While the Iraqi regime appears to have crumbled, I am left to wonder what’s left in store for the military to deal with in Iraq. The media has mentioned Tikrit as the source and strength of Saddam’s loyalist followers, but there hasn’t been much coverage regarding military activity in that area. I’m assuming that coalition forces haven’t penetrated that far north (or south) in Iraq yet. Plus, there’s still the issue of WMD - my understanding is that in all liklihood (if found) they will be located in a quandrant northwest of Baghdad (in which Tikrit is located).
Now, I’m just as happy as the next person seeing jubilent Iraqis parading around Baghdad. But Rumfeld, et al. has stated that the war is definitely not over. Is anyone else nervous about the possibility of strong resistance against coalition forces by Iraqi loyalists in and around Tikrit? If Saddam and his sons are still alive, I would guess that he’ll make his last stand there. And if so, isn’t there a strong possibility that he’ll use biological/chem weapons?
I hope I’m wrong, but the (possible) battle for Tikrit definitely makes me nervous.
Very possible, and very likely IMO. While I was thinking the same for the 3 remaining major targets, Masul(sp?) - Tikrit- Kirkuk, the latter fell without any reported resistance. I was suprised about that. And because of that I feel that Masul(sp?) may do the same. But as it being that Tikrit is Saddams, and his followers like the RG’s home, I would be shocked if there wasn’t major resistance there.
IIRC the republican Guard never made a showing worth mentioning except being the targets of many bombs. It ssems more than likely they have consolidated at the final bastion. It would take a fool to hope they have just given up without a token fight, even if Saddam was killed.
It’s not just Tikrit. The Iraqis are putting up a fierce defense in western Iraq at Qiam, where they supposedly were once trying to develop nuclear weapons. I think an errant bunker buster could do a lot more damage than intended.
Its Mosul, usually. Anyway, I’m not sure that Tikrit can withstand assault. In any event, we can simply close the city off and then they are stuck. We can bomb at will any AA sites, vehicles, and buildings we want. They have lost all their best gear in the mad dash to escape, and right now they are not in a good way.
Oh they made a showing all right, but they got crushed whenever they showed their heads. They are loyal, but now they may not know whether the man they are loyal to is alive.
You know, in the past few days I’ve seen something completely amazing in this war, something which I didn’t think was possible and something for which I don’t think resisting Iraqis have a solution.
I haven’t fully figured it out yet, but it seems obvious to me that somehow the Americans are getting absolutely fantastic tactical intelligence. It must be some sort of intelligence collection synthesis operation that works in near-realtime–probably a combination of humint, signals, and overhead surveillance which identifies exactly where the enemy is and how they are positioned.
At any rate, wherever the Iraqis choose to make their fight, they’re going to find themselves fucked. The American forces are faster, and they’ve been bypassing and surrounding the Iraqis with a speed and aggressiveness which I didn’t think was possible. Once the Iraqis are forced to fight, we concentrate immense firepower upon the very small and specific areas where the Iraqis are defending, and they can’t do much except die hard.
I’m sure this still causes a lot of civilian casualties–in fact I suspect that civilians caught in these tiny pockets of resistance are far more likely to become casualties than they would have been in the past–but because the Americans are so damned good at cordoning off their enemy into the smallest possible defensive area there just aren’t that many innocent people to kill.
(As a side note, I don’t think the Brits were using this system–that’s why their investment of Basra took so long, because they were using the old-school style of urban warfare.)
It’s sophisticated, blindingly fast, and incredibly deadly warfare the likes of which I’ve never seen before but am relieved and delighted to behold. I don’t think Tikrit stands much of a chance if the resisters stick to using conventional tactics.
But Hussein’s supporters can ditch their uniforms, plan assassinations and suicide bombings and other guerilla-type responses, and make a nuisance of themselves for years to come. I don’t think we have a solution for that yet. In fact, I think that’s why we’re there in the first place.
I’m with you in having an academic interest in the particular methods of warfare used in this invasion. I am waiting with baited breath for the stacks of deeply-researched books that will be written about this war over the next few decades.
[/aside]
I also agree about Tikrit. I’m looking for it to fall within a week.
Some level of medium-term criminal resistance is acceptable, IMHO. I think one can make an analogy to an American city – a Crip might kill a cop in L.A., but that doesn’t make that Crip the mayor.
I think its very clear that the republician guard know they can’t stand against US forces and so far they have surrendered or ran rather than fight to the death like we were told. I don’t think that will change simply because they are in Tikrit, even if the last of the Saddams circle is there.
I think you’ll agree with me, bordelond, that we also have more than an academic interest in these tactics. They seem to be saving the lives of all parties concerned, and I’m sure you’re just as pleased about that as I am.
War is always dangerous, unpredictable, and tragic, but at this point I have far more optimism that this one will be drawn to a quick conclusion than I did just one week ago. That, at least, will be something worthy of celebration no matter how I feel about the legitimacy of this war.
I will express a potentially insensitive hawkish opinion here…
The coalition forces, having come this far, would be lucky if they get strong resistance at Tikrit. The overall political goal of the war would be well-served if all of the influential members of Saddam’s clan were eliminated (i.e. killed). The best way to justify such political assassination is under the guise of a general campaign against resistance by Republican Guards. Strikes against leaders and “command and control” centers must reduce the clan to a condition such that the clan can never again become a political entity. The best time to do it is in the next few days.
If the forces at Tikrit strike back with WMD, then it will serve only to justify, politically, efforts to exterminate Saddam loyalists.
And the last thing you want (this is pure speculation – I don’t know the actual situation there) is this: members of Saddam’s clan survive, with access to plundered wealth. These people would be pariahs in Iraq, and could join forces with Osama and his merry band. Ex-Saddamists might be a bit angry at the west, and seek to destabilize American interests through terrorism.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The logical end of George Bush’s first Gulf War is only achieved when the family and its sycophants are gone.
Fortunately, I expect that they can’t. The US has a lot of influence in financial circles, and the new government will try to establish a claim on all the funds held by Saddam ASAP.
I expect taking Tikrit will be a little bit longer coming. Not because of resistance there, per se, but that we’ll block off the area to further troops movements while hunting down pockets of resistance outside Tikrit. We won’t have the whole country completely cleaned or anything, but we can strengthen supply lines, start clearing lines for humanitarian aid, and so forth. I say in two weeks it will be time to take Tikrit, although perhaps the DoD doesn’t want the Saddamites to have a chance to regroup.
Absolutely. The U.S. military started a major transformation after the first Gulf war - a transformation into a very high-tech force that relies heavily on intelligence and special forces.
Special Forces used to be an afterthought. Each branch of the military had their own, and they got hand-me-down equipment, minimal funding, etc. There were not that many Special Forces in Gulf I.
But now, Special Forces are an integral part of the battle plan. And by all accounts, there are thousands of them in Iraq. Some of them have been in-country for months, or even years. Many of these guys speak Arabic like a native, and pass for natives. They wander the streets of the cities, drive around in cabs, and collect intelligence. They watch traffic patterns, learn who’s moving where, count freight trucks going into military bases, recruit operatives, etc. They ‘prep’ the battlefield by sending back exact maps showing where the booby traps are, where the soldiers are, etc. They use laser designators to mark targets for laser-guided bombs. And many, many more things we don’t know about.
That ‘hit’ on Saddam is a perfect example of how the new military works. Apparently, a mole within the government had informed someone that Saddam was using a certain place for meetings. So the U.S. put a special forces spotter in the area, and he’s the guy who saw Saddam enter the building and called in the strike. The CIA and FBI integrated with speciail forces, the air force, army, etc.
Then there’s the high technology. Did you know that the U.S. is using GPS guided R/C airplanes in this war? They look like models you’d see at a flying field - they are carried in a backpack and can be assembled in minutes. They have an 8-foot wingspan, and fly about 500-1000 ft up. Onboard is a GPS guidance system, high resolution optical and infrared cameras and other sensors. They’re controlled by a laptop on the ground, and fly autonomously with onboard autopilots. The operator programs in a search grid, and these things can launch and fly over an urban area or a possible battlefield. They can find hiding soldiers, dug-in tanks, etc. When an operator sees an image of a tank coming in (with GPS coordinates of the image stamped on the signal, no doubt), he can call in a JDAM from an orbiting plane and destroy it.
The modern military is chock-full of toys like this. Add them all together, throw in huge amounts of computing powe to make sense of it all, and a command-and-controll system to get just the necessary info to exactly the unit that needs it, and you’ve got a revolutionary change in the way that war is fought.
And we’re not done yet. Wait 'till you see the ‘Smart Soldier’. The next-generation infantryman will have a wearable computer with a small display in front of one eye. His gun will have a camera mounted inside the scope. The heads-up display will show him where all his squad-mates are. He can aim his gun, and send the video his gun sees back to his commander. He can aim the gun, pull the ‘trigger’, and instead of firing a bullet a signal is sent to an overhead orbiting predator, and a hellfire missile will hit what he’s aiming at. How’s that for power? The guy can even shoot around corners, because his gunsight image can be replicated in his heads-up display.
There are prototypes now of little micro-R/C planes with four inch wingspans, full autopilots, and video cameras. In the future, there will be swarms of these things all over the battlefield. In Urban environments, anyone who looks out a window or steps on a roof may be spotted and targetted.
This war has been amazing, but it’s really just the start of the new generation of warfare.
Are the Iraqi’s really such poor shots? How do you kill so many yet lose so few? Not that I’m complaining. But last I heard there were thousands of Iraqi deaths and just 105 coalition deaths. And a third of those were accidents or friendly fire.
A) Most of the Iraqis were killed by bombing, sniping, tank fire, etc.
B) The coalition troops move in armored fighting vehicles. The Iraqis move in soft-sided trucks and on foot, mostly.
C) Body armor. This is a big one. The new Kevlar composite armor is VERY good. Most of the wounded on the coalition side have wounds to the extremities. One British soldier got caught in a machine-gun blast and took FOUR bullets to the head. His helmet stopped them all, and he walked away unharmed.
D) Speed, intelligence, and coordination. The coalition forces never got encircled and cut off. They were the onces encircling the enemy and destroying them. Little things matter here. For example, the M1A1 Abrams can target the enemy and shoot accurately while it’s moving. The Iraqi tanks couldn’t.
E) Options. The coalition forces have many, many weapons, and can pick and choose the ones for the battle. The Iraqis had to fight with what they had, often at a significant disadvantage.
Early in the war, there was a firefight that was caught on video and aired live. I watched the whole thing, and it was a great primer on how the U.S. worked. They were moving on the outskirts of Umm Qasar, when they came under fire from somewhere within a group of buildings. The American reaction:
Hit the deck, and immediately seek cover and withraw out of range.
Fire a Javelin missile at the main source of heavy fire, destroying it.
Send a couple of tanks into the area, to test the level of resistance. Tanks take more than expected fire, and spot Iraqi tanks hiding behind the buildings.
Withdraw the tanks, and call in airstrikes.
Whole area gets creamed. Tanks move back in to mop up small arms fire.
After the area is subdued, soldiers advance very carefully and mop up the rest.
The Iraqis never had a chance, and never even really had anyone to fight. Once they started shooting, their targets vanished, and they were blown to bits from the air and from armor.
Very well-explained, Sam. I was wondering this very same thing, and your explanation makes a lot of sense. It also explains why the Iraqis have resorted to “unfair” methods of fighting the war, such as using civilian clothing and hiding in civilian areas. They were getting absolutely massacred when they tried to fight conventionally. (I’ll take an Abrams tank against a pickup truck every time.)