| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| 50,000 more US troops can save Iraq |
| 2007-01-04 |
| By John Keegan President George W. Bush is about to launch a final push in Iraq with a large reinforcement of American troops in the hope of crushing the insurgency before America embarks on a large-scale withdrawal of force from the country. The size of the force is commonly set at about 40,000-50,000 troops. The aim of this surge will be to inflict severe damage and loss on the problem-making elements within Iraq, including both Shia and Sunni militias, and to increase training of the Iraqi security forces under American supervision. The arguments against the surge are that it might exacerbate the violence without deterring the perpetrators from persisting in their attacks and that it might result in a sharp increase in American casualties with no observable gain. The arguments for trying a surge are that it is defeatist to concentrate on withdrawal from Iraq without attempting a final effort to make military force work. A major consideration is where the troops are to be found. Some formations of the regular American army and some national guard formations remain within the United States, but much has already been deployed to Iraq and it may prove difficult to find the necessary soldiers. Also problematic is the task of transporting them and their equipment to the fighting zones. How are they to be moved and where are they to be based? Despite the deployment to Iraq already made and the number of units and formations elsewhere in the world (specifically in Afghanistan), the US Army and Marine Corps still maintain a large deployable reserve in America. There should be no difficulty in finding a regular or national guard army division or a marine division. Its equipment could be transported in the designated huge transport vehicles of its C-lift reserve fleet, while the personnel could be flown by the vast fleet of C-5 transports. The obvious point of entry is Kuwait, from which the invasion of Iraq was launched in 2003. Military logic requires that any reinforcements should contain a sizeable number of armoured vehicles. Insurgents, though they have had some success in attacking tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, are not properly equipped to resist a heavily armoured enemy. The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation. Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates. The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action. The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias. In any case, the sending of such force will be a necessary preliminary to any reduction in strength, since it would be necessary to cover the withdrawal. Retreat is a complicated operation of war which paradoxically always involves far more troops if it is to be brought off successfully. The reason for that is that the spectacle of withdrawal tempts the enemy to interpret the time of withdrawal as an indication of weakness, and so risks infliction of passing shots and the launching of farewell attacks. It is vastly important to have additional troops on hand at such a time. The surge reinforcements may therefore have a dual purpose to cover the reduction and also to deal final blows at the source of the disorder prior to departure. American commanders certainly will not wish to leave Iraq, tail between legs. We may therefore confidently expect to see the number of American troops in the theatre increase suddenly from 150,000 to 200,000, if only for a short time. An important side effect of the surge for which Western leaders will hope is that it will increase the size and capability of Iraqi security forces, which it will be vital to include in the operation. For it is upon them that the stability of Iraq and its elected government will depend when the size of Western involvement is reduced. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #9 Keegan should consider retirement. 50,000 or 500,000 troops won't matter a damn with our welfare as warfare policy. If the US were bloody mined enough, 5,000 troops could control the entire country. Instead we've allowed western oriented Iraqis and exiles to be murdered (Ayatollah al-Khoei), run out (Pachachi) and marginalized (Allawi). Instead Iraq is entirely controlled by Iran exiles (Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq or Badr Brigades or Dawa) or Iranian agents (Sadr of Badr Brigades, probably Chalabi). Hell, even the Talibani the Kurd was just caught sponsoring Iranian agents who were teaching them how to make armor piercing IEDs. SCIRI, Dawa, and Badr with the Kurds ARE the Iraqi government. We've partially thrown off slavish devotion to the Saudi master manipulators only to become unpaid Janissaries for our most impplacable enemy, the Iranians. When the Sunni have been run off or beaten down so bad they can't be rearmed and used against the Shiites, you can bet the full attention of the Iranians and Shiites will be turned on our troops. All many Americans ask is can we get some revenge for the muslims twice trying to wipe out 250,000 American civilians and succeeding in killing 3,000 and gutting the center of our premier city? IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-01-04 21:03 |
| #8 "there aren't enough troops to garrison the whole area" is the core of the issue which is mostly avoided by strategists. Killing off the civilian population is most easily done by blockade, artillery or bombardment. Going after the sources of terrorism (SA & Iran) won't be done due to the oil export/import standoff. Maybe the Iraqis will save Iraq. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-04 19:53 |
| #7 We don't need no stinkin ROE. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-04 16:10 |
| #6 It doesn't matter how many troops if you don't have the will to use them to win. EXACTAMUNDO! The troops we have there already could make short work of the problem, given the free reign to do so. More troops in Iraq with the same "rules of engagement" and PC micromanagement = more IED and ambush casualties. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-01-04 13:38 |
| #5 "Traditionally, what you do to get guerrillas to come out and fight is to kill the population that feeds and arms them. That, and not killing for the sake of killing, was why throughout history, armies have ravaged civilian populations during their wars of conquest. Guerrillas have families, too. Go after their families, and they'll show up to defend them." Absolutely, positively Zhang. If the good general means what he says, we don't need more troops. We start massive attacks on entire areas of Baghdad with the intention of leveling it. No survivors. This will be effective. Just bring in napalm and heavy artillery. Put the troops already there on the perimeter and execute anyone trying to sneek away. Do you concur and support, el generale ? We don't need more troops, just more action. Your call for more troops only indicates your real purpose, more door to door hand holding. Let's reach a concensus. Either we exterminate these useless bastards or we withdraw. It's a clear choice. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2007-01-04 11:50 |
| #4 Article: Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates. The problem isn't that there aren't enough forces to take the fight to the enemy. It's that there aren't enough forces to garrison the whole area and prevent the enemy from showing his face. The enemy doesn't seek out our strong points. Most of the time, he doesn't stand and fight at all, preferring to plink (not very effectively, but that's his strategy - and it makes sense*) at our people using snipers and mines. When we come out in force, he just stows his weapons and waits for another opportunity. A surge in troop count should help, but not because they will be used in large scale operations - heck, we killed large numbers of the Taliban using perhaps a few hundred Special Ops people. * Traditionally, what you do to get guerrillas to come out and fight is to kill the population that feeds and arms them. That, and not killing for the sake of killing, was why throughout history, armies have ravaged civilian populations during their wars of conquest. Guerrillas have families, too. Go after their families, and they'll show up to defend them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-04 10:22 |
| #3 Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral You don't phueching say? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-01-04 09:55 |
| #2 the vast fleet of C-5 transports ? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-01-04 09:54 |
| #1 Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again. It doesn't matter how many troops if you don't have the will to use them to win. You demonstrate that will by removing the restrictions and interferences that you impose upon the ones you already have. War is hell. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-04 08:49 |