SnowLeopard

Who said anything about writing them (or the Cole or any of the others before, hurt on or off US soil) off? I am not saying to do nothing. I am saying that it is improper for the United States to invade Iraq.
--------------------------------------
("What your saying is that the Captain and the others are still alive?"--Scotty
"Please control your leaps of logic, Mr. Scott; I said nothing of the sort, I was merely speculating."--Spock, (wtte), ST:TOS "That which Survives")

Militarythinker

Ahh there it is. Not quite what I am looking for but its actually an approach I didn't think of. I think that solution solves the problem of developing more anti-US feeling.

I apologize for not making my initial request more specific. I will do my best to be more specific in the future. Also please forgive my narrowminded persuit of a discussion on military tactics. I don't have time to type out all my ideas on the situation but here is a bit which will hopefully give people a better idea of what I was looking for.

The general plan for Iraq was large troop movement across the continent. Shock and Awe was the name of the game. We rolled up in our big tanks and APC's ready to fight some imaginary regular army. While there were a few regular units that used tactics similar to ours, many units were civilian clothed militia and terrorists.

This allowed many members of the Iraqi military to just drop their AK's or even just conceal them and become instant guerilla fighters. This created a difficult battlefield situation for our large force operations. Territory that the day before been secured and passed by our forces could easily have many undercover militia and terrorists alike.

In a war like the war in Iraq, holding real-estate becomes almost impossible and requires lots of troops.

Instead of thundering into Iraq with our huge columns of tanks. I would have focused more on small unit manuvers. Clumsy tactics like roadside bombs and other acts of terrorism are useless if the enemy doesn't have targets. Take away the endless columns of tanks rolling down their roads and they no longer have anything to bomb.

While I don't know the current capabilities of the US military in this area this is what I would have done:

Small self sustaining units would be sent into Iraq and target the structured units. This would involve removing leadership and destroying military instilations and equipment. Removing leadership could be done through assasination or capture, depending on if we needed information. The rest could be done with placed demo charges or calling in air strikes.

Teams could be moved deep into Iraq territory by either helicopters at night or even night jumps. It is amazing what a small team of well trained US soldiers can do with all the US firepower behind them.

By doing this, we are fighting them with their own tactics, but in a cleaner way. Terrorism like the kind that was used in Iraq can easily kill innocent civilians and almost seems to encourage it in my opinion. Our form of guerilla warfare would not be as deadly to civilians. Controlled operations have a very small chance of hurting innocents. While I am sure there would be at least one mix up with an air strike or a misplaced charge, I think the overall damage to civilians would be minimal.



Anyway that is kinda just the beginning of what I would have done. I have some followup ideas and a few other fun ideas to throw in that I will add later. I hope this clears up what I ment when I said, "What would you have done in Iraq?"

__________________
MT . . .

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

Militarythinker

Haha. I have no doubt that if left to my own imagination I would do something to piss off the military and get the boot.

Sorry for the overstatement about the "imaginary" Iraqi army. Yes I do know there were large amounts of both tanks and troops. From what I have read I believe that most of the time they tried to avoid open engagements with our forces, which is a smart tactic on their part. And essentially an enemy force that you cannot face in open engagements is a whole different type of factor to deal with.

I know that we did and currently do have special ops working inside Iraq. My point was simply that I would have made a more public and more intense special ops campaign. Whenever the United States is involved in any type of conflict I always assume there are many Spec Ops missions going on that the public will never hear about.

Also while I am sure there were Spec Ops guys running around Iraq for the whole campaign as well as before it, I personally would have liked to see their involvement increased. If they stepped up the scale and number of that type of operation that I am proposing, it would have to be done while we didn't have any large force in Iraq. This deprives them of targets. This is actually where SnowLeopard's idea of having bases in friendly neighboring countries would help. With many different bases we could launch missions from many different staging points and therefore increase our range of operations.

With large land forces sitting just across their border and Spec Ops boys creating havoc in the interior of the country the war would have been a different story as far as casualties go. I would bet that if we were able to cut off a decent amount of the structured leadership in the Iraq army before invading, there would have been much lighter resistance. Or at the very least far more unorganized resistance wich is almost just as good.

Then after a prolonged series of Spec Ops-Like missions, we could charge in with the previously used tank columns and mechanized infantry. *I have a whole bunch of ideas for how to make that as safe and fast as possible but I will have to add those later*

As for the invading force there isn't much I would change from what actually happened as far as troop movement and such. The only thing that I would have done was increase the involvement of snipers. Keep in mind I just read Shooter which is all about one sniper's new theory of sniper tactics and how he personally used them to a small degree in Iraq. Now all these ideas are all after the fact and I don't claim that I could have come up with them before the war but I do enjoy talking about it.

I think that the US military needs to make a few changes if they/we plan on fighting more countries with similar tactics to the ones used in Iraq. The number of Spec Ops missions and overall involvement needs to be increased a lot. And not necessarily with actual Special Operations forces. This type of warfare could even be done by a baisic marine squad with a little bit more training. That is probably one of the best investments as far as training goes in my opinion. It would be simple to have a few of the Spec Ops trainers teach a few units of Marines back in the States for refitting how to operate inside enemy territory for the type of sabotage missions needed.

Anyway hope to hear your guy's own opinions and strategies as well as any thoughts you have on mine.

Militarythinker

Ok I posted this same general question in the "War in Iraq" section and got a few responses, but not really the type of military focused kind I was looking for. I am re-posting it here in hope that it will do a little better. The question is phrased a bit better too I hope, and should be more clear:

Given that you were assigned to invade Iraq using the United States military as your resource, what strategy/ies would you use? The hypothetical situation is that you must invade Iraq and remove Saddam from office or remove Saddam and invade Iraq, whichever way you think is better.

• How would you address the task of fighting a terrorist force while trying to restore peace?
• What would be your initial push into Iraq be like?
• What preliminary action and preparation would you have done before actually invading?
• What steps would you have taken to deal with civilian cooperation/resistance?
• Also are there any type of units that do not currently exist in the U.S. military forces that you think would have been helpful in this campaign?
• If you do (I know I do) then what would they be and how would you have gone about creating them if it was up to you?

I don't mean this to be a laundry list of questions. The list is simply to start with. Just throw in any extra details that you can think of or that you think are important.

While my actual knowledge of the terrain, enemy strength and position is limited at best I have a few ideas of what I would have done. I am only a first year college student and I don't claim to be any sort of expert. Most of my information and ideas come from reading military history and baisic exposure to modern tactics and units from shows, books and a bit of research. From this post I hope to see if anyone shares the same ideas or has better ones I could learn from.

I am looking for more of what type of strategy. As in a large land force preceded by tactical airstrikes or perhaps a major bombing campaign instead. I'm not really looking for changes in squad tactics as much but if you have input on that it is welcome. I have read a bit about the squad tactics of the Marines in Iraq but I don't think there is anything I could change for the better. If you see something that you would have changed then throw that in.

I also hope to learn more about what the military situation was and is in Iraq. I am sure many of you know about details that might effect how I would have planned to do it so I am going to wait until there have been a few responses before I post mine. I also want this to be a lengthy discussion. I don't think you can have a too detailed plan. I want to hear about all of it.

Hopefully this will develop into a dialogue over the tactics and strategies both in how they could apply to Iraq and how they work in general. Specifically future US military tactics and possible new units for fighting in a similar situation. I love talking about that type of stuff and don't have many people to talk to about it.

If you haven't read my "welcome to the forums" post I explain a lot of where I am coming from and what exactly sparked my interest in this subject.

Hope to see some good ideas. I will be posting my full plan after my midterm tonight. That is if I don't pass out before reaching my computer.

Shek

Improper in what way? There's a legal justification, and there's a moral justification. In the end, it's irrelevant to the question asked, which was how the campaign should have been executed.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Maxor

Initial invasion about the same.... Don't immediately disband the iraqi police and military instead pupeteer them temporaily while cunducting internal and investigations of its memebers and reorganization. This would have helped to prevent militias and unrest from forming as much. I'd also have a tendancy to keep in force a curfew for the most part. A media blackout would also be in effect. In troubled areas there would be an opertunity evacuate through a checkpoint where searched by all people then from that point everyone within the area would be considered hostile. Yes this would be infrastructurally expensive but would rapidly bring about more peaceful populace.


I am against the idea of giving up your advantage of overwhelming firepower because your enemies choose to hide among civilians. If you make it clear from the start that civilians who harbour fighters are fair game there is absolutely no reason that anyone will harbour such fighters at direct risk to their lives and livelihoods.

gunnut

What would have happened if we put Saddam back in power? Just say "we have conducted a thorough inspection according to UN resolutions and couldn't find any WMD. You are free to go. Sorry about the mess."

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Militarythinker

Haha I would have laughed if I read that headline

TopHatter

What would I have done....

Hm, probably not tried to fight the war on a budget like some CEO, ever mindful of corporate profits and shareholders.

Somebody already mentioned not immediately disbanding the Iraqi police forces etc. Yes, either that or conversely had a trained force ready to go before the invasion took place.

Other things of course, certainly a much larger contingent of troops and oh yeah, also finding out whose brilliant idea it was to attack one Muslim country from another Muslim country and have them assigned to a latrine digging company. (And no, Kuwait doesn't count in this case, mostly due to a minor and wholly unconnected series of events that occured there in 1990-1991)

The book Cobra II is an excellent source for this discussion...

Shek

Military thinker,

Pick up some books on Iraq such as Fiasco by Tom Ricks or Cobra II by Trainor and Gordon and you'll be much further along in your thought process on what should and should not have happened.

GVChamp

1. Bring more men
2. Bring armor for the HUMVEES
3. Bomb the country for a couple weeks, including that shoddy garbage that passed for infrastructure
4. Gone in from Turkey anyways


EDIT: Alright, I wouldn't REALLY do 4, but my macho side wants to

__________________
"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

MarquezRazor

Stan187

Not disbanding the Iraqi Army right away and putting thousands of professional soldiers out of work without good compensation, that would have been a start.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

McFire

In my opinion, we did most everything right with the "shock and awe" attack. Where we went wrong was when we stopped and just occupied. Once Saddam's government was ousted, we should have put in something along the lines of the post WWII Marshall Plan until the Iraqi's could get on their feet. In addition, rather than let the lawyers figure out ROE (Rules of Engagement) and sit around procrastinating, we should have done our best to seal the borders around Iraq. Rather than let the insurgents pour into the country, we should have made the border areas "No man's land", meaning that if you don't go through the proper checkpoints to enter the country, you will be shot. It may sound heartless, but terrorists should be routed out and eliminated and those who harbor them jailed. The insurgents are neither Iraqi citizens nor uniformed members of a nation's armed forces, therefore Geneva convention laws really don't apply. Eliminate them. The longer we wait, the more sophisticated the terrorists/insurgents become (IEDs), and their supporters become even more bold with their aid (Iran for example). Things will not improve until the Iraqi citizens feel safe. If they don't feel safe, the more sectarian they will become. The longer it takes, the more difficult things will become; Sunnis vs Shiites vs Kurds. Sorry for the rant. Things started well, but the follow-through just hasn't worked out, mostly (in my opinion) because we went soft and slackened in our resolve. We needed to follow "shock and awe" with "swift and decisive", rather than sit on our laurels, watch the results and then procrastinate and worry about being politically correct. The whole point of the "War on Terrorism" is to take the fight to the terrorists and eliminate them so they no longer pose a threat to any nation.

Mac

__________________
McFire