While we’re very busy not staying the course for the upcoming elections, General Casey, the commander of US troops in Iraq, has realized that the most powerful army in the history of the world can’t keep public order in Baghdad, the capital city of our overseas empire. Even the recent reinforcement of the Baghdad security forces by the stop-lossed Stryker Brigade hasn’t done the job.
BAGHDAD, Oct. 24 — In trying to build support for the American strategy in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said Tuesday that the Iraqi military could be expected to take over the primary responsibility for securing the country within 12 to 18 months.But that laudable goal seems far removed from the violence-plagued streets of Iraq’s capital, where American forces have taken the lead in trying to protect the city and American soldiers substantially outnumber Iraqi ones.
It seems a lot of our erstwhile allies have a reluctance to fight outside their home areas. As the Times article describes it,
[T]he actual number of Iraqi boots on the ground on a given day is routinely less than the official number. In areas where the risks and hardship are particularly great, the shortfall is sometimes significant. In fiercely contested Anbar Province in western Iraq, the day-to-day strength of the Seventh Iraqi Army Division in August was only about 35 percent of the soldiers on its rolls, while the day-to-day strength of the First Division was 50 percent of its authorized strength.Another complication is that the even-numbered divisions in the 10-division army have largely been recruited locally and thus generally reflect the ethnic makeup of the regions where they are based. So, much of the Iraqi Army consists of soldiers who are reluctant to serve outside the areas in which they reside. Several battalions have gone AWOL rather then deploy to Baghdad, an American military officer said.
General Casey has defined Baghdad as the “central front” in Iraq, which Bu$hCo has defined as the “central front” in the war on terror, which is the “central front” in Bu$hCo’s war on the Constitution.
Here’s an idea: Lets’ move all the US forces into Baghdad. Then we’ll have 140,000 US troops and 12,000 Iraqi Army and 17,000 Iraqi national police there.
Maybe that will work. If nothing else, it will put all the troops closer to the Baghdad International Airport, to make it easy to evacuate them.
Comments
Lurch, I watched a bit of Casey's news conf statement last night and he stated that the US Army has not lost a single battle in Iraq. OK, I'm an Air Force kinda guy, but tell me, my Army friend, CAN the US Army lose a battle when the opposition hits and retreats, which is what I understand ground combat in Iraq to be? What am I missing?
Mike, there's a wonderful anecdotal story told about the Paris peace talks before our retreat from that country. During one of the breaks, a US Army colonel was talking with an NVA colonel, and is reported o have said "You never once beat us in battle." The NVA colonel is reported to have replied, "That is irrelevant."
There's also a story that IS true. (I read it years ago in Reader's Digest.) During WWII, an American Infantry officer was dining one evening at the mess of a very old, very distinguished British regiment. Now, these are very fancy affairs when foreign guests are in, and after dinner, the American was taken on a tour of the regiment's museum. He was shown a glass case filled with flags.
The British colonel pointed out one and with a gentle smile said, "We took this from you folks at Bunker Hill. As you can see, we still have the flag."
The American replied, "Yes, but as you can see, we still have the hill."
Mike in land battle the ONLY signifier is which side quits fighting. That's how you know who won.
Thanks, Buddy. Also, for your reading list I highly recommend "To the Last Man" by Jeff Shaara. This time he's on World War I ; your second anecdote sounds like Shaara's description of Pershing's encounter with a Brit honor guard on disembarking.
The first comment is not anecdotal. I have seen it somewhere in my (half) vast library attributed to General Vo Nguyen Giap, who tossed both us and the French out of Vietnam. What he's saying is "we're here to stay, and you're going to leave".
I think it might be helpful to redeploy the GIs inside the Beltway to impose Democracy on us.
Cool beans, Mike. Thanks for the tip; I'll look for the book.
I've heard that story ascribed to Gen Giap too. The problem is that I saw it originally as I related it, and I haven't seen any verification that he was in Paris at that time.
After all, this was the period when he and his happy little warriors were introducing our ani to our shoulders on a daily basis.
Your hyperbole is called for. Unless we're about killing them all to a man-- not a wise choice if your purpose is democratization--it'll be good to have the airport nearby.
I contend that we are NOT the most powerful army in history; this is a myth.
You might well be right, Jim. I'm not prepared to argue either side of the topic. However, while I did say that in this post, I'm sure you understand I'm talking about projected battlefield power. Leaving aside the technological advantage the 2006 Army enjoys with nightfighting equipment and more effective armor and artillery and C3 control, today's 10 division Army might have had its clock cleaned by the 96 divisions of the WWII American army, or the 285 divisions of the Wehrmacht. The fact is that combat is far more expensive today, as you well know. The inherent advantages the US enjoys with investments in technology and air power are great force mulitpliers, as you again know.
They're a great shock army. They're just not very effective in the counter-guerrilla mission. Never have been, never will be. Even today our flag officers are trying to build an army to defeat the Russians in the Fulda Gap.
NOTE: This comment was edited from its original form.
Yes, if anything, our army is too professional and too technological. It's much too expensive to replace assets. We do not seeem to consider the cost-effectiveness of killing. Only simple infantry can achieve this properly. Cruise missiles are not effective replacements for the good old grunts.
In terms of nukes, we are probably the most powerful, but on a conventional basis, if we had to lock horns with Iran, I believe we'd be hard-pressed to beat them. I feel the myth of supremacy will be destroyed ala Hezbollah and Israel.
Well, I like the idea of a professional army, by which I mean one that is well-trained, well-led, well-motivated, and acts in an honorable and responsible manner. I am certain Iraq was invaded for the wrong reasons, with the wrong force strength, and with the wrong equipment. Blindly blowing off these facts as "going to war with the army you have" is puerile, narcissistic, and outright insulting to the questioner it was addressed to.
But philosophically I do favor a "shared enterprise" view of Federal service. I believe it should be mandatory after High school, for two years. Do SOMETHING before college: military service, Job Corps, Peace Corps, VISTA, even road repair.
Cruise missiles belong to the air power fantasy that goes back at least as far as the theories of Giulio Douhet. If you have to fight, you have to occupy (other than in all out thermonuclear war - wanna play a game?)
We probably have far more nukes than we realistically need, but I have no idea how to solve that problem.
When Hezbollah beat Israel it caused a CLANG in military affairs that won't really be understood for years.
Post a comment