World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Bluesman · 03-03-2007, 18:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

.Bluesman, I must say I agree with you. Most notably at the part of not disbanding the Iraqi army. I agree that the war itself was beautifally performed, but this is what I would have done from the beginning...

The pre invasion-
Sent in airborne troops to the east, west, and north. We can easily supply them day-to-day; therefore we wouldn't have to worry about supplies as we did in WW2. I would have used those troops to gain control of the border, and attract attention away from the main invading army. I would use the navy, and air force to take out their Iraqi counterparts immediately. I would also attempt to take out a large part of the mechanized force using air strikes. This wouldn't be enough, and there would still be a lot to do.

The main invasion-
The main invading army spearhead would be a single armor division. Behind them there would be a mechanized division to mop up. And behind them there would be engineers, and two heavy infantry divisions. Baghdad would not be my objective (Napoleon made that point 200 years ago-what was Bush thinking?), my objective would be the Iraqi army, and when they surrendered, I would bring in two additional field armies for occupation. Altogether the force in the aftermath would be comprised of about 200,000 men. The Airborne would be withdrawn following the surrender of the Iraqi. Note, I would continue to keep the borders secure using drones, other air support, and mechanized units.

The aftermath-
The provisional governor would not be from the state department; he would be a provost marshal from the army, and it would be his duty to weed out all senior officers in the Iraqi army-that is the rank of colonel, and above. He would also be responsible for setting up an Iraqi provisional government, and using them as a figurehead government. He would also be responsible for getting society, and infrastructure back into a working pattern, though I would leave most of it to the future Iraqi government. When things settled down, I would unleash the disaster that is the American state department, and they would work with prominent Iraqis to form a new government. But note the Americans would only be advisers; I would leave it primarily to the Iraqis. After the constitution is ratified, we would help enforce it, when the constitutional government is implemented we would help support it. When the new government took control of the armed forces, I would reduce the occupational force by half as a sign of goodwill. This does not mean however that I was preparing for a general withdrawal.

Our withdrawal-
I would not set a timetable to withdrawal until my advisers and I agreed it was time. And when we came to such a conclusion, we would not disclose anything to the public. The force would be withdrawn in a piecemeal sort of way over 6 months

A good plan, but that airborne thang: I know why you would've done it, but the fact is, they expected it. In the best report I ever wrote, I covered it, and my analysis concluded that the Iraqi command thought we were going to do somethin g like the Kandahar Plan, in which we seized airbridges, established bases as hubs to spread out and attack the surrounding areas. They were geared towards reacting rapidly and in massive force to whip a sizable but isolated American unit, and I wouldn't advise giving them the opportunity, even if we COULD kick their ass with airpower when they mass to fight; after all they COULD get lucky and inflict a bunch of casualties on us.

And also...I'm SERIOUS about the information realm being vital. I'd recommend that ANY plan get that part as right as possible. If we don't, THIS is what we get.