The insurgent strategy in Iraq--its freakin obvious

[Blind Tiresias]

There was one event that lost the war in Iraq for good, and it happened before it even started and that is when Turkey refused to join us. This meant that all supplies would have to be trafficked in on covoys through
Kuwait which was the only staging ground. Right now all supplies (water, food, spare parts, ammo) have to be brought up through hostile territory that WAS NEVER SECURED. Even supplies airlifted to Baghdad's airport have to be distributed across hostile terrain to spread out troops via ground convoy.

THIS WAS THE PLAN PEOPLE!!! Saddam Hussein knew he could not line up his tanks against ours and win, so he sacraficed partially loyal troops on the frontline in March/April 2003 to make it look like he was putting up a defence of his cities so that CNN could get the video of American troops blowing up tanks.

Meanwhile, the real war was just brewing as Special Republican Guard were posted throughout the country near small arms and rocket caches that had been strategically placed all over the country for the past 10 years. Now they can operate almost incognito, shredding our convoys and attacking our quisling iraqi allies at will. They have the initiative to attack, the manpower, and the support from the populace.

How does this relate to Turkey, well the Republican Guard strategy is clear for anyone who pays attention. They place the burden of supplying the country on us. Now we must constantly replenish our supplies on the frontlines, as well as take over supplying the civilian population centers all over Iraq, while they live right on top of their supplies (being their home country and all) Then they incite us to commit large numbers of frontline shock troops (MARINES) to intense urban combat, which takes up supplies and manpower and then they simply take over another city and incite us to go in there. These cities are farther and farther north. Eventually American troops are stuck in the far north, without adequate supplies, while salvation lies 500 miles south at the Kuwait border. Essentially they are trapping large numbers of shock troops in the northern part of the Sunni Triangle, and starving them off, while sapping their morale. In the end, this invasion will be a military disaster. We will not lose like we did in Vietnam, we will actually be comprehensively defeated on the ground in Iraq if we stay for the next 4 years. Hopefully Iran will not try and take a swipe at us as we cut and run from iraq by trying to sink an aircraft carrier with shahab missle. As you can see I have no hope.

[slor]

1. Your statements are true but...

when the chimperor started the war, 1/5th of our invasion force was stuck on boats off the coast of Turkey, because they (Turkey) changed their mind (refused our bribe) regarding the launch of forces through their country, however, I do not think Hussein actually believed that bush would be stupid enough to start the war until they could be moved into different positions. That 1/5th of our force also happened to be our most mechanized infantry units as well, sort of the modern day "panzergrenadiers". So the chimp started the war with better equipped infantry units out of the game. Saddamn could not have known or even believed, for that matter, that bush would do something that stupid and quite frankly, that irresponsible.

[Blind Tiresias]

7. Let me clarify

The entire military strategy of the Baathist regime of Iraq since 1992 was to prepare for what they saw to be an inevitable US invasion of their country. You are right that their military brass probably assumed that we would never invade unless we had 2 staging grounds (Kuwait and Turkey) but this is irrelevant to the fact that the plan was in place to begin picking off convoys as soon as US armored units poured into Iraqi urban centers. But the moronic monkey and his idiot defense secretary have SERIOUSLY blundered when they failed to enlist Turkey is this foolish crusade. This massive blunder has opened up the possibility, seen clearly by Iraqi military brass in theatre, that they could potentially trap a sizeable number of American troops in entirely hostile territory, without adequate supplies and force a surrender, of course after several years of attritive combat. This mistake is going to lead to a humiliating defeat for the entire US military, similar to Frace's humiliating defeat in Vietnam (closest parallel I can come up with)

Furthermore a humiliating defeat can turn into a disasterous, nation-crumbling defeat if Iran were to join in during our retreat and successfully take out the mainstay of American military power throughout the Pax Americana, the aircraft carrier.

[slor]

13. No need to clarify, you are spot on...

in your entire analysis. I only wanted to mention that Hussein could not have known the way bush went to war (with a large part of invasion force on boats), though you correctly point out that this had no bearing on Hussein's fundamental strategy for conducting the war, and you are right, we are fighting Saddam's war, not ours. It is tragic to hear Americans talk about how the insurgents are fighting "dirty", that there is no honor in hit and run tactics, almost as if to say they believe the insurgents should face down an M1A1 on a street (OK Corral, Baghdad?) armed only with a RPG. How soon people forget the lessons of history, filled with examples of what is being played out right now.

The war also, as you state, has many parallels with the French in Vietnam. But strategically, I see a closer resemblance with the Battle of Stalingrad ( the U.S playing the role of the Germans) and sadly, it looks closer to that hellish scenario everyday our forces stay.

[lebkuchen]

2. Thanks for your analysis

If we can't even secure a ten mile stretch of road from Baghdad International to the Capital after nearly 2 years of occupation, I'm with you. There's no hope for any outcome remotely resembling success.

Leveling the sacred city of Fallujah and then glossing over that huge mistake with a forced "election" as we lose more and more control of the country with each passing day, divisions on multiple one year unaccompanied tours with inadequate armor and supplies, well, I don't see the US in Iraq beyond 2005, as the US public's attitude eventually catches up with reality. Iraq's people already know the score, obviously.

[rzemanfl]

3. At some point in the future

an American unit will be surrounded, cut off and wiped out in Iraq. It is just a matter of time.

I would not be surprised if sometime in the next four years we see a military coup in this country, or at least a military attempt on Bush's life like the one on Hitler's. I think Bush's faith-based military strategy is wearing thin with the people who are in harm's way and the officers who have to send them there.

This whole idea of fighting a government, not a country, was insane. You can't "liberate" a country that is not occupied no matter how bad its government might be. You can't occupy a country with as few troops as we have there.

[lebkuchen]

4. Not only too few troops, but an unclear mission

You can maintain morale on the auspices of 9-11 for just so long. The people of Indonesia have already started to move on with their lives, and look how many people that country lost.

No WMD, Saddam's been captured, Iraqis not responsible for 9-11, Fallujah's been "liberated"--your typical soldier has got to be asking, "Why are we still here?"

[rzemanfl]

5. The mission was defined back in the 1960's by a TV show...

"Mission Impossible."

[lebkuchen]

8. It was also defined by Bush's fantasy vision of himself, as Jim West.

[Blind Tiresias]

10. The are now 3 problems

1. Lack on initiative. We are sitting ducks. The enemy strikes us when they see fit.

2. Lack of manpower. Any West Point grad will tell you that Urban combat in middle eastern cities requires overwhelming numerical superiority

3. Most importantly, lack of supplies. No food/water hurts morale and combat readiness, especially when your unit has lost military initiative and you can be attacked at any time. Abrams tanks are formidible weapons, but without fuel and spare parts they are just scrap metal. This will get worse as the USMC requires more of these materials to "liberate" more Iraqi cities.

[lebkuchen]

11. on point #2

Can't we just whine and complain, "They don't fight fair!" and hope the partisans will change their strategy for our benefit?

At least we'll have an excuse when we make our exit with our tail between our legs.

[Megawatt]

55. That will never ever happen

No unit will ever be surrounded and wiped out - too much TACAIR over there - we operate in 3 dimensions , they operate in 2.

93 Rangers were surrounded by thousands of fighters in Mogadishu - they got out.

[Selatius]

6. We're not fighting Saddam loyalists anymore

Most of the hardcore Ba'athists are now either dead or in prison. Sure, there are Ba'athists running around, but then you have several nationalist fronts, Shia and Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, and foreign fighters.

At this point, I think the nationalists are growing the fastest with perhaps religious fundamentalists not far off, and Ba'athists and foreign fighters will largely remain a minority. People who lose loved ones in war and then decide to fight for revenge would probably join one of several nationalist groups or religious groups, and given that a scientific study points to 100,000 dead Iraqis, you've got a very large pool of pissed off Iraqis who are potential fighters, infiltrators, and saboteurs.

[Blind Tiresias]

9. they are not baathists per se

but the core of fighters we are facing are Republican guard soldiers. They may no longer posess any loyalty to the Baath party, but there is no way this insurgency is being directed by a bunch of "pissed off Iraqis" who have just lost loved ones. As much as you are told otherwise by our media, they are far too well-trained and well-armed to simply be civilians taking matters into their own hands. They knew within a month of our seizure of the major population centers how our convoys operate, how our checkpoints are set up, even the details of our vehicles weaknesses. They are also entirely too comfortable with the vast array of Russian weapons (AKs, RPGS, and other assorted nasty bastards) that seem to be all over the country to just be civilians. I agree with you that their ranks have swelled with civilians who simply hate us, but I dont think most of those people are involved in combat. Remember that any good guerilla war needs eyes everywhere to report the movement of enemy troops as well as safehouses for fighters to rest in between battles. I think the bulk of these nationalist elements for these support and intelligence wings of the insurgency, while Republican Guard soldiers perform most of the combat.


With that said tho, I must say that the people of Fallujah were simply ordinary folk that took matters into their own hands, much like the people of anywhere, USA would if their homes were threatened by Russian tanks!! But look at what happened while the USMC was busy leveling Fallujah: more convoys zapped off and 2 more cities Ramadi and Mosul infiltrated by Republican guards farther north...

[lebkuchen]

14. How much skill does it take to load a mortar round

from a donkey cart?

I do think the people the US military is up against are well educated, as are Osama and his followers. Take the medical student who blew himself up in the mess tent. I don't doubt that remnants of the Guard are helping to direct traffic, but I disagree with Wolfowitz that the attacks are spearheaded by Saddam loyalists.

http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2169332.php

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The fisherman had just decided to take up arms, and he shook with fear as the American convoy approached his hiding place. As he later told it, he fired a rocket-propelled grenade into a Humvee and ran away as fast as he could.

Nobody gave chase, he said, and in the time that has passed since that April attack, his band of seven guerrillas has slipped into an easy rhythm of attacking American convoys every few days.

“I catch fish in the morning and Americans at night,” he said. “Catching Americans is easier than catching fish.”

He wouldn’t give his real name, instead calling himself Salahuddin, the name of the 12th century Muslim liberator known to the West as Saladin. His account, which mixes verifiable facts with extravagant claims, gives a rare insight into the secret world of Iraq’s anti-American resistance, which has killed more than 60 troops since May 1.

He insisted he wasn’t motivated by any loyalty to Saddam Hussein or principled Islamic opposition to the U.S. presence. He said he was driven by what he sees as the Americans’ heavy-handed treatment of ordinary Iraqis during anti-guerrilla operations.

Military officials say groups such as the fisherman’s are behind much of the resistance.

***************************************************************
Or this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/970681.asp?0cv=OB10

(Bush) described the guerrilla war, still ongoing, as a battle against “terrorists and holdouts of the previous regime” — ignoring a recent finding of the U.S. intelligence community that the main, and most rapidly growing, threat these days comes from ordinary Iraqis, resentful of the occupation.

[Blind Tiresias]

18. it takes no special skill to fire a mortar

but it does take quite a bit military knowledge to direct an insurgency, in terms of recruiting and tactics. I reject this notion in the army times article you sighted that these attacks are being carried out by decentralized pockets of people, I strongly believe there is some command structure, perhaps partially decentralized, that is directing these fighters to conduct attacks. I am probably wrong in that civilians are increasingly engaging in combat, but the republican guard still holds a lot of clout in this war. Perhaps that fisherman is spreading disinformation of some sort. this is the problem in these types of wars, there is no good reason to trust anyone on the ground.

btw thank the idiot boy king for this mess...he's such an abrasive asshat that he couldnt bribe a NATO ally to simply act as staging ground for our northern front. Thus requiring tons of cash to conduct the largest para-drop of US forces since D-day. Too bad the 101st didnt have enough numbers to secure jack shit, thanks to poor planning. Ok im done ranting.

[lebkuchen]

23. It's not a rant.

I enjoy reading your analysis.

[Selatius]

19. Well, now we're getting into a discussion of what kind of skills Iraqis

have. Iraq's military ran on a conscription basis. It's styled much like the Red Army once was in the former USSR. As a result, a good number of Iraqis were in the army at some point in time and had training with these weapons. Millions of people probably went through the military here. The Republican Guard itself was not only the cream of the crop of Saddam's military but also the enforcer component in the military over the conscripts.

While I do believe we're fighting elements of Saddam's former security apparatus, I don't believe everyone else we're fighting over there has little experience with AK-47s and RPG-7s or with basic combat tactics, much less combat experience. An untold number of Iraqis are veterans of the 8 year war with Iran. This isn't like the US population where many adult males have little or no training with mortars, RPGs, and assault rifles.

Asymmetrical warfare is easier to learn than symmetrical warfare is because it is simply a realization of the superiority of your opponent. If he's big, and you're small, then he hard to hide, and you're easy to hide. If he's heavily armored, and you're lightly armored, then he's loud, and you're silent. A person who wears heavy boots, ammunition belts, grenades, radio equipment, etc. makes more noise just marching than a man who simply has one RPG and an AK-47 and is waiting for you to make the wrong turn. If he's well-supplied, and you're poorly equipped, then his supplies will be your supplies if you're short. The nationalist groups and VC in Vietnam became notorious raiders of US supplies. In effect, they began feeding off the opponent and grew stronger, while the US grew weaker. They used our own supplies and even some of our weapons against us. US convoys in Iraq have not only been attacked but also raided for their supplies, but I suspect there's also a vibrant black market in the Middle East as well as Central Asia and Africa to get weapons and ammunition.

Having said all that, I believe what's happening is that the former Fedayeen and Republican Guard are actively passing on their knowledge to the rest of Iraqis fighting and are leading some number of the attacks, but I don't believe they led all or initiated the 90 attacks a day against US forces. It doesn't take a Republican Guard soldier to fire a mortar from a distance on top of a US base. It just takes someone who knows how to fire one such as a veteran or a former conscript or even a non-military type who is willing to learn to fire one. All it takes is determination and a willingness to learn how to fight. That's all.

[NuttyFluffers]

40. try again, we are fighting a nation of veteran soldiers.

even scott ritter warned us about this, along with plenty of others, especially experts in modern mideast and iraq.

saddam had mandatory military service for the entire male population, they had a 9 year war with iran, they had a war with kuwait (from US implicit approval, sneaky bastards in our gov't) which quickly turned into a (very short) war with a world coalition led by the US. what you have there is a nation with easily about a decade of combat experience, an entire generation of iraqis who were not only trained in military skills, but often had real-life experience.

we are fighting a nation of veterans. we stepped into deep shit is what we did.

(basically i reiterate, poorly, what another poster has already said about iraqis being quite capable and trained fighters)

[lectrobyte]

46. Hey Tennesseean, do you think if say, Brazil invaded the US,

that the folks doing guerilla warfare against Brazilians in the suburbs of Knoxville would be leftover Green Beret guys, or just ordinary guys with a hunting rifle in the basement that the door to door sweeps didn't find? How much skill does it take to make an IED? Is there anyone over 40 or so who didn't have some geeky friend who liked to blow stuff up? Seems like you are giving Saddam way too much credit, I'd think any "Republican Guards" would be more worried about their own families, survival etc. than acting as a functioning military force at this point.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. the sunni's have nothing to gain

by cooperating with the occupation forces. It doesn't matter if they are former baathists or fundamentalists, they are shut out of power (and oil) in the post-saddam Iraqi mess we have created. They will fight to the end. We either will essentially kill off the sunni male population aged 16-50 or we will give up and go home.

What ought to be fascinating is exactly how we attempt to control the outcome of the Big Election such that al-sistani and the rest of the shiite theocrats do not end up in control of the occupation government.

Our Iraqi Nightmare has just barely started.

[rzemanfl]

42. Great screename.

Eventually we are going to leave Iraq to its own devices, it's just a question of how much blood and treasure has to be spent first.

[cmd]

32. People who lose loved ones in war - you nailed it there

It is the result of an uncalled for invasion. It doesn't matter whether the mission was for WMD or to "free" Iraq. When we began killing Iraqis, we created an enemy that will never give in.

[leesa]

54. We never were fighting Saddam loyalists. That's just what the WH told you

We launched an unprovoked invasion of a country and the patriots of that country are defending themselves.

[izzie]

12. It was lost before we started.

How can 5 or 6% of the world take over the rest. To many people will come to help them fight us and it is a type war we just will not get with. We like our toys and they do not need them.We are fighting an abstraction. If we take one lot they just more back and re-group. We have seen this before. When one way does not work people move on but Bush and Co will not. I guess they can not see that the costly toys will not win this war. Our way of life has moved around the world even when gov. did not want it but the people did so picked it up. It is hard to win battles of the mind with a gun. Something else is at work here.

[0rganism]

15. This is why the Bushistas are trying to justify an invasion of Syria

From a strategic viewpoint, having open access to the Mediterranean via Syria would be a godsend to logistics now and oil shipping later on. Arguably, our gov't supported Saddam Hussein to oppose Iraq's potential unification with Syria; now that we occupy Iraq, the shoe's on the other foot and the benefits of annexing Syria would be hard to overlook.

For his part, President al-Assad no doubt understands that he's walking a very dangerous tightrope right now. On the one hand, he can't like USians occupying his next-door neighbor, and the temptation to openly assist the insurgents must be significant. On the other, if there's any solid indication the Syrian gov't is coordinating with the insurgents, it's regime change time, baby.

And yes, it's a clusterfuck.

[lebkuchen]

16. As if the Bushies needed a real excuse to invade

We can bomb Syria, but it's not like we've got fresh divisions available to take over another country with a population of 20 million.

Check out this poll at Army Times. Even our military understands that we're not making any friends. The fact that the question of "improved image" was even asked reflects the Army's own view of itself.

http://armytimes.com/#poll

[lebkuchen]

17. dupe

`

[theresistance]

20. Just a few thoughts...

What is occurring in Iraq is RESISTANCE to a foreign occupation and is not an "insurgency" (and it certainly wasn't a liberation). France was liberated in 1944 because it was occupied by a foreign force (the Germans). Japan on the other hand was occupied in 1945 by the US. Therefore, the parallel of the invasion of Iraq is the German invasion of France in 1941. The US has occupied Iraq and like the French resistance, or Yugoslav partisans, Iraqis have a right to resist. American propaganda can put whatever spin they like on events but this is the correct historical parallel... the Germans regarded the French resistance as criminals. Like Iraqis collaborating with the US occupation, there were plenty of French willing to collaborate with the Germans. The historical comparisons are non-stop...

[LynnTheDem]

21. exactly.

And as you say, the US can spin all they want, but under law the Iraqi RESISTANCE have the right to fight their occupiers. And they are.

[theresistance]

22. Spot on

The United Nations have actually declared that the Palestinians have a right under international law to resist Israeli occupation. So the Iraqis... I couldn't imagine the UN saying this about Iraqi resistance?

[Karenina]

48. Americans need to know

how those troops they're "supporting" are being USED.

http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2109

[rzemanfl]

26. Good point.

I also forsee the possiblity of a "Vichy" Iraq (the 14 so-called quiet provinces) and "occupied" Iraq (everywhere else) with the "elected" government of Iraq in charge of "Vichy" Iraq and the army of our "elected" government occupying the remainder (and getting killed every day).

[theresistance]

28. Isn't it ironic...

That even the Nazis didn't occupy the whole of France...No such luck for Iraq. And what about Paris? Hitler made sure that the city he so admired wasn't bombed...No such luck for Baghdad. And what about torture? If it was good enough for the Gestapo...

[rzemanfl]

36. Actually, I think Hitler wanted Paris fought for and one of his

Generals wouldn't do it. There was a movie "Is Paris Burning?" and a book, I believe.

[theresistance]

56. I was referring to the invasion...

of France in 1940. Had the Pentagon planned Germany's invasion, Paris would have been hit by a bombardment like Baghdad's "shock and awe" treatment. Paris was bombed in June 1941, but nothing like any sort of a blitz. Believe it or not, it was Churchill that wanted the French to turn Paris into a fortress and fight for every street. At this, the French were aghast.

[rzemanfl]

59. The Luftwaffe wasn't equipped to do strategic bombing, in fact

as I recall, when the Germans bombed Warsaw at the start of the war they employed cargo planes as makeshift bombers, although I could be wrong on that.

Regardless of nuances of military history, Iraq is a collosal mess. The people who say lots of money, 500,000 troops and a draft could fix it may be no smarter than the folks who brought us Vietnam.

[morgan2]

27. Probably the best comparison

but in Iraq there is a much bigger resistance than in France. Maybe we should start referring to the Iraqi Governing Council or whatevr its called now, as Iraq's "Vichy" government.

[NuttyFluffers]

41. i totally dig the "Vichy Iraq" label, gonna start using from now on.

whenever Allawi speaks now or any of our other mouth pieces i'm going to refer to "Vichy Iraq."

"Allawi, soon to be coronated CIA puppet of Vichy Iraq, said today that...." has such an awesome ring to it.

[rzemanfl]

43. Vichy Iraq

Glad you like the label.

[newyawker99]

37. Hi theresistance!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[theresistance]

52. Thanks!

P.S I referred to the Iraq government as a "Vichy regime" as early as August 2004 on my website...It is a very apt comparison. It's good to see likeminded people!

[theresistance]

57. I meant...

1940 not 1941, when Germany invaded France.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KG]

25. the 'resistance' strategy is freaking obvious

the want the invaders - and their carpet baggers - to leave.

can't say as i blame them for that....

[rfkrfk]

29. likewise, for shrub's stratregy

shrub's plan seems to be...
lure terrorists to Fallugah, then shoot them
..
Don't believe the 'we killed this many terrorists' number.
Could be wrong for several reasons, or just a lie.

[davepc]

30. The almost entirety of the US force is air-mobile

You might off been on to something except you fail to recognize this point.

While its to the insurgents favor to lengthen and wear down supply lines, the fact is the US military has the airlift capacity to air supply any force in the country indefinitely.

Our ability to maneuver strategically (and tactically in most cases) far surpasses the insurgents. They're not "pushing" us north by selectively squeezing us that way because it offers no benefits to them and no disadvantage to us. The further north they get the further from the base of their support they get in the Sunni dominated areas (especially in relation to the Kurdish dominated North).

They're attacking us where they have localized momentary tactical advantage, then they retreat to wait for another opportunity.

Quite frankly with our superiority in fire and maneuver it is very difficult for the insurgents to defeat us in a battle, the best then can achieve is picking off a few stray units here and there, and they can not cut off any maneuver units of any consequence do to our overwhelming air power.

Their only hope is to grind us around the edges and hope popular opinion here in the United Sates changes far enough that we summarily disengage our forces.

The Bush plan is to not allow that to happen until the puppet Iraqi governments own military can take our place.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. you are right about that:

we aren't going to lose any battles, and the insurgents have correctly figured that out and are not allowing themselves to get lured into fighting one. However they will continue to kill our supply line forces, and no we do not and cannot move everything by air.

The insurgents also are obviously and effectively defeating our efforts to create an Iraqi army loyal to us. Game over.

Its a war of attrition and we are going to lose as we are fighting on their land. They cannot give up and go home, we can and eventually will.

Note that the rovians on the right are not idiots and are aware that the Iraqi Blunder is going to fail. They will blame us for the defeat. They are already working on replaying the post-vietnam spin, the traditional rightard excuse for imperial blunders, that it was the lefties and liberals on the home front who sabotaged Our Glorious Military.

[davepc]

34. Of course we don't move everything by air

its inefficient and expensive. But if we had to we could supply an entire Marine MEU by air indefinitely if somehow the insurgents were able to seize, cut and maintain control of our overland supply routes.

So far the insurgents can barely achieve localized supply disruption, despite their best efforts. They can not inhibit our ability to be anywhere within the country with any sized force at any time.

The insurgents biggest advantage is our administrations resistance to adding a sufficient number of Marines and soldiers to keep them as suppressed as possible over a wide an area as possible.

Instead we sit in 'green' zones and play whack-a-mole with our current force. We don't have any other choice, if we were to stretch our current forces further geographically then it would provide more opportunities for the insurgents to find a localized advantage and perhaps destroy a whole platoon or company sized unit. To prevent that we mass our forces, which means ceding a lot of territory to the insurgents. Every now and then we attack an insurgent strong point, but they simply slip away to someplace safer, and wait out the assault.

[Strelnikov_]

47. Supply By Air? Like The French At Dien Bien Phu?

Like the Germans at Stalingrad?

Like the 1st British at Arnhem?

The one constant of war through the ages has been that the instigators always assume that it will be short and work out to their advantage.

The one constant of modern war is the belief that cut-off combat units, during a pitched battle, can be successfully supplied by air.

There is no way that an MEU can be successfully supplied by air if they are engaged in battle, particularly in the era of shoulder fired AA missiles.

Look at the problems they have around 'secured' Baghdad airport.

I agree that 'garrison' troops, not using much ordinance or fuel, could probably be sustained by air. But wouldn't a cut off of land supply routes imply that their engagement with the opposing force is imminent?

[rzemanfl]

38. Air power has its limits.

Take for example the Battle of the Bulge when the weather kept Allied airpower on the ground, or Stalingrad where Goring promised to keep Von Paulus supplied by air. I know the technology is better today, but we still apparently can't keep our submarines from running aground (check today's news). It is also hugely expensive to do things by air, which is why the fresh produce doesn't come to your grocery store by helicopter, even though it'd be fresher.

If we got Iraq's military up to U.S. standards, my guess is that they'd attack us, not their own people.

The bottom line is that we were sold a bill of goods by Chalabi (sp?) and his ilk about "candy and flowers."

[mike_c]

49. this is only partly true-- we can air supply anything...

...but we cannot air supply everything, especially as garrisons become more and more separated. Air transport is not unlimited.

[Blind Tiresias]

51. not quite

OUr forces are so spread out over the countryside, that supplies can only be airlifited into selected airfields in baghdad and western Iraq then must be transported by road to wherever they are needed. Many of the random airfields scattered around the country were destroyed during the initial invasion, many by Saddam's forces to prevent us from using them. Try landing a C130 in the middle of the desert. The only method of direct airlift is via helicopter which is far more dangerous than on truck, and any vesitiges of railways are too tattered to work. The only method is ferrying supplies across hostile terrain, and those convoy units were not adequately equipped by our leader monkey. I disagree with you that these people are fighting a rear-guard action against our forces. I think you put too much faith in American airpower in defeating a guerilla war. Name any guerrilla war in which airpower proved decisive. It didn't work for us or the French in vietnam, the nazis in france, the french in algeria, the british in afghanistan or iraq, and it will not prove to be a decisive advantage in this war either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. No, supplies do come in through Turkey

it was just during the initial invasion that Turkey refused to allow American troops to start from there.

MOSUL, Iraq – On the Iraq-Turkey border, thousands of trucks come through the Habur gate border crossing as they travel between the two countries. So many trucks wait to enter Iraq or Turkey on a daily basis that the main route is often backed up as far as 50 miles with bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Some trucks carry supplies for Iraqi and Turkish businesses. Others haul construction materials, fuel and food for Multinational Forces in northern Iraq.
...
From June to October, 7,267 trucks crossed the Iraqi border carrying Multinational Forces supplies.

http://www.strykernews.com/archives/2004/11/22/soldiers_keep_supply_trucks_on_the_road.html

[rzemanfl]

39. Less than 7,300 trucks over 5 months, create a 50 mile

traffic backup? While your point is well taken, doesn't this seem a bit exaggerated to you? I don't want to get into an argument with the "Stryker Brigade" or any other Brigade for that matter, but this puff piece seems to strain credulity.

[Strelnikov_]

45. More Top Shelf Journalism

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. 7300 trucks with supplies for the forces

an unknown number of trucks with everyday goods going into the country for normal commerce. I imagine the border formalities and searches are long and tedious.

Another example:

Turkey's ambivalence toward the Iraqi Kurds is apparent at the border post outside the town of Silopi, which lies near the conjunction of Turkey's frontier with Iraq and Syria.
.
Border police allow only about 1,100 trucks a day to cross, a border officer said. The rule always leaves a line of trucks at least 20 kilometers long waiting to enter Iraq.
.
Turkish taxi drivers also make the passage across the border because they can fill their tanks - often modified for extra capacity - with cheap gasoline. A liter of gasoline in Iraq costs the equivalent of 4 cents. In Turkey it costs the equivalent of $1.40 - 35 times as much.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/border.html

[rzemanfl]

58. Let's turn Iraq over to the Turkish taxi drivers and get the hell

out of there.

Thanks for the information. The "Stryker Brigade" article doesn't make this at all clear.

[yella_dawg]

44. I appreciate your analysis

And I don't mean to oversimplify, but basically, the strategy the insurgents are using is exactly the same one they used to defeat the British. Melt away as the invaders head north, then slowly destroy them once they're spread out trying to occupy Baghdad. Worked fine then, seems to be working fine now.

Obviously Neo-Con education program does not include a course in history.

[rug]

53. Sounds like Dienbienphu