Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March-26th-2003, 10:31 AM   #1
Gary Sisco
The Bluegrass
 
Gary Sisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: no country for old men
Posts: 30,835
What Good's a Militia vs 21st C Military?

Army Failed to Anticipate the Attacks by Irregulars

March 26, 2003
By BERNARD WEINRAUB






V CORPS HEADQUARTERS, Near the Kuwait Border, March 25 - In
the days before the war with Iraq, the Army and the Defense
Department failed to gauge the full strength and offensive
strategy of the Iraqi paramilitary forces responsible for
the brunt of the attacks on American soldiers and marines,
high-ranking Army officers said today.

The officers said military strategists, just before the
war, had wrongly assumed that the array of paramilitary
forces would mostly remain in Baghdad to fight American-led
forces there, and would stay underground in defensive
positions in and near southern cities like Basra, Nasiriya
and Najaf. The American military is seeking to seize the
cities on the march to Baghdad.

But the officers said they were surprised at the brazenness
and scale of the attacks, which have left at least 20
Americans dead. "We did not expect them to attack," said
one top Army officer here.

Another top Army officer said, "We did not put enough
credence in their abilities." The officer said the military
had wrongly assumed that Shiite Muslims in the south
opposed to Saddam Hussein, who is a member of the minority
Sunni sect, would rise in support of coalition forces.

But the officer said the Shiites appeared to be too
intimidated to rise against Mr. Hussein in the face of the
paramilitary units, which include the Fedayeen Saddam (one
translation is "Those willing to die for Saddam") and other
groups created by the Iraqi leader to serve as enforcers,
spies and supporters.

Among those units are the Quds Army, created two years ago
ostensibly to defeat the Israelis; the military wing of the
governing Baath Party; and the Special Security Service
Organization, responsible for Mr. Hussein's personal
security. Army officers estimated that there were now as
many as 40,000 paramilitary fighters, perhaps more.

What the United States military failed to grasp, officials
said, was that the paramilitary groups - as well as Mr.
Hussein and his military aides - had obviously studied
American tactics in the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

"They realized our Achilles heel was logistics," said a
high-ranking officer, meaning that a large-scale invasion
requires an influx of trucks and equipment to travel Iraqi
roads.

The resulting strategy, an officer said, was "to wear us
down," to harass and ambush both small and large groups of
troops.

They said some militia units had left Baghdad,
unexpectedly, to move south to control any uprising against
the government, as well as to fight Americans, with
Soviet-bloc AK-47 rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and, in
some cases, Soviet-built T-54 tanks.

Officers said the militias, in contrast to Iraqi regular
forces, who are mostly draftees, are well paid, well armed
and well treated by the government. The paramilitary forces
range in age from 18 to about 30.

The brutality of the militias, which oversee internal
security and terrorize civilians, leaves them vulnerable to
retribution once the war ends. As a result, officers said,
they are highly motivated to harass American forces and
thwart a collapse of Mr. Hussein's rule.

One Army intelligence officer said the boldness of some of
the militias had surprised the Americans.

The other day, a member of an Iraqi militia, in what seemed
to be a suicide mission, walked toward a tank of the Third
Infantry Division, near Najef, holding aloft a
rocket-propelled grenade launcher, before he was killed by
American soldiers.

The paramilitary groups usually move around cities in
street clothes, on buses and civilian trucks, and easily
avoid detection.

Officers said the paramilitary forces had not only used
harassment and guerrilla warfare tactics against American
troops, but had also employed other techniques. Military
officers here were told today to inform their troops that
the paramilitary groups were changing street and highway
signs to dupe American troops and trap them.

On Sunday, a group of soldiers from the 507th Maintenance
Company, which is attached to the Third Infantry, was
ambushed by paramilitary forces after the Americans took a
wrong turn into the town of Nasiriya. The Army is still
uncertain of the toll. Nine are listed as missing and six
have been captured. Of those, at least four are dead.

Since the incident, officers at V Corps have been told by
their command that any American military convoy in southern
Iraq should be considered vulnerable to the paramilitary
units. Extra security has been ordered for every convoy.

"We probably underestimated some of the things these guys
can do," said one of the highest-ranking officers in V
Corps.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/in...b3585fd827395d
Gary Sisco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 12:41 PM   #2
Tanager
Hartsell Cash, 1924-2006
 
Tanager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 6,222
Add to this articles describing:

(a) how our ariel bombardment (again) has failed to sufficiently intimidate the opponent into the quick surrender that had been anticipated

(b) how the Shi'ites are simply too wary of the depth of our commitment to commit to any real "uprising"

(c) how there is continued simmering tension between Rummy and some generals over the size of the force committed and the speed of the committment (not allowing long enough for bombardment, not anticipating that Turkey might, heaven forbid, not allow us to truck troups across their soil).

IMHO, the effort by Rumsfeld to use this campaign as a testing ground for his pet theories about a smaller, lighter, more advanced military is a major factor in the setbacks/difficulties thus far. And this after all the grumbling about how the Clinton administration "didn't listen to the military leaders" sufficiently. Hah.
__________________
--
Tanager
Tanager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 01:53 PM   #3
Tom Storer
Registered User
 
Tom Storer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,161
Quote:
Originally posted by Tanager
IMHO, the effort by Rumsfeld to use this campaign as a testing ground for his pet theories about a smaller, lighter, more advanced military is a major factor in the setbacks/difficulties thus far.
Tanager, what exactly are these pet theories? I have been unaware of this aspect of things.
Tom Storer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 02:14 PM   #4
Tanager
Hartsell Cash, 1924-2006
 
Tanager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 6,222
Let me first issue a caveat: unlike Gary, I do not reguarly follow military goings on, so I am less than expert in these matters.

Having said that, I have read several articles detailing how, upon his taking office, Rumsfeld repeatedly clashed with the brass over military modernization - Rumsfeld is, apparently, a huge proponent of this, including concentrating on mobility, flexibility, and technical superiority rather than "overwhelming force". On the face of things, this doesn't sound bad to me (again, see caveat above). Where I believe he may have gone wrong is in the planning for the current conflict. I have read that, in the early stages of said planning, the Pentagon brass wanted to allocate a far higher level of resource capital (soldiers, armor, what may have you) than Rumsfeld wanted - he repeatedly pushed back and said, in effect, do it with less. In essence, if I read correctly, he contradicted what he saw as "conventional military thinking" and pushed the military into waging war with less than what many deemed an adequate level of resources - I am possibly leaping to conclusions with my "testing his pet theories" comment, but that is how it looks to me - a quick victory would have vindicated his less-is-more approach in the eyes of those same brass perhaps.

Anyone who knows more than I do about military matters is welcome to comment.
__________________
--
Tanager
Tanager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 02:57 PM   #5
FredC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It has always been axiomatic that Generals are prone to refight the last war and not anticipate the enemy's unwillingness to comply. Imagination is not a highly prized trait by most military organizations.

Tanager's description of Runsfelt's feelings are essentially correct, but many in the military agreed with him, but this is not the major cause of the present problems.
The military has been down sized to begin with, and part of the available strength is not yet in action due to Turkey's refusal to allow any ground attack through their country.
My understanding is that at this time only two heavy divisions and one light division, the 101st, are in action.

Forgotten is what havoc irregulars can do, a la the Cong, and the well known method of stiffening a weak unit by inserting some reliable troops to "encourage" the less reliable, as the US military did in Korea and initially in Nam.

Neglecting the flanks for a fast attack is not a blunder per se, Patton did just that in WW2, but the threat of attacking the rear support elements should be anticipated, another Cong tactic.

Wait till our forces get involved in a mini Stalingrad at Baghdad. Oh boy!
  Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 03:08 PM   #6
Brian Olewnick
Unflappable
 
Brian Olewnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 15,849
I'm assuming that at least one of Gary's reasons for posting the article is to counter one of the arguments made against 2nd Amendment rights proponents: that the idea of a well-armed militia might have made sense in the 18th century when such a militia could reasonably have stood up against a government force(foreign or otherwise) but that the notion was absurd today. I take it he's pointing out that it's not all that absurd given how much trouble these "primitive" villagers are giving the far superior US armed forces.
Brian Olewnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 03:09 PM   #7
Tanager
Hartsell Cash, 1924-2006
 
Tanager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 6,222
Fred: so you don't think it was premature to commit before knowing for certain whether Turkey would allow us to stage through them? Given the delay in shipping all the equipment from the Med. to the Gulf, it seems like we might have been better able to anticipate this as a potential pitfall and been better prepared.

But, again, I am not all that knowledgeable about these things...
__________________
--
Tanager

Last edited by Tanager; March-26th-2003 at 03:10 PM.
Tanager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 04:01 PM   #8
FredC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Tanager: >Fred: so you don't think it was premature to commit before knowing for certain whether Turkey would allow us to stage through them? Given the delay in shipping all the equipment from the Med. to the Gulf, it seems like we might have been better able to anticipate this as a potential pitfall and been better prepared.<

No, I fully agree it seems premature, but likely due to underestimating the resistance, again fighting the last war, together with overestimating Bush's international clout.

BTW, I doubt that you are as unknowledable as you'd have us believe. You might like to watch Tom Friedman's documentary tonight, see my "9/11 Revisited" thread.
  Reply With Quote
Old March-26th-2003, 04:04 PM   #9
Tanager
Hartsell Cash, 1924-2006
 
Tanager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 6,222
I fully intend to watch it, Fred, but thanks for the reminder.

And I agree with you on overestimating Bush's clout (or underestimating the level of antipathy he incurs).
__________________
--
Tanager
Tanager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-29th-2003, 07:49 PM   #10
Tanager
Hartsell Cash, 1924-2006
 
Tanager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 6,222
Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq

Fred, if you're still following this thread, here is the dispute to which I was referring. If the writer of the article discussed (Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker) is to be believed, Rummy's testy relations with the Pentagon brass continue.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._usa_report_dc

Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon (news - web sites) planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq (news - web sites), New Yorker Magazine reported.



In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.


"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."


It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.


"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.


A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article.


Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war.


He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait.


Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.


Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.


"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.


The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory.


Some 125,000 U.S. and British troops are now in Iraq. U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to bring in another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April.
__________________
--
Tanager

Last edited by Tanager; March-29th-2003 at 07:50 PM.
Tanager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March-30th-2003, 07:06 AM   #11
FredC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The article makes sense to me, if somewhat on the pessimistic side. Stalemate is a bit strong.
If we take off the kid gloves, and I am NOT suggesting use of nukes, and play the real war game, being willing to accept whatever collateral damage that occurs, as well as accepting higher casualties of our own, our forces as they stand can take them out, but the political fall out home and abroad in the Muslim world most likely would prove unacceptable.
As to the ammo supply, who knows, it is not infinite, but after a time you run out of worthwhile targets in any case. One hopes judgement allowed for rationing.

The civilian hawks are now shielding Dubbya, claiming they did not let the early naysaying get through to him. If so they should be fired, but they won't be.

Certainly expecting two heavy divisions, one light division, and one (Brit) armored brigade to do the job was overly optimistic, at best, along with all the while expecting the Turks, French, Germans, and the Muslim world to roll over just because the US expected it, was wishful thinking of pure folly class.

Idealogues of any stripe, pols, military, economic, moralistic, or whatever are always of the "If I believe it, it must be so. Don't bother me with facts to the contrary" breed. They KNOW!
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All material copyright 2009 jazzcorner.com