good comments there that deserve a reply. Unfortunately, I'm off to bed soon, so just a couple of quick ones with the rest to be tackled later.

Re Chechenya, the First and Second Battles of Grozny exceeded Fallujah for sure, and were arguably a match for most of the fighting in the early parts of the invasion of Iraq.

Operation al-Fajr involved 10-15,000 US forces and up to 2000 Iraqi forces.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm

As far as I know, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah had no heavy artillery ar tanks.

Contrast this with the forces arrayed in the First Battle of Grozny. The Russians had over 23,000 forces. The size of the Chechens is in question, however it appears that 5,000 is a safe number. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTThomas.htm

Furthermore, the Chechens had tanks and heavy artillery.



www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/thomas.htm

As for Strategypage, yes, it's generally good stuff. I'm familiar with the author from way back. (His text How To Make War was one of the few books I didn't have to purchase for my Poli Sci IR seminar that became a case study of a certain war in 1991. ;)) And yes, like any good analyst, he's not always exactly spot on.

The 1999 Kargil War (India-Pakistan) resulted in over 1000 deaths. It involved divisional scale movements, over 5000 IAF sorties, and sustained artillery bombardments on a scale which "had not been witnessed anywhere in the world since the second World War".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm

Finally, to cover quite a lot of the commentary, a lot depends on what you consider to be a major military operation. If you're are correct in discounting Russia's divisional scale operations in Chechenya and long term experience, then yes, you are correct in discounting quite a bit of what I listed. However, I disagree. The countries I listed above have all had at least some recent experience in moderately large scale military operations.

thank you for the good quality reasoned response and civil discourse.
contrast that to the post that came before it..I fully intend to visit the sources you have provided and will happily ammend my origional opinion reguarding the Russian military .

I still do not consider the 1999 Kargil war / conflict as evidence that it has provided India or Pakistan with a Veteran battle tested military . it seems I may be wrong on Russian military capablity .

All aspects of the armed forces?

Chechnya did involve all aspects of the Russian armed forces, including both ground and air units. I doubt naval units were deployed, but that would be more of a geographical and practical issue. The level of destruction and fighting at Chechnya was far more thorough than what happened at Fallujah.

Israel does use it's army and airforce to suppress Palestinian resistance as well as punish. They have faced a guerilla war for much of the last decade and beyond. The Israeli navy (don't know what that consists of), isn't in use simply because it's not needed for such short range operations.

And if you're using percentage scale of forces deployed as an indicator of how "veteran" an army is, then I assert that the US army is even more green than the Serbian army (or whatever they're calling it these days). Why? Because the percentage of armed forces the US is capable of deploying is simply not on par with the number deployed.

You call it a small scale rebel conflict, but experience gained does not detract simply because you had 5,000 soldiers as opposed to 5,000,000,000 soldiers deployed. A veteran army is one that has experienced war and gets to live to talk about it.

And now you also argue that the various components of the US armed forces must be rated seperately while you use a generalization for other nations armies. You're bias is both obvious and hypocritical.

Now onto US armed forces and the veteran status. What constitutes veteran status? Gunning down people with AKs from attack choppers and saying that makes you a veteran is about as ass of a statement as Bush jr declaring himself a Vietnam Vet. It doesn't. The Iraqi insurgency so far has been mostly via IEDs and ambushes with low level infantry.

Has the US armed forces faced naval assets with combat power parative to their own? Have they fought in the skies above with an enemy airforce that is both competent and adequately equippred? Have they suffered from sustained enemy shelling and bombing? Have they even fought in a tank battle where the opponents are not antiquated machines?

No. None of these actually happened. Thereby, I would argue that the majority of the US armed forces are not veterans. Yes, there will be infantry veterans, but the US army is not, and I repeat again, NOT a veteran army.

Lastly, numerical deployment strength. What on earth does the amount of resources an army has have to do with its veteran status? Trying to say one is more veteran than the other because it's got more cash/soldiers to spend is nothing short of ludricous.

You still need an education. It's sorely lacking.

Indeed you are the pot calling the kettle black..and you seem to discount the first Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq the second go around...16 years of combat and containment BY ARMY AIRFORCE AND NAVY..followed by an occupation that continues....

I have no more to say to you on the subject. You are waving the flag of total ignorance of most things military..what do resources and logistics have indeed to with anything...like experiance at moving and using resources is something to discounted...but why bother ..follow your own advice on education.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent .

Apples and oranges.

Some armies master technology and logistics to the extent that they win just by showing up, most soldiers never getting a change to fire a shot in anger. Those who organise the maneuvres time and time again, are masters of that art.

Others fight equivalent-technology entities in all sorts of terrain for years, every man alive by the end of it a world expert in that particular art.

You can't really make a judgement as to which is "better" because everything depends on the context. Who is fighting whom, in what setting, on whose terms.

Indeed you are the pot calling the kettle black..and you seem to discount the first Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq the second go around...16 years of combat and containment BY ARMY AIRFORCE AND NAVY..followed by an occupation that continues....

The first invasion of Iraq. How long ago was it? You used the same argument for the conflict between Pakistan and India. You don't like it when you have your points flung back at you? Then don't use it.

Furthermore, enforced sanctions and the occassional bombing DO NOT a veteran make. If you call that 16 years of combat, I call you a fool.


..what do resources and logistics have indeed to with anything...like experiance at moving and using resources is something to discounted

All armies have experience at logistics else they quickly become non-armies shortly thereafter. I pointed to the QUANTITY of resources that you seemed to have used to indicate veteran status. I then point to the percentage of resources used. Much like the same argument of how just because American people created a larger total sum of money for donations, people say they are more generous when they completely ignore the fact that percentagewise, they give less than people from poorer countries. It doesn't.

Even then, the moving of logistics do not contribute solely to veteran status.


I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent .

Which is why you must have refused to argue with yourself and choose to come to NS.

You want to ignore me, go ahead. But I won't let your statements of ignorance go un-countered.

Military Action in Iraq: 1990-2003
Last updated Jan. 28, 2003 View Standard Version

2002


Jan. 26, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target five cable repeater sites that could be used for communications in targeting coalition aircraft. The cable repeater sites were located between Al Kut, approximately 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The strikes occurred at approximately 7:00 a.m. EST , and were mounted after Iraqi military aircraft violated the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 25, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British participation, used precision-guided weapons to target an anti-air artillery site near Tallil, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 6:20 a.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 24, 2003 : Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 07:15 a.m. EST over communication facilities near An Najaf , approximately 85 miles east southeast of Baghdad , and Umm Qasr and Al Zubayr, both located on the Al Faw Peninsula, approximately 290 miles southeast of Baghdad . A total of 360,000 leaflets were dropped.

The same day, U.S. aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi air defense command and control communication facility, about 5 miles southeast of Al Haswah. The facility was targeted because its presence was a hostile threat to coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 23, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 12:30 p.m. EST over a communication facility near Al Amarah, approximately 165 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets. The leaflets urged Iraqi military not to repair previously bombed communication equipment and facilities that aid in tracking and engaging aircraft enforcing the No-fly zone. This was the sixth leaflet drop over southern Iraq by coalition aircraft in 2003. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 19, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target eight unmanned cable repeater sites that are part of Iraq’s military air defense command and control system. The sites were located between Al Kut, and An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 7:10 a.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. The same day other aircraft dropped a total of 360,000 leaflets at approximately 7:16 a.m. EST over Ar Rumaythah, Qawam Al Hamazah, Ash Shahtra, Ar Riffa, Qal’ at Sukkar and Al Majar. The six cities are all located approximately 130 to 225 miles southeast of Baghdad . (CENTCOM)

Jan. 18, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, aircraft dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . The leaflets were dropped at approximately 3:45 a.m. EST over Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 180,000 leaflets. The leaflets referred Iraqis to radio frequencies where coalition forces are broadcasting information about UN Security Council Resolution 1441, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq , Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s reign and other topics. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 17, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two cable repeater sites that are part of Iraq’s military air defense command and control system. The sites were located between Al Kut, approximately 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The strikes occurred at approximately 1:15 p.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 13, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped the leaflets at approximately 7:10 a.m. EST over An Najaf , about 85 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets over the location. This was the fourteenth leaflet drop over southern Iraq by Coalition aircraft in three months. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 13, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike an Iraqi anti-ship missile launcher near Basrah, approximately 300 miles southeast of Baghdad, at approximately 4:10 a.m. EST. The anti-ship missile launcher was targeted because it was threatening coalition ships operating in the North Arabian Gulf . (CENTCOM)

Jan. 10, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense command and control site at Tallil, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad, and four cable repeater sites. The strikes occurred at approximately 7:15 a.m. EST. The coalition mounted the attack after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 8, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to attack two Iraqi air defense cable repeater sites in the southern No-fly zone at about 5 a.m. EST. The attack occurred after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone, as well as in response to Iraqi military aircraft violating the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 6, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two Iraqi military mobile radars. The radars were located near Al Amarah, approximately 165 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 3:30 p.m. EST. and came after Iraqi forces moved the radars into the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 5, 2003 : The Boston Globe reports that about 100 U.S. Special Forces personnel and 50 CIA officers have been operating throughout Iraq for four months, adding weight to earlier stories reporting a U.S. covert presence.


Jan. 4, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over the southern Iraqi towns of Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad, and As Samawah, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The drop, totaling 240,000 leaflets, occurred at approximately 6:15 a.m. EST. The same day, precision-guided weapons were used to target three Iraqi military air defense cable repeater sites after Iraqi air defense forces fired multiple anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 2, 2003 : For the twelfth time in three months, U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 5:15 a.m. EST over Basrah and An Nasiriyah. Basrah is approximately 245 miles southeast of Baghdad , and An Nasiriyah is approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad . The aircraft dropped a total of 480,000 leaflets, directing Iraqis to radio frequencies where coalition forces are broadcasting information, over both locations. The same day, aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target four Iraqi air defense cable repeaters after Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fired at coalition aircraft in the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)

Jan. 1, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense radar. The site was located near Al Qurnah, approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strike occurred at approximately 1:15 a.m. EST. The U.S. Central Command said the radar was targeted after it was moved into the no-fly zone, thus becoming a threat to U.S. and British aircraft enforcing the zone. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 30, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target Iraqi military air defense communications facilities and a mobile air defense radar. The coalition struck the communications facilities at approximately 2:30 p.m. EST ; they struck the mobile radar at approximately 3:40 p.m. EST. The communications facilities were targeted after Iraq earlier flew military aircraft into the Southern No-Fly zone. The mobile radar was attacked after Iraqi forces moved it into the Southern No-Fly Zone, as its presence was a direct threat to coalition aircraft and crews. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 29, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two Iraqi military radar sites. The sites were located near Ad Diwaniyah, approximately 75 miles south of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 7:40 a.m. EST. The Coalition mounted the strike after Iraqi forces moved the systems into the Southern No-Fly zone. Its presence was a threat to coalition aircraft. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 28, 2002: Coalition aircraft dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped leaflets at approximately 8:00 a.m. EST over Al Majar and Qal at Sukkar. Al Majar is approximately 200 miles southeast of Baghdad , and Qal at Sukkar is approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 120,000 leaflets over both locations. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 27, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense command and control system near Al Kut that supported highly mobile surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. The strike occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi forces moved the system, a threat to coalition aircraft, into the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 27, 2002: For the tenth time in three months, U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 6:30 a.m. EST south of Ad Diwaniyah, approximately 75 south of Baghdad , Ar Rumaytha, approximately 200 miles southeast of Baghdad and Qawam Al Hamzah, approximately 240 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets over the three locations. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 26, 2002 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, use precision-guided weapons to target Iraqi military command and control communication facilities. The facilities were located near Tallil, approximately 175 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 12:00 a.m. EST. The coalition launched the attack after Iraqi military aircraft violated the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 23, 2002: At approximately 7:30 a.m. (EST), a U.S. RQ-1A Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) reconnaissance aircraft was reported missing in Southern Iraq after being fired upon by Iraqi military aircraft. The Predator was assumed destroyed. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 23, 2002: For the ninth time in three months, U.S. aircraft dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 4:30 a.m. EST over Ash Shahtra and Ar Rifa, approximately 140 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 120,000 leaflets over both locations. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 21, 2002 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets over Al Amarah at approximately 4:30 a.m. EST and over As Samawah at approximately 5 a.m. EST. Al Amarah is approximately 165 miles southeast of Baghdad , and As Samawah is approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets over both locations. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 20, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two Iraqi air defense communication facilities. The sites were located near An Nasiriyah and Al Basrah in southern Iraq . The strikes occurred at approximately 2:30 a.m. EST. The coalition forces executed the strike after Iraqi military aircraft flew into the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 18, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense radar site. The site was located south of Al Kut, approximately 100 miles southeast of Baghdad , and it was struck at approximately 4:30 a.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi forces moved the radar system into the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)

Dec. 16, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped 480,000 leaflets at about 4 a.m. EST over southern Iraq . Leaflets containing six separate messages were dropped at six locations, including near communications facilities that were damaged or destroyed by coalition aircraft flying Operation Southern Watch missions on Dec. 14. Leaflets dropped at those locations warned Iraqi forces that the coalition has targeted fiber optic cables for destruction and that repairing the facilities would place Iraqi military lives at risk.
Other leaflets:

• referred Iraqis to radio frequencies where they could hear broadcasts by coalition forces providing information;

• warned Iraqi air defenses that targeting coalition aircraft or tracking them with radar could result in coalition air strikes;

• stated that coalition aircraft enforce the no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi people, and that threatening coalition aircraft may result in air strikes.

This was the seventh leaflet drop over southern Iraq over the October-December period. ( U.S. CENTCOM)

Dec. 16: In response to Iraqi SAM artillery fire against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi communication site located south of Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Dec. 15: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi mobile radar and cable repeater sites located near An Nasiriyah, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Al Basra, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, after Iraqi forces moved the mobile radar south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the southern no-fly zone and targeted coalition aircraft with SAM artillery fire. (U.S. CENTCOM


This may have to be three parts since the US military has been so busy since 1990...

Dec. 14: In response to violation of the southern no-fly zone by Iraqi military aircraft, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target multiple Iraqi military air defense communications facilities located near Al Kut; Aal’at Sukkar, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad; and Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Dec. 10: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target a mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) system located south of Al Amarah after Iraqi forces moved the SAM system south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the established southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Dec. 7: The Iraqi government delivered a declaration approximately 12,000 pages long to the United Nations today in compliance with the Dec.18 deadline set by the UN Resolution 1441. According to Iraqi officials, the documents contain full and complete details about Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear programs while maintaining that the country harbors no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In so doing, Iraq has passed up a final opportunity to acknowledge any WMD it may have, and so, protect itself against evidence UN inspectors may uncover. The declaration mainly focuses on accounting for civilian facilities and equipment that could be used to make weapons. (The Washington Post)

Dec. 2: In what looks like further preparation for a possible war with Iraq, the United States is installing a command center at As Sayliyah base in Qatar for the official purpose of conducting a major military exercise called Internal Look in December. The exercise will involve the same command and control procedures that would be used in a war with Iraq. This will mark the first time the U.S. military has conducted a war game of this type outside of the United States. The As Sayliyah base covers 262 acres and cost more than $100 million to build. It can store hundreds of M1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and other armored vehicles and is capable of housing enough armored equipment for a heavy Army brigade. The base currently houses about 300 American troops. Many weapons continue to be shipped from As Sayliyah to Kuwait. Given the base’s existing capabilities, the new command center at As Sayliyah may lead to the establishment of a future U.S. military headquarters there. (The New York Times)

Dec. 1: In response to Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fire against coalition aircraft in the northern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target Iraqi air defense facilities located between Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Al Basrah, about 240 miles southeast of Baghdad. Thirteen coalition aircraft dropped 23 precision-guided weapons, marking one the biggest coalition strikes this year. This also marks the first time that U.S. military officials cited an incident in the north as the reason for a military response in the south since the no-fly zones were established 10 years ago, signaling an escalation in the U.S. response to Iraq and increasing pressure for Iraq to disarm. This incident also reflects that the U.S. military can more freely carry out retaliatory attacks in the southern no-fly zone than in the northern no-fly zone due to Turkey’s close involvement with operations in the north. Turkey is more sensitive about which targets get hit by coalition aircraft than are the countries that facilitate coalition operations in the south. An Iraqi military spokesman claims that the coalition warplanes targeted a state-run Southern Oil Company on the outskirts of Al Basrah, and that four people were killed and 27 were injured in the attack. He also said that coalition aircraft attacked two other civilian targets in the south and that Iraqi defenses had fired in response. An oil company official identified the casualties as company employers and passers-by. (U.S. CENTCOM, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post)

Nov. 23: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target a mobile radar system located south of Al Amarah after Iraq moved the mobile radar south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the established southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov. 22: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target unmanned communications facilities south of Al Amarah, about 165 miles south of Baghdad, after an Iraqi military jet violated the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov. 21: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi air defense radar site near Ash Shuaybah, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, after Iraq moved the radar south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the established southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

In response to the movement of an air defense radar site south of the 33rd parallel by Iraq in violation of the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target the radar site near Tallil. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov. 20: In response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target three unmanned air defense communications facilities located between Al Basrah, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Al Kut. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov. 18: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target two air defense communications facilities and one air defense radar facility. The radar facility and one communication facility were located near Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. The other air defense facility was located near Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Several hundred Marines based in Camp Pendleton were dispatched to the Middle East to join the central command area of operations. The units included many battle planners and senior staff officers. Some of the troops will participate in military exercises in Kuwait to test the military's capability to assemble and deploy forces over long distances. According to Camp Pendleton Capt. David Romley, "Units from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are departing to support Operation Enduring Freedom." Another several hundred Marines left San Diego for the Gulf region around the same time. (Orange County Register)

Nov. 17: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense system northeast of Mosul in response to Iraqi fire targeting coalition aircraft monitoring the northern no-fly zone. According to an Iraqi military spokesman, coalition aircraft bombed civilian targets near Mosul. (The Washington Post)

Nov. 15: In response Iraqi antiaircraft artillery fire and surface-to-air missiles targeting coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense communications facility near An Najaf, about 85 miles southeast of Baghdad. This marks the first exchange of fire between Iraqi and coalition forces since UN Resolution 1441; although the Bush administration says that the incident puts Iraq in 'material breach' of the resolution, it is improbable that it will trigger a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. (U.S. CENTCOM, Los Angeles Times)

Nov. 13: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will "deal with" UN Resolution 1441, according to which he will have to allow UN inspectors to search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and production facilities for such weapons. (Los Angeles Times, CBSNews.com)

Nov. 10: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target two SAM sites near Tallil that were relocated into the southern no-fly zone by Iraq in violation of UN resolutions the sites were perceived as a threat for aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov 8: The UN Security Council unanimously passes the tough Resolution 1441 on Iraq calling for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disband all Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs or face 'serious consequences'. Through the new resolution, inspectors have the authority to demand "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to all sites, including presidential palaces. (The Washington Post)

Nov. 7: In response to hostile fire from Iraqi SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense operations facility and integrated operations center near Al Kut. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov. 6: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target two surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs) near Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and a control communications facility near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Nov. 4: Kuwait offers the use of its military bases to American forces in the case of a UN-backed attack on Iraq. Kuwaiti forces, however, would not be involved in such an attack. (Washington Times)

Oct. 26: A solicitation is posted for a U.S. or foreign-flag self sustaining container vessel to transport dry cargo consisting of approximately 550 TEUs of ammunition from the U.S. East Coast to four ports located in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. (Military Sealift Command via www.eps.gov)

Oct. 25: According to a Croatian police source, there is evidence that a seized ship leaving Yugoslavia was heading to Iraq loaded with military equipment. The ship was seized this week in the port of Rijeka on Croatia's Adriatic Coast with the help of the United States and NATO allies. The ship was apparently carrying material used in the ignition of Scud missiles. (The Associated Press)

Oct. 24: According to top military officers, the U.S. Air Force has begun using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) called Predators to strike targets in southern Iraq. Predators are able to hover for 24 hours over a target, record high-resolution images and communicate them to command centers in real-time, and are armed with Hellfire missiles. Predators have been helping to monitor the southern no-fly zone in conjunction with other coalition aircraft for about a month, but usually unarmed and strictly for performing surveillance. Now, Predators identify the source of surface-to-air and anti-aircraft artillery fire in the no-fly zone and respond by launching Hellfire missiles at the targets. (The Washington Post)

Oct. 22: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense communications facility near Al Jarrah, about 90 miles southeast of Baghdad, and an air defense operations center near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to Iraqi antiaircraft artillery and surface-to-air missile fire against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM, The Washington Post)

Northeast of Mosul, about 250 miles north of Baghdad, coalition aircraft targeted other elements of the air defense system after being targeted by Iraqi fire, according to the U.S. European Command. (The Washington Post)

The first of two large Military Sealift Command ships was loaded with cargo at the Army dock of the Charleston Naval Weapons Station. The 841st Transportation Battalion supervised the loading of 2,000 pieces of cargo, mostly fuel trucks and engineering equipment. Command spokesman Frank Randall said, "This is surge sealift, in response to a specific requirement. It is mostly Army Reserve equipment and part of the war on terrorism, but I can't say if it has anything to do with Iraq." The ships, both Large, Medium Speed, Roll-on roll-off vessels (LMSRs), are bound for the Middle East to support U.S. CENTCOM activities, although the precise destination of the ships has not been released. The first ship, the Bob Hope, has been loaded with 8,300 metric tons worth of equipment. The second ship, the Fisher, is scheduled to be loaded with 6,600 metric tons in the next few days. (The Baltimore Sun)

Oct. 21: According to Iraqi opposition officials, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) established two formal field offices in Kurdish-controlled territory protected by coalition aircraft, marking the first time the CIA has had a permanent base in northern Iraq since 1996. One office is in Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) controlled territory, another is in Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) controlled territory. (The Washington Times)

Oct. 16: Saddam Hussein wins re-election by a reported 11 million-to-0 margin in a one-man, yes or no referendum, further extending his two-decade rule. (CNN)

Oct. 15: In response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a command and control communications facility near Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Oct. 11: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a mobile SAM site near Tallil in response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM, The Los Angeles Times)

The U.S. Army’s V Corps and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force have orders from the Pentagon to deploy headquarters staff to Kuwait. According to defense officials, this is the first non-routine dispatch of conventional ground forces to the Persian Gulf and is part of preparations for possible military action against Iraq. (The Washington Post)

Commercial bids on two large merchant ships are being sought by the Navy, according to the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. One ship will be scheduled to load in California in mid-October, and the other will come from ports in Belgium and Italy concurrently. According to the U.S. military, this now brings to six the total number of large cargo ships chartered in support of military exercises in Kuwait and Jordan by the Navy since August.

Oct. 10: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) site near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM, The Washington Post)

At the same time as the Tallil strike, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike an air defense radar system near Basra, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to Iraqi hostile SAM and anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire. According to the Iraqi News Agency, the radar system was destroyed and passenger and service buildings at the Basra airport were damaged. (U.S. CENTCOM, The Washington Post)

Oct. 7: U.S. President George W. Bush delivers a speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center outlining the case for possible military action against Iraq. Bush stresses that the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers - a tyrant with a history of aggression and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - in one place. He uses many of the same arguments posed during his speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, notably citing new evidence to link al Qaeda with the Iraqi regime, and satellite photographs proving that Iraq is rebuilding nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) production facilities anew. Bush says that Iraq can avoid conflict if it adheres to UN resolutions.

Oct. 3: President George W. Bush signed a National Security Presidential Directive authorizing U.S. combat training for Iraqi opposition fighters, allocating $92 million in Defense Department funds to the effort and marking a break from the 1998 directive signed by former President Bill Clinton restricting expenditures to non-lethal instruction. About 5,000 recruits have been identified for an initial training program scheduled to begin next month, the force they will form is expected to eventually number about 10,000. The Iraqis will be instructed in basic combat and special skills to serve as battlefield advisers, scouts and interpreters in support of U.S. ground troops in the event of an invasion. Later phases of the program will include training Iraqis as forward spotters for laser-guided bombs and as military police to run prisoner of war camps inside Iraq. Many of the names of recruits were part of a list of exiles provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) in London. The recruits will be trained outside of the United States and not in the Middle East. The move indicates further preparation for a possible attack on Iraq. (The Washington Post)

Oct. 3: In response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft struck an Iraqi air defense sector headquarters and integrated operations center with precision-guided weapons near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Oct. 1: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a mobile radar in Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, after Iraq placed the mobile radar past the 33rd parallel in the southern no-fly zone, and Iraqi aircraft penetrated the restricted area. (Los Angeles Times, U.S. CENTCOM)

Sept. 28: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a military mobile radar near Al Basrah, and a SAM site near Qalat Sikur, in response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone at approximately 5:00 p.m. EDT. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Sept. 27: In response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a SAM control radar and a SAM launcher near Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad, and an air defense operations center near Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad, at approximately 4:30 p.m. EDT. (U.S. CENTCOM)

Sept. 26: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike two Iraqi surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites near Qalat Sikur, about 130 miles southeast of Baghdad, and in Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad at 3:45 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. EDT, respectively. The strikes were in response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)

British and U.S. aircraft used precision munitions to strike an Iraqi air defense communications facility near Al Amrah, about 200 miles south of Baghdad, in the southern no-fly zone. (The Associated Press)

Sept. 25: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike Iraqi air defense facilities near Al Kufa, about 80 miles south of Baghdad, and Al Basrah at approximately 4:45 p.m. EDT. The strikes were in response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. According to the official Iraqi News Agency, Iraqi government officials said that the targets hit were civilian and service installations. They also claimed that civilians were injured at Al Basrah. A U.S. government official produced a classified photograph that showed the targets hit were remote from any houses, stores or major roads, and that although two precision-guided missiles went astray, they hit only empty desert. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Iraq of "lying to inflame the public opinion against the United States." Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that radar targets hit at Al Basrah were in a stretch of desert beyond the military side of the dual-use civilian military airport located there. Rumsfeld emphasized that "the only reason anybody would be out in this vicinity of this particular radar at any time of day would be to actually be functioning as part of the radar team." (U.S. CENTCOM, The New York Times)

Sept. 24: In response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike an Iraqi radar facility near Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad, and a defense communications facility in Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad at approximately 2:15 p.m. EDT. According to an Iraqi military spokesman, coalition aircraft violated Iraqi airspace at about 9:30 p.m. local time flying in from Kuwait, and "attacked… civilian and service installations in Dhi qar and Meisan provinces, hurting one civilian." The spokesman said that coalition aircraft returned to their bases after being fired upon by Iraqi ground air defenses. (U.S. CENTCOM, The Washington Post)

Sept. 20: Hussein announces that Iraq "is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." He appealed to the United Nations to resist the Bush administration's call for support for a military strike against the Iraqi government. Hussein also stated that Baghdad is "ready to cooperate with the Security Council" regarding renewed UN weapons inspections, and demanded that the United Nations lift sanctions on Iraq and force Israel to eliminate all its weapons of mass destruction according to UN resolutions calling for the removal of all such weapons from the Middle East.

Sept. 16: Iraq's foreign minister announced that UN weapons inspections would resume in Iraq "without conditions." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the Iraqi move an "indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction." The White House, however, emphasized that inspections are not enough, and that the goal should be to disarm Iraq and ensure that it complies with all UN resolutions. U.S. officials are concerned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will attempt to dupe inspectors as he has in the past, and is only allowing the inspections in order to weaken U.S. efforts to build an international coalition for action against Iraq. The Bush administration plans to continue to press for a new UN resolution that will state that Iraq is in violation of existing UN resolutions, outline what Iraq must do and make clear the consequences should Iraq fails to comply. (The Washington Post)

The Pentagon asks Britain for permission to build special shelters on its air base on the Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean for as many as six B-2 bombers. Should Britain agree, it would mark the first time B-2 stealth bombers have been based overseas for a combat mission, said a defense official. It would also mark a significant escalation in preparations for possible U.S. military action against Iraq. "Even a small number of B-2s can wipe out Iraqi air defenses in a few days and clear the skies for coalition air power to take out Iraqi targets," said Daniel Goure, a Lexington Institute senior analyst. According to defense officials, the U.S. has also been transferring munitions to warehouses in Diego Garcia and Qatar from the United States. (The Wall Street Journal)

U.S. officials admit that U.S. and British aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq have adopted new tactics designed to cause increased and more lasting damage to Iraqi air defenses. These new tactics include more emphasis on strikes on buildings — especially command and communication links in Iraq's air defense system — and other fixed targets rather than mobile targets such as radars and surface-to-air launchers. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the change last month because U.S. and British aircraft were coming under more effective Iraqi fire. British officials have confirmed that RAF Tornado GR.4s will be equipped with stand-off cruise missiles in the next few months when patrolling no-fly zones. (The London Telegraph)



we still have Kosovo / Bosnia and Somalia to consider along with Afghanistan....

Sept. 15: At 9:35 a.m. local time, American and British aircraft violated Iraqi airspace "flying from bases in Kuwait and carrying out 38 sorties," according to an Iraqi military spokesman. The spokesman said that coalition aircraft attacked civilian and service installations in the Dhi-Qar province, about 230 miles south of Baghdad, and retreated after meeting with Iraqi air defense fire. According to U.S. CENTCOM, the air strikes were carried out in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts. CENTCOM also confirmed that U.S. and British aircraft struck an air defense communications facility near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad. (The Washington Post)

Sept. 12: U.S. President George W. Bush delivers his speech to the United Nations making a case for action against Iraq. Sept. 11 reports on moving CENTCOM headquarters are clarified; the HQ will shift to Qatar in November for the period of a week-long exercise.

Sept. 11: U.S. military sources reveal that U.S. Central Command headquarters will be moved from Tampa, Fla., to Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, the capital of Qatar. Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander in chief, did not confirm this, but he did admit that shifting some operations and personnel to Qatar permanently is under consideration. This move would signify an escalation in preparations for possible military action against Iraq, and the emergence of Qatar as a key strategic U.S. ally in the region.

Sept. 9: 1:30 a.m. EST. Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike an air defense command and control facility in southern Iraq, near Al Amarah, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone.

Sept. 7: 12:45 p.m. GMT. U.S. Air Force aircraft attacked an Iraqi Silkworm anti-ship missile site in southern Iraq, near Basra, in response to attempts by the radar of an Iraqi Silkworm missile to lock on to a U.S. ship transferring arms and equipment from its al-Udeid base in Qatar to Kuwait. This attack marks an apparent escalation of operations over the no-fly zones--previously coalition forces have concentrated fire on air defense sites directly threatening their aircraft. The Chinese-made Silkworm surface-to-air anti-ship missile has a range of 59 miles, which would allow it to hit any ship preparing to dock in Kuwait.

4:15 a.m. EDT. In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a military communications facility in southern Iraq, near Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Sept. 6: 5:45 p.m. EDT. Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a ground-launched anti-ship missile in southern Iraq, near Al Basrah, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against coalition ships in the Arabian Gulf.

Sept. 5: American and British aircraft participated in an attack on Iraq's major western air defense installation at the H3 airfield, about 240 miles west of Baghdad, close to Jordan. According to the Pentagon, the strike was a response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. Marine Corps Lt. Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the raid involved 24 aircraft, including 12 that dropped about 20 bombs. Lapan also stated that there have been three other strikes carried out this year that used 24 total aircraft. The London Daily Telegraph reported that up to 100 aircraft were involved in this strike. If correct, this would be an unusually large strike; U.S. officials refused to confirm that 100 aircraft took part, and later on, the British RAF tried to dispel that impression, saying there had been a mistake. Reportedly, this is the biggest single operation over the country for four years. The raid seemed designed to destroy air defenses to allow easy access for Special Forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war.

Sept. 4: Reports surface that a large civilian cargo ship to carry tanks and heavy armor to the Persian Gulf has been contracted by the U.S. Navy. It is chartered by the U.S. Military Sealift Command to arrive in the Persian Gulf in late September. This marks the third shipment in a month. The ship will originate from a port on the southeastern coast of the United States. According to the formal tender document, the ship will carry 67 units of track general cargo, containerized cargo and rolling stock in measurements that match those of the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank.

Sept. 3: Reports in The Wall Street Journal indicate that U.S. pre-positioned equipment in Qatar has been moved to Kuwait, bringing the total of equipment in the emirate to levels capable of equipping two heavy brigades.

Aug. 30: U.S. and British fighters attacked a major Iraq army intelligence and air-defense installation in southern Iraq, in Ashar, south of Basra, according to Iraqi opposition sources. Four air-to-ground missiles struck the facility. A later attack on Tuesday destroyed a radar site in the north according to Iraqi opposition sources. The hit facility was headquarters to Iraqi Army intelligence in the southern region and was also the site of advanced radar and surveillance equipment used to monitor ground and air traffic in Iran.

2:30 a.m. EDT. Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a surface-to-air missile site in southern Iraq, near Al Kut, about 150 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone.

Aug. 29: 3:45 p.m. EDT. Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a military radar system in southern Iraq, near Al Kut, about 150 miles southeast of Baghdad, in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone.

Aug. 27: 2:30 a.m. EDT. In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike an air defense command and control facility near An Nukhayb in southern Iraq.

Aug. 26: U.S. CENTCOM stated that, "coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike two air defense radar systems near Al Basrah" in southern Iraq, in response to hostile acts by Iraq. According to the official Iraqi News Agency, U.S. and British planes attacked "civilian and service installations in Basrah province". Eight people were killed and nine were injured in "35 sorties" flown from "air bases in Kuwait" according to the Iraqi News Agency. A British Defense Ministry spokesman would not say if British aircraft, U.S. aircraft or both were involved in the strikes.

Allied warplanes hit an Iraqi radar guidance facility in northern Iraq after "an Iraqi missile guidance radar system in an area near Irbil targeted coalition aircraft while they were conducting routing enforcement of the northern no-fly zone," according to U.S. defense officials.

Aug. 25: 2:30 a.m. EDT. In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike two air defense radar systems near Al Basrah in southern Iraq.

Aug. 23: U.S. warplanes bombed an air defense site in northern Iraq, near Irbil, after being targeted by an Iraqi missile guidance radar system, according to the U.S. military. In Baghdad, an unidentified Iraqi military spokesman said Iraqi antiaircraft and missile units fired at enemy warplanes, forcing them to leave Iraqi skies, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

Aug. 22: U.S. CENTCOM stated that U.S. aircraft attacked air defense and command and control facilities in the Missan province in southern Iraq "in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone." According to the Iraqi Air Force Command, three civilians were killed.

Aug. 21: Second tour is given to journalists in August by Iraqi officials of a site that U.S. officials suspect may be a biological weapons facility. (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 2002, p. A18)

Aug. 20: 1:40 a.m. EDT. In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense command and control facility in southern Iraq, Al Amarah, about 120 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Aug. 17: 6:30 a.m. EDT. The Pentagon stated that British and U.S. fighter jets used precision-guided weapons to target a mobile radar unit in southern Iraq's no-fly zone in response to recent hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. Iraq claims the strikes hit civilian and public buildings. Earlier in the week, Britain confirmed that coalition plans attacks targets in the same region.

Aug. 14: 5:00 p.m. EDT. U.S. CENTCOM said that aircraft from the U.S. and British coalition attacked two Iraqi air defense sites in southern Iraq with precision-guided weapons as a response to Iraqi actions that threatened the coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone.

Aug. 13: An announcement is made that two shiploads of military equipment are to be moved into the Persian Gulf.

Aug. 12: Reports appear of U.S. troops buildup at airbases on the Jordanian/Iraqi border.

June 26: Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery from a site north of Ayn Zalah while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision guided ordnance on an element of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

June 19: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites in the vicinity of Saddam dam while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision guided ordnance on an element of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

May 28: Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery from a site in the vicinity of Saddam dam while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attack by dropping precision guided ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

May 1: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites in the vicinity of Saddam dam around 3:20 p.m. local time while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision guided ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

Apr. 19: Iraqi air defense radar actively target coalition aircraft from locations east of Mosul while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by firing precision ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

March 29: Reports say that reallocation of forces in Afghanistan leaves key U.S. unit, 5th Special Forces Group, available for Iraq buildup.

Feb. 28: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites north of Mosul at U.S. aircraft conducting routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond in self defense to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision munitions on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft depart the area safely.

Feb. 4: Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery from sites northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft depart the area safely.


2001

Nov. 27: (between Nov. 26 and Nov. 28, exact date unknown) Coalition aircraft use precision-guided weapons to strike a command and control facility within the southern no-fly zone in response to Iraqi threats against coalition planes.

Oct. 13: Coalition aircraft fire precision-guided munitions at a command and control facility within the southern no-fly zone.

Oct. 10: A U.S. Air Force RQ-1B Predator unmanned aerial vehicle is reported missing during a monitoring mission of the southern no-fly zone.

Oct. 2: U.S. aircraft attack anti-aircraft gun sites in the southern no-fly zone using precision-guided weapons, in response to Iraqi threats against aircraft monitoring the zone. A day later, two more anti-aircraft gun sites are struck.

Sept. 27: Coalition aircraft attack anti-aircraft guns and command and control vehicles and equipment in open fields in the southern no-fly zone following Iraqi threats to aircraft monitoring the zone.

Sept. 20: Coalition aircraft strike anti-aircraft guns in the southern no-fly zone following Iraqi threats against earlier coalition patrols. A day later, further attacks are launched upon command and control vehicles and equipment in the southern no-fly zone.

Sept. 18: U.S. aircraft attack anti-aircraft gun sites in the southern no-fly zone using precision-guided weapons.

Sept. 11: A Predator unmanned aerial vehicle is lost in the course of a surveillance mission monitoring the southern no-fly zone.

Sept. 9: Coalition aircraft attack SAM sites in the southern no-fly zone in response to Iraqi hostile actions against coalition aircraft monitoring the zone.

Sept. 4: Iraqi anti-aircraft guns north of Mosul fire at coalition aircraft conducting routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft are also targeted by Iraqi radar. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by delivering munitions on parts of the Iraqi air defense system. In the southern no-fly zone, precision-guided weapons are used to attack anti-aircraft gun and SAM sites.

Aug. 28: Coalition aircraft use precision-guided weapons to attack command and control facilities in the southern no-fly zone. Two days later, a military radar site is struck.

Aug. 27: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft guns from sites north of Mosul while coalition aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. In the southern no-fly zone, an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator unmanned aerial vehicle monitoring the zone is reported missing, possibly crashed or shot down.

Aug. 25: Coalition aircraft fire precision-guided munitions at a mobile early warning radar in the southern no-fly zone in response to Iraqi threats against coalition aircraft.

Aug. 17: Iraqi forces threaten coalition aircraft by firing anti-aircraft artillery from sites north of Mosul. Coalition aircraft are also targeted by Iraqi radar while conducting routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond in self defense to the Iraqi attacks by delivering ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

Aug. 14: In response to Iraqi threats to coalition aircraft in the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft strike a SAM site.

Aug. 10: Coalition aircraft bomb three communications, radar and missile sites in the southern no-fly zone after Iraq increases efforts to shoot down allied pilots.

Aug. 7: Iraqi forces launch SAM and fired anti-aircraft artillery from sites north of Mosul while coalition aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

July 18: A U.S. Air Force F-16 Falcon crash at about 10:14 a.m. Turkish local time near Batman, Turkey. The F-16's home base was Aviano Air Base, in Italy. At the time of the accident, the aircraft was flying over Turkey en route to a mission enforcing the northern no-fly zone over Iraq. The piloted ejected and was uninjured.

July 17: U.S. aircraft attack anti-aircraft gun sites in the southern no-fly zone using precision-guided weapons.

July 7: U.S. aircraft attack anti-aircraft gun sites in the southern no-fly zone using precision-guided weapons.

June 25: U.S. aircraft attack anti-aircraft gun sites in the southern no-fly zone. The following day, another anti-aircraft gun site is struck.

June 14: Coalition aircraft are targeted by Iraqi missile guidance radar systems from sites north of Mosul while conducting routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Iraqi gunners later attack aircraft with anti-aircraft artillery fire. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. The same day, aircraft enforcing the southern no-fly zone attack a radar site.

June 5: Coalition aircraft attack an anti-aircraft gun site in the southern no-fly zone. The next day, a radar site also in the southern no-fly zone is struck.

May 23: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites north and west of Mosul while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft are also targeted by Iraqi radar. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

May 18: U.S. and British warplanes attack an air defense installation 180 miles southeast of Baghdad to counter Iraqi firings of SAM and anti-aircraft artillery in the southern no-fly zone.

April 30: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites northwest of Mosul while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

April 20: Coalition aircraft strike a mobile early warning radar in the southern no-fly zone using precision-guided weapons in response to hostile Iraqi acts against coalition aircraft.

April 19: U.S. warplanes bomb a mobile early warning radar in southern Iraq in response to Iraq's aggressive action against U.S. and British planes monitoring a no-fly zone over southern Iraq.

April 12: Responding to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, U.S. aircraft launch precision-guided weapons on an anti-aircraft gun site in the southern no-fly zone.

Apr. 6: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by bombing Iraqi air defense installations.

March 30: Responding to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, U.S. aircraft launch precision-guided weapons on an anti-aircraft gun site in the southern no-fly zone.

Feb. 22: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft guns from sites north of Mosul while coalition aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft are also targeted by Iraqi radar from sites southeast of Mosul. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

Feb. 16: Following Iraqi SAM and anti-aircraft gun fire on U.S. aircraft enforcing the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft strike air defense targets.

Feb. 13: U.S. aircraft strike Iraqi SAM sites in the southern no-fly zone "following recent Iraqi violations of UN Security Council resolutions."

Feb. 12: Iraqi forces fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites north of Mosul while coalition aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. The aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

Feb. 11: U.S. aircraft strike anti-aircraft guns in the southern no-fly zone in response to anti-aircraft fire.

Jan. 28: U.S. aircraft strike Iraqi SAM sites in the southern no-fly zone "following recent Iraqi violations of UN Security Council resolutions."

Jan. 24: Iraqi forces launch SAM and fire anti-aircraft artillery from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conduct routine enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. Coalition aircraft respond to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

Jan. 20: U.S. aircraft launch attacks on radar systems and anti-aircraft guns in the southern no-fly zone. All coalition aircraft depart the area safely.

Jan. 16: U.S. and British aircraft launch attacks on five air defense sites both in the southern no-fly zone and in the central area of Iraq. Some two dozen aircraft participate in the first major military action ordered by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, Jr.

Jan. 1: U.S. aircraft launch two attacks on Iraqi radar sites in the southern no-fly zone.


2000

May 22: As of this date, there had been more than 470 separate incidents of Iraqi SAM and anti-aircraft artillery fire directed against coalition pilots since December 1998. Iraqi aircraft violated the southern no-fly zone more than 150 times during the same period.

April 4: Coalition aircraft target four Iraqi military sites with precision-guided munitions, including a military radar site at Nasiriyah, 17 miles southeast of Baghdad. Iraq says two people were killed in U.S.-British air raid in the south.

Jan. 9: As of this date, there had been more than 420 separate incidents of Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery and SAM fire directed at coalition pilots since December 1998. Iraqi aircraft violated the southern no-fly zone more than 140 times since Operation Desert Fox.


1999

Dec. 17: The UNSC adopts Resolution 1284 replacing UNSCOM by the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).

Nov. 22: Navy fighters fire missiles at a SAM site after Iraqi anti-aircraft guns fired at a coalition aircraft. The site was located near the city of an-Najaf, about 85 miles south of Baghdad.

Feb. 24: U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft attack two Iraqi SAM sites near Al Iskandariyah, some 30 miles south of Baghdad, in response to anti-aircraft artillery fire and an Iraqi aircraft violation of southern no-fly zone.

Feb. 10: U.S. and British warplanes fire at two air defense sites in Iraq after three waves of Iraqi fighter jets violate the southern no-fly zone.

Jan. 12: Five Iraqi jets violate the southern no-fly zone and two enter the north, bringing the total violations in both zones since Desert Fox to more than 70, Pentagon officials say.

Jan. 5: In two separate incidents, two F-15s and two F-14s fire a total of six missiles at four Iraqi MiG-25s over the southern no-fly zone. None of the missiles finds its target.


1998

Dec. 30: An SA-6 site near Talil fires 6-8 missiles at a Southern Watch aircraft. F-16s retaliate by dropping six GBU-12 laser-guided bombs on the site. They also launch two HARMs "as a preemptive measure" to deter Iraqi radar operators.

Dec. 17: The United States and Britain launch Operation Desert Fox, four nights of strikes against targets throughout Iraq.

Dec. 16: All UNSCOM weapons inspectors are withdrawn for the last time, after Iraqi non-cooperation with their efforts.

Nov. 15: U.S. aborts airstrikes on Iraq as the regime promises cooperation with the UNSCOM weapons inspectors.

Nov. 7: Fifteen UN weapons inspectors are withdrawn from Iraq.

Nov. 1: Iraq halts all cooperation with UNSCOM weapons inspectors.


1997

Nov. 20: Following intensive diplomatic activity, an agreement is reached between Iraq and the Russian Federation whereby Iraq accepts the return of the commission with its full complement of staff to resume its work in Iraq. The commission's personnel, who had been temporarily withdrawn to Bahrain, return to Iraq on Nov. 21 and resume their inspection activities the following day.

Nov. 13: Iraq requires the personnel of American nationality working for UNSCOM to leave Iraq immediately. The executive chairman decides the majority of UNSCOM's personnel should withdraw temporarily from Iraq. A skeleton staff remains in Baghdad to maintain UNSCOM's premises and equipment.

Sept. 17: While seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

January: The United Nations implements the oil-for-food program, which will permit Iraq to sell oil and direct the funds made toward humanitarian aims.

Jan. 1: The Turkish government approves a continuing air operation from Turkey, and Operation Northern Watch commences.


1996

Dec. 31: Operation Provide Comfort officially ends.

Nov. 4: A Southern Watch F-16CJ fires a HARM missile at an Iraqi mobile missile radar near the 32nd parallel after the pilot received radar warning signals.

Nov. 2: A Southern Watch F-16CJ fires a HARM missile at an Iraqi mobile missile radar near the 32nd parallel after the pilot received radar warning signals. Later analysis indicates that the Iraqi radar had not tracked the aircraft, a conclusion reversed on Nov. 4 after further study by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Aug. 31: Iraqi troops enter Irbil in alliance with Kurdish Democratic Party. They withdraw days later.

Sept. 11: Iraqi gunners fire an SA-6 missile at two U.S. F-16s over northern Iraq but miss. A fighter and helicopter briefly violate the southern no-fly zone.

Sept. 3: U.S. President Bill Clinton extends the southern no-fly zone to 33rd parallel.


1995

November 1995: The government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although it acknowledged that some of them were in Iraq. UNSCOM conducts an investigation, which confirms that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles. UNSCOM retrieves additional similar missile components from the River Tigris. The components had been allegedly disposed of there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.

Aug. 8: Gen. Hussein Kamel, minister of Industry and Minerals and former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programs, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programs. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare program than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation hidden on a chicken farm, ostensibly by Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programs. The documentations subsequently lead to further Iraqi disclosures concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon.

July 1: As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons program but denies weaponization.


1994

Oct. 15: The UNSC adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions. Iraq resumes working with UNSCOM.

Oct. 14: Iraq announces that as of Oct. 12 it had withdrawn its troops to their previous positions.

Oct. 8: UNSC meeting expresses "grave concern" over deployment of Iraqi troops near the Kuwait border. In the next two days, United States begins deploying troops to Kuwait.

Oct. 6: Iraq threatens to cease cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and moves troops toward the border with Kuwait.

Iraq does not attempt to challenge coalition aircraft in the no-fly zones during the first nine months of 1994.


1993

Dec. 21: Iraqi troops fire on a U.S. patrol near Faydah in northern Iraq. The patrol is within the security zone established on May 22, 1991. The Iraqis were over a mile away and outside the security zone. Baghdad denies Western reports of the incident as "fabricated and baseless."

Aug. 19: Two U.S. F-16s report possible SA-3 missile launches west of Mosul and respond with cluster bombs. Two F-15s drop four laser-guided bombs on the site an hour later.

July 29: In separate incidents, two U.S. Navy EA-6Bs, part of Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, fire anti-radar missiles at Iraqi SAM sites after being illuminated by the sites' surveillance radars.

June 29: A Southern Watch F-4G fires an anti-radar missile at an anti-aircraft artillery site after the Iraqis illuminated it and another F-4G patrolling the southern no-fly zone.

June 27: U.S. missile strike is launched against Baghdad on basis of "compelling evidence" that Iraq was involved in the April 1993 assassination attempt on former President Bush in Kuwait.

April 18: An Iraqi radar site illuminates two U.S. F-4Gs flying north of the 36th parallel. The site was south of the parallel. One of the aircraft fires an AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missile at the tracking radar and destroyed it.

April 9: Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery sites fire on Provide Comfort aircraft near the Saddam dam in northern Iraq.

Feb. 3: Iraqi gunners fire at a U.S. aircraft on routine patrol over northern Iraq.

Jan. 22: An F-4G fires two missiles at a surface-to-air-missile (SAM) site in northern Iraq.

Jan. 21: An F-16 and an F-4G escorting a French Mirage reconnaissance plane over northern Iraq attack an Iraqi missile battery after the site's search radar began tracking them.


1992

Dec. 27: U.S. fighter planes shoot down an Iraqi aircraft violating the southern no-fly zone.

Aug. 26: Bush announces air exclusion zone below 32nd parallel, banning the flying of both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.

July 5: UNSCOM inspectors are denied access to an Iraqi government building in Baghdad. Once a new team of "impartial" advisors are appointed, UNSCOM is allowed to enter the building.

April 5: Iranian warplanes attack rebel bases inside Iraq. Iraq responds by scrambling fighters and (unsuccessfully) pursuing the intruders. U.S. forces do not interfere. The Iraqis continue to fly on succeeding days, effectively overturning the ban on all their flying, which they had observed since March 22, 1991.


1991

Oct. 11: UNSC Resolution 715 approves plans for ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraqi weapons program. The resolution establishes that Iraq must cooperate fully with UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors.

Oct. 9: A cease-fire is agreed between Kurdish and Iraqi forces.

Oct. 6: Last Kuwaiti oil fires are extinguished.

Sept. 24: Iraq agrees to allow UN helicopters to make unrestricted flights over its territory.

Sept. 6-13: Iraq blocks UNSCOM's use of helicopters to conduct inspections.

Aug. 2-8: UNSCOM uncovers a major Iraqi biological weapons program, including seed stocks of three biological warfare agents and three potential warfare strains.

July 18-20: Iraqi ballistic missile concealment is revealed. UNSCOM discovers and destroys undeclared decoy missiles and launch support equipment.

June 25: The United States announces formation of an intervention force to protect Kurds in northern Iraq.

June 23-28: For the first time, Iraqi troops fire shots to prevent UNSCOM/IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors from intercepting Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear-related equipment. Equipment is later found and destroyed under cease-fire rules.

June 17: A UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) is established to oversee Iraq disarmament in accordance with UNSC Resolution 687.

April 10: U.S. officials warn Iraq not to interfere with Kurdish relief operations. No Iraqi planes (fixed- or rotary-winged) are to fly north of the 36th parallel.

April 6: Joint Task Force Provide Comfort is formed and deployed to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to conduct humanitarian operations in northern Iraq.

April 3: UNSC Resolution 687 specifies cease-fire conditions and requirements for Iraq disarmament.

March 22: A U.S. F-15C shoots down another Iraqi SU-22 over northern Iraq. That same day, another U.S. pilot forced the pilot of an Iraqi PC-9 (a training aircraft) to eject. Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft stayed on the ground for the next 12 months.

March 20: U.S. F-15C shoots down an Iraqi SU-22 flying over northern Iraq.

March: Iraq puts down revolt in 14 of 18 governorates, with the help of attack helicopters.

March 3: At cease-fire talks with the Iraqis at Safwan, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf warn the Iraqis that coalition forces would shoot down any Iraqi military aircraft flying over the country. However, he allows the Iraqis use of helicopters to aid communication and governance of southern Iraq. He does not anticipate that Iraq will use this permission to suppress revolts using armed helicopters.

March 2: By an 11-to-1 vote, the UNSC approves Resolution 686, outlining the conditions Iraq must meet prior to a formal cease-fire.

Feb. 28: Bush announces a cease-fire, ending the Gulf War.

Feb. 24: Given the failure of several efforts to avert conflict, and the lack of an Iraqi troops' withdrawal from Kuwait, allied forces begin their long-planned land, sea and air offensive aimed at driving Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Iraqi forces begin destroying Kuwaiti oil wells and other oilfield infrastructure.

Feb. 15: Iraq offers to withdraw from Kuwait. Coalition forces reject the offer due to numerous conditions attached to it.

Jan. 29: Iraqi troops attack Khafji, Saudi Arabia, and are defeated by coalition forces.

Jan. 23: Iraqi military forces deliberately create a huge oil spill in the Persian Gulf, the largest oil spill on record. U.S. officials term the spill an act of "environmental terrorism."

Jan. 22: Iraq launches a Scud missile attack against Israel. This follows similar attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Jan. 16: Coalition air strikes ("Operation Desert Storm") against Iraq begin at midnight.

Jan. 12: The U.S. Congress authorizes Bush to use "all necessary means" to force Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

Jan. 9: Secretary of State James Baker meets Aziz in Geneva in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the conflict.

1990

Dec. 6: First ship with equipment of Germany-based VII Corps offensive troops arrives in Saudi Arabia.

Nov. 29: The UNSC approves Resolution 678 authorizing use of "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait if Iraq does not withdraw by Jan. 15, 1991.

Nov. 8: The United States announces decision to deploy 200,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf to build up capability for an offensive.

Oct. 29: The UNSC passes Resolution 674 making Iraq liable for damages, injuries and financial losses resulting from the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Sept. 1: An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo calls for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, pay reparations and allow foreigners to leave Iraq and Kuwait.

Aug. 25: The UNSC authorizes naval forces in and around the Persian Gulf to use force to prevent violations of UN economic sanctions on Iraq.

Aug. 18: The UNSC passes Resolution 664 calling on Iraq to release all foreign citizens and warns Iraq against harming them.

Aug. 17: Iraq announces that it will "play host" to citizens of countries in the international coalition using them as "human shields" against possible coalition attacks.

Aug. 14: Syrian forces arrive in Saudi Arabia.

Aug. 13: Pakistan announces it has agreed to send troops to Saudi Arabia.

Aug. 11: Egyptian and Moroccan troops begin arriving in Saudi Arabia.

Aug. 10: An emergency Arab summit meeting in Cairo, Egypt, votes to send Arab troops to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states to assist in defending them against possible Iraqi attack.

Aug. 9: The UNSC unanimously declares Iraq's annexation of Kuwait "null and void."

Aug. 8: Iraq announces its annexation of Kuwait.

Aug. 6-7: Bush sends U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia to assist in the defense of the kingdom against possible Iraqi aggression. U.S. forces grow to over 200,000 by late October.

Aug. 6: the UNSC passes Resolution 661 imposing a broad trade embargo on Iraq and occupied Kuwait.

Aug. 3: Iraq claims it will withdraw from Kuwait by Aug. 5. Convoys of "withdrawn" equipment found by journalists to include captured Kuwaiti material.

Aug. 2: Iraqi forces invade Kuwait in the early morning hours and quickly establish military control of Kuwait. U.S. President George Bush harshly condemns the invasion, orders economic sanctions on Iraq and occupied Kuwait, and freezes Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets in the United States. The UN Security Council (UNSC) passes Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The UNSC threatens to impose mandatory sanctions against Iraq unless it complies with the resolution. There are six U.S. Navy Middle East Force ships in the Persian Gulf (continuous Middle East Force presence since 1949). USS Independence Carrier Battle Group is in the Indian Ocean and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group is in the Mediterranean.

July 25: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein meets with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Glaspie, perhaps unfortunately, tells Hussein that the United States has no opinion on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait.

July 16: Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz accuses Kuwaitis of "direct aggression" against Iraq by producing oil above OPEC quotas and slant-drilling into the Rumaila oilfield, which straddles the Kuwait-Iraq border


On to the rest of the world and actions taken while all this was going on at the same time .

This page contains archival information related to U.S. military activities in Bosnia, archived on October 1, 1997.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to BosniaLINK, the official Department of Defense information system about U.S. military activities in Operation JOINT GUARD, the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. This system is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. All information in BosniaLINK is publicly released information from the U.S. government or NATO headquarters.
BosniaLink contains operations maps, fact sheets, news releases, biographies of key commanders and leaders, and transcripts of briefings, speeches and testimony. Postings are driven by news events which may not always occur on a daily basis. As these inevitable news gaps occur, we invite visitors to hyperlink to the NATO and State Department information services for news and information from a fresh perspective.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents
Maps and Charts
Fact Sheets
News
Photos
Speeches and Testimony
The Talon (Newspaper for the troops in Bosnia)

Send Messages to the Troops


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Related Sites for Bosnia Information
Remarks by the President in Press Availability on November 15, 1996
Radio Address by the President to the Nation on November 16, 1996

Air Force Role in Bosnia
America's Army in Bosnia
American Red Cross
NATO
NATO Bosnia Information
Navy News Service: Bosnia Operations
United States Atlantic Command
United States European Command
U.S. State Department: U.S. Policy on Bosnia
U.S. Department of Commerce: Bosnian/Balkan Reconstruction
White House
Task Force Eagle
Task Force Med Eagle
Department of Veterans Affairs
Operation Joint Endeavor entitlements and benefits for deployed military personnel
Mental Health Team




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here go read ...http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usmilitary&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fbosnia%2Farchive%2Findex.html

This is going on concurrently with ..Iraq and afghanistan . from what 1997 ?

on to Somalia ..

Toward the end of the Bush administration, the United States sent approximately 25,000 troops to Somalia to assist the United Nations with the distribution of famine relief supplies. By the time Bill Clinton took office in 1993, U.S. troop levels had been vastly reduced, largely replaced with forces operating under the UN flag. However as UN clashes with local "warlords" increased, American troops became engaged in policing and wider peacekeeping operations. After 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in a firefight in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993, the United States briefly reinforced its troops but retreated from the more ambitious "nation-building" agenda previously outlined by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. Criticized for having made decisions that may have contributed to the disaster, Aspin resigned two months later.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/cron.html

This is mainly action for the top echelons of the command structure though. Some select units of the US Military have seen a lot of action, but others (your average unit) have pretty much stood in one place for decades, whether it be mainland US, Germany or Korea.

Even less experienced are the National Guard Units which make up quite a part now in Iraq - I don't think any of them would have seen action, whether it be Grenada, Iraq I, Bosnia, Somalia or Afghanistan.

They are all part of a rotation system and the US national Guard is extremely well trained and has become an integral part of the US force structure along with the reserves. By neccesity . ( We seem to be pretty busy ) .

Do you know what it takes just to have 1 f-15 go into action ..not to mention an airwing ? Who do you think provides security on the ground ?

Not to mention the " fast reaction forces " that must be kept ready to provide response to what ever else may happen in any area of the world in any given moment .

Not to mention that constant training is still going on among all branches of the military . While all this " other stuff " is being dealt with .

No one stays in place in the military...if you do you are mustered out .

This is mainly action for the top echelons of the command structure though. Some select units of the US Military have seen a lot of action, but others (your average unit) have pretty much stood in one place for decades, whether it be mainland US, Germany or Korea.

Even less experienced are the National Guard Units which make up quite a part now in Iraq - I don't think any of them would have seen action, whether it be Grenada, Iraq I, Bosnia, Somalia or Afghanistan.


War is mostly logistics. One friend of a friend (lol sounds like its untrue but it is true) said that "war is 1% fighting and 99% bordom". Most of these guys arent in combat 24-7 or in combat in general. They drive trucks serve food, put out fires, repair viechles, manage telephones, check stock and ammo, Ect.

Going back to the zarqowi thing.... This is the type of guy the media tells us is defeating us in IraQ? How can you seriosly believe these people are winning against the United States? Give me a break

Do you know what it takes just to have 1 f-15 go into action ..not to mention an airwing ? Who do you think provides security on the ground ?
Incidentally, I do. Not only did my dad serve in the Bundeswehr in the Eighties, thus constantly having to do with the US Forces in Germany, but I also have two friends who joined the RAAF (and are going into engineering there, since they weren't accepted as pilots).

Not to mention the " fast reaction forces " that must be kept ready to provide response to what ever else may happen in any area of the world in any given moment .
Yes, I'm not doubting that. But the fact of the matter is that most soldiers are not part of such forces. Most soldiers in all armies never fire their gun in anger.
Just because there have been a lot of operations involving the US Military in the past twenty years, there is no way you can claim that this military is therefore some sort of battle-hardened veteran organisation, at least on a personnel level.

Not to mention that constant training is still going on among all branches of the military . While all this " other stuff " is being dealt with .
All militaries have constant training. If that is your criterion, I'll nominate the Bundeswehr for the "Veteran" category.

No one stays in place in the military...if you do you are mustered out .
Tell me, where has the 2nd US Infantry Division spent the years 1950 - 2004?

Whats that have to do with personel ? The division may have been there but if you know about the US military then you know about detachments and rotation and you know personel do not always stay in any one place..and I believe that the 2cnd division had its share of Duty during the First Iraq war.

you can for example detach a tank regiment or a battalion of infantry to another division any place in the world at any time.

Look its beyond ludicrouse at this point to even attempt to argue that the current US military is not anything BUT a battle hardened experianced veteran Army . BY any standard . War is not about just shooting the other force ..the bullets and the soldier need to get put in place and resuplied .

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/2id.htm


just so you know...

Operation Iraqi Freedom
During the late Spring of 2004, much of the soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team were given notice that they were about to be ordered to further deployment, with duty in Iraq. Units involved in this call-up included (but was not limited to:) 1/503rd Infantry Regiment (Air Assault), 1/506th Infantry Regiment (Air Assault) , 2/17th Field Artillery Battalion, 1/9 Infantry Regiment (Mechanized), 2nd Forward Support Battalion, and portions of the 2/72nd Armor Battalion. Time from first notice of deployment to actual “wheels-up” exit of the peninsula was very short. As such, an extreme amount of training was conducted by the Brigade as they switched from a focus of the foreign defense of South Korea to the more offensive operations that were going to be needed in action in Iraq. Furthermore, time was given for the majority of the soldiers to enjoy two weeks of leave to visit the United States. This was vital: many of the soldiers had been in South Korea for a year or more with only two weeks or less time in the United States during their stay of duty. More, they were about to depart on a deployment that was scheduled to last at least another year. Finally, circa September of 2004, the Brigade deployed to Iraq.

Upon landing in country, the 2nd BCT was given strategic command to much of the sparsely populated area south and west of Fallujah. Their mission, however, changed when the major strategic actions began to take place within the city proper. At this time, the Brigade Combat Team was refocused and given control of the eastern half of the volatile city of Ar-Ramadi. Many of the units had to physically move to new camps in support of this new mission. This became the primary focus of the 2nd BCT for much of their deployment.

The Brigade was spread out amongst many camps. To the west of the city of Ar-Ramadi sat the camp of Junction City. 2 ID units stationed there included 2/17 Field Artillery. To the eastern end of the city sat a much more austere camp, known ironically as the Combat Outpost. This was home to the 1/503rd Infantry Regiment. East of them but outside of the city proper itself was the town of Habbiniya and the 1/506th Infantry Regiment. Adjacent to this camp was the logistically important camp of Al-Taqaddum.

For this mission, the Brigade fell under the direct command not of the 2nd Infantry Division, but rather the Marine unit that was in control at the time. For the first six months while in Ramadi, the BCT fell under to the 1st Marine Division. For the second half of the deployment, they were attached to the 2nd Marine Division. While the Marines do not sport patches on their uniforms as such, the units of the 2nd BCT involved are authorized to now wear any of the following combat patches: the 2nd Infantry Division patch, the 1st Marine Division unit patch or the 2nd Marine Division unit patch.

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team was in action in the city of Ramadi for many historical events but most notably the Iraqi national elections of January, 2005. Much man-power and effort was put into stabilizing the city for this event. While the voting went off without a hitch and little to no violence was seen within the city, a minimal amount of voters participated (estimated to be in the 700 person range for the eastern half of the city, according to 2nd BCT officials). While the numbers left something to be desired, the BCT noted the lack of violence as a sign of success.

The 2nd BCT also left its mark on the area in other ways. They built several new camps within the city. For security reasons, many are left unverified, however ones that can be confirmed include Camps Trotter and Corregidor built to ease the burden on the accommodations at Combat Outpost.

In the late summer of 2005, the Brigade began to get relieved by units of the United States National Guard, as well as the Third Infantry Division of the Regular Army. The units of the 2nd BCT were given word that they would not be returning to South Korea but, rather, to Fort Carson, Colorado in an effort to restructure the Army and house more soldiers on American soil


Rotation. Combat experiance . Training .


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040612-guard-iraq.htm

http://www.marineparents.com/USMC/back-to-iraq.asp

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10302004_2004103001.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

US order of battle . 2003 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_030127.htm

Take your time read a bit get a little understanding of what is going on .


here's afghanistan 2005

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef_orbat.htm

here's the begining

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom_orbat-01.htm

note when you can all the different units that have served .

You can get a order of battle from 1990 to 2006 if you care to do the work.

Then you'll know whats up .

Having combat experiance is the one of the best ways to advance in the military. YOU want to be where the action is. Thats what you do and thats what you train for .


Cripes even a SOCIALIST web site knows whats up !
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/rota-j13.shtml


even the press in India knows whats UP !

http://hinduonnet.com/2002/12/23/stories/2002122302491400.htm


here have fun .

http://www.militaryfactory.com/countries_comparison.asp


more fun


http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

*snip*

I see mostly limited air strikes with a sprinkling of covert operations use. In either case, significant opposition was simply not there, no real air force to speak of to worry about, etc, etc. This speaks nothing of a veteran status of an army as a whole that you insist the US military forces are.

Training does not equate veterans either. Eut would chuck a fit at that.

NEXT!

Remember this is ONLY for Iraq.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/44131.pdf

For one year .

I see mostly limited air strikes with a sprinkling of covert operations use. In either case, significant opposition was simply not there, no real air force to speak of to worry about, etc, etc. This speaks nothing of a veteran status of an army as a whole that you insist the US military forces are.

Training does not equate veterans either. Eut would chuck a fit at that.

NEXT!


Look you have proven yourself beyond clueless.

Why make it worse ?

Look you have proven yourself beyond clueless.

Why make it worse ?

I could take a leaf from your page and call you all sorts of unflattering names, but I'll let your actions speak for themselves.

If you think it's clueless oh great and intelligent one, why don't you try and debunk it rather than use ad-honimems?[/sarcasm]

Or maybe, it's because you can't. That's why you use that to validate your arguments.

Whew! A lotr of good comments there that deserve a reply. Unfortunately, I'm off to bed soon, so just a couple of quick ones with the rest to be tackled later.

Re Chechenya, the First and Second Battles of Grozny exceeded Fallujah for sure, and were arguably a match for most of the fighting in the early parts of the invasion of Iraq.

Operation al-Fajr involved 10-15,000 US forces and up to 2000 Iraqi forces.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm

As far as I know, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah had no heavy artillery ar tanks.

Contrast this with the forces arrayed in the First Battle of Grozny. The Russians had over 23,000 forces. The size of the Chechens is in question, however it appears that 5,000 is a safe number. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTThomas.htm

Furthermore, the Chechens had tanks and heavy artillery.



www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/thomas.htm

As for Strategypage, yes, it's generally good stuff. I'm familiar with the author from way back. (His text How To Make War was one of the few books I didn't have to purchase for my Poli Sci IR seminar that became a case study of a certain war in 1991. ;)) And yes, like any good analyst, he's not always exactly spot on.

The 1999 Kargil War (India-Pakistan) resulted in over 1000 deaths. It involved divisional scale movements, over 5000 IAF sorties, and sustained artillery bombardments on a scale which "had not been witnessed anywhere in the world since the second World War".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm

Finally, to cover quite a lot of the commentary, a lot depends on what you consider to be a major military operation. If you're are correct in discounting Russia's divisional scale operations in Chechenya and long term experience, then yes, you are correct in discounting quite a bit of what I listed. However, I disagree. The countries I listed above have all had at least some recent experience in moderately large scale military operations.


I stand very much corrected on the Russian army..BTW I found this site to be very helpfull . http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-Russia.html

it seems Russia has its own Iraq right in its back yard..and is surrounded by potential Islamic explosions . it was well worth the time to stand corrected.
I also noticed while I was looking around that Israel has a larger standing army than the US ..according to one source at any rate .

I stand very much corrected on the Russian army..BTW I found this site to be very helpfull . http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-Russia.html

it seems Russia has its own Iraq right in its back yard..and is surrounded by potential Islamic explosions . it was well worth the time to stand corrected.
I also noticed while I was looking around that Israel has a larger standing army than the US ..according to one source at any rate .

Alrighty then. Since no one has questioned the Ethiopia-Eritrea war, and I expect we can all agree that a conflict involving tens of thousands of military casualties [1] (http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-EthErt.html) qualifies as a war, shall we move on to the Indian, Pakistani, and Irraeli military forces recent experiences?

1999 Kargil War saw "five infantry divisions, five independent brigades and 44 battalions of paramilitary troops" deployed to Kashmir by India, with the troop strength reaching 730,000. [2] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm)

The Indian military has also been quite busy with insurgents in the Kasmir [3] (http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-IndiaKashmir.html) and in the Northeast [4] (http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-IndiaNE.html).

Overall, the actions of the Indian military have been on a scale large enough to qualify it as being battle tested. The Pakistani military has had similar experience. And note that a great deal of this experience is quite similar to that of the US in the current Iraq war.

Finally, the ongoing Al-Aqsa Intifada has also involved at least 1000 KIAs annually and large scale operations, including divisional sized units. [5] (http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-Israel.html), [6] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/intifada2.htm)

In conclusion, it's fairly safe to say that the US military is clearly not the only battle tested one around at the moment.