The Tactics of Iraq - Inviting Discussion

[mikeylikey]

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.

Well......I learned it in ROTC, it was beaten to death at Ft Lewis during the summer, remember it from FAOBC, and Advanced.  Now I listen to it being "spoon fed" to MSIII's in the classroom across from me.  Umm.....I routinely had men "run" to the next building to see what was in front of them in Iraq.  Hell I watched a LT pick three men to move forward and clear a path for his platoon to walk.  Sorry if my terminology may be lacking, I learned to blow the enemy up from far away.  I thought I would never ever have to put 7-8 into use (being FA and all), all I concerned myself with was 6-20 and 6-30.

When did you go to IOBC?

 

[Falshrmjgr]

^^^  1996  (Class 4-96?)  Anyhow, July 3 start date,  (Yes, the big West Point Class  )

Anyhow,  that's pretty shocking actually, but understandable from a "lesson's learned" perspective.  Remind's me of doing Scroll to the Road for crossing a danger area.  Not 7-8, but effective and rapid.  (And done a lot in Advance Camp )  Same thing with the Australian Peel.  Is it being taught in that respect?  Or is this something that is going to show up in the new rev of 7-8?

I mean look, I didn't mean to sound dogmatic about it, it's just that this is a force protection issue that the way it was presented sounded like the "Put the cherry on point" from Platoon.

Now if I can extrapolate a bit, are we talking about basically sending a fire-team minus ahead to perform a sort of advance guard function at the platoon level?  That can be tactically sound based on the situation.   At the squad level, I'm thinking that would be running a pretty big risk based on the organic firepower of the squad.  I mean you get 2-3 guys decisively engaged, and you have essentially lost a fire-team, leaving 1 team to maneuver.  (God that would be a goat rope at Lewis-worse that the cadet trails on land nav)

In essence, it would seemed to based on the assumption that the insurgents are unable to mass beyond a squad level, that they will avoid becoming decisively engaged, and that their intent is not to destroy in detail, but to attrit. 

The risk conversely is a Mogadishu style ambush where the enemy has templated US operations and essentially attacks the crease in our tactics.  Run a bunch of fire-team sized ambushes in sector for a few weeks, let the S2's get comfortable with their templates, frustrate the US forces into becoming overly aggressive, and then lure us into a company sized ambush.  (See earlier comments vis-a-vis LZ X-Ray, and Gettysburg)

OK, so much for thinking out loud.  One last question:  What assumptions are the Cadets/LT's being given?  Is it, "Kiowa Warriors on station, no Fire Support?"  Is there a QRF on standby?  How long for the QRF to respond?  Are we assuming joint US/IA operations?

[Nomex Maximus]

OK, OK, Uncle. I am not a trained infantryman. But bear with me.

While I don't understand military tactics, I do understand being an idealistic teenager with a gun. Suppose I am an Iraqi (or whatever) young lad and I hate Americans. I have access to military automatic weapons and "friends" have taught me how to make and plant IEDs. I live in the area that you (Americans) regularily patrol. I know the streets and alleys, and I know where to hide and attack from. And I know how to play dumb if caught by you. Not only do I hate you, I also enjoy being able to attack and kill just for the macho hell of it. Oh, and I have been filled to the brim with Muslim propaganda that makes me feel that I would be a great hero if I got killed doing this, so I am totally unafraid of attacking you. In fact, it's a lot of fun.

You lead whatever formation of troops you want into my neighborhood. We can hear you coming and we know where you will be going. I have already set up a bomb for you; all I have to do is wait for the right vehicle to pass by and I will detonate it. Or, if I want, I will take up a position on some rooftop or some room with a window and wait for a soldier to come into view and pop him like an American kid drops a deer. One shot and I will run and hide and you won't find me. I win, and what will you have accomplished for your patrol that was worth the soldier(s) that you have just lost?

See, this is what troubles me about what I hear our tactics in Iraq seem to be - that we are trying to operate as some sort of patrol force when we have not decisively taken control of the territory we patrol. It would seem to my non-military mind that a patrol is only good at keeping hostiles out of the territory, and no good for controlling hostiles that are already inside. For that, it seems to me, you need to go back and decisively sweep the are clean (again).

What am I missing here?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Understand, Nomex, the "School solution" does not always work, and any tactic aggressively applied is better than doing nothing.  "A good plan executed with vigor NOW is better than the perfect plan executed next week."

In your hypothetical, you assume that all the US forces are doing is patrol and response to ambush.  Not the case in real life.  Here are the options:

1.  I'm planning a patrol in an area where ambushes are known to have taken place.  I pre-position sniper teams before my patrol moves out.  With some luck, you and your friends will be gleefully setting up an IED when your heads explode, one by one.

2.  I ask for Predator support.  You do your ambush and flee.  The predator watches where you go.  We come in and kill you, and maybe your mama too.

3.  Air cover.  Especially at night.  You hit, they hunt.  Their IR goggles follow you home.  Now, we definitely kill you and your mama, because we blow up your house.

4.  Counterambush techniques.  Flank security, reaction forces. 

Going out into the areas where the enemy is hiding is important.  Most Iraqis want this nonsense to end.  You and your nitwit friends are getting in the way of that.  Somebody is going to rat you out.  Either to us, or to an Iraqi Army guy, or wherever, but the troops know when they go into an area that if they don't see kids, and ambush is about to happen.  And if the Iraqis know enough to get their kids inside, they know enough to tell us who is behind the attacks.

Additionally, the US troops are running medcaps, training local forces, and otherwise interacting.  THAT's how we get information when foreigners move in who are hostile to American interests.

[Nomex Maximus]

OK, good answer. But our guys are still getting picked off. I may have more later.

[JohnKachenmeister]

So are their guys.  Its a war. 

[Falshrmjgr]

Darn I have been out too long.  Forgot about the Predators.   

[Nomex Maximus]

1) You gonna preposition snipers EVERYWHERE? I sort of doubt that. Your vehicles have to cover miles and miles and cannot constantly be under cover of sniper teams. Also, your snipers might be good but they can't see everything.  And they can't watch everything everywhere.

2) You can ask for Predator support, but I can't believe that every movement of every Army or Marine unit is going to get constant Predator reposnse and coverage. Also, the Predators cannot see inside buildings, or wide areas of coverage. They are limited to the rate at which their operators can spot suspicious activity through a soda straw like view of the battlefield produced by their long range video  telephoto lenses.

3) Air cover at night. But, helicopters make an awful lot of noise and the insurgents will know when they are around. And if they are so far off that their noise doesn't give them away then their observation capability is limited. Also, like the Predator I can't believe that every troop movement is going to get constant on the spot air support. Not even if they call CAP...

4) Counterambush - good if the insurgent wants to keep figthing. Not much good if  the attackers simply wanted to harrass with one good round or one well placed IED.  And how would your counterambushg forces get into position? By travelling around that same neighborhood where the attacks are happening in the first place.

Overall, yes our guys have got the advantages but again what troubles me is the costly nature of this approach to things. The enemy has little to lose and hates us enough to keep fighting anyway they can. Our guys gots lots to lose.

[JohnKachenmeister]

1)  No.  You preposition snipers based on your assessment of the "Danger Areas."  What I would do, is first plan to ambush my own unit.  Then I would site some nasty guys at places that look good to me for ambushes.

2)  Again, you don't need Predators at every point.  You know where ambushes are likely.  I can't answer any more of your point because I'm not personally sure about what is and is not classified, and I might inadvertently reveal something I shouldn't.

3)  Obviously, you have never been on the ground under our new gunships.  They have very sophisticated noise-supression systems so Abdul and Co. doesn't even know the helicopters are up until the Aviation guys are close enough to steal their wallets.

4)  There are lots of counterambush techniques.  I could explain most of them, but my fingers would get tired.  Asking an Army officer to explain them is like asking a doctor "How do you cure a headache?"  There are dozens of types of ambushes, and scores of responses.  A lot of them were developed by the Indians fighting the cavalry.  A lot of guys think that Che Guevara developed some new ambush techniques, but all he did was re-cycle some of the stuff that Red Cloud did to us before the Wagon Box Fight and the Hayfield Fight.

If we ever get together at a conference or something, you buy me several pitchers of beer, and I'll use cocktail napkins as training aids.  By the time the barmaid goes home (with me?) you will be real smart in small unit ground tactics.

[Walkman]

If we ever get together at a conference or something, you buy me several pitchers of beer, and I'll use cocktail napkins as training aids.  By the time the barmaid goes home (with me?) you will be real smart in small unit ground tactics.

I don't drink, but can I tag along? Sounds very cool.   

[Skyray]

Glad to see Red Cloud getting some favorable press.  Are they teaching that in Tactical School now?  I remember seeing a memo in late '65 about an action west of An Tan that was a "classic ambush well executed."  Mostly it was a heads up to be alert for the tactic in the future.  We have a tendency not to give our enemies credit for skill.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If we ever get together at a conference or something, you buy me several pitchers of beer, and I'll use cocktail napkins as training aids.  By the time the barmaid goes home (with me?) you will be real smart in small unit ground tactics.

I don't drink, but can I tag along? Sounds very cool.   

You're the driver, then!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Glad to see Red Cloud getting some favorable press.  Are they teaching that in Tactical School now?  I remember seeing a memo in late '65 about an action west of An Tan that was a "classic ambush well executed."  Mostly it was a heads up to be alert for the tactic in the future.  We have a tendency not to give our enemies credit for skill.

Red Cloud's campaign on the Bozeman Trail was a classic cavalry campaign.  He used his mobility to hit wagon trains and supply convoys, and effectively kept the 18th US Infantry bottled up in its forts.  Red Cloud had the good fortune of facing some American officers who were poor leaders and who lacked the tactial skill needed to fight the Indians.  The commander was a classic peacetime commander who was more concerned about the appearance of the lawns around the forts than on the steady casualties.  One officer, a captain named Fetterman, I think, was contemptuous of the Indians and their fighting ability, and as a result charged into an ambush that went down in history as "Fetterman's Massacre."

A change of command and new rifles rsulted in the only American tactical victories in the campaign, the Wagon Box Fight and the Hayfield Fight.  But by then it was too late. The Bozeman Trail was abandoned, and the Indians burned the hated forts before the army could retreat out of sight.

Fortunately, I had a tactics instructor at MP OBC who was a real historian.  He pointed out where Che Guevara got all of his "Original" ideas. 

[ddelaney103]

In a lot of ways this thread is typical of the problem with our struggle in Iraq: we'd prefer to fight the fights we're comfortable with, instead of what we face.

This is not a war - it is a counterinsurgency campaign.  The battlefield is not Baghdad or Fallujah, but the cooperation and support of the Iraqi people.  The primary purpose of patrolling is not to shoot or get shot at, but to convince the people of that neighborhood to throw in their lot with us as opposed to any of the other gangs offering protection.

In counterinsurgency, the application of violence can backfire on you big time.  The insurgency is not a game where there's a finite number of enemies and when you got them all, it's over.  For example, if we bomb or tank gun a building to get 5 insurgents and kill them plus 4 women and children, we may end up with 10 insurgents the next day when the fathers, brothers and cousins of the innocent victims join up to get revenge.  Conversely, our gains with the Sunnis have as much to do with the violent actions of AQ as with any good works we've performed.

If we get the people to back us, we don't have to worry about random teen shooters because: 1) they're less likely to think shooting us is cool/their family will pressure them not to and 2) we'll have hundreds of eyes on the ground telling us what's up.

However, this type of work flies in the face of our reflexes.  American commanders worship at the First Church of Force Protection and we tend to armor up and cowboy up.  The Brits understand from Ulster and other places the value of foot patrols with berets and soft caps instead of "clay berets."

I was exposed to one aspect of this back home.  I'm not a grunt - I'm an AF REMF and I have no illusions about it.  But when we were walking in a July 4th parade, I was in DCU's, boonie and eyewear.  I couldn't understand why I was having problems passing out frisbees and footballs - the intended targets were all taken by surprise.  I finally realized since I've got my SG-1's on, they're not getting the eye contact to let them know the frizbee's for them.  While we need the sunglasses in the desert to protect our eyes, they're probably making us a little less human in the eyes of the population.  These are the things that can help win or lose the support of the people.

Anyway, I've a 7 yr old's b-day dinner to hit.  More as I ponder it.

[mikeylikey]

^ I will never let my eyes go bad because I didn't wear sunglasses.  Anyway, it is foolish not to wear protective gear that will save your life.  The British learned that lesson over there.  I do remember Iraqi's at the beginning saying they thought "we wore personal airconditioners".  Or that the Americans all had water cooled underwear.  hahahhaha.  It is so much "a war" over there.

[ddelaney103]

^ I will never let my eyes go bad because I didn't wear sunglasses.  Anyway, it is foolish not to wear protective gear that will save your life.  The British learned that lesson over there.  I do remember Iraqi's at the beginning saying they thought "we wore personal airconditioners".  Or that the Americans all had water cooled underwear.  hahahhaha.  It is so much "a war" over there.

I don't expect you to get it - very few do.

The "protective equipment" makes it difficult to do the mission (bringing the Iraqi to our side) and in the end, doesn't protect us.

We were body armor, so they use roadside bombs, so we get armored hummers, so they use EFP's, so we get MRAP's, and they'll move on to truck bombs.  All the while we get farther away from the people.  We don't make many friends when the only Americans they see are looking like Cybermen and staring at them through the sights of an M4.

If "Force Protection is Job #1" then we should just send everyone home to play HALO 3.

[MIKE]

Send MCPO John 117 to Iraq... Problem solved. 

[aveighter]

I agree!  Finally, someone talking sense!!

Enough with all this armor nonsense walking around looking like storm troopers, upsetting the practitioners of peace.  And the air power, oy vey,  all that shrieking around the sky day and night, night and day.  How is a loving moolah supposed to get any sleep?  No wonder everyone is so cranky!

Single-shot bolt action black powder rifles I say!  And Frisbees, thats the ticket, lots and lots of Frisbees!

You guys are geniuses, actual great American geniuses.

[mikeylikey]

Single-shot bolt action black powder rifles I say!  And Frisbees, thats the ticket, lots and lots of Frisbees!

You guys are geniuses, actual great American geniuses.

Works for me.......

[Viper QA]

Iraq is a giant mess that we (U.S.) have lost total control of. There is no good ending to this debacle.

If we stay we will lose more brave (motivated, dedicated, well trained, & well equipped) men & women to goat farmers & the like who are planting I.E.D.s & lobbying mortar shells because non-Iraqi insurgents are threatening to kill their entire family if they don't.

If we withdraw our forces we will have lost up wards of 4,000 people for nothing.

We made many, many mistakes from day 1 in Iraq. We should have never dis-banded the army & we never secured the borders. Also, we have put too many rules of engagement in place. Our soldiers are more restriced than most state police agencies. If you are taking heavy fire from a mosque & one of the most radical leaders is inside the mosque....the answer is simple....you call in an airstrike & have an F-16 put a 500lb JDAM or two through the roof of the place. Simple! It is a war....you cannot fight to save political face because it ends up costing lives. Our only options now are to stay forever or start leveling cities. Neither of which I am in favor of, but that is what is has come down too. As soon as we leave the place will erupt into civil war. Right now we simply need to kill as many of the insurgents & terrorists as we possibly can.

Just my 2 cents!