Militarythinker

Hello everyone,

I just joined the board tonight but I am eager to post my first topic so here it goes:

Simply: What would you have done for the Iraq campaign?

Given that you were assigned to invade Iraq using the United States military as your resource, what strategy/ies would you use? How would you address the difficult 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?

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 perhaps learn better ones. 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. 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 you guys have as much fun with this one as I am.

-M

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

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

Militarythinker

I would say both.

If I am understanding your question correctly I am looking for more of what type of strategy. As in a large land force preceded by tactical airstrikes or a major bombing campaign. 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.

If people aren't sure what I am asking for I will write up what my response to the question would be and see if that helps.

I am also looking to develop a dialogue over the tactics and strategies. I love talking about that type of stuff and don't have many people to talk to about it. I would recommend that after it gets going that everyone also add in their opinions about strategies that have been posted. I know when I post mine there will be those with imput for making it better and those able to point out flaws I might have overlooked.

Also I don't need or expect a fully flawless and finished plan for a post. Mine isn't exhaustive or completely thought out and I know I will think of more stuff as I sit on it after posting it. I'll add whatever I think of as it comes to me.

-M

SnowLeopard

IMHO:

Not attack the bloody place in the first place.

Two primary reasons. First of all, it is not wise to attack the Muslim world, at the very least, attack it on the large scale. One could probably argue many different reasons as to why not, but I'll just focus on two. One, as the Christian nation that the United States is suppose to be, Christianity is the religion of love and caring, not hate and attacking. By attacking without justification, ie they attacked us first, it only reinforces their (bad side) idealogy against such. Secondly, it is better for the aspects of that religion to dislike each other than to take action to give them actual cause to hate us more. Granted, they didn't love us before and they still hate each other but by taking agressive action, especially without cause, in the region, we've given them a common enemy to ally against.

Secondly, one doesn't take out the Godfather of Chicago for it is the Godfather of Chicago who keeps all the other families from destroying the town. That was Saddam. That was Hitler. If we took out Hitler, for example, then all the petty arguements, inefficiencies, might have been erased, and all the improper decisions that were made, such as the Me-262 being a bomber instead of a fighter first, might not have been made. But we took out the Godfather, the place had distingrated, and now we have this mess to try to sort.

Further, if we had left Saddam in place, then that may have been the common element to enable us to secure basing in the region. Convince the other countries because of him they need us in their country. But he's gone, we're there, and they are attacking us; that doesn't make it too attractive for other countries to agree to have US bases on their land.

Don't attack in the first place. IMHO.
----------------------------------------------
("You know, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Although, I don't know why you'd want to catch flies. They're actually quite dirty little things."--Trance Gemini, (wtte), "Andromeda")

T_igger_cs_30

[quote=SnowLeopard;349290]IMHO:

Not attack the bloody place in the first place.

With all due respect am I missing something ...9/11 springs to mind

SnowLeopard

Iraq wasn't the one that atttacked us. I'm not saying for not attacking Afghanistan nor am I saying not for attacking on the small scale such as when we hit Libya. IMHO, we could have done a lot better by convincing the other countries that we are a good thing to have around, because of the bad guy on the block, Saddam, or the common bad guy, terrorism, instead of being the bull in the china shop.
-----------------------------------------
(After another explains how WWIII got started because a small third world country with Soviet aircraft bombed Washington but only the aircraft were id'd, not the nationality. "My God, are you saying we attacked the Soviet Union by mistake?"--listener, (w,stte), Book: On The Beach)

Militarythinker

Haven't figured out how to use that quote system yet:

"Not attack the bloody place in the first place."

Haha yes that would be a more favorable choice for many reasons, a few of which you listed. However I intend the thread to be around the one fact that you have to invade Iraq.

Saying that Saddam was the "Godfather of Chicago" is probably a good description. I don't know too much about the internal state of politics in Iraq but from what I know I think the title fits.

However as with Hitler, keeping Saddam alive would only have been helpful throughout the actual invasion. Once we switched to peacekeeping mode, both Hitler and Saddam did/would lose their purpose as the Godfather. Hitler helped the Allies by making stupid decisions and not listening to his much more intelligent military officers. Had Hitler been assasinated early in the war, not only would the Germans have a new reason to fight, but the capable German generals would finally have been able to call the shots.

I can't say that Saddam did the same only because it is too soon to tell how directly involved in his army's tactics he was. He may have been making stupid decisions all along just as Hitler did. I think that it was fortunate to have Saddam alive through the invasion because it gave the U.S. another reason/goal to fight for. Saddam was generally regarded as a bad dictator which is ideal for motivating both the public and military.

So "we kept" Saddam around while he was useful for the invasion and he was then removed post-combat. He had lived out his usefullness by the time the war was over and would no longer have his "Godfather" role as a defeated dictator. Remember that he was found hiding in a hole by himself. If he had kept any of his support, let alone enough to remain a Godfather, he would have not been in such a sorry state when he was found. I say "we kept" and that we removed him as if we planned it but I really am just observing what happened, not stating we intended it to happend that way.

Also using Saddam as a common element to establish bases in the Middle East serves what end purpose? Unless we plan on doing something with those bases I think we could find better uses for our boys. While I don't deny we could have used that excuse to set up bases in many locations, I just don't see the end move of that strategy. If it is to eventually invade Iraq or another country, I don't think that we need various bases to do that.

Also prolonged troop stations in those countries are bound to stir up at least some resentment. So unless we planned on using those bases soon I think the political cost would outweigh any military benefit.

I also only halfheartedly agree with your comment about 9/11 Tigger. While I do remember some reasoning for how Iraq was linked to 9/11 (the actual proof escapes me now), if I remember correctly there were other organizations the U.S. could have targeted that were more involved.

The reasons for why we went into Iraq are muddy to me and now really irrelevant. I went to a very liberal public high school where everyone swore up and down we invaded Iraq to steal all their oil. I also heard about the 9/11 connections Tigger mentioned which I believe involved Iraq financing terrorist organizations. One of the reasons that didn't get very much press coverage, at least from the news I watched, were the war crimes Saddam and his family committed and that removing such a terrible man justified invasion.

But all that aside, how would you have invaded Iraq Snowleopard? I would rather this thread stay on a more military topic than stray to a political discussion. I am a much bigger fan of military strategy and know much more about it. I'm not as sound in my Iraq political history and can't contribute/converse as much about it.

__________________
MT . . .

T_igger_cs_30

Militarythinker

Essentially I do haha. The politics has already been decided: Your job is to invade Iraq.

The discussion I want is how would each of you have done it?

T_igger_cs_30

T_igger_cs_30

[quote=Militarythinker;349304]Essentially I do haha. The politics has already been decided: Your job is to invade Iraq.

.QUOTE]

Done

SnowLeopard

I wouldn't.

And like a similar question in this area, I would have been fired for such a decision. That similar question? If I was in charge of the prison (had I stayed in, +12-13 years from my initial military police tour, it would have been a plausibility) and had been given any order to treat prisoners other than the rules of war, I would have either refused to obey or incompently obeyed ...... and I would be out of the service.

Back to the point. I wouldn't invade the country, it is stragetically wrong. It's wrong because it reinforces the hate idealogy against us, it focuses the majority of our forces and locks them down when we need them to be mobile, and I believe they can be used elsewhere in better ways, such as training counter terrorism forces in countries that are stable, stabilizing countries, than trying to keep a country from going under.

We're suppose to be the good guys. That means we go to war, such as we are in now, when we need to, not because it is our only trick in the bag. We could have done a lot better in unifying the world against terrorism with limited military/police action in areas than just being bogged down in one country.

I wouldn't have attacked them.

However, since the question is asked: would have beefed up the other countries around Iraq, that were friendlier to us, and by keeping him as the common bad guy in the region, pushed the table for the region to remove him as themselves, not by an outsider.
---------------------------------------------------
("When torturing a woman, you ask her to remove her clothes, you should not resort to force. Her compliance will put the doubt in her mind that she has consented to the actions that follow."--Dr. Clement Molloch, expert torturer, giving a "lecture", (w,stte), Book: "The Evil That Men Do")

SnowLeopard

Funding is not sufficient reason for war. If it were, then we should have attacked the Soviet Union for Viet Nam or them us for Afghanistan. Or Britain against France and Spain for the Revolutionary War. Or Lincoln against Britain for the Civil War. Funding is a police action/diplomatic response. By going to war over funding, we betray our history and everything we might say to tell others we are the good guys can get lost.
-------------------------------------------------------
("The gangsters got richer and richer and the government got poorer and poorer. Soon, we couldn't do anything." -- FBI agent Rembrandt Brown on an alternate world, Sliders "Greatfellas")

Sombra

It seems that AQ has trained more of his member in the US than in Iraq (before 2001). I think you should bomb the Saudis as most terrorists of 9/11 were from there.

T_igger_cs_30