Article

2006-10-05 Iraq

4 US soldiers killed in attack in Baghdad

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-10-05 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The difference between KUNA ("fighters") and the JPost ("terrorists")...

We have allowed ourselves to be hamstrung by observing political protocols - i.e. pretending the Iraqis have a "government". They don't. It's not. Gotta take the gloves off, using OS's cordon and clear technique as in Fallujah. If we're not up to that approach, then we should prolly withdraw to Kurdistan and start working on that Med port. Let the fucking Arabs kill each other - without any assistance from us - in other words, we don't give any more aid (arms, intel, nothing) to the Shias. Fuck the Arabs. Any worth warm spit are heading for Kurdistan, anyway.

Posted by .com 2006-10-05 00:17|| 2006-10-05 00:17|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm going to agree with .com. It doesn't seem to be getting any better. For a country with as much military experience as Iraq, it sure is taking a long time for them to get trained up. Compare the timeline to the USA in 1941.

Why should our guys die for a fucking religious civil war between people who have commited so much atrocities in the name of God that they diminish all organized religion.

Al Qaeda has had its ass handed to them. Why patrol independently anymore?

With air power we ensure that the civil war stays a guerilla campaign. That's all we can hope to accomplish. Everything else has to be done by the Iraqis, who so far have shown themselves to be a major disappointment.

We've given them as good an opportunity as any nation could get.

Posted by Penguin 2006-10-05 01:26|| 2006-10-05 01:26|| Front Page Top

#3 We're not doing it for them. We're doing it for us. We didn't invade out of altruism, but because we saw it as in our own best interest. If Saddam's tyranny had been no threat to us we would have left him alone (see Zimbabwe).

If we leave a broken mess in Iraq our enemies will with some justification claim victory. They will be emboldened to attack our interests elsewhere and everywhere. Fencesitters wondering whether they should ally themselves with America will have to remember what happened when the Iraqis trusted us. Anti-western ideologues will denigrate democracy and freedom as imperialist notions and the frontiers of liberty will shrink closer to our own shores. Al-Qaeda and its ilk would find sanctuary amidst the violence of a failed state, as they once did in Afghanistan and do now in Somalia, but in a big oil rich nation rather than a remote backwater. Our dead service members will have perished for a cause that failed, and that failure will leave the US more vulnerable than when the conflict began.

Leaving Iraq to degenerate into a nightmare of spiralling violence is no solution. It would be a terrible thing for American security and America's future.

Posted by Baba Tutu 2006-10-05 02:32|| 2006-10-05 02:32|| Front Page Top

#4 BT - I hear you. Then: Gotta take the gloves off, using OS's cordon and clear technique as in Fallujah. The Iraqi "government" is a clusterfuck and we are hamstrung and being bled by our civility.

I want to win - and that doesn't mean handing the Shias revenge and creating a satellite for the MM's. If we take Iran down, then a LOT of the shit will stop. Iran provides money, arms, and agents. Without them, the Iraqis will suddenly find themselves facing the choice they have yet to make: Create a country - a real functioning country worthy of the term - or continue centuries of sectarian stupidity and hate out of their own pockets. No money sure takes the glamor out of the game.

3 years ago I advocated that we force an American-style democracy and government - and I mean just what that says. I was laughed outta town. This PC thing, stepping back and allowing them to create a crippled bastardized Arab / Islamic shithole based upon the clusterfuck of Euro-styled slate bullshit hasn't worked out very well.

Deep sigh. Okay, I'm all better, now.

My posts express my frustration with our contradictory policies, foolishness for discounting the only democratic format that actually seems to work to the benefit of individuals - ours, and the completely fucked up results. I mourn each and every dead soldier in Iraq, including the Iraqis who aren't simply being tribal or sectarian tools (I presume there are some number of those) and I recognize the cost of failure. Regards the rest of the world, well, I have an interesting theory: their opinion only matters because we allow it to. If we didn't give a rat fuck what they think, then what they think wouldn't be worth a rat fuck. Heh.

Peace. Through no gloves on superior firepower. :-)

Posted by .com 2006-10-05 02:55|| 2006-10-05 02:55|| Front Page Top

#5 .com: 3 years ago I advocated that we force an American-style democracy and government - and I mean just what that says. I was laughed outta town. This PC thing, stepping back and allowing them to create a crippled bastardized Arab / Islamic shithole based upon the clusterfuck of Euro-styled slate bullshit hasn't worked out very well.

I've always thought that was the best solution. I am starting to move towards the view that Rumsfeld is Lyndon Johnson, but worse. Johnson was the king of the penny packet deployment - letting our troops get nibbled to death - via onerous rules of engagement that had them in a straitjacket, but he had 500,000 troops in South Vietnam. Rumsfeld had, at the peak, 130,000 troops in Iraq. Why am I not comparing Johnson to Bush? Because Bush has delegated to Rumsfeld. Which means that Rumsfeld is in Johnson's position. By having insufficient troops in Iraq, we are playing whack-a-mole in a game where there are dozens of moles, but only one mallet. This is why it's dragged on for so long - we are sending out squad-sized units when we should be sending out platoon-sized units, and so on and so forth. Rumsfeld should have expanded the ground forces - and its budget - when he had the political capital to do so, right after 9/11. But he stuck stubbornly to his concept of transformation, and our ground troops are paying the price.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-05 05:51|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-10-05 05:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Hmmmm.... I wonder what the death toll would be if we had twice the number of troops? Double? Or half?

I could go either way!

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-05 06:36|| 2006-10-05 06:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Leaving Iraq to degenerate into a nightmare of spiralling violence is no solution. It would be a terrible thing for American security and America's future.

Would the same be true for Iran?

It is not our responsibility to coddle every enemy we have to defeat to assure our security. It's expensive and there's no assurance it will work, especially with the primitive tribal societies of the Middle East. There's an assumption that these people are jsut like us, and at an individula level, that's true to some extent. But their cultures are nothing like ours and there's no way we'll turn them into Little Europes let alone Little Americas. Look at what we accomplished in a half century in the Philippines.

So the next time we go into a country over there I hope it is not to liberate the people yearning to be free but to devastate an enemy so that it never wants to see our military visit in BDUs again. Just break things, kill people and leave. Let's at least give it a try so we can compare results. It worked with the Native Americans.

I'm sure the MSM would not like it. We'd need Rummy II to say TS daily in the press briefings. But I'm not at all sure our security would be any the worse for it.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-05 06:47|| 2006-10-05 06:47|| Front Page Top

#8 ZF -- Response in two parts...

Part I - Rambling review and speculation... Well, I've thought about this troop level debate quite a bit. One thing, a serious limitation, that jumps out is numbers in a given MOS. We've been told that in the Marines everyone is a rifleman. Mebbe, but prolly not literally true. I'm sure there are specialties which don't get range time nor are they trained on every weapon. In the Army, I KNOW it's not true, but it might be changing.

I believe the rub is the mix of well-trained personnel. If you need a lot of trigger-pullers, more than the traditional 50% that we supposedly have planned for, then we're going to have a problem when rotation for downtime, terminations, deaths, and debilitating injuries are factored in. What's our rotation cycle, on the line vs downtime? How many qualified people can we be sure we'll have available at any given time? What is the max number of the right mix can we put into the field and maintain the seed corn for the next cycle? I think we probably need a number at least 4x the known requirements, more is likely, if we expect to maintain numbers and proficiency over the long haul.

People who have access to hard numbers can play around, insert live numbers, correct my mistakes, and I'll wager it comes out where I did: our standing force may not be large enough and of the right mix for the current types of warfare we're facing, although it might have been perfect for stopping the Russkies at the Fulda Gap. Do / did we have the needed force to cover the commitments we took on after 9/11? How much of our force was wasted - languishing in pointless posts (a shifting target, lol) around the world, Iceland, Germany, SKor, etc. Do we need a draft? No. Make that HELL NO. That creates more problems that it solves. We are doing it right, we're just not scaled up to what the real world demands nor have the right mix - more SF, etc. AND we need a force level with pay and benefits to keep 'em - something Bush and Rummy don't control, that can sustain our commitments. If that means beating Congress over the head to create 100,000 more slots, allocating more of the headcount to trigger-pullers, MPs, civil affairs, whatever, and upping the pay package substantially, I can hear the screaming now, well so be it.

Part II - What happened... What to do... I will brave your wrath by saying it's not Rummy doing the nickle and dime routine - it's a combination of things:

1) The situation we faced came upon us suddenly, i.e. 9/11. We started with a seriously downsized force where the most experienced people seem to have been much of the portion sent packing by the Clintoonians. The mix was probably wrong, too.

2) The insurgency had a solid safe logistical base because Turkey fucked us. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. If we had executed the original plan, hammer on anvil, and treated the Sunni Triangle to a thorough ass-whooping, as well as not having to zoom up the two rivers to topple Baghdad with only a hammer and loitered a bit longer kicking the fuck out of fedayeen along the way, I think the native Ba'athist insurgency would've been greatly lessened in size and duration. It would not have eliminated it, but it would have given pause to the tribal sheikhs who've supported and fostered the insurgency. It would've largely removed the logistical base for the foreign asshats who came streaming across to hit the flypaper, too. Fight with what you can carry is a shitload tougher - ask any paratrooper. Just my opinion. The experts can correct all my mistakes.

3) It takes years to ramp up forces that make the grade. We didn't have much time nor the headcount slots, anyway, when the shit hit the fan. We don't have the package that will "steal" people from the private sector. We get almost nothing but bright-eyed patriotic kids - not a bad thing, of course, but we have to keep 'em to make the professional force work for the long haul. I'm for doubling the pay and making the bennies good enough that the families are happy and safe, too. They are the largest component in having a soldier who's happy with staying in, I'll bet. I'm sure we offer them something akin to a shit sandwich, at the moment. That's Congress' responsibility. Congress will spend money on anything they figure their constituents really demand or will beat them up for not providing, such as armor and technology, but not headcount (without a ton of totally bullshit political braying) and certainly not the pay package. Think Rangel and the draft for an example of the politics.

4) This occurred simultaneously with the worldwide force restructuring - and expectations of how much and how quickly this might alleviate the manpower problems was probably too rosy.

5) We hosed it regards the borders - wide open for the first 2 - 2.5 years.

6) We hosed it regards to what extent Iran would go to undermine the entire campaign.

7) We hosed it regards the political model for the government.

8) Nation-building. For Arabs - never again. A shithole and source of grief? Fuck 'em -- break it and dare them to repeat the mistake.

Items 5, 6 & 7 are mutually exacerbating, IMHO.

Okay, It's very very late here (4:00 AM) and I'm crashing, so I'll shut up. It's where we are and why, IMHO. And no, I don't excuse Rummy or Bush, but I also refuse to lynch 'em. Shit happens. Bad shit, too. Our people are so fucking good, however, that we're getting by in spite of the bad shit. Next stop, Tehran and then 5 & 6, long overdue regards Iraq, get solved.

I've just re-read this and it's shit, but hey, it's late. My $0.02. BBL8r.

Posted by .com 2006-10-05 07:16|| 2006-10-05 07:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Oops, overlapped with you, NS - and repeated some of what you posted. Apologies, folks.

Posted by .com 2006-10-05 07:17|| 2006-10-05 07:17|| Front Page Top

#10 Rumsfeld had to juggle several pressing issues when he came back as SecDef again. One was the politicization of the top brass, to a fair degree, under Clinton. Another was the deliberate hobbling of our military capabilities post-Vietnam, when key functions were pushed down into the Reserves and left as people-intensive tasks. In addition, we were tied down in Germany, Korea, Iceland etc. to facilities that were expensive to keep, but which we no longer controlled for any real operational use.

The result was a military that was both tied to old cold war models AND tied to Reserves and possibly a draft for any conflict of any real size, AND hobbled by the brakes of the UN and most of NATO.

He started to dismantle that well before 9/11, with predictable howls and rice bowl defending. Then came the attacks in 2001 and the counter attack in Afghanistan -- and there his model worked well, until it was overtaken by politics.

Reportedly, Rumsfeld wasn't keen on a land attack on Iraq and an occupation. I'd say he was prescient on that. But it's not fair to lay at his feet the muddle thereafter. BUSH allowed the Collin Powell State Dept to veto use of ex-pat Iraqi forces to spread out to take control of key towns and gather intels. Bush allowed State to seize control of reconstruction and the heavily politicized CIA to conduct an insurgency here at home.

And he did that in part because of the political insurgency conducted by the Democrats -- and I use the term advisedly. Destruction of key infrastructure (intel gathering, for instance) in order to paralyze those in power and intimidate them.

The American public allowed this to happen. SHAME ON US.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-05 07:20|| 2006-10-05 07:20|| Front Page Top

#11 Do we need a draft? No. Make that HELL NO. That creates more problems that it solves. We are doing it right, we're just not scaled up to what the real world demands nor have the right mix - more SF, etc. AND we need a force level with pay and benefits to keep 'em -

Yay and Amen, brother .com.

Note that it was Rumsfeld who passed over a bunch of senior generals to put the retired head of SOCOM as Army chief of staff. That, less than 10 years after Schwarzkopf did everything he could to (successfully) keep special forces OUT of Gulf 1.

Bringing in Schoomaker as Army COS and putting a Marine (!!) as commander of Strategic Command (!!!), plus a Marine as chairman of the JCS .... These are the real Rumsfeld revolution. The technologies are just tools to support a much more fundamental shift of our capabilities to be more expeditionary, nimble, skilled, able to bring devastating force to bear in a pin point way, more knowledgeable about things like counterinsurgency tactics.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-05 07:21|| 2006-10-05 07:21|| Front Page Top

#12 Congress will spend money on anything they figure their constituents really demand or will beat them up for not providing, such as armor and technology, but not headcount (without a ton of totally bullshit political braying) and certainly not the pay package.

Spending for the GWOT sure went up a lot after 9/11. Where did it go? Congress sure added a lot of costly useless headcount the constitutent didn't want when they created the the Terrorist Stripsearch Authority (TSA). They could always shut it down as a source of funding. I have the suspicion a lot of money is being wasted in the GWOT on beltway bandits, powerpoints and mindless drones, and I don't mean UAVs. Bush has led poorly in this area. If the donks were smart, this is the point they would be making about the war, demonstrating how they would fight it more efficiently and effectively by concentrating on the tip of the spear that is actively engaging the enemy over there, not sitting on its butt over here.

This is a great thread already and presages what the intelligent debate for 2008 ought to be about.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-05 07:36|| 2006-10-05 07:36|| Front Page Top

#13 Great stuff, lotp - I only suspected some of what you know as fact. Especially the politicized Pentagon - not apparent until the assholes came out sporting their political agendas which just happened to be anti-Bush / pro-Clinton BS... Maybe a much larger (lion's?) share of gratitude for the turnaround from the insanity of the Vietnam Era to today's far more effective services leadership should go to Rummy. I've been giving it to Powell and Schwartzkopf, among others, up till now. Thx!

Gotta sleep and get back on a day schedule - my ~~master~~ friend will be back on Friday, lol.

Posted by .com 2006-10-05 07:38|| 2006-10-05 07:38|| Front Page Top

#14 Lol... One more comment.

NS: "not sitting on its butt over here"

That would be a trick, lol, requiring them to stand their drumbeat rhetoric of the last 3 years on its head. Not that this would be anything new for the Dhimmis... Lol.

Posted by .com 2006-10-05 07:40|| 2006-10-05 07:40|| Front Page Top

#15 Maybe a much larger (lion's?) share of gratitude for the turnaround from the insanity of the Vietnam Era to today's far more effective services leadership should go to Rummy. I've been giving it to Powell and Schwartzkopf

Be advised, the current SECDEF is the primary reason you no longer hear from Storm'n Norman, Powell, Tommy Franks, or many others. I'll give the egomaniac bastard no credit or quarter.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-10-05 08:06|| 2006-10-05 08:06|| Front Page Top

#16 Bobby: Hmmmm.... I wonder what the death toll would be if we had twice the number of troops? Double? Or half?

I could go either way!

My feeling is that unless the other side suddenly musters up double the weaponry and trigger-pullers, twice the number of troops means half the number of casualties. Whack-a-mole with insufficient troops means the enemy gets to do stuff unmolested while our troops are covering other areas. What our guys are doing is garrison work - essentially police work with JDAM's, tanks, Strykers, mortars and automatic weapons.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-05 13:33|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-10-05 13:33|| Front Page Top

#17 Interesting, ZF, and I tend to agree, but what about twice the number of "targets" for the bad guyz? More trigger pullers, sure, but also more supply folks, more convoys - more 'soft' targets, right? Whaddabout twice the "rage" of the insulted muzzie?

But I tend to agree.

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-05 14:42|| 2006-10-05 14:42|| Front Page Top

#18 You can sing the praises of Donald Rumsfeld all you want, but the man will be judged by the result. And so far, it ain't looking good.

Posted by Speart Flerong2904 2006-10-05 20:24|| 2006-10-05 20:24|| Front Page Top

#19 really? Who else prdicted th econquering of afghanistan AND iraq with less than 5000 causalties? 3000? STFU until you have a better paln and no peekies on Rummies'. I've had my fill of scumbag armchair QB's. As I recall we were looking at 40,000-100,000 casualty predictions. Anyone who can say they would have less with more success than Rummy can kiss my ass. None of this Speart Flerong2904 shit either. Have the fucking guts to maintain a nym so I and others can ridicule you specifically when your stupid projections fizzle. I've done it, why don't you, pussy?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-05 21:44|| 2006-10-05 21:44|| Front Page Top

#20 As I recall we were looking at 40,000-100,000 casualty predictions.

Wow. That's a lot. I don't think Rumsfeld could have predicted jack shit, honestly. He obviously couldn't predict the aftermath.

LOL...until I have a better plan...Sorry, I'll leave it for someone else to clean up after Rummy.

Posted by Speart Flerong2904 2006-10-05 22:01|| 2006-10-05 22:01|| Front Page Top

#21 Frank you don't have Nth combat jumps to every hotspot of the world, from every junker of a plane, fighting the good fight for 1961. So forget it.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-05 23:46|| 2006-10-05 23:46|| Front Page Top

#22 Hell Frank we've got veterans of the Barbary Wars and the XYZ Affair here to give us insight, I'd back off and take a lesson.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-05 23:50|| 2006-10-05 23:50|| Front Page Top

#23 i wanta hear bout ceramic balls form space!

well Speart Flerong2904??

Posted by RD 2006-10-05 23:53|| 2006-10-05 23:53|| Front Page Top

#24 we could run sum SOG missions outa I corp.

Posted by RD 2006-10-05 23:55|| 2006-10-05 23:55|| Front Page Top

02:29 PASSIONATE AMERICA
23:58 Shipman
23:58 Zenster
23:55 RD
23:55 Zenster
23:54 Shipman
23:53 logi_cal
23:53 RD
23:50 Zenster
23:50 Shipman
23:49 mojo
23:46 Shipman
23:43 Remoteman
23:38 trailing wife
23:34 Zenster
23:27 twobyfour
23:25 Old Patriot
23:18 wxjames
23:16 Infidel Bob
23:16 mrp
23:15 Ernest Brown
23:07 Frank G
23:03 Frank G
23:00 Frank G