NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the Iraq War actually lost?
In the last couple of days, we have seen the "Seige of Fallujah" lifted. The US forces did not storm the city, seeking the insurgents they had promised to capture. Instead, they walked away, leaving control to Iraqi soldiers under the command of one of saddam Hussein's ex-generals.
Also, we have now have allegations of torture being used by both US and British forces.
So, with this combination of defeats on the ground, and losing the moral high-ground, is a new pattern emerging?
Please note, I do not actually see this as a good thing.
While I believe that the Iraq war was based on a lie re weapons of mass destruction, I really don't know of a viable exit strategy.
Comments please.

The US should just leave and the Iraqis figure it out.

The US should just leave and the Iraqis figure it out.

Snubis? Is that you?

The US should just leave and the Iraqis figure it out.

Snubis? Is that you?


HELL NO!!

The US should just leave and the Iraqis figure it out.

Problems would of course be an irreperable loss of face for the Coalition, encouragement to radical Muslim extremists, probable civil war in Iraq, and widespread condemnation of the Coalition for causing damage and then leaving (although they do seem rather tick-skinned when it comes to world opinion).

I agree with Smeagol; I never supported the war in the first place but I think that now that we are already in Iraq we cannot just pull out and leave Iraq in chaos.

Don't think you can win or lose a war....especially when no one knows the real reason we're there!

There are good points and bad points of letting ex-Republican Guard generals lead the fight in the city.

The good parts:
1) You can't just train somebody to be a general overnight,
2) The Fallujah insurgency is being coordinated by many of the Sadaam loyalists, many who served under these Republican Guard guys.

The bad parts:
1) They were Sadaam's Republican Guard. They had a hand in the dictatorial regime that was Sadaam.
2) We rolled over them in a matter of days. Granted, we have superior fighting skills, but urban fighting is a totally different scenario.

Fallujah is one city out of many in Iraq though. We're keeping the peace and building the infrastructure of the country. As for the prison torture, that was despicable, but one bad seed can ruin it for the rest of us. We should hand over those responsible to the Iraqi council and let them judge those who mistreated their citizens. It would help our PR, and it would allow justice to be served.

If you can figure out this problem, you should be the President!

Pretty much yes. The only viable exit strategies from a military stand point would be unacceptable from either a domestic or international political standpoint, or an economic standpoint.

We can solve the problems with the forces we have available by turning them loose on the ROEs and absolutely leveling the place. This would cause a great deal of trouble across the region as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and others would be completely (and justifiably) outraged. Hamas and Al Qaeda could point towards the "new crusaders" acts and gain mush more support. Also, most , if not all, of the remaining coalition members to withdraw support. And Russia, Germany, France, and China would also cause us problems. Finally, the UN or ICC may try to actually bring serious war crimes charges against the US leadership, instead of the (up til now) just making hollow threats to do so.

We could alternately solve the problems by increasing US forces at least 3 fold and stay a minimum of 10 years. However , the US does not have those kinds of forces readily available. We currently have half the current active combat brigades in Iraq and the surrounding areas. To bring up the forces needed to pacify the country, we would need to activate most, if not all, of the reserve and national gaurd brigades. And even then we would be dangerously unable to deal with another crisis (DPRK or increased tempo in Afghanistan) or relieve units in the feild. To realistically be able to do this, would require a rather large increase in the military. The US is already running a deficit to pay for what we have.

In addition, the US public does not seem to be willing to follow either course. Especially the time frame of the latter.

A third course would be to wash our hands of the whole mess, and pass it off on the UN. The UN has a terrible record of dealing with these sorts of problems (Palestine, Cyprus, Korea, Rawanda, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum).

Don't think you can win or lose a war....especially when no one knows the real reason we're there!

It is pretty clear why we are there. Bush and company are pushing the ideal of remaking the region to suit their own goals. This can be done, but not in the manner this administration has gone about doing so.

It would help if the Iraqi*s wanted to change in the direction Bush wants them to go. (They didn*t want Sadamm, but they didn*t want the US telling them what to do either.)

And it would help if the US population was behind Bush. But Bush is losing ground on this point, and will most likely continue to do so.

2) We rolled over them in a matter of days.

This is probably a large part of the problem. The Coalition's battle tactics seem to have owed more in the first stage of the war to a board game than an actual battle- nothing was done thoroughly in the mad rush to capture Baghdad to try and prove the press wrong, to show that they could do it quickly and cleanly. The result? The Americans (and the other Coalition forces, but the British strategy in Southern Iraq has proved a little more successful (not that that would be hard)), raced through the country, going through everything, but hardly securing anything.

I thought the war was idiotic, unnecessary, and ill-justified to start with... but if you're going to fight a war, you might as well do so competently. An army is not a snake. Cutting the head off an army, especially in a divisive environment like Iraq, doesn't take all the fight out of it, it just leaves you with a lot more little armies, all doing different things.

It was predictable really- the war was so predicated on this daft "Gulf War 2" brand, and strategy seems to have been determined not on common sense, but on getting snazzy pictures of cities falling, statues being pulled down, and US flags waving, on to Faux News as quickly as possible. Couldn't they just have CGIed that Saddam statue incident when they wanted it and gone on and fought the war properly, to a realistic timetable?

No, I don't think the Coalition should just run away now. The American troops, at least, probably need to be either gradually replaced by peacekeepers from other nations- but which nations?- or, at least, placed very definitely under international command, because neither the Iraqi people nor the international community have any confidence left in either a) their moral credentials as 'liberators', or b) their ability. That's not a deliberate slur on the troops themselves- but their leaders, at least, are utter cretins, and their public image has disintegrated. I assume the troops are actually like any other group- some are intelligent reasoning beings, some are neanderthal morons who only think in words of one syllable. It's unfortunate that military promotion favours the blindly obedient, who tend to fall into the latter category.

However, the Coalition should take the cost and responsibility, as it's their mess. They do, however, need to be given some remedial education in how to sort it out. The welfare of the Iraqi people should be the first priority of the international community, and rubbing the US and UK warhawks' noses in their own mess the second, satisfying and educationally necessary as this may be.

Is the Iraq War actually lost?
Morally speaking, the war was lost the day that the US invaded.

In the last couple of days, we have seen the "Seige of Fallujah" lifted. The US forces did not storm the city, seeking the insurgents they had promised to capture. Instead, they walked away, leaving control to Iraqi soldiers under the command of one of saddam Hussein's ex-generals.
I believe this is a result of 2 things. Firstly, the US has sustained larger than expected casualties for the month of April. Secondly it was becoming increasingly difficult to take out the insurgents without causing massive death to innocent civilians.

Both of these situations were creating a negative backlash back in the US, especially in the polls for the upcoming election. The last thing that Bush needs in his bid for re-election, is a fullscale uprising?

A 3rd reason came to mind while typing this. The handover date is only 2 months away, and if that date is not met, it will also create a political problem for Bush?

Also, we have now have allegations of torture being used by both US and British forces.
This is an unfortunate situation indeed and does nothing to help sell the war to the US public in particular and the world in general.

So, with this combination of defeats on the ground, and losing the moral high-ground, is a new pattern emerging?
I wouldn't call it a defeat per se, more a withdrawal to re-evaluate a better plan of action. Certainly the torture stories do nothing to improve the situation.

The US appears to be in a catch 22 situation at this time, and sending in ex generals of Saddam's old military might create even more problems?

Please note, I do not actually see this as a good thing.
While I believe that the Iraq war was based on a lie re weapons of mass destruction, I really don't know of a viable exit strategy.
Comments please.
I believe the US is rolling the dice here and hoping that they don't crap out.

Well I agree with you about the lie aspect, and now it appears that the lie has become an exercise in extravagance.

Is the Iraq War actually lost?
Morally speaking, the war was lost the day that the US invaded.

In the last couple of days, we have seen the "Seige of Fallujah" lifted. The US forces did not storm the city, seeking the insurgents they had promised to capture. Instead, they walked away, leaving control to Iraqi soldiers under the command of one of saddam Hussein's ex-generals.
I believe this is a result of 2 things. Firstly, the US has sustained larger than expected casualties for the month of April. Secondly it was becoming increasingly difficult to take out the insurgents without causing massive death to innocent civilians.

Both of these situations were creating a negative backlash back in the US, especially in the polls for the upcoming election. The last thing that Bush needs in his bid for re-election, is a fullscale uprising?

A 3rd reason came to mind while typing this. The handover date is only 2 months away, and if that date is not met, it will also create a political problem for Bush?

Also, we have now have allegations of torture being used by both US and British forces.
This is an unfortunate situation indeed and does nothing to help sell the war to the US public in particular and the world in general.

So, with this combination of defeats on the ground, and losing the moral high-ground, is a new pattern emerging?
I wouldn't call it a defeat per se, more a withdrawal to re-evaluate a better plan of action. Certainly the torture stories do nothing to improve the situation.

The US appears to be in a catch 22 situation at this time, and sending in ex generals of Saddam's old military might create even more problems?

Please note, I do not actually see this as a good thing.
While I believe that the Iraq war was based on a lie re weapons of mass destruction, I really don't know of a viable exit strategy.
Comments please.
I believe the US is rolling the dice here and hoping that they don't crap out.

Well I agree with you about the lie aspect, and now it appears that the lie has become an exercise in extravagance.

:shock: Can it be, CanuckHeaven? You and I actually agree pretty much 100% on this? :)

It's lost as long as we continue to allow mercenaries to act with impunity in the region, as long as we allow our soldiers to demean Iraqi prisoners, and as long as we continue to prop up Ahmed Chalabi as our choice of leader. Whatever good will we had as a result of removing Hussein is long since gone now.

Is the Iraq War actually lost?
Morally speaking, the war was lost the day that the US invaded.

In the last couple of days, we have seen the "Seige of Fallujah" lifted. The US forces did not storm the city, seeking the insurgents they had promised to capture. Instead, they walked away, leaving control to Iraqi soldiers under the command of one of saddam Hussein's ex-generals.
I believe this is a result of 2 things. Firstly, the US has sustained larger than expected casualties for the month of April. Secondly it was becoming increasingly difficult to take out the insurgents without causing massive death to innocent civilians.

Both of these situations were creating a negative backlash back in the US, especially in the polls for the upcoming election. The last thing that Bush needs in his bid for re-election, is a fullscale uprising?

A 3rd reason came to mind while typing this. The handover date is only 2 months away, and if that date is not met, it will also create a political problem for Bush?

Also, we have now have allegations of torture being used by both US and British forces.
This is an unfortunate situation indeed and does nothing to help sell the war to the US public in particular and the world in general.

So, with this combination of defeats on the ground, and losing the moral high-ground, is a new pattern emerging?
I wouldn't call it a defeat per se, more a withdrawal to re-evaluate a better plan of action. Certainly the torture stories do nothing to improve the situation.

The US appears to be in a catch 22 situation at this time, and sending in ex generals of Saddam's old military might create even more problems?

Please note, I do not actually see this as a good thing.
While I believe that the Iraq war was based on a lie re weapons of mass destruction, I really don't know of a viable exit strategy.
Comments please.
I believe the US is rolling the dice here and hoping that they don't crap out.

Well I agree with you about the lie aspect, and now it appears that the lie has become an exercise in extravagance.

:shock: Can it be, CanuckHeaven? You and I actually agree pretty much 100% on this? :)
Well for once we can agree to agree. 8)

On the one hand it is clear that the US has to pull out of Iraq or accept that they have a guerilla war on their hand that could drag on for many years, a second Vietnam, definitely not something the homefront wants, not to mention that it would be political suicide for the current administration, on the the other hand the US can't just pull out after having started this; they have to face the consequences of their actions.

Personally I think that it is foolish to attempt to install democracy in Iraq. Its people are not only thoroughly unprepared to carry the responsibility that goes with living in a democracy, mainly because of cultural and religious traditions, but also because its population is fractured in groups that each would much prefer their own territory and the self-goverment that goes go with it.

It is easy to forget that only two nations after WW2 where democracy was installed were really succesful at it, germany and Japan. Everwhere else the installed democracy was less than succesful, not to mention that in many places it was total disaster. It will be interesting to see how Iraq will do but personally I am sceptic about any democracy being the end result of it. Regardless, the US will stay and pay for the incompetence of the leaders that got them there in the first place.

2) We rolled over them in a matter of days.

This is probably a large part of the problem. The Coalition's battle tactics seem to have owed more in the first stage of the war to a board game than an actual battle- nothing was done thoroughly in the mad rush to capture Baghdad to try and prove the press wrong, to show that they could do it quickly and cleanly. The result? The Americans (and the other Coalition forces, but the British strategy in Southern Iraq has proved a little more successful (not that that would be hard)), raced through the country, going through everything, but hardly securing anything.

I thought the war was idiotic, unnecessary, and ill-justified to start with... but if you're going to fight a war, you might as well do so competently. An army is not a snake. Cutting the head off an army, especially in a divisive environment like Iraq, doesn't take all the fight out of it, it just leaves you with a lot more little armies, all doing different things.

It was predictable really- the war was so predicated on this daft "Gulf War 2" brand, and strategy seems to have been determined not on common sense, but on getting snazzy pictures of cities falling, statues being pulled down, and US flags waving, on to Faux News as quickly as possible. Couldn't they just have CGIed that Saddam statue incident when they wanted it and gone on and fought the war properly, to a realistic timetable?

No, I don't think the Coalition should just run away now. The American troops, at least, probably need to be either gradually replaced by peacekeepers from other nations- but which nations?- or, at least, placed very definitely under international command, because neither the Iraqi people nor the international community have any confidence left in either a) their moral credentials as 'liberators', or b) their ability. That's not a deliberate slur on the troops themselves- but their leaders, at least, are utter cretins, and their public image has disintegrated. I assume the troops are actually like any other group- some are intelligent reasoning beings, some are neanderthal morons who only think in words of one syllable. It's unfortunate that military promotion favours the blindly obedient, who tend to fall into the latter category.

However, the Coalition should take the cost and responsibility, as it's their mess. They do, however, need to be given some remedial education in how to sort it out. The welfare of the Iraqi people should be the first priority of the international community, and rubbing the US and UK warhawks' noses in their own mess the second, satisfying and educationally necessary as this may be.

In general, I think this war should (hopefully!) put an end to the militaries great "Jedi Knights" versus "Heavy Metal" debate*. "The Jedi Knights" have won.

The Coming Peacekeeping Disaster in Iraq (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030829.asp) by James Dunnigan (August 29, 2003) is a good little article on the problems a UN force would face.

*For those who are unaware, the US Military has been undergoing a great strategic/tactical debate over the last 25 some odd years. One sides is the "Jedi Knights", who championed a high tech and lightweight force exemplified by the US Gulf War 2 forces. The opposing side is known as "Heavy Metal", and champions a heavier armored force. Of course this is a bit of a simple explanation.

Well for once we can agree to agree. 8)

:D

Lost, no. In need of reorganisation, without a doubt.

In Fallujah and Kut there seem to be two choices. Either, let the militias there be completely independant of the rest of Iraq and basically return iron-fisted rule to the Ba'athists in Fallujah and let Iranian backed Shi'ite zealots begin to rule Kut, or defeat, destroy or disband these "armies". There is no chance for peace, stability or progress where two hostile competing forces are in the same place. Leave or fight, those are the only choices. Civilian deaths would occur if the cities are retaken, that's a fact, a sad one but a fact nonetheless. Civilians will be killed in these cities if nothing is done. How safe or welcome do you think anyone who worked with the coalition or the Iraq Governing Coucil is to these militias?

More forces are needed in Iraq. The coalition has them. The US has troops all over the world who don't serve much of a purpose, redeploy them to Iraq and Afghanistan or use them to relieve forces that have been in Iraq and Afghanistan as those forces rotate out. The US could encourage and ask it's allies in Iraq to take a larger role and do more of the fighting. Retrain and reestablish an Iraqi army. Actually train them and prepare them this time. There are ways to get adequate forces to Iraq without activating more reserve units.

The allegations of abuse and torture are very simple. Gather evidence, investigate and try those responsible. If they are convicted, place them in the prisons with those they tortured and humiliated.

I agree it is lost.. the window for the Americans to win any hearts and minds has come and gone. The best thing the Americans can do now is make the most out of a bad situation. Try to get some sort of sovereignty established and leave.. I have always said since the day they unseated Saddam that civil war was just a matter of time in Iraq.. This will be what happens.. and like many nations beginnings.. so be it. The Americans are making things worse, not better by staying any longer then they have to. Of course Iraq will most likely become a theocracy now, but I don't believe much could of stopped that. The only thing that was stopping that was Saddam's secular rule by tyranny.. will a theocracy be any better? I doubt it.. Did the American government make the world less safe by invading Iraq? You bet your ass they did. There are far more terrorists in the world now because of the invasion then there ever was before it. It was a stupid move. But, what is done is done.. best to leave it as soon as possible, it's lost.

Although some one should be held accountable for the illegal and stupid decision to ever invade Iraq in the first place.

Lost, no. In need of reorganisation, without a doubt.

In Fallujah and Kut there seem to be two choices. Either, let the militias there be completely independant of the rest of Iraq and basically return iron-fisted rule to the Ba'athists in Fallujah and let Iranian backed Shi'ite zealots begin to rule Kut, or defeat, destroy or disband these "armies". There is no chance for peace, stability or progress where two hostile competing forces are in the same place. Leave or fight, those are the only choices. Civilian deaths would occur if the cities are retaken, that's a fact, a sad one but a fact nonetheless. Civilians will be killed in these cities if nothing is done. How safe or welcome do you think anyone who worked with the coalition or the Iraq Governing Coucil is to these militias?

More forces are needed in Iraq. The coalition has them. The US has troops all over the world who don't serve much of a purpose, redeploy them to Iraq and Afghanistan or use them to relieve forces that have been in Iraq and Afghanistan as those forces rotate out. The US could encourage and ask it's allies in Iraq to take a larger role and do more of the fighting. Retrain and reestablish an Iraqi army. Actually train them and prepare them this time. There are ways to get adequate forces to Iraq without activating more reserve units.

Sorry, but the US does not realistically have the forces to commit the 400,000 to 600,000 troops that would be needed without activating more reserve or gaurd units. Please refer to
Global Deployments of US Forces (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm).

Of the 31 combat brigades in the US Army's active component, some 22 are currently deployed (including the two from the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea), in the process of rotating to and from deployments or having just returned from deployment. Of the two Armored Cavalry Regiments both are also deployed (it should be noted that press and Army officials tend to lump the ACR's in with the Brigades when counting total combat brigades) ...
Of the Army National Guards 37 combat brigades 6 are currently deployed with 2 more slated to deploy in the near future. The National Guard has one Armored Cavalry Regiment, it is not deployed but it has been alerted for a possible deployment.

400,000 to 600,000 means between 40 and 60 brigades, at least.

As for allies, aside from the ROK, Australia, and the UK, most of them seem disinclined to commit additional forces. And even the ROK, Australia, and the UK really can*t commit the needed forces.

Reconstituted Iraqi forces will need time significant training (several month, minmum), and would most likely, in any case, remain of dubious quality.

These are forces we should have commited from the very start. Time is getting late....

Is the Iraq War actually lost?
In the last couple of days, we have seen the "Seige of Fallujah" lifted. The US forces did not storm the city, seeking the insurgents they had promised to capture. Instead, they walked away, leaving control to Iraqi soldiers under the command of one of saddam Hussein's ex-generals.


They did? holy shit!

Is the Iraq War actually lost?
In the last couple of days, we have seen the "Seige of Fallujah" lifted. The US forces did not storm the city, seeking the insurgents they had promised to capture. Instead, they walked away, leaving control to Iraqi soldiers under the command of one of saddam Hussein's ex-generals.


They did? holy shit!
Yeah, I don;t imagine it was widely published, and with good reason.
One news report :

Americans appoint a Saddam general
May 3, 2004

Falluja: The new marines-approved Iraqi force has begun taking up positions on a few quiet street corners in Falluja amid reports that some residents were celebrating its arrival as a victory over the Americans.

But the record of the man chosen to lead the force - a commander in Saddam Hussein's notorious Republican Guard - appeared to be raising questions in the US command, which has appeared somewhat confused over the sudden turnabout in which old enemies have become new allies.

Although some officials in the Pentagon said on Friday that Major-General Jassim Mohammed Saleh had not been a member of the Republican Guard, intelligence and other marines officers here confirmed that he had been a ranking officer in the guard before being chosen to command the Iraqi Army's 38th Infantry Division.

Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman for the provisional authority in Baghdad, said on Saturday that the authority and the new Iraqi Ministry of Defence would have to investigate General Saleh's background.

"I would suspect that the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force doesn't have access to all the background information on General Saleh," General Kimmitt said, "or any of the other leadership" of what the marines are calling the 1st Battalion of the 1st Falluja Brigade.

"It will be important for all the leaders to go through a vetting and approval process conducted by the Ministry of Defence and the coalition."

Lieutenant-General James Conway, the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said the new Iraqi force would first be stationed in relatively stable areas of the city, but he expected that the force would soon be able to provide security for a marine convoy driving through the centre of town.

The military said yesterday that four US soldiers and two members of the Iraqi security forces, who were later identified as former Fijian soldiers, died in separate insurgent attacks in Baghdad and near the southern city of Amara.

Two US soldiers and two members of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps were killed early yesterday in north-west Baghdad.

The New York Times, Reuters

SOURCE.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436475770.html.

COMMENT.
It was this report which first stared me wondering about what was going on. No captured cleric, no surrender of arms or personnel, instead quietly leaving the city, basically in the hands of one of Saddams ex-generals.

Followed up by the latest allegations of torture, led me to think that the game was well and truly over.

Of course the war is lost. The Americans are now the enemy to ordinary Iraqis, not just those loyal to Saddam, and that ensures America are almost completely unable to remain in control of the situation across Iraq, not just Fallujah and other hotspots. But as long as Bush is President, troops will remain, and we will have another Vietnam - or worse.

Lost, no. In need of reorganisation, without a doubt.

In Fallujah and Kut there seem to be two choices. Either, let the militias there be completely independant of the rest of Iraq and basically return iron-fisted rule to the Ba'athists in Fallujah and let Iranian backed Shi'ite zealots begin to rule Kut, or defeat, destroy or disband these "armies". There is no chance for peace, stability or progress where two hostile competing forces are in the same place. Leave or fight, those are the only choices. Civilian deaths would occur if the cities are retaken, that's a fact, a sad one but a fact nonetheless. Civilians will be killed in these cities if nothing is done. How safe or welcome do you think anyone who worked with the coalition or the Iraq Governing Coucil is to these militias?

More forces are needed in Iraq. The coalition has them. The US has troops all over the world who don't serve much of a purpose, redeploy them to Iraq and Afghanistan or use them to relieve forces that have been in Iraq and Afghanistan as those forces rotate out. The US could encourage and ask it's allies in Iraq to take a larger role and do more of the fighting. Retrain and reestablish an Iraqi army. Actually train them and prepare them this time. There are ways to get adequate forces to Iraq without activating more reserve units.

Sorry, but the US does not realistically have the forces to commit the 400,000 to 600,000 troops that would be needed without activating more reserve or gaurd units. Please refer to
Global Deployments of US Forces (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm).

Of the 31 combat brigades in the US Army's active component, some 22 are currently deployed (including the two from the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea), in the process of rotating to and from deployments or having just returned from deployment. Of the two Armored Cavalry Regiments both are also deployed (it should be noted that press and Army officials tend to lump the ACR's in with the Brigades when counting total combat brigades) ...
Of the Army National Guards 37 combat brigades 6 are currently deployed with 2 more slated to deploy in the near future. The National Guard has one Armored Cavalry Regiment, it is not deployed but it has been alerted for a possible deployment.

400,000 to 600,000 means between 40 and 60 brigades, at least.

As for allies, aside from the ROK, Australia, and the UK, most of them seem disinclined to commit additional forces. And even the ROK, Australia, and the UK really can*t commit the needed forces.

Reconstituted Iraqi forces will need time significant training (several month, minmum), and would most likely, in any case, remain of dubious quality.

These are forces we should have commited from the very start. Time is getting late....

600,000? Where did you get that number? To the best of my knowledge, there are a proximately 18,000,000 people in Iraq. Do you realise that 600,000 is a soldier for every 30 men, women and childern in Iraq? That number seems very high and unrealistic. If you need a soldier for every thitry people there is no way to restore order.

US troops could be withdrawn from South Korea. How much sense does it make to have US forces in South Korea while South Korean forces are in Iraq? There are between 30,000 and 50, 000 US military personel in Europe. Why? Withdraw all US troops under UN and Nato command. Nato is a dinosaur and the UN is useless, both are wastes of US forces.

Additional forces from allies of the US would help, but having those soldiers there actually fight would be a step in the right direction.

You are right, Iraqi forces would take time to establish. It must be done. Sooner or later Iraqis must be able to defend themselves. And, why would an Iraqi force be dubious? I think a well trained, well armed Iraq force could perform as well as anyone. Why do you think they couldn't?

400,000 was the force needed to pacify the country according to the article I read in the NYTimes, that pentagon wargames said were actually needed for pacification at the start of the war. (I believe it was this set of wargames http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1060102.php, but I could be wrong.)

600,000 is an upper extrapolation, considering the unrest, on the original force that might be needed. This would be the sort of force we would want to level the country or put such an opressive force as to pacify the place by threat. (Again, as I said above, leveling the country would be a military option that has unacceptable political consequences.)

Oh, and the population of Iraq is closer to 25 million http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

That would make 1 in about 50 for a force of 500,000. :wink:

I remember that during the runup to the war, General Shinseki said we would need a force of at least 300,000 to control the situation and provide security, and perhaps as many as 500,000. He was ridiculed by Don Rumsfeld and basically forced into early retirement and we went in with 150,000. Real secure there right now, isn't it.

I remember that during the runup to the war, General Shinseki said we would need a force of at least 300,000 to control the situation and provide security, and perhaps as many as 500,000. He was ridiculed by Don Rumsfeld and basically forced into early retirement and we went in with 150,000. Real secure there right now, isn't it.

Thank you for that. I knew I did not hallucinate reading those figures (I was having trouble finding a good link.)

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

And a solid figure on 600,000:


Let's take a look at how many soldiers it takes or has taken to keep the peace in some of the world's leading trouble spots. The British Army in 1995 kept 19,000 troops in Northern Ireland to control a population of 1.6 million. That's one soldier for every 84 residents. If a similar ratio were applied to Iraq, the United States and its allies would need an occupation force of 285,000 troops.

In 1995, we had an international force of 60,000 to control the 4 million inhabitants of unhappy Bosnia. At that ratio, we would need 360,000 soldiers to occupy and control Iraq. In Kosovo, 50,000 soldiers now keep the peace among 2 million. Apply that formula to Iraq and you need an occupation force of 600,000.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_031103,00.html

US troops could be withdrawn from South Korea. How much sense does it make to have US forces in South Korea while South Korean forces are in Iraq? There are between 30,000 and 50, 000 US military personel in Europe. Why? Withdraw all US troops under UN and Nato command. Nato is a dinosaur and the UN is useless, both are wastes of US forces.

You are right, Iraqi forces would take time to establish. It must be done. Sooner or later Iraqis must be able to defend themselves. And, why would an Iraqi force be dubious? I think a well trained, well armed Iraq force could perform as well as anyone. Why do you think they couldn't?

Withdrawing troops from South Korea? Bad idea.

The only thing keeping the North Koreans at bay are the US forces. With the war in Iraq, it would take almost a month for forces to be deployed to North Korea.

Your numbers on occupation totals seem to be more or less good. What we all must remember is that Rumsfeld knew these numbers going into the war. What he did, is put forward a theory that has been kicked around for years; the force multiplier theory. In my opinion, he did it in an inconsistent way.

The force multiplier theory is based off an old Sun-Tzu line, "Like pebbles being forced downstream by the rushing water, a general positions his troops to be as boulders tumbling down a mountainside." You position your troops and use them in such a way that they simply roll over the opposition in an irresistible wave. Surprise, Terrain, Armament and training all factor into this.

Rumsfeld saw this situation:

Surprise: The US forces had speed, and in some cases stealth on their side.

Terrain: US forces had sufficiently mapped out major enemy positions and many divisions had acclimated to the difficult climate from their time in bases around the Persian Gulf.

Armament: With nightvision, US forces are actually better equipped to fight at night than they are during the day. Without the Sun and the decreased numbers of warm bodies in the area, US forces can spot targets with ease. Pinpoint bombing made fortifacations rather useless to the Iraqi armies.

Training: The US forces were vastly better trained. The average Iraqi soldier was at a disadvantage in almost every situation in the initial phase of the war.

Rumsfeld saw all these factors and thought that only a tiny force would be needed to defeat the Iraqi army.

Rumsfeld is showing himself to be a paperpushing armchair general because:

Surprise: After the initial invasion, US forces gave up the initative; they now react to attacks. While they stay active in the patrols and sweeps of surrounding areas it is the insurgent forces that chose the time and place of battle.

Terrain: The war takes place on roadsides and in crowded cities; the US forces must defend themselves from a hidden enemy, not a fortified one.

Armament: US Humvees are showing themselves to be ill-equiped to handle the situation they find themselves in; they were not designed with heavy armor because they are in truth a replacement for the Jeep. US accuracy is laudable in conflicts but unless large concentrations of insurgents gather as in Falluja (sp?), the effect is that +5000$ bombs are being used to take out a pair of AK-47 toting insugents in a small house.

Training: While US forces are unmatched in combat they have comparitively little occupation experience, many divisions have virtually none, and no real training to prepare them. This oversight is perhaps the most ludicrious from my point of view, was it not obvious that a massive training program would be needed if we invaded? Its one thing to kill your foes, but its another entirely to mold them into your allies and place them within a well-constructed framework of laws to guide them.

As you can see, if you bothered to read all this tripe, is that Rumsfeld was planning with only the invasion in mind, not the occupation that followed. Time and time again he mentions that a soldier in the US army can fight like 4 or even 10 normal soldiers with all the new technology that is available. That's nice to hear...but fighting is only one aspect of a war, and it does not take a military genius to figure that out.

Exactly. The forces deployed to Japan, Korea, and Europe are serving as a strategic reseve or deterence. If we deployed them to Iraq, we would have no means of dealing with the DPRK, or a resurgence of activity in Afghanistan, Kosovo, or Bosnia.

Out of roughly 1 million troops (including the ARNG), about 350,000 are currently deployed, 250,000 to "necessary"* operations. Include the additional 250,000 to 450,000 needed in Iraq, and that leaves just 250,000. Furthermore, deploying all the possible brigades would quickly (within one years time) render the army useless due to lack of rotations.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/07/030723-d-6570x-003.jpg
"Yes, yes Iraq was not "necessary". That is beside the point in question.

Exactly. The forces deployed to Japan, Korea, and Europe are serving as a strategic reseve or deterence. If we deployed them to Iraq, we would have no means of dealing with the DPRK, or a resurgence of activity in Afghanistan, Kosovo, or Bosnia.

Out of roughly 1 million troops (including the ARNG), about 350,000 are currently deployed, 250,000 to "necessary"* operations. Include the additional 250,000 to 450,000 needed in Iraq, and that leaves just 250,000. Furthermore, deploying all the possible brigades would quickly (within one years time) render the army useless due to lack of rotations.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/07/030723-d-6570x-003.jpg
"Yes, yes Iraq was not "necessary". That is beside the point in question.

On the contrary...I saw we withdraw our forces from all Non-Conus commands..every rifle, humvee, down to the last private...Kosovo..Bosnia...it's a European problem..let them put more Dutch, German, French, Italian, or Spanish troops there..bring our boys out and either send them to Iraq or bring them home.

As for dealing with Korea..we already have a staging platform with the 3rd Marine Division/3rd Marine Air Wing/3rd Force Service Support Group..at best we have a hodgepodge of US troops in Korea, both command and support elements, something to the tune of 38,000 troops..hardly enough to stop the North, but enough to bring a relieving force to Iraq.

Your numbers on occupation totals seem to be more or less good. What we all must remember is that Rumsfeld knew these numbers going into the war. What he did, is put forward a theory that has been kicked around for years; the force multiplier theory. In my opinion, he did it in an inconsistent way.

The force multiplier theory is based off an old Sun-Tzu line, "Like pebbles being forced downstream by the rushing water, a general positions his troops to be as boulders tumbling down a mountainside." You position your troops and use them in such a way that they simply roll over the opposition in an irresistible wave. Surprise, Terrain, Armament and training all factor into this.

Rumsfeld saw this situation:

Surprise: The US forces had speed, and in some cases stealth on their side.

Terrain: US forces had sufficiently mapped out major enemy positions and many divisions had acclimated to the difficult climate from their time in bases around the Persian Gulf.

Armament: With nightvision, US forces are actually better equipped to fight at night than they are during the day. Without the Sun and the decreased numbers of warm bodies in the area, US forces can spot targets with ease. Pinpoint bombing made fortifacations rather useless to the Iraqi armies.

Training: The US forces were vastly better trained. The average Iraqi soldier was at a disadvantage in almost every situation in the initial phase of the war.

Rumsfeld saw all these factors and thought that only a tiny force would be needed to defeat the Iraqi army.

Rumsfeld is showing himself to be a paperpushing armchair general because:

Surprise: After the initial invasion, US forces gave up the initative; they now react to attacks. While they stay active in the patrols and sweeps of surrounding areas it is the insurgent forces that chose the time and place of battle.

Terrain: The war takes place on roadsides and in crowded cities; the US forces must defend themselves from a hidden enemy, not a fortified one.

Armament: US Humvees are showing themselves to be ill-equiped to handle the situation they find themselves in; they were not designed with heavy armor because they are in truth a replacement for the Jeep. US accuracy is laudable in conflicts but unless large concentrations of insurgents gather as in Falluja (sp?), the effect is that +5000$ bombs are being used to take out a pair of AK-47 toting insugents in a small house.

Training: While US forces are unmatched in combat they have comparitively little occupation experience, many divisions have virtually none, and no real training to prepare them. This oversight is perhaps the most ludicrious from my point of view, was it not obvious that a massive training program would be needed if we invaded? Its one thing to kill your foes, but its another entirely to mold them into your allies and place them within a well-constructed framework of laws to guide them.

As you can see, if you bothered to read all this tripe, is that Rumsfeld was planning with only the invasion in mind, not the occupation that followed. Time and time again he mentions that a soldier in the US army can fight like 4 or even 10 normal soldiers with all the new technology that is available. That's nice to hear...but fighting is only one aspect of a war, and it does not take a military genius to figure that out.

:?: If that was directed at me, we are certainly on the same page. As stated above, some generals told Rummy that significantly more forces were needed. He ignored the arguments, and the occupation was a disaster from day 1.

On the contrary...I saw we withdraw our forces from all Non-Conus commands..every rifle, humvee, down to the last private...Kosovo..Bosnia...it's a European problem..let them put more Dutch, German, French, Italian, or Spanish troops there..bring our boys out and either send them to Iraq or bring them home.

If only it were so easy. For one thing, European bases allow for much easier transit of materials. Iraq I saw widespread use of facilities in Europe The inability to operate from Turkey severly hurt the original warplan. Air bases in Germany, the UK, Bulgaria, and Rumania have proven their important in Iraq I, Afghanistan, and Iraq II.
Remember that most casualties arrive first at Ramstein.

As for dealing with Korea..we have a staging platform with the 3rd Marine Division/3rd Marine Air Wing/3rd Force Service Support Group..at best we have a hodgepodge of US troops, both command and support elements, something to the tune of 38,000 troops..hardly enough to stop the North, but enough to bring a relieving force to Iraq.

This is a major complaint against the deployment to Iraq. Ignoring the DPRK is not a viable solution. Especially as the DPRK WMD is much more credible.