IRAQ TOO TOUGH?

New York Post ^ | 8/29/02 | RALPH PETERS

[kattracks]

August 29, 2002 -- IF you predict disaster constantly, you may be right eventually. But the track record of America's pundits on military matters looks laughably shabby for now.

For the past dozen years, self-appointed experts have told us, over and over again, that American troops are inferior to our enemies of the moment. Wrong every time, the library lefties and bow-tied wise guys aren't going to give up now. Always rooting for America to lose and imagining spectacular virtues for our enemies, they despise trivial qualities such as dedication, skill, self-sacrifice and courage.

[SLB]

Not sure I whole heartedly agree with Mr Peters. Yes, the army of Iraq is not what it used to be, but then neither is ours. We don't have the massive armor divisions to thunder through the desert as in Desert Storm. I was going to list the divisions left, but it was too depressing. The success of Desert Storm was greatly due to the readiness of the Army to meet and defeat the Soviets in Europe. All the leadership had to do was move the threat from the plains of Europe to the Desert of Iraq.

Now, things are different. What happens if the 82nd Airborne and some rangers drop in on the outskirts of Baghdad and get caught in a vise that won't release them? Who is going to roll over the rebuilt Republican Guards and dash to their rescue? Sure, we have the air power to control the sky, but no matter what, the real battle is slugged out on the ground. The USMC is still close to the strength sent to the desert in 1990/91 but that hardly makes up for the reduction the army has suffered.

It will take a severe toll on the reserve components to pull this off, and they are still suffering from the massive mobilizations of Desert Shield/Storm. Employers are hesitant about hiring workers today who might be gone for an exteneded period of time and then return and must be given their old jobs back. The retention in the national guard and reserves show this. What incentive is there to remain? An 18 year old enlists out of high school and stays for 20 years. He/she cannot draw their retirement until they are 60, that is 22 long years they have to wait. Ever wonder why you see so many older junior NCO's in the reserves? Now you know.

I am prattling on this morning as my bursitis was bothering me and the dog woke me up to go out, so I stayed up. Yes, something has to be done about Iraq, but it is going to come with a price tag of body bags attached to it and the administration must convince the public the price was worth it.

[sneakypete]

He's a good author,but he is a fool if he can't
see beyond a relatively easy victory,and realize
that winning a war in one thing,occupying a country
with a still hostile culture that is surrounded
by other hostile countries that share that culture
is something else.

[sneakypete]

It will take a severe toll on the reserve components to pull this off,and they are still suffering from the massive mobilizations of Desert Shield/Storm. Employers are hesitant about hiring workers today who might be gone for an exteneded period of time and then return and must be given their old jobs back.

Yup,these constant call-ups is going to destroy the reserves. Who is going to be willing to join the reserves in the future,when all they hear is about all the times the guys before them were activated? If you want to be activated and interfer with your normal life,why not just go ahead and join the active duty military and be done with it?

The only good thing that may come out of that is the gooberment won't have any choice but to bring back the draft once they have destroyed the reserves.

[TigerLikesRooster]

RE #1

About Yugoslavia, America won by bombing civilian stationary targets, not their military force, pressuring Belgrade regime while enlisting Russian mediation help and double-crossing them later. This set the stage for Putin coup because spooks and generals of Russia concluded that Yeltsen regime sold out Russia and Serbia.

This civilian bombing was also practiced by Saddam Hussein during Iran-Iraq war to pressure Khomeini to agree to his ceasefire offer. Saddam pounded big Iranian cities with barrage of missiles, killing many civilians and creating the high level of war-weariness among Iran's population. Clinton's US did the same with the difference of the high faluting rhetoric of "humanitarianism", along with leftwing intellectuals of Europe.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #3

Well, America cannot do everything right. But it can cut the Arab's access to oil wells, depriving them of oil revenue which can be used for terrorist operations. Take away oil fields and let Arabs decide how to go about their life and economy. So far, the presence of oil revenue kept them from making any serious religious and cultural changes to be a productive and prospering nation. A religion bent on dragging down the rest of the society it belongs, if that could keep it from any meaningful change.

This should also proceed with marginalization of Arab oil share in the world oil(energy) markets.

[Robe]

Didn't we leave some 2000 M1A1's and Bradleys in Kuwait for this very reason? It it my understanding that our troops which have been stationed there since the Gulf War had the mission of keeping this force combat ready. In that case all we need to do is get the troops there, and that can be done VERY quickly. We don't need a year to position forces.
IMHO

[DK Zimmerman]

I like and enjoy reading Peters' fiction, but sometimes I wonder about his commentaries.

We didn't defeat the enemy in Kosovo, they left once they completed their mission, almost of their own accord, after we spent a billion or on some 7,000 air missions, only about half of which could be flown due to weather. We "bagged" less than 100 tracked vehicles. They might not have been 9 feet tall, but they were damned sure experienced enough to defeat our billions of dollars worth, state of the art toys with, dirt, grass, and some camouflage nets.

The post-911 naysayers I saw said we could be bogged down, a la USSR, in Afghanistan. If we had gone for decisive victory, we would have. Instead, following Bush Sr's and Clinton's lead, Bush Jr settled for something far less. Less involvement means less risk, but generally will bring a less decisive victory. It's a fairly simple computation. Unfortunately, few pundits (apparently including Peters) seem to have figured this process out.

Iraq could have sent the 18th ABC (82nd/101st) running with their tails between their legs, when they were the only forces on the ground, but they didn't. Some have suggested Iraq thought they had tanks, others that Iraq refused to believe we would attack. But the potential was there that if Iraq had attacked that we would have run out of AT weapons long before Iraq ran out of tanks and then it would have been all over.

That potential result could still happen if we only project light forces into Iraq/Kuwait for an extended period. We're damned near out of conventional bombs and cruise missiles, thanks to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

About all we can be sure of, is that something other than DS/DS will occur if we return. Iraq might attack as soon as we begin to deploy (I would). They may retreat to their cities (I would, if I couldn't defeat the bridgehead/entry). What happens next is speculation.

If Hussein maintains his ruthless control and we have to slug it out in his cities, we WILL lose thousands in the streets. Urban warfare IS ugly and defeats almost all of our technology/tech advantages. If he doesn't maintain control and we see massive surrenders, we may be able to cut him up fairly easily, but then there is still the Republican Guard. They survived the last round, almost intact. That has to help their morale and definitely probably means we won't defeat them (next time) short of killing them.

[elephantlips]

Interestingly the very people you warned about came out in this post. Keep up the good work of encouragement and positive thinking!

[Squantos]

Sadly over my military career I have to agree with SLB. I have seen each Democratic president tear down the military strenght of this nation to dangerous levels of readiness. At one point under Carter's administration the Kalifornia National Guard under then Gov Reagan's control was better prepaired to respond than all the active duty troops.

Under Reagan and GHW Bush the DOD was at it's all time greatest readiness/capability IMHO and experience. The Clintonistas and all their ilk destroyed the core of the militarys ability to build and maintain what they had with the appointment of politically minded general officers and BS PC programs that took monies from spare parts and training .

I can rant on this till the cows come home but you all have been there and know of what I speak. We have a very good ability to respond to LIC missions (Low Intensity Conflicts) and win the brush fire wars. If attacked, to engage a major force with superior conventional numbers, we have no option IMHO but to respond with special weapons. If Iraq or any other nation of evil on the list can't be surgically hit from afar with cruise munitions and or airstrikes to oust the dictators who support terrorism then I too have to vote no on a toe to toe land engagement with ground forces.

I don't pretend to know specifics as to current "C" ratings of active duty forces but I remember that senior NCO's and Officers were driven to fudge such numbers and that such ratings were a key part of those individuals performance reports that drove their individual career progresion or stagnation.

Just my observations on a 26 year career watching em come and go with better , best and extreamly poor leadership that has us now debating and doubting the capability of this nation to take on such a POS ragtag "army" like Iraq........ That IMHO is the really sad issue.

Stay Safe Ya'll.....BTW, nice to see ya back around here Sneakypete !

[DK Zimmerman]

Doubtless we have some pre-positioned stuff. I honestly don't know how much, but two thousand seems a bit high. If you figure 50-60 per battalion, then 2000 = 36-40 bns or so. At 3-5 bns per bde, you have 7-13 bdes. At 3 bdes to a div, that 2000 means 2-4 divs worth. Better than none, by a great deal, but really not sufficient, IMO.

There's another article posted today suggesting we can have 7 divisions present in a matter of weeks. While 7 divisions is a far better number than 4, we just can't seem to get there unless we're including the light divisions. And this assumes your 2000 figure is correct.

By the way, 7 active divisions would pretty much strip everyone out of the US and Europe, unless reserves amounting to a couple divisions are used. That does not happen overnight.

The problem is, we probably don't have 3 days, much less the month(s) worth of logistics stuff we need to launch an attack. Food can be pre-positioned. Fuel, to some degree can be obtained locally, but ammo is another story.It can be pre-positioned and some undoubtedly has, but we are essentially out of key stuff.

Your conclusion is right. With 2000 prepositioned tanks and bradleys, we won't need a year. But 2-4 months is still likely. Obviously, if basic loads are present (roughly 3 days worth of everything) we could start the fight as fast as we can fly troops in (almost).

The problem is, without a logistics build up, we would face shortages almost immediately. When a mech force runs out of "stuff" it's not pretty (see German forces, Battle of the Bulge). Light divisions can pick up their rifles and walk out, tankers can't quite do that.

[steamroller]

Sneakypete-I've been missing your posts for awhile.As usual you are right on the money.This proposed operation has a "tail" on it longer than halley's comet.I hate to say it,but I wonder if this generation has what it takes for a long haul.I'm not speaking of the better military units like the 82nd,etc.,but the general population.Recent surveys indicate that young people would duck a draft in greater numbers than in our day.It seems interesting that so many who beat the war drum(Krauthammer,Zuckerman,Perle,Rice,Wolfowitz,Kristol,and Cheney)never wore a uniform for 10 minutes.The opposition to this potential war comes from people like Sen.Hagel,Gen.Schwartzkopf,Col.Hackworth,etc.who certainly have the experience of war to go by.

[cinFLA]

Not sure I whole heartedly agree with Mr Peters. Yes, the army of Iraq is not what it used to be, but then neither is ours. We don't have the massive armor divisions to thunder through the desert as in Desert Storm. I was going to list the divisions left, but it was too depressing. The success of Desert Storm was greatly due to the readiness of the Army to meet and defeat the Soviets in Europe. All the leadership had to do was move the threat from the plains of Europe to the Desert of Iraq.

There is surely some degradation in the areas you mention but there has also been a quantum leap in technology. It should be interesting!

[Wondervixen]

Seems to me that these wire rimmed, bearded, dope smoking, tree hugging, granola eating college intellectuals who deem themselves "experts" know less about our military than a Peruvian anteater!

[SLB]

.......quantum leap in technology.

Yes there has. However technology still does not account for the ticked off feller with an old .303 stashed in the corn crib who decides to take a shot at the passing convoy. Look at the recent proliferation of weapons such as the RPG (all versions) and certain SAM systems. How will technology take these into account?

[mikegi]

I think we'll have a far more clever plan than most suspect. Saddam will be killed by "Kurds" then we'll start bombing the Republican Guards and any other holdouts. There will be no siege of Baghdad or other nightmare scenarios.

Iraq is a far more civilized country than Afghanistan and will recover fairly quickly once Saddam is kaput.

[DK Zimmerman]

Hope you weren't including Peters in that blast.

He's got pretty good credentials. Off the top of my head: retired AC Army, MI LTC, I think. Time in Europe, Yugoslavia, and Desert Storm.

[cinFLA]

Yes there has. However technology still does not account for the ticked off feller with an old .303 stashed in the corn crib who decides to take a shot at the passing convoy. Look at the recent proliferation of weapons such as the RPG (all versions) and certain SAM systems. How will technology take these into account?

I think our troops can handle the "ticked off feller".

[GingisK]

We don't need a year to position forces.

Yep, these are self-crewed tanks. All they need is fuel and munitions.

[Robe]

I have to admit that my 2000 figure is from recall from the post DS/DS days. But I believe the number is close, but my be thinned down by adding necessary support vehicles.
But as the article points out, our logistic umbrella is much wider and diverse due to technology.
Now this is definitely my opinion only, but I believe we have been planning on taking on Saddam since the end of DS, and the pistol has been loaded and cocked for some time.