posted
Here is an article published this week at Soldiers for the Truth about the US Army's situation in Iraq:
05-05-2004 Guest Column: Iraq's Nightmare Scenario By Carlton Meyer � A careful reader of the limited news coming out of Iraq will discover the U.S. military situation is perilous and a few more bad moves could send the U.S. Army and Marines retreating back to Kuwait in the same manner they fled southward 54 years ago in Korea.� � That was when a million Chinese foot soldiers suddenly appeared and attacked as overextended U.S. forces approached the Chinese border.�American firepower, airpower, and technology was unable to compensate for the confusion and lack of supplies for American ground troops. � The main problem in Iraq today is the massive logistics effort required to sustain U.S. forces at over a hundred dispersed camps.�Over 95 percent of supplies arrive by ship, and the closest major seaport is in Kuwait.�This means everything must be hauled hundreds of miles over war torn roads among hostile natives.�This is far more difficult than Vietnam, which had a long coastline where supplies could be dropped off.� � A recent article by Tom Ricks of the Washington Post noted that most convoys are attacked, and that soldiers must stop to check each bridge for explosives because there is not enough manpower to guard them.� Other reporters tell of recently destroyed bridges forcing convoys to travel on secondary roads that double their travel time.�In addition, many civilian truck drivers have refused to drive and many foreign logistics contractors have left Iraq. ���� Many reports tell of ammunition rationing.�The U.S. military was not expecting a prolonged conflict, and drawing and transporting dangerous ammo from limited worldwide stockpiles is a challenge.�Senior Army officials told the House Armed Services Committee last month that nearly all the wartime stockpiles in Southwest Asia and on the island of Diego Garcia have been issued, as well as equipment stashed in Europe � a total of 10,000 tanks, personnel carriers, trucks, and other vehicles.�Only the Army's equipment for one brigade in Korea and the Marines' brigade stock in Guam remain untouched.� � In addition, the desert sand and heavy use of helicopters and equipment is wearing them out many times faster than usual.�This demands many more spare parts and shortages have developed.�Ammunition and most military spare parts cannot be purchased on the commercial market.� � Assuming the military supply and contracting bureaucracy can quickly identify needs and place orders, it takes months to boost production.�Meanwhile, generals must juggle budget allocations with semi-legal account shifts since the Bush administration has announced that it will not ask Congress for supplemental funding until January, after the presidential election. ���� Back in Iraq, U.S. commanders need more troops to guard supply lines and provide security, but more troops require more supplies.�Moreover, the Army is stretched to the limit and has no forces ready to deploy.�There are several National Guard divisions available since most Guard combat units have not been mobilized since 9/11.� � However, that would cause an election-year embarrassment for the Bush administration, and there is no money allocated to pay them anyway.�While President Bush often proclaims the nation is at war, he has failed to request a tax increase to pay for it and has become hesitant to mobilize more reservists to provide the manpower Army generals say they need.� � Meanwhile, combat units have been diverted for an election year offensive into the rugged Afghanistan mountains in hope of capturing Osama bin Laden, while the Spanish and other allies pull their troops from Iraq.�Finally, hundreds of heavy M-1 tanks were shipped back to the United States last year as the Army expected only light peacekeeping duty.�Only 70 are left in Iraq, while 28 are inbound from Germany in an emergency airlift personally ordered by Secretary Rumsfeld.�The 1st Marine Division brought none of its 58 tanks and was forced to borrow some from the Army to support recent fighting. ����� Americans forget the Bush administration had promised democracy in Iraq.�Eventually, they realized that since the Shiites represent 60 percent of Iraq, the country would come under the control of fundamentalist religious leaders who are likely to demand the U.S. military leave.�The United States is building four large, modern "enduring" bases in Iraq, and apparently wants to shift forces now based in Germany to permanent bases in Iraq, which is to become America's military bastion in the Middle East.�Iraqis are not fooled by statements that "sovereignty" will be granted on June 30th.� � All this means is that some new English-speaking Iraqi puppets will be appointed to represent U.S. interests.�While the U.S. military attempts to win their hearts and minds with billions of dollars in aid, Iraqis show little gratitude since the United States caused most of the damage with bombings and a ten-year trade embargo.���� ���� Sensational reporting by Arab television networks has aroused anti-American hatred throughout the Arab world.�The religious co-leaders of unstable Saudi Arabia recently issued a fatwa (a law) urging Muslims to use "all means" to stop what it called "the fierce onslaught" on Muslims by "occupation forces" in Iraq.�It "urges every fair person among Muslims and others in the world to denounce this fierce onslaught and strive by all means to stop it and punish those responsible for it," said the fatwa, carried by the Saudi state SPA news agency.� � This was not reported by the American news media, and the effect is difficult to measure, but worrisome enough that the U.S. government immediately ordered all non-essential U.S. citizens to leave Saudi Arabia.�President Bush further infuriated Arabs by announcing that he would not seek an agreement to end the Israeli occupation of Arab land, but will support whatever Israel wants to do.� ���� As a result, Iraq has become a magnet for young, adventurous jihadists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran whose leaders have begun to openly voice disapproval of the situation.�Iran has a population of 70 million, compared to 25 million in Iraq.�If one million armed Iranians slip across the border and attack American infidels, the United States may have to retreat.�Anyone who thinks this is implausible should read about the U.S. Army's embarrassing retreat from North Korea in 1950.� � Army Generals were extremely optimistic, dismissive of their enemy,�and thought airpower could always protect them.�This historical document: Staff Operations: The X Corps in Korea, December 1950�includes these comments:
quote:"It seemed as if the war was winding to a successful close. So sure were [Gen. Edward M.] Almond and his staff of the enemy's weakness that they thinned forces across the entire front. Almond told officers of one regiment: 'We're still attacking and we're going all the way to the Yalu. Don't let a bunch of Chinese laundrymen stop you.' That regiment was overrun a few days later, by Chinese laundrymen." � "[Maj. Gen. Charles] Willoughby asserted that a Chinese intervention was highly unlikely but that if it occurred the Chinese would suffer massive casualties to U.N. air power. This optimism colored the plans and ideas of all subordinate commands."������ � "At the start of the massive Chinese intervention, the X Corps staff at first tried to ignore it or downplay its effect on the corps' offensive plans. In response to the new guidance and in an attempt to react to the rapidly changing situation for which they had no contingency plans, the X Corps staff prepared a succession of orders, each outlining vastly different types of operations." X Corps and the 1st Marine Division managed a semi-organized bloody retreat from all of North Korea that was embarrassing and costly."
���� American forces in Iraq cannot be defeated in standard military engagements.� However, insurgents know the weak spot: the long main supply routes.�If camps run short of ammo and spare parts, they must retreat toward Kuwait and hope that the Army's cash-strapped logistics bureaucracy can meet the surging demand to save them from catastrophe.� � The Army must take five steps to prevent an embarrassing retreat:
Secure the main supply routes and establish emergency supply caches inside Iraq;
Develop plans to quickly abandon vulnerable camps in a crisis;
Avoid alienating the Arab world with offensive operations until the first two steps are accomplished;
Stop calling Iraqi insurgents thugs, terrorists, and criminals. That encourages poor treatment of all Iraqis by American soldiers and makes negotiations to end violence impossible;
Americans must not destroy Iraqi cities in order to save them, lest they find themselves overrun by irate Muslim laundrymen.
Carlton Meyer, a former Marine Corps officer, is editor of G2Mil.com, an internet-based research portal on warfare issues. He can be reached at [email protected]. Send Feedback responses to [email protected].
MY COMMENTS:Sounds implausible, you might say? The US Army retreating? Not as unlikely as you might think. This BTW illustrates a common saying among soldiers: "Ametuers talk tactics, while professionals talk logistics." As the article shows, supplying the forces in Iraq is an enormous ongoing task. In addition, the author shows how the desert enviorment dramatically increases wear and tear on equipment and vehicles. This was something that was learned the hard way in the African Desert Campaigns of WW2.
This to me shows the fundamental fallacy of the "pre-emptive war" policy; you have to constantly run your economy at wartime levels to sustain troop levels. This, it seems to me would be very difficult to maintain without having to shortchange other vital needs.
Another problem is that most if not all of the US Army's available manpower and equipment are tied down in Iraqi operations right now...what happens if another crisis erupts? This BTW happened during the Vietnam War too; so much of our military power was diverted to Vietnam that it significantly weakened our forces in other areas.
quote: The United States is building four large, modern "enduring" bases in Iraq, and apparently wants to shift forces now based in Germany to permanent bases in Iraq, which is to become America's military bastion in the Middle East.
This is in fact the main grieveance that Al-Qadea and other similar groups have had against the U.S.: the basing of foreign troops on Arab soil. From my POV, those bases will end up sucking more and more resources just to defend them against hostile Iraqis and other forces, never mind that supplying those bases will be a nightmare. General George S.Patton once noted that fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of men; these bases may more than likely prove his point.
BTW I highly suggest checking out G2mil.com it has a number of excellent articles in this month's online magazine about various topics related to warfare.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
quote: This is in fact the main grieveance that Al-Qadea and other similar groups have had against the U.S.: the basing of foreign troops on Arab soil
Actually, I think this may be the apparently unqualified support for Israel..
quote: If one million armed Iranians slip across the border and attack American infidels, the United States may have to retreat. Anyone who thinks this is implausible should read about the U.S. Army's embarrassing retreat from North Korea in 1950.
Hardly likely. Insurgents are not a well trained army (Or even the Chinese one) backed by a state, and Iran is not China. While China had no friends or possible friends in the West, Iran and the UK have relatively close relations (to the irritation of the US) and Iran knows that relations with the West are essential (economically at least), despite the rhetoric of some. While I doubt this will stop all Iranians from coming into Iraq, I doubt they will cause the headlong flight of Coalition forces. The attacks on supply lines so far have not caused massive shortages. Even if land supply turns out to be difficult, garrisons can be supplied by air; the technological difference between Coalition countermeasures and old Soviet SAM systems if far greater now than in Vietnam.
Ultimately, a fixed US/coalition presence in Iraq may be necessary, at least for a few years or even decades while they get used to democracy. In other words, the US may be finally oliged to take up where we left off...
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Actually, I think this may be the apparently unqualified support for Israel..
True...seems to me supporting Israel should not mean giving them cart� blanch� to ignore UN resolutions.
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:Hardly likely. Insurgents are not a well trained army (Or even the Chinese one) backed by a state, and Iran is not China. While China had no friends or possible friends in the West, Iran and the UK have relatively close relations (to the irritation of the US) and Iran knows that relations with the West are essential (economically at least), despite the rhetoric of some. While I doubt this will stop all Iranians from coming into Iraq, I doubt they will cause the headlong flight of Coalition forces.
Don't forget that you also have Syria and Saudi Arabia bordering Iraq also; while they may not send armies across the border, theere is always the possibility of trained guerilla fighters slipping across the borders. And yes, they may not cause the US forces into a headlong flight, they can pin them down and isolate them from supply bases.
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:The attacks on supply lines so far have not caused massive shortages. Even if land supply turns out to be difficult, garrisons can be supplied by air; the technological difference between Coalition countermeasures and old Soviet SAM systems if far greater now than in Vietnam.
Several problems with that, Wraith:
Air supply is much more expensive than sealift or trucks.
Certain bulk items are too heavy to be airlifted.
Airlift capability is limited; we only have so many aircraft to go around.
Airfields need a lot of supplies to maintain themselves; you''d have to dedicate a lot of airlift just to sustain the base itself.
Airfields are quite vulnerable to attack...who needs SAMS when a mortar attack on an airstrip can put it out of action for hours? I can think of several ways to make an airfield untenable. Also countermeasures don't affect things like RPGs and rockets.
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:Ultimately, a fixed US/coalition presence in Iraq may be necessary, at least for a few years or even decades while they get used to democracy. In other words, the US may be finally oliged to take up where we left off...
Problem is what we have in Iraq right now is not democracy; its a military occupation. True democracy will occur when the Iraqis elect their own leaders and control their own armed forces and economy; the US "handover" on June 30 is simply a sham. As for a US presence? US forces are the destabilizing factor as far as most Iraqis are concerned. only a non US peacekeeping force can really be considered in this context.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem is establishing a "peacekeeping force" that's actually going to follow the new government and not back whatever warlord or religous leader is the loudest voice at the moment. ...and making sure said "peacekeepers" dont immeadeately turn on the US forces, of course.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
This is in fact the main grieveance that Al-Qadea and other similar groups have had against the U.S.: the basing of foreign troops on Arab soil. From my POV, those bases will end up sucking more and more resources just to defend them against hostile Iraqis and other forces, never mind that supplying those bases will be a nightmare. General George S.Patton once noted that fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of men; these bases may more than likely prove his point.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
