I know your soldiers are in the first line in Irak. What do you think about the strategy called Shock and Awe?

Question

Hello, i'm italian and i saw a documentary on History Channel about "Shock and Awe" the strategy used in Irak to destroy the Saddam' governament. I asked this in USA
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AooFG8BWPW1_7NtUxBoV9rggBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20071217075746AAnLRa9
But now i'm wondering what do the english people think about this strategy of war, cause their soldiers are in the same situations as the american troopers as in Irak.
In my opinion dropping bombs to destroy the most important buildings is what the terrorists needed to get their strategy of blood and death. What do you think about it?

(I have to apologyze for my english)

Thank you for yours answers! I read them.. But i have to ask you another thing:why the generals who executed shock and awe, didn't prefer to engage the enemy in a "face to face" battle? Obviously in this kind of battle the victims should be much more than using shock and awe strategy... but with shock and awe: 1) you destroy only buildings; 2) you'll send a lot of troopers as fast as possible and the enemy can't react cause this 2 actions are too fast and he isn't able to do anything. If we analyze this situation better we discover something interesting. Infact the enemy after this "Shock and awe" (as you can see nowadays), is not defeat! He lost his buildings, he didn't engage USA and allys cause they appear stronger than the enemy thought, but he doesn't want to stop the war against us! And after shock and awe, the only way to make the war aganist us is using kamikaze, suicide-attacks, guerrilia.
This situation cost a lot of victims and money. And nowadays to lose men and money....

Answer 1

A good General prefers to avoid a face to face with the enemy because they have to consider how heavy any casualties would be. Shck and Awe is another name for Hitlers Blitzgreig.

Answer 2

Shock and awe is a term used to describe the concept that if you do the following things:

1) Have a large number of things go wrong for the enemy at once

2) Operate at a tempo that is so fast that by the time the enemy reacts to what you are doing - it is too late because you are already doing something else.

Then the enemy will be unable to plan any effective response to your actions.

I feel that either Runsfield either misstated the concept or the news media failed to accurately describe it to the public and as a result everybody was expecting 'shock and awe' to be felt by the common Iraqi people - instead of the Iraqi leadership (which is who it was aimed at).

Another thing to remember is how few buildings were actually destroyed by US forces.

Answer 3

hey!! your English is very good. and so is your question. my personal opinion is we should not have had the conflict in the first place. i will say this though. i did not understand how!! in the 21st century we still have to have wars. but after seeing the actions, and hearing the opinions of Muslims in my country, i realise that only half the worlds people have actually evolved. the other half are still dragging their knuckles along the pavements in London and other large cities all around Britain and dragging their women behind them. so!! i would say that the war 'one way or another' was inevitable any way. you cannot reason with cave dwellers.

Answer 4

Its funny how out of all the answers only one so far has actually answered your question and the rest are just rants about the war.

Anyway back to Shock and Awe. Well its basically like the Blitzkrieg attack AKA Lightning attack that was invented by the Nazi's during WW2 and it had such a overwhelming effect on the opposition that a modified version of it is now used by the United States armed forces in armed conflicts.

Its basically Infantry stoms in Tanks cover the infantry and Planes cover the Tanks.

Answer 5

shock ans awe works very well

(most yank won't like this. i was a soldier in the US army for many years. )

PLEASE remember the USA is not using it on soldiers and military targets.. they are using it on CIVILIANS so of course it is working. they can't defend them selves. soldiers are not being killed they are running home to bury their families.

Don't believe all you see on the television from the USA or even here in the UK, the media in the USA only shows what its told to by the US government. the UK does what its told by the USA..

The USA will willingly kill a 100 or a 1000 innocents in order to kill just 1 they suspect or know is a terrorist. or just a leading enemy soldier. the USA now considers anyone who does not agree with them to be an enemy combatant. to include women and kids.

I served with them with my Honour until i spoke out against the tactics of necessary collateral damage and retired ..this tactic was thought feasible to bring them into compliant submission. it is not working, but i see they are still at it.

i look back on that time with shame now. Terrorism must be stopped if it can be. but not at the cost of women and children, old folks and the disabled. the USA is single handedly starting the next World War or at the least a religious war that will encompass the world. it is also sowing the seeds of its down fall just like the old USSR did and the once mighty UK did and last but not least Rome. in today's world of speed the fall will come much faster.

it is the wonderful people of the USA that will suffer not the corruption of government, US soldiers fight with HONOR as do most soldiers around the world do.

Its the lack of Honor in government that brings the shame to us all

Answer 6

The only shock and awe we experienced was how clean Bush's *** was after Blair finished licking it!!!

They went to promote democracy whereas Blair ignored it in Britain by going to this stupid war when the MAJORITY of Brits didn't want to (Isnt this the way that Saddam worked?). In my opinion this makes Blair and Bush as bad as Saddam

These terrorists are going mad because the rules that applied to Saddam Hussein don't apply to the superpower leaders - i.e. illegal war - no-body is in the line of fire for this - even the intelligence service got off.
Saddam wiped out Iraqis so he went on trial and got the death penalty.
Bush & Blair killed a few hundred thousand Iraqis via thir pilots who are on speed and nothing happended.
One major politition went and scammed the country out of God knows how much oil and again nothing happened.

If you can't play by your own rules then you have no right to enforce them on someone else.

I am a Sikh and no a Muslim but I can see where these people are coming from. If we don't have equality then we will never sort this problem out.

I DO NOT CONDONE TERRORISM OR SYMPATHYSE WITH THEIR REASONS FOR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE

Britain went to India and f*cked that up by making a quick exit.
Now they are in Iraq and they have left Basra worse than when they entered - i see another India in the making.

Why don't we learn lessons?

Answer 7

1st off, your English is fine, actually, you appear to be more literate and well spoken than a lot of the folks who speak the language as their primary form of verbalization.

Shock and Awe has worked twice for the US, and seemed to work quite well for the Germans in WW2.

Answer 8

Obviously it may have shocked but it has not awed

Answer 9

George Bush and Tony Blair are mass murderers who should be tried for war crimes.Decent people in the UK are ashamed of being associated with America's vile war.

Answer 10

War sucks and is not a necessary evil like many believe. George Bush is as evil as Saddam Hussein in my opinion.
Were all shocked but not in awe of the Bush administration.