A Question of Tactics

Let's put the cards on the table first here. If you're an expert in, or have any real life experience with, tactics then go ahead and say so from the start, else let's just assume everyone who comments is to some degree talking out of their posterior. Just so no one unwisely chooses to play the 'what do you know about tactics anyway?' card.

With that said, what are your impressions of the tactics employed by both sides of this conflict? Some have suggested that embedded journalists are a problem because they hamper coalition troops from 'doing what has to be done'? Does the battleplan seem to be changing as Iraq's forces actually put up a fight, or is the plan flexible from the start? Did 'shock and awe' do either, or was it a ploy? Do you have the impression that the war is being handled adroitly?

There''s a lot of talk among the press and the ""armchair General"" special commentators a lot of TV channels wheel out that we haven''t committed enough troops to fight this time around. I would have to agree with that as I also think that everyone underestimated the amount of resistance the Iraqi''s are putting up. Also a lot more support is having to be given to rear areas and convoys as guerilla forces are being widely employed, and peacekeeping is going to require a lot of troops too.

As for Shock''N''Awe I was expecting at least a week of 24 hour bombing. I think part of the reason the Iraqi''s surrendered so quickly was the effect of a month of round the clock bombing by the coalition forces. Granted it''s much harder to hit many of the formations and carpet bombings out of the question, but I don''t know wether sending in the troops at the same time as starting airstrikes was such a good idea.

But I''m not the Armed Forces and not privy to much of the data they must have so that''s just my opinion.

Uh...here''s my thing. It''s been eight days. Before we say the plan has failed lets give it a month. If you remember back to Afganistan, after a little while the armchair generals said we needed more boots on the ground there, then the government fell.

I think we should give them a month before we start calling for a change.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Uh...here''s my thing. It''s been eight days. Before we say the plan has failed lets give it a month. If you remember back to Afganistan, after a little while the armchair generals said we needed more boots on the ground there, then the government fell.

I think we should give them a month before we start calling for a change.

Oh God. Something is definately wrong. Seriously, I need to lie down. I agree with Ulairi. I would just up and die right now, but hell is so cold right now, and I already packed up my sweaters.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Ulairi" wrote:

Uh...here''s my thing. It''s been eight days. Before we say the plan has failed lets give it a month. If you remember back to Afganistan, after a little while the armchair generals said we needed more boots on the ground there, then the government fell.

I think we should give them a month before we start calling for a change.

Oh God. Something is definately wrong. Seriously, I need to lie down. I agree with Ulairi. I would just up and die right now, but hell is so cold right now, and I already packed up my sweaters.

I just think you''re afraid of my title.

Does the battleplan seem to be changing as Iraq''s forces actually put up a fight, or is the plan flexible from the start?

Speaking from personal experience, every plan of battle I''ve ever been a part generally factors in having to do the exact opposite of what you''re planning to do. Flexibility in battle has never been a problem since I''ve been in the military.

I think where the problem has been developing is that the average Joe Troopie along with the average American was led to believe that the Iraqi''s would immediately lay down their arms and welcome them with open arms. With the Republican Guard and Saddam Feddayin still bopping around taking hostages, of course the Iraqi''s are going to keep fighting. If the 82nd Airborne or a SWAT team was holding your family hostage under threat of death, I''d bet dimes to doughnuts you''d fight too.

...armchair generals said we needed more boots on the ground there...

I''m gonna disagree with you there, Ulairi. We need more troops simply to start the pacification process. When you''ve got civilians being shot at by government thugs, you really need to stop that. Right now, it IS simply a question of man power. Do you think the Iraqi militia would dare shoot at civilians with allied forces nearby? Hell, no. We simply don''t have enough people to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

So, what is the average Iraqi going to start thinking? Probably something to the effect, ''Oh man, this is just like the end of the first Gulf War. We were told, rise up, and the Allies will save you! What has happened? The same thing as last time, we rise up and the government kills us for it. Where are the Allies now?''

I think it''s not going as bad as could be, but I definitely think it''s not going to ""plan.""

Let me clue you guys in on how things are sometimes run in these wargames.
There was one time my company played the role of a unfriendly, local force. We were outmanned and outgunned by a great deal. No big deal, we weren''t supposed to ""win"" per se but we were supposed to put up a good fight. However, we were also out-ruled. There were so many rules placed on us that allowed the defenders and pacifiers to win basically just by showing up. We weren''t allowed to do the sh*t that bad guys do. We had to wear uniforms and markings that CLEARLY marked us bad guys.
We were acting as opposing force for a group that was being trained for OOW, Operations Other than War. So why have a clearly marked unfriendly force? Other than to have a ""sucessful"" train up period? Keep in mind we were National Guard soldiers being run by ACTIVE ARMY Observer Controllers. Ostensibly, this is how the Active Army trains for OOW.

I view the war in Iraq as a f*cked-up, simultaneous Assault/Peacekeeping Operation. It don''t make no sense.

Having said all that, let me say this.

I believe in the US Armed Forces. Our training is the best world because we teach our soldiers to be aware and keep their head in the game. We don''t train mindless drones, IMO. We may have some, but you always need someone to scrub the latrine.

I have no doubt that we will adapt and be victorious. However, there''s no need to start a real fight, unlike Afghanistan which was simple decapitation, with less than total available forces.
I know not having Turkey for ground forces kind of screwed us on the ""Northern Front"" but still, you honestly mean to tell me that having the 4th ID in the far rear is somehow advantageous? At the very least, they could be protecting the supply trains or helping the humanitarian effort.

God bless and protect our soldiers.

the average Joe Troopie along with the average American was led to believe that the Iraqi''s would immediately lay down their arms and welcome them with open arms. With the Republican Guard and Saddam Feddayin still bopping around taking hostages, of course the Iraqi''s are going to keep fighting.

You''re just giving an example of another misperception. It''s not like that everyone who currently fights does it only because he is being threatened by institutions closer to the regime. It''s true that Republican Guard and Feddayin Saddam troops were send down to make sure that divisions don''t surrender too soon. However, there are also many who fight because they consider the US and British troop as invaders. While they don''t like Saddam Hussein, they perceive the coalition as threat to the sovereignty of their country.

We need more troops simply to start the pacification process.

I know full well that there are some who are fighting specifically against the coalition. When you''ve got the US saying they''re going to be running the country with a military jaunta, who can blame those fighters? But let''s be careful not to say that there are far more loyalists then those who fight because the lives of their loved ones depend on it. I consider those who fight against the coalition for Iraq, not Saddam, statistically insignificant right now. But there''s certainly opportunity for more of them to come about if we don''t get the humanitarian effort underway.

Yes, pacification. OF ENEMY COMBATANTS AND REAR AREA INFILTRATORS.

I get a little sick and tired of people assuming that every military force will immediately begin committing war crimes the second they get the chance.

Maybe I''m reading too much into your smily face but I''m fed up with some of these clueless damn ""peace"" protestors going on about carpet bombing. What carpet bombing? You wanna see carpet bombing? Watch footage of ''Nam or WWII. You ain''t gonna see any any time soon. Educate yourselves.

If that''s the case if I''m reading to much into it, I apologize. I''m a little worked up this morning. We have four inches of snow on the ground! AND MORE COMING!

Speaking of some of these ""peace"" protestors... ""PEACE, GLITTER, PASSION"" WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? I''m not joking, that''s an actual ""protest"" sign I saw. What they''re protesting, I don''t know. Maybe they''re not getting enough ecstasy at their raves?
I enjoy listening to the debate on both sides of the issue. As long as both debaters are coherent and make their arguments sense.

Well, there are plenty of people MMQBing (Monday Morning Quarterbacking) the military''s preparedness for paramilitary units. For instance, Lt. Gen. William Wallace (you read right) is quoted here as saying ""The enemy we''re fighting is different from the one we''d war-gamed against, because of the paramilitary forces."" Contrast that with this story about a CIA report stating that the Iraqis would use paramilitary groups such as the Fedayeen Saddam to disrupt the supply lines and attacking rear units, such as mechanics.

Then there are reports concerning the amount of sleep the front line troops are getting, combined with the scaling back from 3 meals a day to 2. Take this into account with with the constant reports of paramilitaries harrassing supply trucks and rear units, and you have to wonder how well CENTCOM thought out protecting an extended supply line that runs from Kuwait to about 50 miles from Baghdad.

Then there''s Baghdad itself. Saddam only knows how many paramilitary units, including Saddam''s own army of children, are garrisoned in civilian structures. Saddam wants a fight in the streets and he wants a lot of dead on American TV: both US soldiers and Iraqi ""civilians."" He knows his American history, both recent and past. People''s approval for military conflict lives and dies on what they see in the press. Vietnam was the first ""media war"" and many generals blamed the media for eroding public support by showing dead and wounded Vietnamese. Let us also not forget the ""Black Hawk Down"" incident; support for any retaliatory strike into Mogadishu fizzled when the images of the dead US soldiers being dragged through the streets were flashed on TV. Saddam (and al Qaeda, who had operatives training Somali fighters in 1993) believes that if you kill a lot of Americans and show them on TV, the American public will lose their stomach for war.

Saddam also believes that if a lot of civilians get killed in Baghdad and the siege gets dragged out for weeks or months, international pressure against the US would grow to find a diplomatic solution to the war. Now, there was pressure overseas not to go to war in the first place, but it wasn''t really that strong. No government threatened to pull their ambassadors or expel US ambassadors. No government threatened to impose economic sanctions. Saddam hopes that sort of thing will happen once the US gets bogged down in building to building fighting in Baghdad.