War Could Last Months and Require Considerably More Combat Power, Officers Say

Great Debates
1

Fair use…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html
The combination of wretched weather, long and insecure supply lines, and an enemy that has refused to be supine in the face of American military might has led to a broad reassessment by some top generals of U.S. military expectations and timelines. Some of them see even the potential threat of a drawn-out fight that sucks in more and more U.S. forces. Both on the battlefield in Iraq and in Pentagon conference rooms, military commanders were talking yesterday about a longer, harder war than had been expected just a week ago, the officials said.

“Tell me how this ends,” one senior officer said yesterday.

Click here for full article

2

I’m reminded of the US military wobble a week before the Taliban caved in … IMHO, we know not enough (at least publicly) to make a judgement and once Saddam is out of the picture, or looks to be so, everything changes again - assuming the US public continues to be willing to pay the price of getting to Saddam.

Thus, IMHO, an awful lot hinges on getting the man and the human / diplomatic cost - as well as the speed - at which he will be … ermm … ‘apprehended’.

After that, it’s rose petals almost all the way to Tehran and Damascus …(joke, really)
A separate issue is ‘where this ends’. Does anyone know ? US forces still in Germany 60 years on … still n Saudi despite general Muslim anger … hunkering down for the long haul at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. … US forces still deployed in the four Stans …Some would argue that this is the US’s big opportunity to get that *big *foothold into Central Asia / Caspian region, and one imagines the Israeli’s would also be more than pleased …

3

Really, though, they have thus far been unable to muster a single effective counter-attack. It may take time to fully defeat them, but I think its pretty much a sure thing. They have no effective regular troops, and the Republican guard is too small and too far behind technologically. It will take some months to fully win the fight, though. Every day makes their position more tenuous.

4

I read somewhere that a US group of delegates looking for a ceasefire has gone to the Middle East.

5

I have no doubts that there is another war planned after this. Most of GWB’s references to a “long struggle” tend to hint that it’s not just this war he is talking about.

6

You’re not the only one. I don’t see how the coaliton can lose the war even with the forces already in place. The issue is casualties to the rear echelon, civilians, and the main combat units. That and mopping up regular Iraqi army soldiers dressed as civilians. We do need more forces to prevent the first and perform the latter.

The occupation is the trick anyway. General Unspellablelastname suggested it might take 300,000 troops to occupy Iraq.

The only way I would consider negotiating would be for a temporary cease-fire to get water into Basra. Since the regime cut it off, that’s a non-starter anyway.

We need to win, and quickly. I was actually surprised that the US did not really have a northern front. Given the free Kurds in the North, what is up with that? GWB could have waited a couple weeks–for peaceful disarmament and our allies in France and Germany, let’s say–to move troops into the Kurdish areas. If we had a real northern front the war would be moving more quickly.

I was also surprised that there were not some large units “unaccounted for” on the battlefield–without embedded reporters–performing some envelopment manuvers along the flanks of the units engaging in the South. Moreover, a heavy unit should have shot around the left flank out of Kuwait to hook around the aforementioned flanking unit to go straight–as straight as a fish hook–into Baghdad.

Instead, we’re ‘slogging’ straight up to Baghdad and beyond. It’s the fastest slog in military history, but it’s not what the US is capable of doing. I think the strategy is getting people killed unnecessarily. All in my humble personal opinion, of course.

7

How do you know there’s not?

8

Indeed, reports I’ve heard have spoken of teams of spec ops in Baghdad softening up the opposition, negotiating surrenders, and picking off who they can. I’m sure there’re many units out there that we, the public, don’t know about - which is how it should be. If the enemy could counter our plans just by turning on CNN, we’d be a pretty piss-poor military. :slight_smile:
Jeff

9

Turkey had given every indication that they would let us use their bases as a launching point for a Northern front. Unfortunately, the Turkish legislature apparently didn’t follow the Turkish executive’s lead, and there were insufficient votes to allow the US to use Turkey as a launching point. So the carriers and other ships stationed off the coast of Turkey moved to other locations.

As a result, Kuwait is the only country that borders Iraq and will let us launch from their territory. And, as you know, Kuwait is in the South. It’s pretty hard to have a northern front when all your troops start in the South. It’s a long trek to Baghdad, and it’s even longer if you have to loop around to create a Northern front.

Luckily, the Turks recently approved the use of specific corridors of their airspace. The US subsequently dropped about a thousand paratroopers into the Kurdish-controlled areas in Northern Iraq. These soldiers will presumably form something of a Northern front (although another possible role is to serve as a buffer between Turkey and the Kurds).

I think that your idea that the US wait a couple of weeks, under the guise of “waiting for peaceful disarmament” while we moved troops into Northern Iraq, is terrible. Can you imagine the international fiasco that would have ensued had American troops been captured or killed in Iraq while our government was publicly proclaiming that we were waiting for peaceful disarmament?

Plus, we’re dealing with a narrowing time window. The longer we wait, the more likely that our action will push into the summer months, when temperatures reach well into the hundreds, and even the native Iraqis retreat indoors during the day.

Debkafile [Note – Questionable source of material!!] is reporting that the 101st has done just that.

Regardless, I think it’s waaaay too early to pass judgment on the wisdom of American war plans. We’re 7 days in, all the battles thus far have been but a prelude to Baghdad, and we haven’t even arrived there yet.

10

There have been no coalition claims of significant advance for at least 72 hours, and it seems more and more likely that they are prepared to hold up for a while before attempting to enter any of Iraq’s major cities in force, although probes of Baghdad’s ground defences are likely to occur as early as tomorrow. How long ‘a while’ is is anyone’s guess, but I currently would put my money on a minimum of two weeks, until the US Army’s 4th Division has been remobilized to Kuwait, plus two-four weeks additional until Baghdad is secured. Just one spud’s opinion.

The wild cards I think are most likely to affect this scenario would be a) early use of chemical weapons by Iraq, b) additional bad weather c) humanitarian outrage over the privations to Iraqi citizens caused by a lengthy siege of the cities d) collapse of the Ba’athist regime, in that order.

11

You know because when a large US military division moves out it becomes public knowledge. There cannot be a huge armored division in Iraq without us knowing about it because they all have friends, wives, children, etc.

It would be possible, of course, to move the unit secretly within Iraq during a war. If the Fourth Infantry Division, now moving to theatre, was already there sweeping along the West Bank, so to speak. And another unit was, like I said, purely tasked on Baghdad. All that, combined with a northern front, and this war might be close to over. It’s not.

I agree that there are all kinds of special ops. going on in Iraq. They can many things. However, when it comes to taking down the large armored divisions of the Special Republican Guard, other than through air strikes, it takes “boots on the ground” as they say.

Armys of one are just a metaphor, General Franks!

Remember the military subtext to this operation. They are using a new flexible response strategy that uses less ground forces, relies on air power, and is supposed to prove that artillery and heavy armor, among other things, are not as necessary in the new military environment.

About that artillery issue anyway, without debating the merits of the Crusader, I’m pretty sure they’re wrong. Calling in an air strike, unless there are helicopters hovering around, takes a while. Artillery can be there quickly. Also, tanks or some progeny, will not go away for decades.

12

The source for this article is given as “some senior U.S. military officers.” Anyone want to guess who they might be. Opponents of Rumsfeld? Clinton holdovers? Officers with different military philosophies?

13

As for the rest of your post, I’m familiar with the Turkish situation. That had as much to do with existing air bases and moving heavy units and anything else. There was no reason to put all our eggs in the Turkish basket.

I already knew that the 101 was in theatre. They were one of the last to go. I’m guessing, but their role might be as a sort of problem solver. If so, then we just committed our reserves to battle.

As for the quoted argument, I think you misperceive the situation as it was. We already had substantial special forces working with the Kurds, in Iraq. Most people assumed we were moving regular military forces into northern Iraq, from what I heard on the internet and elsewhere.

Waiting a few weeks for disarmament just points out the realpolitik of military planning. Sometimes you do something for an unstated reason. Yes, Virginia, you lie to gain one tiny element of strategic surprise. :eek:

14

But we are flanking them. There are significant forces capturing and eliminating sites all over Northern Iraq; the whole region may soon be lost to Saddam. I don’t think he had any real force there.

Plus, going around Iraq with no supply lines could be problematic even for the US military.

15

Equating the fighting prowess of Iraq’s Republican Guard (God how the Bushies must HATE that name!) to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan is wishful thinking, I am afraid. The former is a real army fighting for their existance; the latter was a ragtag bunch that let amateurs like John Walker Lindh join their meager ranks.

16

Yesterday the government put a call for 30,000 more troops.

Today another callup, this time for an additional 120,000 troops.

Don’t expect a quick war.

17

Well, now we know who the real enemy is.

18

I think you are conflating northern front with a flanking attack. I’m saying, in a nutshell, that we should have come in with a force twice as large, or more, from Kuwait. It’s the oldest military doctrine in the book: if you’ve got it, bring it. Overwhelming force.

Such a plan could cost twice, or more, as much. CENTCOM–was–trying to fight the war according to the new doctrine. The insertion of the additional heavy armored division indicates that the DoD thinks it went in a little thin.

What a compliment to the troops on the ground, what they’ve accomplished in such a short time undermanned.

I’m with Duckster, I think the DoD is wisely going to pound the remaining Iraqi forces for a while before engaging any more large units with the units that have seen heavy combat already. Don’t let pundits rush you into getting people killed. If we need more forces to win, bring them in.

Posted just over one hour ago: I’m not the only one apparently

19

I’ve read these reports and I get the sense that the consensus is “Damn! They didn’t surrender without firing a shot. We’re going to need more firepower!”

This is just stupid. Not a single thing has happened that an underclass West Point cadet wouldn’t have planned for. You simply do not base your entire battle plan on the idea that the enemy will be lining up to surrender by the time you get to the battlefield.

It’s also stupid because one of the big things driving the U.S. diplomacy at the U.N. was the notion that the U.S. couldn’t agree to a resolution that would provide an additional month for disarmament because it didn’t want soldiers in chemical protection gear having to fight in Iraq once the weather gets hot. Instead, the coallition forces may be sitting in front of Baghdad for a month waiting for additional forces to arrive.

Brilliant.

20

This isn’t a surprise to anyone familiar with military history. Sieges of cities typically take months or years to resolve.