The Tactics of Iraq - Inviting Discussion

[Nomex Maximus]

Please consider the following news article:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14199124/detail.html

I'd like to get a discussion going here to answer some questions that have been bugging me for a long time. This isn't exactly CAP related, but we are an auxiliary of the US military, we do help prepare some members for military service and there are a number of active and retired military officers who read these forums here.  So I'd like to (politely) ask for a discussion about the military tactics being used in Iraq.

When our country invaded Iraq several years back, I was amazed ad impressed at the efficiency and capability of our troops. So confident they were to win the conflict that they even broadcast the invasion in realtime from the frontline troops - we could watch on TV as our guys went forward and blew the Iraqi army to bits. We got used to reports of next to no casualties resulting to our side. But then it came time to occupy the country and the deaths began to rise. Now, close to 4000 of our troops have died and several times that have been greivously injured. I have for a long time been wondering about the tactics being used.

Here is what troubles me. I am a former police officer and a former corrections officer. I can plainly see that the situation in Iraq (Baghdad and elsewhere) is obviously not ready to be policed. Police cannot operate as police unless all organized military resistance to government has been eliminated and in Iraq that obviously has not occured. Soldiers are not police; Police are not Security; Police are not Soldiers and none of the above are Corrections. Police need to be able to walk freely amongst the people they police without significant fear of being attacked. But what we have been seeing for years now in Iraq is the US military trying to act like a police force - but without having eliminated the organized resistance that prevents policing to be possible. We send military patrol after military patrol into streets that are not under our control to try and act like "police". The result is all too often what the news article above tells us - dead US soldiers.

It seems to me that when we send our troops out into the streets of say, Baghdad, that we are sending them out to be police in an area that is not ready for policing. At any point the troops can be under enemy observation and subject to immediate attack. The streets are mined. Is it normal or common military procedure to advance into a minefield? If not, then why would we send our troops out into known mined streets? The enemy can attack at will; they succeed in their minds as often as they inflict pain and loss on our troops. All they have to do is to pick off one of our guys and then retreat or melt into the crowds. The streets are not ready for us to send out "patrols" or "police". The military as I see it must still fight a battle to clear the cities of ALL insurgents and until this battle is won, we will not control the streets and our guys will suffer loss.

I guess what I am asking of the retired and professional officers here is, what is it that the military thinks it is doing when it sends out patrols into streets that are still contested? What is the military strategy that is going on here?

I am absolutely on the side of our troops here in this discussion - I want them to win this thing. I am hoping that someone will be able to explain to me what is going on here militarily.

Thanks in advance for your comments...

Nomex...


   

[JohnKachenmeister]

Fair enough... here goes.

First, do not think of Iraq as a "War."  It is a campaign.  it is a part of a much larger war, and cannot be separated from the larger context.

Iran is a much greater threat to the United States than Iraq ever was.  Afghanistan was a threat to the United States only because of the immediacy of the threat posed by the Taliban-alQaeda alliance evident after 9/11. 

Afghanistan fell, and a popular leader emerged.  The attempts to recapture power made by the Taliban are not supported

In order to attack Iran, or even to put serious diplomatic or military pressure on Iran, you must control Iraq.  Put another way, an attack against Iran will fail if a hostile Iraq covers its western flank.  Once Iraq is taken and secured, we will have friendly governments on both the east and west of Iran, and we will be in a position to exercise both military and diplomatic options.

Iran knows this.  Iran knows that the game is up if Iraq and Afghanistan are secured by governments friendly to the US.  Therefore, Iran initiated and has sustained a counteroffensive in Iraq, targeting both the US and the new government of Iraq.

Unfortunately, in spite of the awesome responsibility placed on US journalists by the Constitutional protection they enjoy, American reporters are not very smart.  They have consistently mischaracterized the conflict in Iraq as a popular Iraqi revolt.  The current action is neither popular not Iraqi in origin.

Also unfortunately, the intensity of the action caught our military by surprise, as did the speed with which Iran was able to set up the command/control/ and logistic nets necessary to implement this counterattack.  This was aided by existing radical al-Qaeda insurgents that were already in Iraq, in spite of claims to the contrary be people who have never been out of New York City.

The tactics are not just "Patrol."  The tactics involve various methods to intercept bombers attempting to set up explosives, interdicting supplies of explosives, and working with the Iraqis to gain intel on threats.  To keep the intel coming from the Iraqis, the troops have to go where the Iraqis are.  Of course, to kill the terrorists, one also has to go where the terrorists are.  Hunkering down in a secured position may be a tempting tactic, but it is a loser.  It gives the initiative to the enemy and surrenders any chance of getting intel from the population.

My personal strategy would be a counter-counteroffensive, attacking Iran's key military, economic, infrastructure, command/control, and governmental assets.  If they are busy dodging American bullets and bombs, they will be unable to engage in an attack into Iraq.  Also, the theocracy is weak and propped up principally by brutal repression.  We will NOT be greeted with open arms (We were in Iraq) but the resistance will collapse as soon as the destruction of the elite forces supporting the government are destroyed.

[mikeylikey]

 

[dougsnow]

I read a very interesting article on Iraq written by a LtCol in the US Army Reserve - The Modern Seven Pillars of Iraq. His basic thesis is that as long as we dont understand the cultural forces in work in Iraq, and as long as we fail to come to grips with those cultural forces (such as the tribal culture over there), then we have about as much chance as a snowball in hell on the summer solstice.

His well written article is at http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/ArmyMag/Feb07/Trebilcock.pdf

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm not sure "WE" need to understand their culture, unless "WE" are going to do their fighting for them forever.  I believe we should create a climate that is relatively free from external security threats, and from internal threats acting as surrogates for outside forces.  They should structure a government that works for them, which may or may not be on the current federal model designed by our guys. Then we can concentrate on providing military assistance, logistics, training, etc. like we provide to other friendly nations.

From reading and discussing the matter with folks who have been there, I am not convinced that a federal system will work there long-term.  A confederation of semi-indepenent states that is more on the model of the European Union might be a more appropriate government.  But... the disadvantage of that would be the fact that the Turks object to ANY autonomy for Kurdistan.  However, since Turkey reneiged on its promises of support during the conventional phase of the invasion, I'd tell them to just "Get over it," but that might be why I never worked for the State Department.

[flyguy06]

I spent a year in Iraq and am still trying to figure out what the endstate is. What is "Victory"? I dont think its been defined. Some people say we are there to defeat Terrorism. Well, Terrorism has been around since cain and ABle. You will never get rid of it. Some say we are there to stabilize the country. Thats hard to do when you have different units training the Iraqi Army using different standards.

So, I am not sure exactly what the end goal is for Iraq. Maybe some of you CAP guys can answer that for me.

[Nomex Maximus]

OK, I have not spent a year in Iraq, or even a day. Nor am I ever likely to. My concern here is what seems to me to be a terribly costly way of doing business there by our military. Whether the end goal is as Kach says to have Iran caught between two free US allied nations or not, the soldiers on the ground seem to be getting sent into some really bad situations.  This greatly concerns me.

If you are a mid-level commander of ground troops you have a group of say, 50 - 100 infantry. Well armed, but they are to be sent our on a patrol of a neighborhood in humvees.  Down narrow winding sidestreets with the advantage to the attacker at every corner. The humvees may have some armor, but even Bradleys or Abrams will not protect the troops from close in attacks by EFPs and IEDs. And even armored humvees aren't real safe against snipers or ambushes.  You know that the enemy is out there and you know that the enemy can walk right up to you without you recognizing him as the enemy. Until he attacks, he looks like a civilian.  And he can be hiding behind any door or window out of sight until he take the first shot. But there is the rub - he only needs to take one shot and then retreat. If he kills or wounds one of our guys he has already succeeded. If the EFP or IED blows up just one vehicle he has succeeded for the day. Our guys can try to counterattack but the damage is already done.  If the enemy's goal is to make it  impossible for us/the Iraqi government to govern then they are succeeding. Especially if our counterattack wounds or kills civilians in the process.  In fact, since he is a heaartless bastard he doesn't care if he kills a whole bunch of civilians - chaos keeps us/the Iraqi government from succeeding.

My angst is that it seems to me that sending a patrol out to draw the enemy's fire is a terrible way to try and fight him.  Do you agree?  If not why not?

How might I do it better? I don't know. But I would think that a fullscale concentrated assault on the city in question where massive forces are sent to clear the city "once and for all" house by house and building by building is what is needed.  Then, station assault teams outside of the town keeping the town under sniper surveillance and attacking only when the enemy presents himself first. In other words, make it impossible for the enemy to interfere with the government.

Again, I am just looking for discussion. I don't claim to have any military experience. I am just sick of seeing our guys getting hurt out there.

[mikeylikey]

My angst is that it seems to me that sending a patrol out to draw the enemy's fire is a terrible way to try and fight him.  Do you agree?  If not why not?

That is an actual tactic taught at West Point and in ROTC.  It is casually called "pick a guy to go into the kill zone". Usually the guy with less time in.

[JohnKachenmeister]

It was also the tactic that Sitting Bull used on Custer... Sending out a small force that the enemy believes he can overwhelm, and once the enemy is committed, hit HIM with overwhelming force.

Nomex:

You are right as far as you go.  The enemy does have tactical advantage and seems to carry the initiative at this time.  That's why I would recommend early action against Iran to recover the initiative and to force the enemy to commit assets to defense.

But I was only a major, not a major general.  Some (mostly around FL Wg. HQ) would say I was also a major pain in the butt.  I don't have to onsider political ramifications.  In my perfect world, politicians would be put away in secure storage facilities until after the war.

[ddelaney103]

To get a better idea of the complexity of the Iraq situation, you may want to read "There Are Four Iraq Wars: How many of them can we win?" on Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2159460/

In short, there is no one "target," be it AQ, Iran, or the Mookster, to act as our war focus.  People say there is a civil war in Iraq, but that's not so - civil war would be an improvement on a country that is close to a war of all against all.

If we can't come up with the ability to get the Iraqi people the bottom of Maslov's pyramid, there's little chance we'll get a peaceful country.

[mikeylikey]

^ The country needs split back up to what it was before the British Empire Jacked it up in the early 1900's. 

[Walkman]

^ The country needs split back up to what it was before the British Empire Jacked it up in the early 1900's. 

You said it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Your post may have been sarcastic, maybe not, but I think that actually might be the best solution to the internal political struggle.

Instead of forcing them to accept a Federal system, why not allow them to form the Iraq Confederation, with semi-independent states acting under a central government authority to manage external affairs and distribution of oil revenues?  Public safety would fall under the authority of the member states.  This could be modeled on the European Union, rather than on Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

[dougsnow]

Instead of forcing them to accept a Federal system, why not allow them to form the Iraq Confederation, with semi-independent states acting under a central government authority to manage external affairs and distribution of oil revenues

I think its the whole central government authority part the Iraqis would s%%t a cat over.

I think...

[mikeylikey]

Lets not forget a democracy may not be the best form of government for all people.  Hell.....it is still just an experiment, and may turn out to be a poor form of government.  It has lead to civil wars, insurrections, taxation without representation, the plight of one group of people over another, unequal benefits for all citizens, uncontrollable immigration, fraud waste and abuse by the central government, little or no representation of the common man by the elected mases.  HOWEVER, it is the best thing going for the land between Canada and Mexico.

We should not force a democracy on the world.  In my view, the best form of Government is a monarchy, but then you may have periods where you get a tyrant for a leader. 

We (average citizen) don't even elect our President.  So why are we voting for one to begin with.  Why don't the State Governors get together and choose one.  Oh ya....they do, remember that thing called the electoral college.  Last time I looked, my electoral delegates were chosen by my state's Governor.  So......for Iraq, split the country up, let them meet periodically in Baghdad (or wherever) and let them become "friendly neighbors" in a confederation of states. 

Does this really matter......I say no.  We are more than likely going to War with Iran in a few months, so the whole middle east is [farg]ED

[JohnKachenmeister]

I could write a convincing essay that we have been at war with Iran since the Hostage Crisis, but that we have been in a state of denial.  Iran, at least, has been at war with us.

I agree that the actions taken AFTER major ground combat concluded in Iraq has been a dismal failure.  We have forgotten the lessons of history, and have to re-learn them in a remedial class.  In World War II, conquered territory was immediately occupied by Army units specifically configured to provide governmental services, and control of government was released to the conquered enemies very slowly.  Only then could the conquered territory establish its own Constitution and government. 

That's why Germany and Japan have different governmental systems.  They have what works for them.

For the same reason, we are now scrambling to train "CERT" volunteers, to do the same thing that my mother did in World War II as an "Air Raid Warden."

The whole country needs to re-take history.  Only this time they can learn that people OTHER than African-Americans and women made contributions to victory.

[Falshrmjgr]

My angst is that it seems to me that sending a patrol out to draw the enemy's fire is a terrible way to try and fight him.  Do you agree?  If not why not?

That is an actual tactic taught at West Point and in ROTC.  It is casually called "pick a guy to go into the kill zone". Usually the guy with less time in.

What are you talking about??  I can say definitively that was never taught to me in PLDC, ROTC, or the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, nor was it a tactic used in any battalion I ever served in.

The ONLY time we train our troops do something similar is in extremus during chemical attack unmasking procedures.  Purely a fiction of hollywood movies.  (I am not saying its never been done, I am saying that is NOT doctrine.)

Doctrine is to engage the enemy and develop the fight.  During amovement to contact if you detect an ambush, you either fire and manuever, or you establish a base of fire, and bring more combat power to bear. (FM 7-10, etc...)

If you are IN an ambush, you immediately perform Battle Drill 4, react to Ambush.  (FM 7-8)

-----------------------------------------------------


Now consider this:  I concur wholeheartedly that American casualties are a tragedy.  But lets put this into perspective:

from http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/  (Yep, an anti-war site)

American Military Casualties in Iraq
                                                 KIA       KIA-Combat Related
Since war began (3/19/03):       3808    3128

So, we have almost 4,000 US deaths since the war began, and we have destroyed the Iraqi Army; built a new Iraqi Army; held free elections; have a government in place; captured, tried, convicted, and executed a brutal dictator.  We have done this without a draft, and without significant hardship to the American people as a whole.

Now let's look at another battle, the battle for Guadalcanal:

In the six months it took the US to declare Guadalcanal secure, the US incurred 1600 Dead.

Feb. 6, 1943 - Guadalcanal declared secure

    * US casualties 6,000 of 60,000 including 1600 dead; Japan casualties 24,000 of 36,000

And what was accomplished?  We held a rock in the middle of the ocean who's sole value was as a airbase to further our stepping stone approach towards Japan.  1 in 10 was a casualty.  1 in 25 Died.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me the US Military has, and is continuing to kick ass and take names.   Is this a hard fight?  Yes it is, that's why its called war.  Do I grieve the loss of my fellow Americans?  Absolutely.  But I cannot see giving up now.  The price is too high.

Now is the time for the entire world, not just America to take a stand against petty tyrants and religious zealots who would remake the world in the image of a mythical medieval paradise.  To take the burden unto ourselves to ensure that Mankind's future is one of freedom and equality.  The old saying goes that "with great power comes great responsibility."  We ARE that great power, and to those who think we should shirk our duties in favor of cowering behind our borders, I say that only craven person can turn a blind eye to the suffering and despair of those who live under the yoke of tyranny.  When you scratch the surface of the character of those who would run and hide, you find selfishness, greed, and fear.  Putting our heads in the sand will not keep America safe, nor will shirking our responsibilities.  Only by shouldering the burden that has come with our success will America continue to be great.  Only by embracing our American Values can we continue to be the beacon of light that we have been.


(Sorry bout the rant, and thanks if you read the whole sermon )

[JohnKachenmeister]

My angst is that it seems to me that sending a patrol out to draw the enemy's fire is a terrible way to try and fight him.  Do you agree?  If not why not?

That is an actual tactic taught at West Point and in ROTC.  It is casually called "pick a guy to go into the kill zone". Usually the guy with less time in.

What are you talking about??  I can say definitively that was never taught to me in PLDC, ROTC, or the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, nor was it a tactic used in any battalion I ever served in.

The ONLY time we train our troops do something similar is in extremus during chemical attack unmasking procedures.  Purely a fiction of hollywood movies.  (I am not saying its never been done, I am saying that is NOT doctrine.)

Doctrine is to engage the enemy and develop the fight.  During amovement to contact if you detect an ambush, you either fire and manuever, or you establish a base of fire, and bring more combat power to bear. (FM 7-10, etc...)

If you are IN an ambush, you immediately perform Battle Drill 4, react to Ambush.  (FM 7-8)

-----------------------------------------------------


Now consider this:  I concur wholeheartedly that American casualties are a tragedy.  But lets put this into perspective:

from http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/  (Yep, an anti-war site)

American Military Casualties in Iraq
                                                 KIA       KIA-Combat Related
Since war began (3/19/03):       3808    3128

So, we have almost 4,000 US deaths since the war began, and we have destroyed the Iraqi Army; built a new Iraqi Army; held free elections; have a government in place; captured, tried, convicted, and executed a brutal dictator.  We have done this without a draft, and without significant hardship to the American people as a whole.

Now let's look at another battle, the battle for Guadalcanal:

In the six months it took the US to declare Guadalcanal secure, the US incurred 1600 Dead.

Feb. 6, 1943 - Guadalcanal declared secure

    * US casualties 6,000 of 60,000 including 1600 dead; Japan casualties 24,000 of 36,000

And what was accomplished?  We held a rock in the middle of the ocean who's sole value was as a airbase to further our stepping stone approach towards Japan.  1 in 10 was a casualty.  1 in 25 Died.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me the US Military has, and is continuing to kick ass and take names.   Is this a hard fight?  Yes it is, that's why its called war.  Do I grieve the loss of my fellow Americans?  Absolutely.  But I cannot see giving up now.  The price is too high.

Now is the time for the entire world, not just America to take a stand against petty tyrants and religious zealots who would remake the world in the image of a mythical medieval paradise.  To take the burden unto ourselves to ensure that Mankind's future is one of freedom and equality.  The old saying goes that "with great power comes great responsibility."  We ARE that great power, and to those who think we should shirk our duties in favor of cowering behind our borders, I say that only craven person can turn a blind eye to the suffering and despair of those who live under the yoke of tyranny.  When you scratch the surface of the character of those who would run and hide, you find selfishness, greed, and fear.  Putting our heads in the sand will not keep America safe, nor will shirking our responsibilities.  Only by shouldering the burden that has come with our success will America continue to be great.  Only by embracing our American Values can we continue to be the beacon of light that we have been.


(Sorry bout the rant, and thanks if you read the whole sermon )

Herr Falschirmjaeger:

I was never taught that sending 1 guy into a known kill zone was a valid tactic, but the tactic of using a small force as bait to lure a larger enemy force into terrain favorable to you IS a tactic that was taught to me in OCS, and was acceptable in Officer Advanced.

I understand that Nomex was never in the RM, so I assumed that his terminology was general in nature, and that he really wouldn't send a trooper into a kill zone for recon.  (Unless he really didn't like that trooper!)

That was exactly Sitting Bull's tactic at the Little Big Horn, sending a small force out against Custer, who charged right into an ambush.

The movie "We Were Soldiers" did not explain it well, but in that battle, a battalion of the 7th Cavalry was sent into an area were an NVA division was suspected to be.  The NVA deployed against the battalion, and never noticed that other American forces surrounded them. 

Lee's original plan at Gettysburg was to lure the Union Army into favorable terrain, and then attack it in force.  But early successes convinced him that he should abandon his plan, and that he could win by defeating the Yankees in place.  He was wrong.

[JohnKachenmeister]

And there are only two possible defenses to an ambush. 

1.  Assault the ambush directly from the kill zone, being careful not to assault THROUGH the ambush to avoid getting caught in a secondary kill zone, and

2.  Evacuate the kill zone quickly, and assault the flanks of the ambush.

The correct tactic is a function of situation, terrain, and troops available. 

The best method is to identify danger areas before you enter an ambush, and establish security on your flanks.

[Falshrmjgr]

I was never taught that sending 1 guy into a known kill zone was a valid tactic, but the tactic of using a small force as bait to lure a larger enemy force into terrain favorable to you IS a tactic that was taught to me in OCS, and was acceptable in Officer Advanced.

Absolutely, feints, reconnaissance in force, etc... all valid.  The context, as I read it, was a small unit ambush, not a tactical effort at deception.  My point was about the lack of force protection.

The movie "We Were Soldiers" did not explain it well, but in that battle, a battalion of the 7th Cavalry was sent into an area were an NVA division was suspected to be.  The NVA deployed against the battalion, and never noticed that other American forces surrounded them. 

Yep, LZ X-Ray can surely be beaten to death.  (Think a full day in Building 4.)  Fun for a separate thread? 


/Jaeger