IRAQ: Military Build Up / Troop Surge

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This action is typical of the tactical focus of US command. If we can just secure baghdad or if we can just clear Hue city we will turn a corner. I dont think things have changed all that much in 40 yers apart from the technology. The fact of the matter is that the US high command keeps missing the point on a geostrategic, strategic and political level, from vietnam, to the GWOT to Iraq. No tactical plan is going to resolve the political/econominc/social/religious problems that are creating the violance in iraq, but as usual US brass are focused on winning the battles rather than an acheiving an acceptable conclusion to the war. In my opinion its the rupublican party in general and the president in particular who are being hypoctical. They've stated several times that if anyone has a better idea (ie the demmocrats)for a change in stratagy they're listening, yet they ignore the major recomendation of the Iraq study group! Unrealistic Ideology is ALLWAYS dangerous, be it on the left or right side of politics and it seems that Neoconservative ideology is unwilling to compromise on realistic recomendations.

I have to agree with shimmy, it is verry dangerous thinking to say that those in power know more than the rest of us (or the legislative arm for that matter!) and should be trusted to a point where those who dissagree or question simply are not privy to the inteligence of the executive and therefore wrong. Not only is that compleatly inconsistent with all the priciples of democracy and is indeed "one step away from tyrany". It is exactly that type of thinking that led uss all into iraq in the first place. No one questioned whether iraq did indeed have WMD's, including mid to high level military and inteligence personell, not to mention the average citizen. Yet we all went to war under that ussumption because everyone assumed that the people above were better briefed and knew something they didn't and therefore no one spoke up. That ussumption led us into war under false pretences, and now were supose to trust the verry same people less rumsfeld, with a large scale escelation in, IMHO an unwinable war? No way.

 

[shimmy]

Next Course?

Clearly many , many mistakes have been, and are being , made in Iraq by the US. Most of these are too obvious to mention. I think it is clear that the US must and wants to get out of Iraq. Can Bush/Cheney/Haliburton be trusted ? I doubt if many Americans think we can. Can we easily get out ?I do not see how. Perhaps the best way, out of many bad ways, is to just get some small victory and then just get out-lock, stock and barrel.Keep the hundreds of Suburbans and most of the Humvees. Take everything else. If it requires an enormous convoy South to Kuwait or North to Turkey , or West to Saudi Arabi just do it already. We've got no forseeable gain by being there.
A study of all the military operations must be made so that the mistakes are never repeated.(Although I said the same thing about Vietnam.) Will there be great hurrays in the Muslim terrorist world? Of course. But there are hurrays in the Muslim world now and we are getting no where.
There was only one real solution to Iraq- a real international response. But Kofi was not going to allow that and most of the world would refuse to really do what was needed. Most of Europe is too anxious to sell things to Iraqi factions to care about the Iraqi peoples.Africa does not have the resoursces to help. The Far East is too concerned with its own situation to care. Latin America? A combination of lack of resources and desire keep them from helping.
Maybe the best the US can do now is learn from the mistakes, get troops out , and let the Iraqis do what they can.

 

[steve33]

The surge will fail because it was undermined from the start,the Insurgents watch the U.S media and they know that the U.S public are ready to quit and so are the Democrats and a lot of Rebublicans so the surge has not been projected with strength.

The insurgents know that all they have to do is get through this surge and they have won they know it is Americas last punch.

After America has lost in Iraq Al Qaeda will be so emboldened they will have no doubt that they can out last America and fight to victory.

the attacks against America and her interests will continue and life will get even harder for Israel because what this war and the war in lebanon has done has taken away the all powerful image of the U.S and Israeli military.

 

[radiosilence]

Will there be great hurrays in the Muslim terrorist world? Of course.

I guess there is a billion plus terrorist according to you.

There was only one real solution to Iraq- a real international response. But Kofi was not going to allow that and most of the world would refuse to really do what was needed.

Kofi Annan and the UN invaded Iraq? When everyone told this current adminstration that it was a bad idea to invade Iraq they told them to f@ck off. Is it any surprise that no one is lining up to help us out? Btw Kofi Annan is no longer the United Nations Secretary-General.

Most of Europe is too anxious to sell things to Iraqi factions to care about the Iraqi peoples

Really?

 

[tomahawk6]

It would be nice to seperate US domestic politics from the strategy/tactics of defeating both the shia militias and sunni insurgents. We have solid proof that Iran is supplying both the suni's and shia militias. We have proof that Iran is supplying MANPADS and IED's. So to choke off the insurgency we have to go after the support infrastructure that the iranians have in place in Iraq.

Baghdad is different from Hue in that Baghdad is the capital and Hue was not.
All sides need to control Baghdad to win. What we are seeing is the tipping point of this insurgency. After all in past wars the primary objective is to capture your opponents capital. The population of Baghdad will be the objective of the new strategy. The population must first be seperated from the terrorists and then protected to prevent their return. COPs [combat outposts] are being built in neighborhoods throughout the capital. They will be manned by IA/US troops. This process is just beginning.IP/IA troops are taking up positions around Sadr City.

While the focus is on Baghdad Anbar province will see 4000 more Marines and major offensive operations will kick off with the goal of preventing terrorists from moving into Baghdad and to take out terrorists leaving Baghdad. I think from a professional viewpoint this operation will be very interesting to discuss as it plays itself out.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/baghdad_nima_2003.jpg

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It would be nice to seperate US domestic politics from the strategy/tactics of defeating both the shia militias and sunni insurgents.

Baghdad is different from Hue in that Baghdad is the capital and Hue was not.
All sides need to control Baghdad to win.

Ok fair enough on us domestic politics. But i think your missing my point generally, and specifically on Hue. There is simply no military soloution to the war in Iraq, just like there was no military solution to the war in Vietnam. There has to be a political solution that is acceptable to all of iraqs internal factions, iraqs neighbors and as much as possible the rest of the world generally. All the extra troops that the us can bring in are not going to replace that, a million personell in vietnam didnt, why sould 5 brigades now? They will at best be a short term soloution, and at worst just escelate and americanise the war, increasing contempt and ill will of the iraqie poeple who view the US as conquerors not liberators. That is just going to make the fundimental problem worse. It is just a bad idea in my mind, like the whole war up to this point.

 

[Galrahn]

While people focus on the troops, the change in the defense dept. leadership is the factor that will decide if the new strategy works. The troops are just a part of it.

BTW, the troops surge was prescribed in the Iraq Study Group report as a way to address security problems in areas out of control. That area is clearly Baghdad, so maybe there is a plan to impliment some aspect of the reports conclusions effectively?

I'll wait and see, all of this clearly marks a last attempt to take control of the situation. Once the surge is completed, the success or failure of it will determine the ultimate success or failure, and the list of potential options in the future.

 

[stridsvogn]

use of military force is and will be the most important part in this stage of the conflict.

In order to achieve the stability in wich political agreements between the different fractions can be done, there has to be a form of stability in the baghdad area. This to consolidate the new goverment's grip on the capital.

the situation in iraq is a lot more than the usual counter insurgency sitiuations that military forces have faced trough history. in a way the same principles of "hearts and minds" still applies, but the size of the population and the way that the insurgents operate, makes it far more difficult to isolate them from the population, cut their main supply of recruits and destroy their operational capability. The iraq insurgents don't retreat to the mountains, neither have they caves that they can hide in. their main effort are not isolated garnisons, but isolated checkpoints inside the cities. The insurgents don't attack the conventional force's ability to operate in order for them to retreat. This urban insurgency appeals 100% to our will (western civilisation or freedom loving people around the world), this by using the internet and mass media to shock, and soften our will to support military operations.

many of us have probably seen car-bombings, suicide bombings, beheadings, cold bloodied executions of contractors and ngo workers. all this because of the internet and other mass medias. This could be a reason to our eroded will to support the war against terrorism. This could be the reason that it took almost 60.000 casualties during the vietnam war, before the american troops pulled out, and only 3.000 in the iraq war before the president of the united states is humilliated by congress (both democrats and republicans), and the united states public to turn their backs to the war.

the united states cannot allow themseles to pull out of iraq.
there are simple reasons for this. First of all, this would show muslim extremists around the world the western civilisation's eroded will to fight terrorism and defend democracy. The morale boost from this wolud escalate fundamentalists will to engage in terrorism and insurgencies around the world, specially in failed states were there is little respect for the rule of law and democracy.

This would make the chances for terrorist attacks in european or american soil by home grown terrorist cells even bigger. There is no need to explain the consequences of these acts to european and american integrity.

The third reason is that the united states has to consolidate its position as the world's leading superpower. Emerging powers such as China and Russia will very soon (if not already) challenge american hegemony, and by that making several regions in the world even more volatile. we can't ignore the possibility to coordinate efforts with these two countries in other areas as for instance counter terrorism (wich is a big concern in all three countries).

How to achieve result in iraq?

This is the most urgent question to be answered.

The military solutions need to exploit the insugency's biggest weaknesses in the same way that the insurgency exploit the conventional force's weaknesses. In fact the conventional forces need to transform themselves in the fighting war machine that they are intended to be. a troop surge will allow some units to focus only on the warfighting process and others will do the social work. The warfighting has to proceed in several forms. There has to be a net of informants who are willing to give information and intel on the whereabouts of known leaders. Increasing the use of technology to obtain intelligence is crucial, because of this is one of the biggest advantages that the troops wil have (besides of the quality of their training). The main population has to be informed of the surge's main targets, so they can expect results and these results have to be achieve in order to win a psychologic advantage and support. One of the main weaknesses of the insurgency is it's lack of integrity and coordination between fractions. There is not such a thing as a united guerilla force (as the vietcong was in cooperation with the nva). maybe the shia mehdi army could resemble such a thing, but even they are having leadership problems. If the coalition manages to destroy a insurgency "cell" it is likely that the cell itself will desintegrate because of the lack of a leader that can give spiritual inspiration. the remaining members would then flee the area or return to normal life (if a real die hard then the member would flee and join another fraction in another city, but stability would be a fact in the new "Cleaned zone").

this method could give better results if it is implemented in a certain zone and targeting several cells at the same time. At the same time the cleaned zones would have to go through a series of rebuliding work and consolidation. The iraqui goverment has to show willingness to legitimate its power through some serious law enforcement and offering services (water supply, electricity, legal and educational support).

the surge is already showing results. muqtada al sadr is known to be afraid for its own life. the mehdi army is known to be showing signs of reconciliation (but also several rogue elements are known to ignore this) and willingness to negotiate. Until further news about the results are known (the surge will be escalating until may) we won know about whether it is succesful or not.

I sincerally hope it will, not only for the iraqis security but also for the security of the whole middle east, and the rest of the world.

 

[marr007]

Define "Victory in Iraq"

Ok this if my first post here-so bear with me-I have spent a great deal of time here reading other people's posts, but if I break any rules or make any mistakes, please let me know.

Ok here are my views on this situation that we are in right now in Iraq. First of all, in order to "finish the job" over there in Iraq we need an objective. The objective of this war was to remove Suddam Hussein from power. Ok-we've done that. I am not going to express any view on whether we should have gone into this war or not-plenty of people have already done so and its not going to help the situation. I think that the one thing that we did poorly was thoroughly planning this operation. We have removed Suddam, he's been hanged-now what. Some people are stating that we need to just leave, others say that we increase the troop count-both have dissatisfying consequences.

1.) We leave the defense of Iraq to the Iraqi's and pull out all troops by march of 2008

Ok so we do this and this is simply a short term fix and nothing more. More than likely the country, as others have stated, will either collapse or fall into a close alliance with Iran-something we definetly wont want to happen. Furthermore, this only expresses to all the insurgents over there that, hey, we beat the US out. This could cause an undesirable chain of events, including possible attacks on our soil. This has often gone overlooked, but during the war in Iraq, we have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Something must be working right? Back to the point, leaving, yes our troops will be back home, but this is just a short-fix

2.) We increase the troop count

Now I am not entirely sure as to how long these troops will stay in Iraq. Also is the problem that we are already stretching our US resources thin-to bolster our troops over there will deplete our reserve forces, cause more grumbling among certain people in the US, etc. It seems that no matter what we do, they just keep coming.

With these things said I really dont know what we can do to fix this situation. But one of the things that highly irritates me is people that say "We support our troops. But not the war. Cut the funds." Cutting the funds will not support our troops. That means less protection i.e. robotic kits for bomb defusal, APC, etc for our troops. Which equals more casaulties.

With all this said, this is what I would do if I were in the position of our military leaders. First off I would set a clear objective, which would be to bolster US troop levels until the Iraqi army could be trained to an extent that it could hold its own ground. Once this was done, I think that we should slowly start to remove troops from outlying towns and replace them with Iraqi troops. If they coudl show that they could hold the cities as well as we could, we bring those troops back home or reinforce larger cities, such as Baghdad with those troops. And we continue this process, until such point that Iraq could handle its own country. And I would also make sure that this plan was explained in some way to the US public so everyone understands exactly why we need more funds and more troops.

 

[Rich]

stridsvogn, no disrespect, but your a Norwegian. Not an American parent who has a child over there and waits by the window every day waiting for a military sedan to pull up. If any Norwegian kids want to play soldier our Army is currently accepting applications. All you need is a green card and a pair of intact cojones.

To even think were going to keep our guys over there doing a job the Iraqis should be doing, and getting blown up in the process, is madness. That isn't a formula to win wars.

At this stage of the game I say we pull back and let them fight it out. If anything I say we support the Sunnis and Kurds. Eventually were going to have to support one side over the other and not supporting the Shiites is in our interest. Frankly, sometimes I think we made a mistake hanging Saddam.

The bottom line is Bush and his crew screwed this all up.

There has to be an end. Whatever it is there has to be an end. Bush has to give the Iraqis a withdrawal time frame and stick to it. If the Iraqis cant get their act together by then, then screw em.

 

[Waylander]

An article by the NY Times is maybe interesting in this topic:

FORT POLK, La., March 14 — For decades, the Army has kept a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on round-the-clock alert, poised to respond to a crisis anywhere in 18 to 72 hours.

Today, the so-called ready brigade is no longer so ready. Its soldiers are not fully trained, much of its equipment is elsewhere, and for the past two weeks the unit has been far from the cargo aircraft it would need in an emergency.

Instead of waiting on standby, the First Brigade of the 82nd Airborne is deep in the swampy backwoods of this vast Army training installation, preparing to go to Iraq. Army officials concede that the unit is not capable of getting at least an initial force of several hundred to a war zone within 18 hours, a standard once considered inviolate.

The declining readiness of the brigade is just one measure of the toll that four years in Iraq — and more than five years in Afghanistan — have taken on the United States military. Since President Bush ordered reinforcements to Iraq and Afghanistan in January, roughly half of the Army’s 43 active-duty combat brigades are now deployed overseas, Army officials said. A brigade has about 3,500 soldiers.

Pentagon officials worry that among the just over 20 Army brigades left in the United States or at Army bases in Europe and Asia, none has enough equipment and manpower to be sent quickly into combat, except for an armored unit stationed permanently in South Korea, several senior Army officers said.

“We are fully committed right now,” said Col. Charles Hardy of the Forces Command, which oversees Army training and equipping of troops to be sent overseas. “If we had a fully trained-up brigade, hell, it’d be the next one to deploy.”

The 82nd recently canceled its annual Memorial Day parade because most of its 17,000 soldiers are overseas. When the First Brigade, which got the rotating assignment as the ready brigade in December, leaves for Iraq over the summer, the 101st Airborne Division, at Fort Campbell, Ky., will take over responsibility for the ready brigade. But its soldiers are preparing to go to Iraq this year as well.

[Gen. Richard Cody, the Army vice chief of staff, told Congress in testimony on March 15 that with the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army does not have the time or the resources to prepare for most of the other missions it could potentially face.]

Military officials say that the United States, which has more than two million personnel in active and reserve armed forces, has a combat-tested force that could still emerge victorious if another major conflict arose. But the response would be slower, with more casualties, and would have to rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force, they said.

Despite tensions with Iran and North Korea, another crisis requiring troops does not appear imminent.

If ground forces were needed urgently, Army commanders said they could draw units quickly from Iraq and send them wherever they might be needed, rather than relying solely on the ready brigade to provide a fast reaction force.

The Pentagon can also draw on 28 combat brigades in the reserves, several of which the military is making plans to mobilize later this year or early next to relieve some of the strain. But those units face even deeper problems than the active duty brigades because of equipment and training shortfalls.

Altogether, Army officials said 23 brigades, including one National Guard brigade, are now deployed overseas. Once the reinforcements called for by the White House are in place, 17 Army combat brigades will be in Iraq and two in Afghanistan, Army officials said, along with four more deployed in various locations, including as peacekeepers in the Sinai desert.

In effect, the Army has become a “just in time” organization: every combat brigade that finishes training is sent back to Iraq or Afghanistan almost immediately. Equipment vital for protecting troops, like armored vehicles, roadside bomb jammers and night vision goggles, is rushed to Iraq as quickly as it is made, officials say.

The 2007 Pentagon budget includes $17.1 billion to reset Army equipment, with a separate fund of $13.9 billion in emergency funds to replace or repair gear damaged in combat. Even so, units at home preparing to deploy are facing equipment shortages and have all but given up preparing for anything other than their next tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It is really sad how this ongoing mess is sucking the vitality out of such a great army.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

stridsvogn, no disrespect, but your a Norwegian. Not an American parent who has a child over there and waits by the window every day waiting for a military sedan to pull up. If any Norwegian kids want to play soldier our Army is currently accepting applications. All you need is a green card and a pair of intact cojones.

To even think were going to keep our guys over there doing a job the Iraqis should be doing, and getting blown up in the process, is madness. That isn't a formula to win wars.

At this stage of the game I say we pull back and let them fight it out. If anything I say we support the Sunnis and Kurds. Eventually were going to have to support one side over the other and not supporting the Shiites is in our interest. Frankly, sometimes I think we made a mistake hanging Saddam.

The bottom line is Bush and his crew screwed this all up.

There has to be an end. Whatever it is there has to be an end. Bush has to give the Iraqis a withdrawal time frame and stick to it. If the Iraqis cant get their act together by then, then screw em.

I dont see much of a choice. Keeping coalition forces in the numbers that they are is not really helping the situation, its just runing up more casualties. This whole thing has just degraded into one huge cluster f#ck, and all georgie could say was "stay the cource". The sad and scary situation is that full blown civil war with all the nasty consequences such as genoside is more than likely. Who knows were the whole thing is going to end up, but i got a funny feeling the region in general and iraq in particular is going to look a whole lot morse than it did in 2002. And were all going to have to clean up the mess.

 

[merocaine]

The surge (god I hate the word!), lets just call it the troop reinforcement, does seem to be having an effect, that easing of the sectarian situation and the Sunni tribes in Anbar turning on Al queda in Iraq, could give the Iraqi goverment a bit of breathing room, people forget that there is only active resistance from the Sunnis 20% of the population, and now some of them want to come in from the cold. The situation is still savalagable.

 

[sparta]

still not enough, putting a bandaide on a sore is one thing but when its a gushing neck wound you know its gunna end bad