Thread: We are losing the Iraq War militarily

We are losing the Iraq War militarily: Part One
Kevin Thomson – November 27, 2004

Am I a military expert, you may ask? No, I am not. But I'm not a chef either, and I know a bad meal when I eat one.

This is my own analysis of military situation in Iraq. It contains many references.

-- Introduction --

The overwhelming popular support of Iraqi invasion in March 2003 is partially due to the perception that there is NO military risk. Victory is easy and assured. War is just like a video game: dropping bombs or firing missiles from afar, and diaper heads dropping dead like flies. Then, we victoriously enter the conquered cities with people welcoming us with flowers and kisses.

This is exactly the core of the illusion – American military prowess. This delusion has been building for a very long time - since the end of the Vietnam War 30 years ago. The overwhelming success of the first Gulf War in 1991 greatly reinforces this illusion. The euphoric illusion reached its climatic peak on April 9, 2003, upon the fall of Baghdad after only three weeks of fighting with very limited American casualties.

"It's not mismanagement that has us mired in Iraq. There is a more fundamental explanation: the misleading and dangerous conception of modern war to which Democrats and Republicans alike have subscribed.

"The fact is that in the aftermath of the Cold War, Americans became enthralled with military power.

"Central to this infatuation was the conviction, emerging out of Desert Storm, that the United States had unlocked the innermost secrets of warfare. For the world's sole superpower, gone were the risks and uncertainties endemic to past conflicts. Gone too was the prospect of massive destruction and incidental slaughter. Armed with its high-tech arsenal, the United States could henceforth employ its military might with laser-like precision and unerring effectiveness.

"Time and again, history has made a mockery of man's efforts to effectively harness violence for political purposes. During the interval between the Cold War and 9/11, Americans had indulged in the fantasy that history no longer constrained the United States. Our soldiers in Iraq must now deal with the consequences of that delusion."

Full article:
Shedding the illusions of shock and awe
www.post-gazette.com/pg/04280/390898.stm

-- Section one --
The Falluja "Victory"

"blasted guerrilla strongholds"
"pounds Falluja"
"hammer rebel positions"
"tighten the noose"
"Unleash 'Operation Phantom Fury'"
"imposed curfew"
"smash what has become the largest remaining insurgent
stronghold in Iraq"
"Cornered Rebels"
"hunt down last Fallujah rebels"
"have broken the back of the insurgency"
"mission accomplished in Fallujah, 1,600 rebels killed"
(Wasn't mission accomplished 18 months ago already?
Later the number was changed to 1,200)

While we are bombarded with news like this, it is hard for ordinary people to see that we are losing the Iraq War - not just politically, but militarily. Here is the reality check on the Falluja "victory."

Our military assembled over 12,000 ground forces in addition to full air support. The city was bombarded for many weeks leading to the final assault. The media also told us that there were 3,000 rebels in the city. Later the military said most rebels fled before the assault. So, let's say 1,000 rebels held out in the city.

The military gave different numbers of how many Iraqi rebels were killed in the Falluja offensive – anywhere from 1,000 to 1,600 killed. They finally settled on 1,200. The Red Cross said several hundred civilians were killed. Subtracting civilian deaths, let's guess that 800 rebels were killed. Note that wounded rebels almost all died, because the first target of our troops was the Falluja hospital and since then our troops have prevented any Iraqis from getting medical help there - civilians or rebels.

Our military said 54 of our troops were killed in the operation. But, they refused to give any figure on wounded. But, the first 5 days of the assault caused over 400 wounded to be flown into Germany from Nov. 8 through Nov. 12:

"The 73 new patients at the U.S. military's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center pushed the number of arrivals this week to 412, nearly all injured in Fallujah, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw said."

After this story was published, military denied journalists access to the hospital. We don't know the figures beyond the first 5 days.

Note that only the more severely injured are sent to Germany. Once sent to Germany, they usually don't go back to Iraq. Less seriously injured are treated in Iraq. Let's guess conservatively that, in the subsequent 7 days, U. S. only had half the number of severely injured (i.e. 200) than the first 5 days. That makes 600 seriously wounded. Let's also assume the same amount of not-so-seriously wounded were treated in Iraq. Then, the total American casualties were 1,254 (with 54 fatalities). The August battle in Najaf with Sadr's militia caused 1,100 casualties, but only 12 deaths. This is reasonable, because armoured vehicles and sophisticated body armors avoided fatalities but not injuries.

The conclusion from Falluja assault: we assembled 10 times more troops (plus full air support) than the rebels and lay siege to a city only 4-5 miles across. With the most advanced weapons money can buy and with the city bombed to rubbles, OUR CASUALTIES WERE ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THE REBELS, who were armed with only AK47s, RPGs and mortars.

Our military declared with a straight face that the Falluja assault was a victory and we have broken the back of the insurgency. A week after the "victory", fighting continued in Falluja:

Fierce clashes renew in Iraq's Fallujah

"NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 22 (Xinhuanet) – Fierce clashes between US-led forces and defenders of Fallujah renewed Monday Morning as relief teams were struggling to enter the battle-torn central Iraqi city.

"Fierce clashes are underway in Jolan, Askari and Shuhadaa neighborhoods," witnesses told Xinhua."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_2247785.htm

News on Nov. 26:

"In Fallujah, just four insurgents tied down a Marine company for hours in a nighttime battle."

In pockets of Fallujah, US troops still face harsh battles
www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p10s01-woiq.html

This is just Fallujah.

The "broken" rebels overran Mosul in just two days with almost no casualties to the rebels. U. S. was forced to send 2,000 troops back from Falluja to Mosul. Several other cities also experienced rebel attacks, including the previously "pacified" Samara. Then, on Saturday Nov. 20, rebel attacks spread across the capital - Baghdad. The military admitted only one solider was killed on Saturday in Baghdad, after a Reuters cameraman filmed a burning Humvee with a body inside.

After we "broke the back of insurgency", the military asked for 5,000 more troops:

Senator McCain asked for even more.

Up to 50,000 more US troops needed in Iraq: Senator McCain
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us_iraq_troops


Korea media reported on Nov. 22:

"The U.S. 2nd Infantry Division stationed near the heavily fortified border with North Korea has started sending more than 100 tanks to Iraq as part of a weapons upgrade operation, U.S. officials said yesterday."
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/da...0411220005.asp

News on Nov. 24:
U.S. Troops End Nine Years in Bosnia Peace Force

Guess where these American troops will be sent after their withdrawal from Bosnia?

My guess is that the rebels destroyed many American armors and inflicted heavy casualties on our forces. As a result, the U. S. needs reinforcements in Iraq, and is scraping the bottom of barrel all over the world to come up with reinforcement troops.

Two months ago, our forces swept through south of Baghdad - the so-called Triangle of Death, and 1,000 British troops were brought in to guard the area, all before the Falluja assault. On Nov. 23, it was reported that our troops launched massive offensive in the same areas again. This Triangle of Death is located on the southern supply line to our troops. My guess? Recent rebel attacks in this area grew to the point that threatened to cut off this southern supply line from Kuwait. Our troops were forced to counter attack to secure it.

No, Iraq is unlike Vietnam. It is much worse than Vietnam militarily. During the Vietnam War, American facilities in the capital of Saigon were usually safe and rarely attacked. In contrast, the Green Zone in Baghdad, the symbol of American occupation, is mortared almost daily. Along the 6-mile-long highway from Baghdad International Airport to the Green Zone, numerous military personnel and civilian contractors were killed or wounded. The Green Zone is like a prison for Americans and Iraqi puppets, hiding behind layers of blast walls and other fortifications.

No, Iraq is unlike Vietnam. Vietnam was just a quagmire. Iraq is turning into an inferno.

The only victory by our military is its successful media control

We are losing the Iraq War militarily: Part Two
Kevin Thomson – November 27, 2004

Am I a military expert, you may ask? No, I am not. But I'm not a chef either, and I know a bad meal when I eat one. This is my own analysis of military situation in Iraq.

We were told last year, after Saddam's two sons were killed and their corpses displayed in public, that resistance would go away, because they are just a handful of Saddam dead-enders and Saddam is not coming back. Instead, the resistance spread.

Then, there was this huge media hoopla surrounding the capture of Saddam himself in December 2003. That was not the end of the resistance, either.

In April of 2004, the Shiite revolt led by Sadr's militia shattered the illusion that Shiites welcome American "liberation" of Iraq.

Then, the hope of ending insurgency is on the handover of this token sovereignty to this puppet Iraqi government led by CIA lackey Allawi. That was not the end, either. Attacks in Sunni area intensified and then the August Najaf revolt by Sadr's Shiite militia again.

The latest hope is on the Falluja assault that will stamp out the last bastions of resistances, so we are told. So far, it hasn't played out, either. Rather, the assault may have made things worse.

Iraqi dirt farmers have called America's bluff (of military prowess). With very primitive weapons, such as AK47, RPG, mortars, and crude homemade bombs (the so-called IEDs - "improvised explosive devices"), they have fought the world's sole super power to a stalemate. In the coming months and years, the resistance is likely to gain more momentum. U.S. will have to withdraw or be defeated militarily.

Actually, it is pretty obvious - really. A conventional army loses if it does not win whereas the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. As long as the guerrilla keeps fighting, they will emerge as the winner.

The Iraqi resistance can persist indefinitely: blowing up pipelines, attacking supply trucks, car bombing and ambushing here and there, etc. It takes little money to keep the resistance going. Even without any government involvement, angry ordinary Arabs can donate (and keep donating) enough money to keep the resistance fighting for decades. But, to keep sizable troops in Iraq, every year U. S. has to pays 120 - 150 billion, mostly going to Halliburton and other well-connected companies. You do the math.

Everyday the resistance picks off a dozen American solders (yes, a couple dozen - if wounded are included). America responds with terror bombings on civilians, because we don't know where these resistance fighters are and we just bomb some homes, claiming they are terrorist safe houses. This is not unlike the NAZI occupation in WW2: the Nazi's didn't know where the resistance fighters were, either; so, they just rounded up some young men near the spot of attack on the German army and summarily executed them.

U. S. ground forces are stretched pretty thin in Iraq already, and still keep losing soldiers everyday, while the Resistance has endless new supply of fighters, Iraqis or other Arabs or even Iranians (Iranians are not Arabs). America cannot significantly increase troop level (or just to maintain the current level) in Iraq without a military draft, which is a difficult sell domestically.

Even if Bush manages to push through a draft, he had better close the borders tight, because lots and lots of draftees will desert to Canada and Mexico. Did Clinton, Cheney, or Bush go fight in Vietnam? In addition, I don't have confidence that those drafted 20-year-old's, whose perception of war are from Hollywood and Television, with tattoos and nose-rings and hip-hop music, can really fight in Iraq. The training of the draftees will take some time, if they can be made soldiers at all. Those finally sent to Iraq are likely to mutiny or worse (such as open revolt,) after they find out that war is no video game. Wearing full combat gear under 140-degree sun does not feel like the cool hero images they envision from the media. They will soon realize that they are likely to come back home in body bags or have some body parts left behind in Iraq. So far, U. S. has suffered 30,000 casualties in the Iraqi theater, with nearly one third of them dead or permanently crippled. See CBS 60-minutes reports:

Iraq: The Uncounted
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in656756.shtml

The government can control the media all they want. But, the draftees will find out the truth on the sandy desert roads in Iraq. The following article highlights the differences between American soldiers and Iraqi fighters:

"17 (American) soldiers refused to embark on what they called a "suicide mission" convoy. They claimed their vehicles were inadequately armored, poorly repaired and running on contaminated gas that could cause them to become victims of roadside bombings and sniper fire.

"And then they called home to their mommies to complain. One man even called his grandpa.

"On CNN's Sunday news show, US Brigadier General James E Chambers, patiently addressing each and every soldier's complaint, explaining that every five convoy vehicles are escorted by a five-ton truck operated by heavily armed contractors or military police, that every US soldier on the convoy is heavily armed regardless of position, that convoys generally receive air coverage by army rotary aircraft, that special quick-reaction forces are often attached to convoys, and that all gas is carefully filtered and tested."

"Do insurgents call their mommies to complain? Does their leadership appear on al-Jazeera Sunday news shows, explaining why they have no shoes, no socks, no latest anything? No. Why? Because they're busy fighting.

"Insurgents don't need much because they've never had much. And still they fight. They don't get scared delivering the gas.

"..fights a war with people armed with homemade bombs and kitchen knives who seem unstoppable. Why?

"It started with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and its American continuation. In fighting a comparably unarmed enemy with overwhelming force, America accidentally created within the "enemy" a new class of killers through naturally selecting out the most extraordinarily talented fighters. These natural-selected fighters survive not only their surrounding poverty and hostile environment, but a murderous onslaught from the most powerful militaries on Earth.

"US Army General Charles Dunlop saw the coming wave years ago while serving in Somalia: "I was struck," Dunlop says, "by the resourcefulness, cleverness and fierceness of the Somalis in confronting us" even though they had only primitive weapons and were often starving. Dunlop warns, America underestimates "the combat capability of societies we had considered too resource-poor .."

Full article: (This is an in depth analysis of the psychology of the warfare. You must read the full article to appreciate the author's thoughts.) GI Joes who just want to go home By Sarah Whalen
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK25Ak01.html
(Sarah Whalen is an expert in Islamic law and taught law at Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana.)

From the previously cited news report in Falluja on Nov. 22 by Christian Science Monitor:

"When the team from Alpha Company finally entered the last redoubt of the insurgents - a burning house that had already been hammered by rockets, explosive charges, and tank rounds - they had every reason to believe any remaining gunmen were dead.
"Instead, point man Lance Corp. Richard Caseras entered with his team and ran into the spray of an insurgent's AK-47 assault rifle. A second fighter then emerged, a pineapple grenade in each hand, with pins already pulled.

"Eyeball to eyeball with their opponents, the marines shot them both dead; the grenades fell to the ground and exploded, blasting the Americans with shrapnel...

"The toll from a brutal night: One dead marine and nine wounded, including this correspondent, who was struck in the arm by a small piece of shrapnel.

Minor mutinies were reported already, primarily among National Guards units.

In the future, if draftees are sent to Iraq, things will get even worse. The primary goal of drafted soldiers is to survive. They will do whatever it takes to survive. If they have to kill innocent civilians, they will do it. If they have to stay in bunkered and air-conditioned bases and file phony reports of patrols and fighting, they will do it. If they have to mutiny, they will do it. If they have to frag their commander (killing their own commander with an AK47 and claiming killed by the rebels), they will
do it. (I didn't make this up. It all happened in the Vietnam War before.) Hey, who can blame them for anything they can possibly do? They are under "combat stress in unpredictable, hair-trigger circumstances", so they argue for a marine who shot dead an unarmed, wounded Iraqi and was caught on camera. (This marine will be punished for his stupidity to be caught on tape.)

"I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong." Another marine said about this instance."

The following articles give you a taste of current problems with our National Guards:

William S. Lind: Destroying the National Guard
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...092404,00.html

Troops' rebellion points to supply shortages
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...our-view_x.htm

News on Nov. 25, 2004

"Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training."

My note: Without lockdown, many would have deserted.