Just How Bad is Iraq? Green Zone Assault Imminent?

[leftchick]

OMG, I have not read Juan Cole's column in days and got caught up. This entry really stands out...

:scared:

<snip>

How bad the situation is in Iraq is suggested by this email I just got from a professional who used to be in Iraq but now is in a nearby country:


' It is desperate in Iraq, worse then ever and there is no end in sight. I had lunch with two days ago. noted that Iraq no longer has neuro-surgeons, no cardiac surgeons, few pediatric doctors - they are all gone, killed or fled to neighboring countries like him. He was given seven days to get out or be killed. He is one of the lucky ones. He and his family have an opportunity for a new life in the US. But what about all the others. Where are they to go?

Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G Z. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing. The breach of the Green Zone security the other day was a test of their ability to get in, and not a real attempt at a coup, though it is reported as such. Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the "carpet baggers" from Iran. '


http://www.juancole.com/

[malaise]

1. Thanks Bushco

You fugging dumb bunch of war criminals.

[spindrifter]

2. I think it is inevitable that there will be

a coup--and I'm thinking it will be after Al-Malike leaves for Jordan. All of the bombings and the step-up in killing seems to be a springboard for it. The U.S. has shown that it is not capable of controlling this insurrection. If there is a coup, I wonder what the Chimperator plans to do? Go ballistic?

[bahrbearian]

3. It's nothing like Viet Nam,, yeah right

now there are refugees?

[kineneb]

13. time to cue the helicopters...

before this whole mess started, I knew this is how it would turn out.

I probably have more knowledge of the Middle Eastern mindset then do all of BushCo's advisors. (hey, I actually lived in Iran for a year, and still have relatives there...)

I just knew this would happen. Don't make me say, "I told you so."

Now warm up that chopper, damn it.

[Phredicles]

4. Huh. Every so often I run into Righties who insist we're not hearing

"The Truth" about how well things are going in Iraq. So this this part of the grand coverup?:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

78. About three months ago

A young American serviceman got his ass dusted within seventy-two hurs of arriving in Baghdad
Though hurt, he luckily survived. Had to be shipped out though.

He was interviewed by our media and he said "I kept hearing on the TV that it was tough times in Baghdad and was going badly - but thought it was jsut the liberal slant. I was wrong. It's real"

[alfredo]

84. A couple days ago I had a reich winger tell me that

progress was being made and that morale is at its highest in the military.

[Kagemusha]

5. Some disagree heavily with Cole about this...

but that's mainly on the grounds that Sadr has more warm bodies. And most assuredly he does - the question is, is warm bodies going to be enough? Some (read: Steve Gillard) scorn the idea that the Sunnis have an efficient military machine. I would say they do have an efficient guerilla force - it likely looks small if it was thrown face-up against a militia. OTOH, there are things like fields of fire, RPG's to take out bunches of people in a street... numbers aren't everything either.

So if the US pulled out and it was guerillas vs. Green Zone and militias vs. Sunni civilian population, who'd "win"? Who the hell knows. Bloodbath either way.

It's not encouraging that the US took 2 hours to send helicopter gunships to lift the Health Ministry building siege but, OTOH, the US wasn't going to let Sadr's militia respond to it either.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. It's the small battles, at this point. Which is not a good place to be. n/t

MKJ

[acmejack]

9. Could you provide any citations?

Just curious to read some of the naysayers stuff. It sounded to me as if Cole had a good case. But not being on the ground who really knows? It sounds like a real clusterfuck and I grow increasingly concerned about our people. I hope we have contingency extraction plans in place, but I know we don't.

[Kagemusha]

11. Gillard's probably the most articulate so

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

And believe me, I'm not saying that Cole doesn't know an awful lot about this. This is a disagreement over relative military clout. Good people can disagree and have no shame in doing so. I, personally, have been very impressed by the Sunni guerillas' latest moves. I just accept that Sadr has more cards to play but has not done so. (OTOH, I think he has reasons for not playing them, like the USAF, that are not going to suddenly change here. Hence the political pressure.)

[acmejack]

20. Thanks for the link.

[aquart]

90. A good point about the trained, unemployed army.

Lotta people with training in Iraq. Capable of training others. And they ain't Americans.

[alfredo]

85. The Sunni's had the edge in military training, but the Shia are

learning fast from on the ground experience and from advisors and fighters from Iran. Those Sunnis were smart enough to suck us into an urban guerrilla war. They were smart enough not to fight us on our terms.

We don't know how much intelligence the insurgents have on greed zone defenses, and how able they are in penetrating those defenses. Time is on their side.

[Jcrowley]

6. Decline and Fall - America in Retreat

Decline and Fall - America in Retreat
Friday, 24 November 2006

by Paul William Roberts


According to the Iraqi newspaper Al- Quds al-Arabi, James Baker, the Bush family’s Mr. Fixit , recently met with one of Saddam Hussein’s lawyers in Amman, Jordan, and told him that the former deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, would be released from detention by December in order to negotiate with the US on behalf of factions of the Iraqi resistance movement still controlled by old Ba’ath Party leaders. Sources in Jordan tell me that the first stage of such negotiations has indeed already taken place. Two weeks ago, Aziz was whisked from his jail cell and, along with other representatives of Iraq’s Sunni Resistance, taken for three days’ of secret discussions in Amman with senior US officials. It is heartening to note that this course of action was advised by the Atlantic Free Press three weeks ago. Aziz and his colleagues are currently discussing America’s proposals with the divisional resistance leadership, whose response and counter-offers they will present to Washington early next month.

<snip>

Along with burying Al-Maliki in Quisling’s Graveyard, some of the Pentagon’s less repentant serial killers feel that cranking up the battle of Baghdad a notch would make an even better prelude to withdrawal, since it might help prevent US troops being picked off like lame antelope by a triumphant resistance.

In this, as in all Middle Eastern political poker these days, Teheran holds better cards than Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, or Baghdad. While state media ply us with tales of Iran’s profligacy as chief arms merchant to violent dissent, the real story is that of Iran’s restraint. There were larger shoulder-launched missiles to supply Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon – ones capable of reaching every city in Israel – yet Teheran chose not to make them available. There is an awful lot more that the Iranian military could provide to Iraqi resistance groups, too, yet to date it is the Russians, via Syria, who have provided most of the weaponry. Why is Iran so coy?

One could speculate that the Islamic Republic will not play its hand until Iran’s air force includes nuclear missiles; or one could theorize that the Iranian clergy still hopes to extend national influence into Iraq along religious lines, without force. But no one in Iran is going to let us see what cards his country holds because they aren’t playing poker there at all, they’re playing chess, the national game. Among its many shortcomings, the DC Situation Room lacks a really good chess player --- which is a pity, since chess is all they play in there.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/259/

K&R

[leftchick]

8. wow!

Thank you for that Jc! Like I said I have been away and missed a lot this week. That article is a stunner! :wow:

[madrchsod]

10. they blew the shit out of that ammo dump in southern baghdad.

they knew the exact coordinates to do the most damage. they have the green zone mapped and coordinates figured out for a massive mortar attack that would bring the bush appointed iraqi government to it`s knees. things are going to get really bad in the emerald city.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

12. gotta stay the course

i just don't see why you guys don't support the troops. It's like you want to bring them home or something rather than have them defend freedom in the desert paradise that is Iraq.

Have you seen how many schools they built? It'll blow your fuckin mind!!!!!! Do you have any idea how many snickers bars are handed out over there?!!?!?!?!1111 Of course, the lieberal media doesn't cover it.


In all seriousness though, this has ominous overtones given the amount of meetings are going on. Nefarious dealings, most likely buying time until the Democratic transition. Then guess who gets the blame?

[hang a left]

92. Actually I believe the incident of most significance is Chaingang

over in Riyadah (sp). Shit is getting ready to hit the fan and plans are being laid to protect the oil fields. Those fields in SA and The Emerirates are the most vulnerable when the fan turns on high.

[MGD]

14. Like I have been saying for the past month, pull everything back to Baghdad and dig in

while the civil war runs its course. We need to consolidate, reorganize, and prepare for defensive operations.

[leftchick]

15. no we don't

we need to get the fuck out before this happens...



been there, done that.

[MGD]

16. This isn't Vietnam. There are similarities but the differences are many.

For example, Vietnam had no real strategic value and Iraq does. We can secure and defend Baghdad.

[leftchick]

17. "We can secure and defend Baghdad."??

oh yeah? With what army and how many innocents dead? It is not worth the attempt as many security analysts have admitted. Time to get the fuck out.

[MGD]

23. Absolutely.

"With what army"
the one already in place.

"and how many innocents dead?"
If we do as I have suggested, the dead innocents will not be a result of our actions. Furthermore, pulling out will not stop the deaths of innocents in Iraq as their civil war is just getting started.

"It is not worth the attempt as many security analysts have admitted."
And many more believe it is worth the attempt.

"Time to get the fuck out."
Time to dig in and conduct defensive operations around Baghdad while the civil war plays out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. The civil war is in Baghdad

There is no Baghdad, essentially. There are neighborhoods. Sprawling neighborhoods that are immune to occupation yet open for exploitation. You speak as if Baghdad were a magical castle, where defensive operations could be prepared while the war rages on outside. This is nonsense. The sectarian violence is most intense within the various neighborhoods of Baghdad itself. It is the one major place in Iraq where the ethnic groups meet, a contact zone. Saying that we should draw back to Baghdad to let the civil war play itself out is like saying we should get as close as possible to a tornado to avoid the wind. That's where the wind is, dawg. TWe should draw back to Kuwait, if what you're interested in is getting out of the way but maintaining a presence. Baghdad ain't gonna cut it.

[MGD]

36. The civil war is spread out all over the country

which makes it too big to control; however, we can control Baghdad. We need to break the conflict down into manageable pieces. It is obviously not manageable in its current configuration. Furthermore, the civil war works to our disadvantage when we try to manage it across the entire country because we end up throwing ourselves up against a brick wall. If we pull back to Baghdad, those who would resist us end up being the ones throwing themselves against the brick wall. That works to our advantage. Pulling out all the way to Kuwait could work too but, ultimately, I don't think it would be advisable to sacrifice our foothold as a strong foothold is the key to military operations in urban terrain. Without the foothold, you have nothing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. The civil war is not spread throughout the country

The Shia control most of their territory south of Baghdad, and the Sunnis control Anbar and the near north. These areas are more or less uncontested. The major contact zone, where these populations meet, is Baghdad and environs (the near "suburbs"). We never controlled Sadr City, even when we fought pitched battles for it (March-June 2004). And that's just one sprawling Shia neighborhood. You're living in a fantasy world.

[MGD]

48. Iraqis are fighting and dieing all over Iraq.

They are certainly fighting and dieing in and around Baghdad but they are fighting and dieing in Mosul, Diwaniya, Fallujah, Kirkuk, Mahmudiya, Hilla, etc. as well. You can't tell me that the sectarian violence is limited only to the Baghdad area.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. You fail to make important distinctions

Iraqis are indeed fighting and dying all around the country, but a good deal of that is not sectarian violence. In western Anbar, Sunnis are fighting Americans and their proxy army (yes, made up mostly of Shia, in another "brilliant" move by the war planners); that would include Fallujah as well, though it is not that far from Baghdad, really. There are no real Shia populations to speak of in Kirkuk, and no Sunni to speak of in Hillah (one major suicide bombing does not a civil war in Hillah make...). The dynamics in Mosul are also quite different, since, again, this northern city doesn't have much in the way of a Shia population. This is not to say there is NO fighting in these areas. Of course there is. But the primary location where these groups meet is Baghdad and environs. That's where the civil war is at its most intense.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

62. Hi, a_m, I've got your map right here, which supports your well

researched answer.



Baghdad is the "prize". MKJ

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm

[scarletwoman]

18. What is the the "strategic value" of Iraq in your view?

I'd honestly like to know.

sw

[MGD]

21. It's obvious

Iraq's oil wealth in the hands of our terrorist enemies will empower them in ways we've never even imagined. Some might be tempted to believe that should we leave Iraq, Al-Queda will just leave too. I am not so sure that this will be the case. I think, one way or the other, they will come out of this battle much stronger than when they went into it if we leave prematurely.

"I'd honestly like to know."
We'll see.

[scarletwoman]

25. Al Qaeda is a myth. Certain jihadists have adopted the label because it has a certain caché.

And they have very little constituancy in Iraq. Even the Sunnis have largely turned against the foreign jihadists. What's going on in Iraq is an elementary power struggle between the Shias who have been oppressed since the Ottoman Empire and the Sunnis who are not happy with finding themselves shunted out of power with the ouster of Saddam.

What's going on in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with factional politics. You sound like you've fallen for the whole "War on Terror" bullshit hook, line and sinker.

Iraq's oil wealth is going to end up under the control of whichever internal Iraqi political faction eventually wins the current civil war. It has nothing to do with "terrorists" or Al Qaeda, and everything to do with internal Iraqi power struggles.

sw

[MGD]

31. Al-Queda is not a myth. They have existed for at least 20 years.

"You sound like you've fallen for the whole "War on Terror" bullshit hook, line and sinker. What's going on in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with factional politics."

And you sound like you have forgotten that we have been repeatedly attacked by Islammic Jihadist terrorists for the past 30 years culminating in the most devestating attack this country has ever suffered on 9-11-01.

"Iraq's oil wealth is going to end up under the control of whichever internal Iraqi political faction eventually wins the current civil war. It has nothing to do with "terrorists" or Al Qaeda, and everything to do with internal Iraqi power struggles."

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that you are in error. Al Queda is in Iraq and they have much more control of the ground situation than you are willing to give them credit for. Understand, you might as well be trying to convince a brick wall that Al-Queda doesn't exist and that pulling out immediately won't result in a victory for them.

[Porcupine]

57. Swallowed the hook, line and sinker here.

"Our terrorist enemies"- Uh, yeah. Before 9-11 it was widely regarded that the primary terrorist threat was a group of Saud-financed, Saudi-led jihadists with prior connections to the CIA.

There was no, zero, nada, terrorist threat from Iraq, prior to march 2003. After March 2003 we started killing Iraqi's in earnest creating an armed resistance to US invasion and occupation.

There have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11-2001 that originated outside the US. This despite the fact that our borders are still porous to drugs, illegal migrants, and sex trafficers. There is considerable evidence for a LIHOP or MIHOP scenario for the 9-11 attacks.

Please try and keep up.

[leftchick]

59. al-Q in Iraq is a myth

It is interesting to see you repeating bush's last stump speech. :eyes:

[truedelphi]

79. Actually, sadly, since this terrible de-stabilization has taken

Effect, there are indeed Al Queda. the call has gone out to youths all across the muslim Mid-East.
And some of those who respond are Al Queda.

Imagine if on our TV's we were watchng people in Colorado being taken away in the middle of the night by the Red Chinese.

Wouldn't matter if you were a Christian fanatic, a liberal Methodist, an atheist neo-con, a liberal agnostic, you'd respond.

[arewenotdemo]

87. Why ATHEIST neocon?

I doubt that any of the swine that got us into this war were atheists.

[jmowreader]

82. Oil wealth can't help a terrorist

Oil is a strange commodity--it is very hard to deal with in its raw form. You have to sell the oil, in large quantities, to someone who can refine it into usable products. To exploit Iraq's oil wealth, the terrorists would have to become businessmen because you can't exactly meet someone in a back alley and hand him a suitcase with a refinable quantity of crude oil.

If Iraq was sitting on something a terrorist might like, such as a huge stockpile of nerve agent or a warehouse of gold bullion, that would be different. But we're talking oil--shit, we may as well be talking about a silo full of wheat.

[hang a left]

94. I was under the impression that the oil spoils were divied out long

ago.

[alfredo]

86. It is between Iran and and Saudi Arabia. It might have been

smarter to take control of access to the Red Sea (both ends) and the Persian Gulf.

[TomInTib]

22. We cannot defend it

absolute failure, for certain.

suicide

Just ask les francais

[MGD]

24. I guess surrender is your recipe for military success?

It doesn't work. "Just ask les francais"

[scarletwoman]

26. There is NO "military success" to be had in Iraq.

It's done. Over. It's a failed project that never should have happened in the first place.

The only question is how many more Americans are going to die to save face for bushco.

sw

[MGD]

33. Forgive me if I don't immediately reverse my position based on your hopeless negativism

and unsupported partisan rhetoric.

[scarletwoman]

37. "partisan rhetoric"?!?! What the hell are you talking about?

What's "partisan" about discussing the actual facts on the ground in Iraq?

What party do YOU speak for?

sw

[MGD]

42. "The only question is how many more Americans are going to die to save face for bushco."

That sounds like Partisan rhetoric to me. I gave that shit up on Nov. 8th.

"What party do YOU speak for?"
In this matter, I don't speak for either/any party.

[scarletwoman]

43. It's not "partisan" to speak out against a corrupt, mendacious administration

that has shit all over our Constitution, wasted lives and treasure on an ill-considered and unneccesary war of choice, and caused long term damage to our country.

It's not "partisan" to recognize that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is the greatest foreign policy blunder (far too mild a word!) ever perpetrated by our so-called "leaders".

Only hard-core kool-aid drinkers think it's "partisan" to condemn the lies and corruption of the bush maladministration and their Iraq debacle. For the rest of us, it's just good American common sense.

sw

[MGD]

44. It is when you do it such that an effective national defense is undermined

in favor of an effective political offense.

"Only hard-core kool-aid drinkers think it's "partisan" to condemn the lies and corruption of the bush maladministration and their Iraq debacle."

I'm not defending Bush and I'm not claiming that Iraq is anything other than what it is, a quagmire. I'm also not declaring defeat.

[scarletwoman]

46. Iraq was NEVER about our "national defense".

Our national DEFENSE would be much better off if we weren't wasting blood and treasure in Iraq.

[MGD]

50. There's an enemy and he wishes to fight us. That makes it a matter of national defense

as far as I'm concerned.

[scarletwoman]

52. Oh bullshit! Complete and utter bullshit! There were NO "enemies" in Iraq!

What threat to the U.S. was in Iraq? There was NONE! Iraq was a modernized secular state, Saddam was solely concerned with maintaining his own power within Iraq. The U.S. was NEVER threatened by Iraq. The only enemies we have in Iraq NOW are because we fucking invaded and occupied their country!

I can't believe that any DUer is posting such utter crap!

[MGD]

55. "Were" is the operative word. Now there "are" enemies in Iraq

and they won't go away just because we cut and run.

"I can't believe that any DUer is posting such utter crap!"
I'm not surprised, you can't even believe that Al-Queda exists.

[HamdenRice]

60. Hunkering down in Baghdad is worst possible strategy of all

Ever since WW I, the US and its western allies have absolutely sworn off defensive, entrenched war. For the last almost hundred years, US tactics focus on being offensive, aggressive and mobile. Besides being a disastrous tactic that would be guaranteed to lead to defeat, hunkering down in Baghdad simply will never be adopted by the US military.

Holding the Green Zone and disengaging would make the GZ a turkey shoot for mortars and missiles, and ultimately an assault. Because of the escalation in the size of the guerilla forces, it would be impossible for US artillary and air counter-fire to suppress the hundreds if not thousands of guerilla units that would be lobbing mortars and other nasty things into the GZ.

Whatever anyone thinks of the big strategic picture and whether Iraq is worth defending at this point, your tactical suggestions border on the insane.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

61. Thanks, HR, I couldn't believe the suggestion that this horrific catastrophe is somehow salvagable,

if we just hold on to Baghdad.

Funny thing, though, the three partioned by civil war areas of the country converge on Baghdad. So, this idea of Baghdad folks just "laying low" during the ensuing civil war ain't gonna happen.

The capture and holding of Baghdad, especially the GZ, would be a coveted goal by all the warring factions.

Interesting that the argument has gone from, "we will liberate Iraq so everyone in the country can know the joys of freedom" to "well, maybe we can just hold on to Baghdad." :eyes:




http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm MKJ

[MGD]

65. The point of any defensive operations is to recapture the initiative and to shift to the offensive

This is from the Army FM 7-20, "The Infantry Batallion"-Chapter 4: Defensive Operations. Any defense should be planned and conducted in the spirit of the offense. We have lost the iniative and the offense. We need to do something to get it back. More of the same won't do that nor will redeployment.


"Ever since WW I, the US and its western allies have absolutely sworn off defensive."
I'm not tlaking about a Maginot line. The conduction of defensive operations is part of every infantry unit's METL. I have conducted more defensive training opertaions than I will ever be able to remember. Defensive operations are every bit as essential as offensive operations and; furthermore, every succesful offensive operation must be concluded with strategic consolidation and reorganization with a focus on preparing for a counter attack. That means defensive operations. Our failure to prepare for the counter attack is what got us into this mess in the first place.


"Holding the Green Zone and disengaging would make the GZ a turkey shoot for mortars and missiles, and ultimately an assault."
Oh Christ, we're already in the middle of a turkey shoot every time we drive or walk down a road. At least this way, we could shoot some turkeys too as they would surely come to us in flocks. I'm not talking about just holding the Green Zone either, I'm talking about holding the whole city with a series of defensive security perimters.

"it would be impossible for US artillary and air counter-fire to suppress the hundreds if not thousands of guerilla units that would be lobbing mortars and other nasty things into the GZ."

So use the infantry and the marines. This isn't fucking Khe Sanh in the middle of a jungle, it's a large city in the middle of a desert. There's a huge difference. The one lesson always learned during MOUT is that urban terrain strongly favors the defender. 10 well prepared defenders holding advantageous positions in an urban environment may require as many as 50-100 offenders to be fully neutralized. We could put 100,000 well prepared defenders in Baghdad and hold that city until the end of all fucking time or at least long enough to reseize the iniative and to shift to the offensive.

"your tactical suggestions border on the insane."
Insanity, according to Benjamin Franklin, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's what we're doing right now, more of the same thing.

[HamdenRice]

66. All strategic goals have failed. Tactical options are nil.

First, you need to understand the strategic position of this administration in Iraq. No conceivable political goals of the war are now achievable.

As for your tactical suggestions, your own quote bears out my point:

"This is from the Army FM 7-20, "The Infantry Batallion"-Chapter 4: Defensive Operations. Any defense should be planned and conducted in the spirit of the offense."

The US army's conception of defense is highly mobile and aggressive. Hunkering down in the Green Zone and a few bases in Baghdad, which is all the US controls or for the foreseeable future can control, is not that kind of defense.

""Holding the Green Zone and disengaging would make the GZ a turkey shoot for mortars and missiles, and ultimately an assault."
Oh Christ, we're already in the middle of a turkey shoot every time we drive or walk down a road. At least this way, we could shoot some turkeys too as they would surely come to us in flocks. I'm not talking about just holding the Green Zone either, I'm talking about holding the whole city with a series of defensive security perimters. "

I'll certainly agree it's a turkey shoot either way. That's why the only alternative is to admit defeat and withdraw from Iraq. And they won't come to the GZ and US bases in flocks to be mowed down. They'll be launching shit at the GZ from all over the city, until holding even that becomes untenable.

"So use the infantry and the marines. This isn't fucking Khe Sanh in the middle of a jungle, it's a large city in the middle of a desert. There's a huge difference."

There certainly is a huge difference. It's worse than Khe Sanh because Khe Sanh was in the middle of nowhere and US forces could indiscriminately shell and bomb enemy positions. They can't do that in Baghdad without further losing the strategic war.

"The one lesson always learned during MOUT is that urban terrain strongly favors the defender. 10 well prepared defenders holding advantageous positions in an urban environment may require as many as 50-100 offenders to be fully neutralized. We could put 100,000 well prepared defenders in Baghdad and hold that city until the end of all fucking time or at least long enough to reseize the iniative and to shift to the offensive."

The advantage of holding defensive positions in urban environments only exists if the defenders can move freely through the urban areas. Think the Russians in Stalingrad or even the Palestinians in Jenin -- small groups spread throughout the city forcing the aggressive force to fight house to house. But US forces cannot go into all the neighborhoods of Baghdad and take up positions in houses and apartments. They would get their asses handed to them by those very communities.

""your tactical suggestions border on the insane."
Insanity, according to Benjamin Franklin, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's what we're doing right now, more of the same thing."

Yes insanity is doing the same thing, expecting a different result -- like staying in Iraq, day after day as things get worse.

You've forgotten the very first rule of war: War is the continuation of politics by other means. The politics of the war was to create a friendly, stable, Arab regime and major gas station, in the heart of the middle east. Perhaps it was also to counterweight Iran and make Israel safer. At some point it allegedly was to defeat terrorists attracted to Iraq.

No conceivable political goals of the war are now achievable. This the the main strategic lesson to take from this war. There will be no friendly stable Iraqi gas station. We have strengthened Iran. Israel is less safe. The terrorists can operate more freely in Iraq than they could under Sadam, and whether we stay or go, they will find it just as easy to operate in Iraq.

Now that no strategic purpose can be achieved in Iraq, everyone who dies now is dying for absolutely no purpose. Bush has already lost the war, but neither he nor you seem to realize that.

[MGD]

67. I'm neither agreeing with that or disagreeing with that

But what I will say is this, real estate paid for with US blood should never be returned freely to those who shed that blood.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

68. That's as jingoistic a pronouncement as I've ever seen on DU.

It's their country, not our real estate. MKJ

[HamdenRice]

69. That's the illogic of stalemate

The reason we must stay is because blood has been shed for this real estate, even though keeping it serves no strategic purpose. More people must die for no purpose because people died for it.

That's like Bush's logic that more must die to honor the memory of those who died.

No thanks.

[MGD]

70. I didn't say we need to stay becuase blood has been shed.

I said real estate paid for with US blood should not freely be returned to those who shed our blood. I spent too many years in the infantry to think any other way.

"That's like Bush's logic that more must die to honor the memory of those who died."
It isn't really a matter of honor to me as much as it is policy.

[HamdenRice]

95. That's a terrible reason to die

So you think we should hold on, causing the deaths of thousands of fellow infantry men and women, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for "honor"?

No, no one should die for false honor.

And as BH put it, it's not our real estate. It's Iraq, which belongs to the Iraqis. We never should have gone there in the first place, and the sooner we realize that and get out, the better.

[scarletwoman]

77. Once we leave, the foreign fighters will leave as well -- the Iragis will force them out.

Already, Sunni Imams have issued fatwas against cooperating with the foreign jihadists -- and the Sunnis are the only Iraqi faction that ever cooperated with the foreigners in the first place. The foreign jihadists are just as anti-Shia as they are anti-American, so no Shia faction is going to tolerate their presence in Iraq.

Once the U.S. withdraws, the foreign fighters (who represent at best about 1% of the hostile forces in Iraq) will be marginalized and eventually booted out by the Iraqis themselves whose sole interest will be the internal struggle for domestic political power.

Iraqis themselves just want control of their own country. The different factions will, of course, continue to battle each other for this control -- but it will have nothing to do with us.

There is no good reason for the U.S. to remain in Iraq. And if you count having control over Iraq's oil resources as a "good" reason, then you are just defending piracy.

sw

[Jazzgirl]

47. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at this point.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: We can't win a "war" that was built on lies. Bottom line.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. You must be fucking joking with this, now

I'll tell ya what, though. When it comes to Iraq, Monsieur de Villepan looks like he was correct, while the braintrust of military and administration hawks look dead fucking wrong. So maybe we should ask the French what to do. They seem much more astute about the political situation in the Middle East than the dumbfuck Americans, who have stumbled their way into catastrophe.

[TomInTib]

39. See my reply directly below.

You are spot on, a_m.

Tom

[TomInTib]

35. No, man, I am just a realist

If my keyboard wasn't screwed up, I could /o (my 7t* and 8t* letters of t*e alp*abet are /one) on.

I *ave spent many years in combat and combat strate/ic plannin/ (Vietnam and Panama). I *ave survived s*it t*at you would not believe or even compre*end.

Even if we pulled all 140,000 of our troops into B'dad (leavin/ t*e rest of country uncovered ), we could not possibly defend Zone.

We are totally fucked in Iraq.

As far as "les francais", I was referrin/ to Dien Bien P*u (same strate/y you recommended).

Just exactly w*at is your plan? *ow would you fit 140,00 troops in Zone? Lo/istics, man.

Do not for/et t*e rest of t*e country.

We are fucked.

I would like to pick up on t*is w*en my new computer arrives.

T*ank you for your patience.

Tom

[MGD]

40. Ho Chi Minh wasn't embroiled in a bitter civil war while fighting the French.

"would you fit 140,000 troops in Zone?"
into the Green Zone? No. Into Baghdad? Absolutely.

"Even if we pulled all 140,000 of our troops into B'dad (leavin/ t*e rest of country uncovered ), we could not possibly defend Zone."

What we can't defend is the whole damn country. What we can defend is a smaller manageable portion of this battle. Or, to be more honest, we know that we can not defend the whole country. We do not know that we can't defend Baghdad. The only question in my mind is what to do with the Iraqi security forces.


"Logistics, man"

Logistics is what's killing us now. We can not manage the logistics of defending the whole country. This weakness is being exploited daily by insurgents/terrorists who plant IEDs along the road and then blow them up from a safe position when a US convoy drives past. That tactic would be denied to them if we weren't spread out.

"We are fucked."
Then we need to unfuck ourselves.

[TomInTib]

45. You are seein/ it all wron/

If we are bottled up in B'dad, in Zone, our only offence is aerial.

Nobody can win from t*e air.

Our forces would not be any more secure outside t*e Zone t*an t*ey are at present.

You are correct.

We do need to unfuck ourseves.

[MGD]

49. No "offense" (no pun intended) but you're seeing it wrong

This is why I say that: "If we are bottled up in B'dad, in Zone, our only offence is aerial."
We have already lost the offensive long ago. What's more, the battle has changed. A large scale offense is no longer appropriate. If you are a military strategist as you claim to be then you know that urban terrain greatly favors the defender, not the offender. Currently that fact works against us.

"Nobody can win from t*e air."
We don't need to win today, we just need to hold on until tomorrow. Closing with and destroying the enemy isn't always the best route to achieving your larger goals.

[TomInTib]

53. "hold on until tomorrow"

is acceptin/ a loss.

"Tomorrow" is a mira/e.

"Urban" is t*eirs, not ours. We are t*e offender. You cannot conquer a man in *is own backyard.

We are fucked, fucked, fucked.

I do not know one sin/le learned person w*o t*inks ot*erwise.

[MGD]

54. "is acceptin/ a loss."

If "hold on until tomorrow" is acceptin/ a loss, what on earth do you call cutting and running?

"Urban" is t*eirs, not ours. We are t*e defender."
What we are is a bunch of ducks in a shooting gallery going round and round while the bad men shoot at us and plant IEDs along our path. Not much of a defense if you ask me. More like a rolling clusterfuck.

"We are fucked, fucked, fucked. I do not know one sin/le learned person w*o t*inks ot*erwise."
I won't disagree. I just think we have the ability to unfuck ourselves if we choose to and that it behooves us to do so.

[TomInTib]

56. cutting and running

is lives saved.

My sons.

Your sons.

Or you.

Or me.

Until I am 62 years old (because I am SF). I live in a community over-run by old Special Forces vets w*o *arbor zero *ope for t*is circus.

We absolutely must 'unfuck orselves'.

A lar/e number of Iraqis are /oin/ to die, no matter w*at.

Do we risk any more of ours?

I am /oin/ to send you a PM about *ow t*is s*it really works, M*D

[jmowreader]

75. Let me throw another wrench into MGD's works...

Field artillery.

Let us assume, because we're here solving all the problems of the world, that we pull all the troops out of everywhere in the country and bring them to Baghdad. Ignore for a moment that all three sects in Iraq view Baghdad as their most important terrain, worthy of dying for. And ignore for another moment that giving up the rest of the country to attempt to hold Baghdad tells the world that we've essentially surrendered.

Oh, and also forget the fact that Saddam Hussein ordered every Iraqi man to purchase an AK-47 and ammunition and keep it in the house to defend his family in case something like this happened. All that shit in the Infantry Battalion FM about MOUT assumes that not everyone in the country has a loaded machinegun next to the front door.

Somehow, sometime, someone in one or more of the sectarian militias we are currently fighting is going to get together the scratch to buy a battalion's worth of Soviet-made 2S3 152mm self-propelled howitzers. Or they're going to remember that there were some 2S1s (122mm--not as potent as the 152mm system, but still a nasty little piece) sitting in the old motor pool and...mirabile dictu! they JUST HAPPEN to have grabbed the keybox on the way out the door. Or, worse, someone in another country who has a vested interest in seeing the Americans run off with their tails between their legs will give them the thirty or forty tubes they need.

The entire dynamic of the war will change overnight if the Old Iraqi Army gets some cannon artillery, gets some rounds, buys a few $199 GPS units so they can lay batteries quickly, and adopts the "shoot and scoot" firing technique all modern cannoneers use. Worse: it's inevitable that someone will either sell or give some arty to the Iraqis in an attempt to get the Americans out of their country.

[leftchick]

80. excellent analysis jmowreader

and much more plausable than anything else I have read here. The US is up shit creek without a paddle.

[jmowreader]

81. I was being nice to the young man

I was going to call his MOS a bunch of bad names and explain why the "ceding terrain we paid for in blood" meme was just some grunt talking out his ass. I decided not to do that.

I think I will now, but without the bad words about the infantry. They're good for SOME things, but feeding the attached MI element isn't one of them. Colonel Kuth never really understood why I always ordered enough MREs for every MI soldier on the operation for the duration of the exercise if the Logistics Annex to the OPORD called for messing support from the infantry element, and he never quite understood why there were always empty MRE boxes sitting in his parking space the day after ENDEX.

If you're reading: Sir, I'd played that game before.

But anyway. Onward and upward.

The theory that we've "paid for real estate in blood" is real interesting. Really WRONG, but real interesting nonetheless. Here's the problem with the Iraq War, and with Vietnam and Korea before Iraq: we're in their own country. When we fought Desert Storm, we were fighting over what was foreign territory for both sides--Kuwait. When we fought the Nazis in Sicily, it was foreign territory for both sides. That's been the case for any war we've won. We went in, bought terrain with blood (in the case of Kuwait, a relatively small amount of blood), and ran the enemy back to the place from where he came.

In this war, we're trying to win terrain for what purpose? Are we TRYING to get rid of the Iraqis? That would be the obvious result of a war, but in this case we're trying to rout a guy who has a mortgage on the land we're "paying for in blood." He's been paying for it in dinars since Jimmy Carter was president. It's his house and he won't leave--partly because he's only got three years left on his mortgage and partly because he has nowhere else to go. The US comes in on one of its "terrain buying" ventures, this guy grabs his kids, his wife grabs the cat, and they run up to Uncle Abdul's in Mosul. The US finishes buying terrain in blood, this guy stops off at Lowe's, buys a box of sheet glass and a gallon jug of Blood Remover, and goes home again. Why shouldn't he? It's his house!

The only way we can "win" this war is to define the metric of success to be something we already attained. The current metric of success--the thing that, when it is done, we can claim victory over--changes by the hour. I THINK--don't quote me on this--that the metric they're using now amounts to "Iraq has returned to exactly what it was before the United States blew the shit out of it." If we were to redefine the metric to be "the removal of the Husseins from power," we could declare victory now and leave. We got the Husseins. Uday and Husay lie in eternal rest in the only gravesite in Baghdad City Cemetery that never needs water, and Saddam is about to join them. Under this new metric, we won the war a long time ago. A series of show trials can place responsibility for dragging it out for three more years on the heads of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, with special help from the CEOs of Big Oil and every company in America that makes big-ticket items for the army.

In the end, there's no "analysis" to be done. We are currently attempting to steal Iraq for the benefit of the companies who wish to exploit her only natural resource, and for the enrichment of the companies who make war materiel. The longer we keep trying, the more people are going to die. We need to stop. Now.

[stepnw1f]

74. It Was Just a Matter of Time for You to Use the "French"

meathead talking point. Say hello to Rush Limpballs.

[rman]

64. Defend Baghdad? Why?

They'll just defend the green zone.

[MilesColtrane]

71. Re: Defending Baghdad

140,000 troops cannot control 7 million people.
That's a 50 to 1 ratio.
I don't care if the troops are carrying particle disintegrators.

Let's say only half of Baghdad's population would actively fight occupation.
That's a 24 to 1 ratio.
...the same as the Battle of the Alamo.

[NMDemDist2]

72. if we are fighting for "strategic value" why waste resources on Baghdad?

secure and defend the oil fields instead


:banghead:

[BrotherBuzz]

27. Two bits says the lion's share of our military pulls back and hunkers down with the Kurds...

while the Civil war is fought. Kurds are modestly sympathetic to American interests and desire our protection, plus they have a lot of marketable oil. Fifty percent of everything is a whole lot better than one hundred percent of nothing.

[tabasco]

73. That IS the neocon plan.

Security of the command & control facilities and the oil facilities is all the neocons care about in the long run. Their plan is to keep us in Iraq forever, not to provide security, but to secure the oil resources. The safety and welfare of the Iraqi people is not even on the list of priorities. Iraq is their goose that lays golden eggs and they will not give it up easily.

[scarletwoman]

19. Do you read Pat Lang also? Really impressive site.

I consider Juan Cole and Pat Lang absolutely essential reading.

Here's the link to Pat Lang's place: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/ -- some of the most intelligent and insightful posts about Iraq and other topics on the web. The commenters are top-notch as well. Great food for thought!

sw

[Imagevision]

28. Bush's dream war was fu*king lame to begin with, wishful oil dreams!!

[Chomp]

29. Frankly

I am very surprised that there hasn't already been a major assault on the GZ.

The bitter truth: cutting and running is the only option now

Be clear: the US leaving Iraq is NOTHING but cutting and running. Dress it up anyway you like ("we are part of the problem!" or "bring our boys home!"). Fine. Whatever.

But the US leaving Iraq is not about those things. The US leaving Iraq is specifically and pointedly about cutting and running. That's it. When the US leaves, it'll be cutting and running. It is within nobody'a ability to change that.

And the fact that cutting and running is the ONLY option left shows the utter depravity of George W. Bush's criminally negligent and reckless "presidency".

[Kagemusha]

34. The US still has air power. That matters

Nothing to ruin an assault like a few helicopter gunships raining Hellfire missiles on your parade...

If it wasn't for that, could be ugly.

[951-Riverside]

41. The US also has better transportation, armor weapons, training, etc

...and obviously if you look at iraq today it has paid off HUGE. :eyes:

[Kagemusha]

51. Because the guerillas don't present targets like the Republican Guard

Basic tactics to neutralize your opponent's best advantages to the extent possible. In other words, don't attack the Green Zone like an armored division and US advantages can't beat you decisively.

[Porcupine]

58. Yeah, that worked great at Khe Sahn. Try again.

You only get to govern by getting out of the castle and walking among the peasantry. It helps to knw the language and recognize faces. It's not possible while you are under seige.

There is no victory possible in Iraqi. There is only shameful slaughter we inflict before our eventual defeat.

[Kagemusha]

76. I'm saying air power is a spoiler. You can't govern through it.

You can deny others the power to easily overthrow the government that is under siege that can't govern, and that is our present, pathetic situation.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

88. You are definitely a scholar of battlefield tactics. It's unfortunate that the

military tacticians of the Pentagon never had a chance to say anything about any pre or post war plans.

Sadly, this situation cannot be salvaged through any military operation. The time for that has come and gone.

When your only option is one of nothing more than denying your adversary a piece of the whole, you are in bad straits.

Over and over, there were windows where, with some deft diplomatic maneuvering, we could have had some control of events.

Those windows closed years ago. MKJ

[Kagemusha]

89. Thanks. But even students of this stuff are learning new things

It's not an... ideal situation for any commander. Realism looks like pessimism/ defeatism because the overall situation's so bad. It's a countr ybreaking down.

[oblivious]

93. "helicopter gunships" Those make nice juicy targets don't they?

[cwydro]

83. I have been waiting for a true attack

against the Green Zone. I'm afraid it will happen. I would be terrified to be there, soldier or civilian.

[GreenZoneLT]

91. I'm in the Green Zone, and I'm not worried about THAT

Nothing has changed in the military equation since the spring of 2003. The Iraqi resistance has no, repeat NO, ability to fight the U.S. heads-up, unless they're just thirsting for martyrdom. The Shiite militia seem to be the better armed, actually; they're the ones firing the rockets and mortars, mostly. The Sunnis mostly work through sniping and roadside bombs.

I'm not going to claim things are going great here, but the Iraqi government is at least making the right noises; they held a joint press conference yesterday with the major Sunni and Shiite players asking for an end to sectarian violence. Although, the Iraqis I talk to say parts of the city are in chaos, and some of the high-level politicians talking about unity are liars who are running death squads at the same time.

Expect more mass murder and an accelerating exodus of Iraqi refugees, but a Tet Offensive? Not gonna happen.

I don't worry about my own safety at all; if you stay in the Green Zone, it's about as hazardous as living somewhere that has a lot of thunderstorms. The scattered incoming rockets and mortars and stuff are half duds, and the other half generally land in open space (the Green Zone is BIG, more than 4 square miles, and mainly made up of spread-out government buildings).

I mostly worry about the Iraqis who work for me. Two of them have had brothers kidnapped and presumed murdered. If anyone in their neighborhoods knew they worked for the Americans, they'd be murdered on the spot.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

96. kick for GreenZoneLT, welcome to DU!

Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

Your comparison of the GZ to living somewhere with a lot of thunderstorms is an interesting analogy, nicely articulated. Of course, personally, I'd be a little twitchy if I lived somewhere with frequent, possibly destructive, thunderstorms so I'd be very nervous if I found myself in the GZ. You sound like you've assimilated the danger quite well, without minimizing it.

I'm sending good thoughts your way, as well as to the Iraqis who are risking their lives working for you. There's a lot of bravery there in that four square miles. Stay safe. :hi: MKJ

[oblivious]

97. Welcome to DU. Things like that ammo dump explosion at Camp Falcon must be worrisome though.

Breaking: Explosions Rock Camp Falcon (MSNBC)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2555277

Militia Attack Ignites US Ammo Dump in Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2556214

Seymour Hersh called to say that He is looking/Ammo Dump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2460228#2520593