Iraq: In all but name, the war's on

Iraq: In all but name, the war's on
By Marc Erikson

How do you tell a war has begun? This is not the 17th or 18th century. There are no highfalutin' declarations. Troops don't line up in eyesight of each other. There are no drum rolls and bugle calls, no calls of "Chaaa...rge!". When did the Vietnam War begin? When, for that matter, World War I? When mobilizations were ordered setting in motion irreversible chains of events or at the time of the formal declarations of war?

The lines of battle and the timelines to overt battle and full-scale combat have become fluid. Consider this: At the beginning of this year, when US President George W Bush started talking ever more in earnest about taking out Saddam Hussein and signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple the Iraqi president, including authority to use lethal force to capture him, the US and putative ally Britain had approximately 50,000 troops deployed in the region around Iraq.

By now, this number has grown to over 100,000, not counting soldiers of and on naval units in the vicinity. It's been a build-up without much fanfare, accelerating since March and accelerating further since June. And these troops are not just sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs while waiting for orders to act out some type of D-Day drama. Several thousand are already in Iraq. They are gradually closing in and rattling Saddam's cage. In effect, the war has begun.

For sticklers for details, here are some numbers and locations of the allied troop build-up gathered from local sources in the various countries where US and British forces deploy or from open allied sources: Prior to the past seven months' troop movements, there were 25,000 US troops (army, air force) in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates and some 20,000 British troops, mainly in Oman.

Since March, 12,000 US troops have been added to Kuwait (8,000) and Qatar (4,000) and 5,000 Brits to Oman, bringing the April/May total to 62,000. In late June, the Turkish foreign ministry reported heavy air traffic of US military transport planes aimed at increasing the number of US troops in southern Turkey from 7,000 to 25,000 by the end of July. Also in June, a contingent of 1,700 British Royal Marines were re-deployed from Afghanistan to Kuwait and a 250-man, highly-specialized German NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare battalion equipped with "Fuchs" (fox) armored vehicles has been in Kuwait since early this year.

An additional 2,400 US troops are deployed in Jordan and, according to Jordanian news agency Petra, are being reinforced by another 4,000 arriving since August 12 at Aqaba for joint exercises with the Jordanian army. Already, 1,800 US troops (mostly Special Forces) are inside Iraq, at least since the end of March and, in fact, units there were visited two months ago by CIA director George Tenet during a side trip from Israel and Palestine. Another 2,000-3,000 US troops are in semi-permanent deployment in the Negev and Sinai deserts in accordance with old international agreements. On August 9, the Turkish daily Hurriyet reported that 5,000 Turkish troops had entered northern Iraq and taken over the Bamerni air base north of Mosul. These numbers add up to about 105,000 US and allied troops on bases surrounding and inside Iraq.

The number of US and British aircraft in the region (land-based and on three US and one British carrier) cannot be determined with any real precision. But they greatly outnumber Iraqi air forces (not to speak of their vast qualitative superiority) and are in the process of being reinforced. Munitions and equipment for German Tornado fighters have been pre-positioned in Turkey.

The Saudi announcement of August 7 that US forces will not be permitted to use Saudi bases for an attack on Iraq causes the US military no major headache. The US has quietly moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar from Saudi Arabia in recent months. Further, construction of a large new military camp in Kuwait has just been completed. Allied ground troops, air forces and naval units now on hand are sufficient to carry the fight to Iraq from a virtual stand-still, certainly sufficient for the "small-war scenario" (75-100,000 troops) on which US Central Command chief General Tommy Franks briefed George Bush on August 6.

What are these allied forces up against? As the head of the US Defense Policy Board Richard Perle put it succinctly the other day, Iraq today has one third of its 1990-91 capabilities, "but it's the same third, just 11 years older". That's something of a characteristic exaggeration by the "Prince of Darkness", but not by very much. Iraqi ground forces now number 375,000, less than 40 percent of their 1990 pre-Gulf-War strength. Of that number, 70,000 are in the Republican Guard (half of the 1990 strength) and another 25,000 in the Baghdad-based Special Republican Guard assigned exclusively to protecting Saddam Hussein and maintaining political control in the city (no other troops are allowed in). The remaining 280,000-man regular army has major morale problems and is made up largely of unwilling conscripts, many from the oppressed Shi'ite population, who consider themselves ethnic Iranians rather than Arabs.

Principal equipment is 2,200 tanks of Soviet-era vintage (including a few hundred T-72s) and 1,900 artillery pieces. The Iraqi air force is reduced to 130 attack aircraft and 180 jet fighters, but only about 90 of the latter are combat ready at any given time. The navy no longer exists.

Iraq's anti-aircraft defenses consist of some 120 batteries dispersed around the country, and are as technologically degraded as the rest of Iraq's rusting arsenal. The number of Scud missiles is between a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 36. Of these, between six and 16 are Scud-B (Al-Husayn) with a range of 600 kilometers. The remainder are plain Scuds with a 300-kilometer range. The Scud-B missiles are the only ones that pose problems because they can reach targets outside Iraq. They are very inaccurate, however, and have numerous serious technical problems. The biggest of these is that they tend to break up during their descent phase. Their theoretical accuracy is 3,000 meters CEP (Circular Error Probability). This makes them militarily useless, and useful only for terrorizing urban populations if warheads contain chemical or biological agents.

Ongoing actions by US and allied forces around and in Iraq in part are in line with guidelines provided in Bush's presidential order to oust Saddam:

But in part the actions go well beyond that. In Kurdish Iraq - according to Israeli sources - US army engineers are working around the clock to build a series of six to eight airstrips to serve fighter planes and helicopters that will provide air cover for invading ground forces. The airfields are strung along a western axis from the city of Zako southwest to the city of Sinjar; a central axis from Zako south to Arbil; and an eastern axis from Arbil to Sulimaniyeh.

Special Forces teams are involved in on-the-ground military target identification, mapping out Scud and anti-aircraft battery locations. They are also helping set up, equip and train Kurdish militias and are cooperating closely with Turkish counterparts engaged in the same activities in Turkoman regions.

US and British aircraft are probing Iraqi defenses beyond the no-fly zones close to Baghdad. On August 6, they destroyed the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib in the desert between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The center is wired to fiber optic networks installed last year by Chinese companies. New types of precision-guided bombs disabled the fiber optic system. The broad aim of recent bombing runs is to thoroughly disrupt Iraqi command, control and communications functions.

In light of these developments, the various "war plans" bandied about in the US press - with the New York Times and the Washington Post trying to outdo each other with the latest scoops - are largely irrelevant as such, whether it's the "Northern Alliance Option" (US troops and intelligence personnel aiding an attack by opposition forces); the original "Franks Plan" (massed attack involving some 250,000 troops); the "inside-out" approach (commando attacks on Baghdad and key Iraqi command centers first, followed by mopping-up action); or the "status-quo" or "do-nothing" option of continued containment of Saddam. Elements of all of these scenarios will eventually be seen as having been incorporated in the removal of the Iraqi leader.

Equally irrelevant is speculation on the timing (September/October for the sake of surprise? January/February a la Gulf War to avoid the desert heat?) of "the" allied attack. Attacks of various kinds are ongoing. Their intensity and intrusiveness can increase at any time ... or decrease again. It's a game of options and contingencies, backed by ever increasing material capabilities; perhaps a game of prodding Saddam into a tactical mistake or a flight-forward reaction. Earlier this year, a British journalist asked Bush how exactly he was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He replied, "Wait and see." The journalist, like many of his colleagues, may well still be waiting - for lack of ability to see that the war is on. Some high-speed, high-intensity strikes may later be called "The Iraq War", but it began no later than March.

Interesting article.

Yes it was. I note that some stuff that surfaced in a DEBKA article last week is in there.

But you know, if this all this is true... Dubya will go down as the shrewdest Commander in Chief of all time. I rack my brain to think of an instance in our history of more ingenious subterfuge and keeping a mission quiet- perhaps D-Day? If this is true- it is just simply brilliant. It will mark a turning point in US global military might. A point where we simply transcended any nation's ability to deter us in what we wish to accomplish. We are so thoroughly more advanced than any other society- it's almost scary to think about. And we are only just beginning to realize our power.

Is there any confirmation from other sources that there are American combat forces in Iraq?

I'm not sure, but if this piece is accurate (and it appears that at least part of it is), then we've got a monster due REAL soon.

I keep reminding everyone that the next new moon is September 7. For those that don't realize, a new moon is the best timeframe to launch a nighttime attack, as the glare of the moon off of the sand is minimized to the fullest extent.

The signals are all there...

As more of a case is made for this invasion I hope the admistration keeps up with the number of opponants who seem to be on the TV and other media daily.I thought some of Secretary Rumsfeld's anaolgies were right on the mark. They might even try the quote on Rush Limbaughs web sight about the poisoning of the dog.To think of that video, not as the poisoning of an animal.But to think of it as a human being a member of your family.Because they were testing it to find out how well it kills people!

How many of troops in the region are actually combat troops?

That, in this day and age is becoming a moot point. How to compare 1,000 American combat soldiers and what they bring to the battlefield and 1,000 Iraqi combat troops? The support element is a major factor in what makes the American soldier more effective than 10 of his enemy. A Division is a Division. It has more suport troops than combat but its effectiveness, measured by devestation on the battlefield is not even in the same league as a Division of the enemy. A handful of SpecOps men with satellite uplinks can reek more havoc than an enemy Division. The biggest obstacle in war is always logistics. Even if these numbers are only referring to support/logistics troops, it would indicate that we have already won most of the war. Once all the stategic infrastructure is in place, the combat troops would be able to quickly move in and take their place on the tactical battlefield.

The media has missed the boat on this one. These reports we get weekly of "Coalition Planes" destroying targets in Iraq, this is war. It is low key and who is to say whether or not SpecOps were on the ground pointing a laser targeting device at the target or not? It has already begun, of this there is no doubt. The only question is, how many troops are there and what exactly are our plans?

Decision Time: The Iraq question.

Posted by ScreamingFist to aristeides
On News/Activism Aug 14 2:47 PM #19 of 23

Exactly
I figure it’ll work something like this.

The Turks are going to contain and hold Northern Iraq, also known as Kurdistan, against any tanks or infantry saddam can dig up and throw to the North. They’ll be supported by the Turkish air force as well as the USAF out of Incirlik AB in southern Turkiya. U.S. Special Forces and Army Mountain troops, supported by the Turks, push to the limit of the Northern No-Fly zone and secure it. This allows the Turks to control Northern Iraq, which will be their buffer zone after the regime change.

At the same time US troops, who just happen to be conveniently located in Jordan as we speak, will move to the Jordanian border to secure and defend, as well as give forward operating locations.

Mean while, the massive Marine invasion, supported by the USAF out of Qatar, hits Iraq from the Persian Gulf, secures Kuwait then moves all the way to the Southern No-Fly zone. Iraq now has No-Fly/No-Enter zones that effectively cut the country into three pieces.

The equipping and training of the Iraqi resistance begins, while saddam whines and cries from Baghdad. Anytime he moves something, the USAF destroys it. It’s just a matter of time at this point.

And I think we’ll see it BEFORE October. Only those that never attended jump training in Fort Benning Georgia in the summer would think that it’s “too hot” to fight in summer. And for this type of fighting, outside the cities, a huge amount of smart weapons won’t be necessary, plain ‘ole dumb bombs work just fine in the desert, so all this “we gotta restock the arsenal” is just another smoke screen. The democrats won’t get their October surprise (it’ll come before then) and they won’t win any seats in the house or senate either, since everyone’s eyes will be riveted to the happenings in Iraq.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies

It was acknowledged that US forces are operating in Iraq. Also, the story on calling off the attack on a particular weapons plant confirmed this. This new pattern of warfare seems similar to Afghanistan: gradual step-up of in country activity, organizing everything on the ground, getting ready with all the targets, and then at a certain point, the massive application of force through smart bombs, the gunships, etc. It's not like the old days when everybody lined up at the frontier, and then rolled in looking to find out the situation on the ground. Here everything is piecemeal, step-by-step. All enemy military assets are scoped out long before the hot phase. And remember folks, word gets around. The Iraqi Army all know they are dead men the minute the flag goes up. They probably are already talking about people getting hit here and there. This is an Arab army, the kind that was knocked off by tiny Israeli forces in several prior wars. The kind that rushed to surrender to newsmen and tv reporters in the 1991 Gulf War. Unlike Afghanistan, there are not going to be tribesmen hiding in remote mountain villages and caves. These are citified people. When this house of cards goes, it is going to be even faster than before. Saddaam will not have some extended period in which to fire off scuds - this one will be over almost before it starts. I wouldn't be surprised to see most of the Iraqi army simply stay in barracks pursuant to pre-negotiations with us.

I'm thinking this might have a serious impact on Saddam's life insurance rates, eh?

Yup, just like trying to get homeowner's coverage on the Gulf Coast (Florida to Texas) while a tropical weather system is wandering around out there. When this Hurricane makes landfall, it's gonna be Category Five!

Hopefully, Saddam's insurance agent has already recommended that he select new beneficiaries... someone other than his two sons... :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.