Military Strategy Opinion Wanted: Iraq [Archive]

View Full Version : Military Strategy Opinion Wanted: Iraq

headscratcher4

4th February 2003, 11:05 AM

I’ve a question for someone familiar with military strategy and tactics.

As I understand the issues surrounding an invasion of Iraq, there is understandable concern about the difficulty of fighting in an urban environment…i.e. house to house combat in Baghdad. My questions to someone who knows/thinks about strategy is why invade Baghdad at all? If the rest of the country were essentially taken by a series of quick strikes, the outlying military defeated (or changes sides), the southern Shiites in revolt along with the Kurds in the North, and essential military structures in Baghdad bombed or otherwise neutralized…to the extent the regime attempts to hold out, why not some sort of modern siege?

I mean, couldn’t Baghdad essentially be surrounded and controlled letting refugee populations out, but waiting for desperate Republican Guards to realize the game is up and turn on their leadership?

Just trying to figure out what might happen next…

Doubt

4th February 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I’ve a question for someone familiar with military strategy and tactics.

As I understand the issues surrounding an invasion of Iraq, there is understandable concern about the difficulty of fighting in an urban environment…i.e. house to house combat in Baghdad. My questions to someone who knows/thinks about strategy is why invade Baghdad at all? If the rest of the country were essentially taken by a series of quick strikes, the outlying military defeated (or changes sides), the southern Shiites in revolt along with the Kurds in the North, and essential military structures in Baghdad bombed or otherwise neutralized…to the extent the regime attempts to hold out, why not some sort of modern siege?

I mean, couldn’t Baghdad essentially be surrounded and controlled letting refugee populations out, but waiting for desperate Republican Guards to realize the game is up and turn on their leadership?

Just trying to figure out what might happen next…

That is a perfectly valid question Headscratcher.

I don't think they need to enter Baghdad either. At least not on a large scale.

One way to go about it is to encircle the city, cut off utilities and attack key military complexes. Then you have to do some leaflet drops to let people know how to exit the city. Also a separate route should be provided for military who wish to surrender. After that, it will start to get ugly.

The Special Republican Guard in the city won't want to give up their human shields. This could lead to problems with civilians trying to leave. In addition, some civilians will have trouble getting out because of medical problems. Any pictures of starving civilians will be blamed on the US, regardless of the actions of the Iraqi military. Also the press will start talking about how we have become bogged down. A siege will take weeks if it is done well. It will take months if it is done poorly.

Also, the military in Baghdad will have small generators that are hard to find (1kW to 5kW units). You can also count on them setting up artillery near mosques and hospitals.

Some urban warfare will still be needed. Military stockpiles and resources will need to be reduced. Not all of it will be in places that aircraft can hit effectively. There are probably a few deep bunkers who are good targets for raids.

Urban areas outside of Baghdad may be used by units that are serious about fighting. Many could be bypassed, but if they are near a supply route, they will have to be taken. There will not be time or troops available for many long sieges around the country.

If we do commit to urban warfare, most of the action will be at night. Our night vision gear is not as good as seeing in daylight, but it is better than what anyone else uses.

Richard G

4th February 2003, 12:24 PM

That is where the bulk of the Iraqi military is now garrisoned. It is also where the military commanders, HQs, and the goverment head itself is located. Vietnam proved the folly of striking at the arms and legs instead of going straight for the head. The alternative is carpet bombing Baghdad into dust. Which way would you prefer?

Doubt

4th February 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
That is where the bulk of the Iraqi military is now garrisoned. It is also where the military commanders, HQs, and the goverment head itself is located. Vietnam proved the folly of striking at the arms and legs instead of going straight for the head. The alternative is carpet bombing Baghdad into dust. Which way would you prefer?

Iraq is not Vietnam. Different terrain, different culture, different history.

The fertile crescent is not a jungle, the population is not as patient as the Vietnamese, and they have not been at war as long as the Vietnamese. Once you reduce the Iraqi government to one city, you have completed all but one goal. Also, there is no route for a Ho chi min trail (spelling?) in to Baghdad.

A siege can work, but it won't be pretty. It just won't be as bloody as urban warfare.

Also, "going for the head" in Vietnam probably would not have worked. The leaders in the North were experienced fighters and would have melted back into the jungle again and kept fighting.

headscratcher4

4th February 2003, 01:22 PM

Besides, I would argue that Nam' was a civil insurection. In other words, the politics were very different. THe NV and the Cong could wrap themselves in the flag of liberating the nation from colonialism...in this case while there may certainly be some nationalist, pro-arab and anti-American sentiment, I am not sure that Saddam -- other than through extreme coersion -- can count on the support of much of the populations. For example, it seems to me, from what I've read, that the Shiite majority will rise up against Saddam once US forces are fully committed...and this time (unlike last, when we let Saddam) he won't be able to put the rebelions down.

Just a thought.

Mike B.

4th February 2003, 03:28 PM

I would think the best thing to do would be to try to destroy most of the Iraqi army while it was in the open. If they try to hold Baghdad, then I suppose the best thing to do would be to lay siege to it.

Surround the place, cut off water, food, etc. and allow room for population to get out...

No need to fight street to street.

And wait for the white flags...

Agammamon

5th February 2003, 05:30 AM

Whenever revolutionaries or invading armies take over a nation key governmental and communication facilities are taken over. This is partly to help disrupt the command and Control of the enemy but a lot of it is symbolic. He who hold the City Hall, Waterworks, etc. has a very strong claim to being in control in the international arena. Look at the Arab army's push into Damascus. The Arabs had control of the critical infrastructure of the city and the British Army ( which was also pushing towards Damascus) allowed them to keep it, albeit knowing the arabs at the time did not have the technical knowhow to keep the lights on and water running which is one of the resons the Arab Alliance lost the city.

Jon_in_london

5th February 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Agammamon
Look at the Arab army's push into Damascus. The Arabs had control of the critical infrastructure of the city and the British Army ( which was also pushing towards Damascus) allowed them to keep it, albeit knowing the arabs at the time did not have the technical knowhow to keep the lights on and water running which is one of the resons the Arab Alliance lost the city.

To which conflict are you refering?
:confused:

During the Suez crisis of 56(ish) a high ranking officer told the PM "of course we can get to cairo, but what should we do when we get there?"

If its demonstrated that Republican Guards who surrender are given quarter and treated well, the bulk of them wont wait too long before coming out- provided they are deprived of food&water for a while. Hungry, thirsty, outnumbered soldiers usually would rather chuck it in than bitter-end it.

Kodiak

5th February 2003, 07:58 AM

headscratcher4

5th February 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

To which conflict are you refering?
:confused:

During the Suez crisis of 56(ish) a high ranking officer told the PM "of course we can get to cairo, but what should we do when we get there?"

If its demonstrated that Republican Guards who surrender are given quarter and treated well, the bulk of them wont wait too long before coming out- provided they are deprived of food&water for a while. Hungry, thirsty, outnumbered soldiers usually would rather chuck it in than bitter-end it.

I think he is refering to World War I and the taking of Damascus from the Ottoman Army -- the Brits, I believe, were undre Alenby -- the Arabs had Lawrence.

Jedi Knight

5th February 2003, 04:35 PM

I shouldn't really go into this, but I guess I can. Here is the Jedi Knight way of taking out Iraq and making the United States look great at the same time.

The key to the game is keeping it sanitized. Isolate the enemy where you can and where you can't isolate them get some folks on the inside (the Kurds from the north for example) to head into Bagdad with you so you have a measure of opinion in the leftist global media that they are on our side. The world isn't going to know what Iraqi person is rolling into Baghdad with you--just make sure the world sees them rolling into Bagdad with you. That shows a level of planning had taken place before H-Hour and makes our military operations look credible (they are, but the leftist media will do everything it can to make them not look credible).

I would plan to avoid fighting heavily in Baghdad at all costs with troops on the ground. If there is to be fighting in Baghdad, isolate all commo in the city so Al Jazeera and CNN can't show naked US servicemen being dragged through the streets filled with bulllet holes like my pals in Somalia were. The US TV-population doesn't do well with that. I can guarantee you that Saddam is planning that right now and is putting all his primary troops inside Baghdad.

Remember, Saddam offered any of his AAA troops $50,000 (US) to shoot down one coalition plane. That is all that is on his mind and all that has been on his mind for years. Iraq has been hit over and over and Saddam really hasn't had the opportunity to give his troops a bulls-eye target on US forces anywhere. He is desperate for that type of press.

If there is fighting in Baghdad, make sure you have forces composed of Iraqis with you so that they pictures coming out of Baghdad look like the pictures coming out of Afghanistan (cooperation, unity with America, etc). The leftist media had no rebuttal to those actions. [reemphasized]

Now, I would send in air-mobile to secure all the oil fields immediately when hostilities began. Saddam is paranoid and won't have reinforcements far away from him this time. Securing the oil fields can be accomplished with airborne infantry and US Army Rangers since those forces won't be of much use in any other venue of attack in the itiatial phases of the invasion. Once the oil fields are secure, then you can shift those troops into the cities to conduct MOUT operations.

You can bet Saddam is going to torch some wells so have some folks standing by to put the fires out this time and not allow them to burn for years like in Kuwait.

If it is at all possible, try to keep MOUT to a minimum because that is where we will suffer casualties. There are 5,000,000 people in Baghdad and those folks all have grudges against each other in various ways.

Baghdad will look like Panama city probably as the populations who lived under totalitarianism are now free to exact their revenge against their neighbors and we simply won't have the troops to stop it from happening. If the plan is to relocate masses of people from Baghdad you better have your **** together and get them a place to stay and plenty of relief supplies because the last thing you need is a modern "Battan death march" with children in it leaving the city and heading into the desert. Send in crates full of rice crispies, cornflakes and other American goods and stuff the refugees' faces with them and get a PR crew to broadcast it live.

Iraq is governed by Satrap so take advantage of that too. Break into that Satrap and the entire system will collapse, making the internal populations ungovernable for a time and that is what you want to have happen. They have to understand the old system is no more. Get allegiances from competing groups quickly and tell those who are idle either they play or get left behind in the reshaping of the country.

Show Iraqis fighting to secure their freedom, not just US troops. That does more for PR than anything when Iraqis are carrying M-16's and smiling next to US troops.

Use smart weapons inside Baghdad to liquidate Saddam's troop concentrations and then a coalition of Iraqi-western troops to finish the job. Once inside the city win the hearts and minds of those that live there (no unnecessary killing or collateral damage). The people there do not have much--there is no sense taking it all away.

Once there is relative stability, get all the men hired into a police force and back to work in the oil fields. The sooner you get them working, the sooner they will put Saddam behind them as the bad memory it has been for the Iraqi people. They will leave that memory behind with celebration and the world knows it.

If you want to hear my plan on how to take out Iran, just let me know.

JK

Brooklyn Dodger

5th February 2003, 06:27 PM

I believe we already have troops in Baghdad. We wil hit it pretty hard to wipe out the military bunkers and deep facilities. The troops we now have in town will watch what the enemy does, and when they see concentrations forming, they will call in air support and reformat their hard drive.

US forces try not to fight stupid these days. Really.

neutrino_cannon

5th February 2003, 07:05 PM

One word:

MIRV

Just kidding

Would the citizens of Iraq fight against their leader? I dunno. Would a ground war be possible without any civilian casualties? Based on results from previous wars, no.

We've come a long way, from dresden to the occaisional errant smart bomb, but war is intended for killing people, and sometimes those people are civilians who did nothing wrong. Bad things happen to good people, especialy when there are weapons involved.

American

5th February 2003, 08:24 PM

Extreme deception.

Fake left, go right.

I wouldn't doubt if we don't know a good 90% of the "real story". We are such tools, and whatever you think about the war, whether for or against it, you probably think just what someone wants you to think. Hawks, doves, supporters, and protests all have a purpose, and it's not what you think at all. They all serve separate roles to support a single cause. (I'm not sure what exactly, but I'll figure it out!)

That's just my opinion, I can't prove it!