War Strategy

[Cyrus]

"Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe Turkey forbade the land passage of US troops after the war commenced."

Without quibbling about chronology : either way, the American plan was flawed, and it is now being corrected. At least, that's what they're trying to do.

See, if Turkey forbade passage before the war begun, then the plan was based on something that wasn't there! (Imagine the Kuwaiti government forbidding passage of troops!) If Turkey forbade passage after the war begun, then the plan was flawed because it was executed without having secured one of its basic assumptions.

Denying that the plan was flawed (over-confidence, over-simplification, lack of understanding of basic human attributes such as the will to defend one's homeland, etcetera) is at the very least counter-productive.

Central Command has to give daily press briefings and, thus, conduct also a "press war". The Generals cannot admit the plan was flawed and so they find themselves in a lose/lose PR position. Daily briefings, like daily progress reports in a business, can be shortsighted, awkward affairs -- and I should know, I'm in the business.

[brad]

'The Iraqis know we aren't going to use chemical weapons so what do you '

chemical weapons were used by both sides in the iraq-iran war. casualties were very high.

[Chris Alger]

If there were a tangible WMD threat we could have pointed to it and bombed it. My prediction is that they'll "find" some cache of CBW's, but nothing capable of really interferring with the war. The fact is that these weapons don't work well against a large mobile force prepared for them.

I believe Rumsfeld, that there isn't so much a pause as an inability to move forward as quickly as the most optimistc scenarious, but that we're not seeing anything the US didn't plan for. I suspect, but obviously don't know, that the degree of resistance might be indicating that "liberation" isn't in the cards.

[Stu Pidasso]

In Afghanistan we went in with a bombing campaign and a small number of special forces. For sometime the media and the world were amazed at how well the Taliban stood up to this constant bombardment. The Taliban were executing opposition leaders sent in by the CIA. The media was remarking at how poorly the war was planned and how badly it was going. It was looking as if the Afghans would have us tied up as long as they did the Soviet Union.

Then Mazir El Sharif fell. A few days after that it was complete victory of over the Taliban. We all forgot how we were once all in doubt.

Now back to Iraq. People are remarking how badly this campaign is going. Yes there have been some setbacks, but were only 11 days into this and we effectively have the Iraqi forces pinned downed. We have fewer than 100 dead or missing(including the British). When I watch and read news reports I think the campaign is one big cluster f***. When I analyze it with my own mind, I realize that it is indeed a well thought out and flexible plan. Things may not have gone according to best case senarios, but so far the only opposition our military seems inept at countering, is the impatience of the world.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

What does that have to do with it?

[MMMMMM]

"I suspect, but obviously don't know, that the degree of resistance might be indicating that "liberation" isn't in the cards."


And I suspect, but obviously don't know, that if you were an average Iraqi you'd be resisting too if Saddam's Fedayeen were threatening to behead your mother or sister in front of your house if you didn't. Alternatively, they might just announce that they have come to your village to execute all able-bodied males who refuse to take up arms to resist the invaders.

[Cyrus]

"If you were an average Iraqi you'd be resisting too if Saddam's Fedayeen were threatening to behead your mother or sister in front of your house if you didn't. Alternatively, they might just announce that they have come to your village to execute all able-bodied males who refuse to take up arms to resist the invaders."

The claim that the average Iraqi is forced at gun-point to resist the American forces flies at the face of reality --- and the historical record. The reality is that Iraqis are resisting in a manner that indicates that it's not just Baath hard-liners or local thugs or whatever. You have average Iraqis taking pot shots with age old rifles! Then at the refugee centers at the borders of Iraq you have the incredible image of Iraqis going the wrong way, i.e. from outside the country towards the cities, in order "to fight off the invader".

History has also demonstrated quite emphatically that the people in a country will, usually, tend to resist an invader and to rally around their leadership, even when the invader presents better living or political conditions than their country's. This happened when Napoleon invaded the tyrannical regime of Spain; when the fascist regime of Greece was invaded by Italy in 1940, another fasist regime (instead of general indifference about the two regimes, the Greek people fought with astonishing vigor and self-sacrifice); when the Nazis invaded Stalin-tortured and famished Russia and the Ukraine; when the Vietnamese invaded war-torn and Khmer Rouge-infested Kampuchea. And so on. This is what you will also probably do even if the United States of America is ruled by a dictator.

American planning severely miscalculated the nationalist element in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people they wanted to liberate. These folks are not all Saddam hard-liners, not by a long shot. Continue to deny reality at your peril.

[brad]

mason's theory is that US forces gained ground quickly to deny iraq the staging areas from which to launch wmd scuds and stuff, as they did in first gulf war.

i said that an alternate theory is that US forces gained ground quickly to secure the oilfields, and keep them from going up in smoke, as saddam implemented a scorched earth policy in first gulf war.

in both these scenarios, the pause in the ground war, after securing the objectives, is not indicative of any failure or misplanning, which i believe was masons point.

i was just addding to his theory, noting that it didnt necessarily rely on wmd. (obviously they can both be right; however, i was just saying that even if it later comes out that US knows that iraq has no usable wmd, he can still be right.)

[The_Baron]

The most recent UN inspectors documented unloaded, chemical artillery shells. This was even given face time on the BBC. (A delightful picture of one of the inspectors staring into a 152mm shell with a flashlight.) While these shells "could" be used for non-proscribed payloads, their basic design is such that this isn't a reasonable assumption. A projectile is designed from the ground up for a specific purpose. While some can be jury-rigged to other purposes, this degrades the design of the shell. This is even more critical in the G-4, G-5 series of artillery. Their superiority is profoundly affected by the design of the projectiles. This goes even to the point of a shell designed for delivery of VX having Lewisite substituted for its payload. The bursting charge, prefragmentation of the case, exterior configuration and base design are all based around the chemical properties of the agent for which they're designed. Yes, you can put mustard gas into a nerve agent shell, but don't expect it to hit your target and don't be overly surprised when instead of blasting the projo out of the muzzle, all you succede in doing is sending a geyser of shattered shell fragments and vaporized chemical agent out of the gun.
We also have to consider the budgetary constraints inherent in arming a military force. While they're comparitively inexpensiv e compared to precision guided munitions and electronic payloads, simple chemical projos are expensive. On the order of $75 to $300(US) each. This is without the payload. While this isn't a great amount, you have to factor in the total number of shells purchased which can literally range into the millions. You simply can't afford to purchase empty, VX configured artillery shells in the hopes that you can someday fill them. It's much the same as purchasing the chasis of a tank in the hopes of someday being able to build the complete vehicle. It's just too expensive. Troops have to be trained using either live or realistic simulated projectiles, firing tables have to be generated and published, handling and firing protocols have to be developed, published and trained. When you factor in all of the aspects of firing an artillery piece, the total cost runs into the thousands of dollars even if you amortize the expenditures.
While it's possible that Iraq deliberately purchased a limited number of empty projectiles with radically disparate lot numbers and manufacture dates, this would accrue significant expenses in and of itself as well as exposing the unusual purchase requirements to an unnecessary risk of exposure by the manufacturer or anywhere along the logistic train.
While it's "possible" the empty shells were all that was left, had been "forgotten" and not destroyed and weren't intended to be used, the odds are significantly against it. It's literally similar to expecting a king high straight flush to be beaten by an ace high straight flush playing stud. The odds are just against it happening. (Yes, I know it has and will continue to happen, that doesn't change the math.)
The empty chemical shells, the forward deployed chemical protective gear and chemical exposure treatment equipment, combined with the traditional lack of issue of those items in the current Iraqi Army, combined with the plethora of industrial facilities that are more suited to chemical weapon production than to their aledged non-military production, lead one to believe there are stockpiles of chemical weapons. Throw in the speed with which an empty chemical shell can be fully militarized and you've got an extremely valid concern for the presence of chemical weapons on the battlefield. (For whatever it's worth, having just spoken with an associate at the Dugway Proving Ground, the militarization time is roughly five minutes assuming the projectile is still sealed in its shipping container. It's literally a matter of removing the shipping plug, putting a funnel in the opening, pouring the agent into the case to the fill line and installing the burster and fuse... less time than it takes to fill a one gallon gasoline container.)
With the indicators of presence of the weapons, the forces can't afford to plan around anything but their presence and use on the battlefield. This doesn't even begin to discuss the political concerns inherent in the problem.
As for Bush looking like Johnson. Not really. The basic social factors of the various nations are radically different than they were in Vietnam. It's simply not the same. Of course there will always be people who want to find the similarity regardless of the rationality of that belief.
As for the US losing. Nope, won't happen. With the exception of some sort of divine intervention along the lines of comets striking the attacking forces but leaving the Iraqis unscathed, the Iraqis simply have no chance. They can't win. They don't have the logistic base. They don't have the level of military technology. Their forces don't have the skill and training. They simply have no way to win. An analogous situation would be a 12 year old, playground ruffian stepping into the ring with George Foreman at the height of his career. Yes, that kid could kick George in the shins and hurt him. Of course that kid could get a lucky punch in and scuff George's chin. But that kid is going to be crushed. He simply doesn't have the skill, strength, experience or even the body mass to win the fight.
As always, YMMV. But in this case, variance in that mileage is based on wishful thinking and deliberate avoidance of the realities of the modern battlefield. The allies haven't even fought at their full capacity. They're still fighting with one hand deliberately tied behind their backs and wearing blinders. An escalation of the allied tactics could literally leave nothing but smoldering ruin in the path of advancing forces. Fortunately for the Iraqis, the allied forces have agreed not to just crush their opponents. That can always change.

The Baron

[The_Baron]

There's a very real possibility that the deployment of the additional divisions was held back out of concern for the situation in North Korea and the risk of escalation in Afghanistan. While the public seems to have forgotten Afghanistan, it needs to be remembered that the Northern Alliance isn't our friend. Allies, perhaps but they still remain a threat to our forces. The availability of a number of readily deployable divisions is a significant deterrent to changes in their overall position relating to the US.
As far as North Korea goes. North Korea is a seven to ten division war after generation of air superiority. Those additional three to six divisions aren't currently extant but can be generated from reserve and National Guard components as well as IRR and former servicemen who are still under obligation. In addition, with the exception of immediate deployment of nuclear weapons by North Korea, combat in that theater can be developed much more slowly than in Iraq. It's a function of terrain and political boundaries. Once the current forces in South Korea are augmented and stabilized, the progression of battle into the north can be done incrementally allowing for use of massive air attacks and introduction of rapidly mobile forces such as Airborne and Air Mobile. Iraq "can" be fought out and finished by the tankers and cavalry. The Iraqi campaign doesn't "need" the 173rd, 82nd and 101st. They can be readily replaced by heavy infantry from reserve components and additional heavy armor if interdiction in North Korea becomes an issue. In addition, aggression by North Korea isn't likely to generate the international political disparities that have arisen from the Iraqi situation. Most nations understand that the Great Leader probably has nukes, probably has chemical weapons and he's crazy as a shithouse rat. In addition, Kim is a micromanager of near biblical proportion and a thoroughly ignorant amateur when it comes to military matters. In short, Kim is a thoroughly scarey individual to go to war with. The world community is at significantly more immediate and serious risk from North Korea's potential military action than they are from Iraq. The simple immediacy with which North Korea can deliver WMD by subterfuge into nations such as Japan, Taiwan and the rest of the Asian rim makes North Korea a danger that will be realized and met by a much wider coalition than in Iraq. Even the French are in a position to lose a lot of Frenchmen and a lot of French industry if Kim decides to go bug nuts.
While I'll agree that the delay is because of overconfidence, I can't agree that it's because of poor planning. Strategic pauses are part and parcel to any military plan. They're built in as contingencies because of the very real danger of unanticipated developments in the theater of war. Every leader from the fireteam to the DoD learns early on that you have to plan for times and situations that will make you sit back and wait. Even in the midst of a platoon level raid, pauses and "no-go" events are preplanned. If that platoon is halfway across the objective and the bad guys suddenly pop up with armor that wasn't in the initial intelligence, it's already planned how to egress the objective, pause the attack and invest heavier support for the attackers. It's basic, Corporal and Sergeant level tactical doctrine.

The Baron