| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Franks’ War Strategy in Iraq Deemed Full of Risks |
| 2003-03-24 |
| U.S. commander Gen. Tommy Franks is electing to bypass some Iraqi forces and not occupy key cities in the dash to Baghdad, raising questions about leaving behind dangerous enemy fighters and chaos in urban areas in the wake of his advancing troops. Military analysts said on Monday that Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, may be taking unnecessary risks in the strategy he is employing, including stretching supply lines, allowing concentrations of enemy forces in the rear of his advancing troops, and using an invasion force that simply may be too small for the task at hand. I think our planners may have underestimated the grip of the diehards on local populations as well as the lukewarm interest in being liberated by the hated Americans. In essence the United States is attacking a dozen Iraqi divisions with two divisions of its own, he said. Divisions generally are composed of roughly 15,000 troops. "Normally with a ground force of this size going up against a ground force the size of the Iraqis, one doesn't prevail quickly," said Thompson, who still foresees a decisive and swift victory for the U.S.-led forces. "Can air power compensate for that? It's going to be interesting to watch." We may know soon. |
| Posted by:JAB |
| #11 Run for the hills! Its a plan that not risk free! Its the end of civilization! From General Eisenhower: A plan by itself is meaningless, but having a plan is everything. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2003-03-24 23:57:52 |
| #10 Old Spook, I'd just LOVE to know where you get your info... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-24 22:58:05 |
| #9 4th ID is loading up on planes in Colorado Springs as we speak, their gear is reaching Kuwait just now. With luck, if they can get Umm Qasr cleared, the second and third brigades may unload there. The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, the fastest moving heavy armored unit we have, is in that group too - when they land they will move very quickly to clear the flanks. Also the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (light) (I served with them) will be unloading soon and will probably be providing rear area and flank security against the irregualrs and remnants. Those forces all come on line within the next 2 weeks. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-03-24 22:47:10 |
| #8 I'd feel better if the 4th ID was in the picture. Any ideas when they're in theatre? (P.S.: Thanks, Turkey.) |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-24 22:14:54 |
| #7 General McAffery is more pessimistic. |
| Posted by: anon 2003-03-24 21:57:54 |
| #6 IIRC the Dupuy book, he predicted 5,000 KIA in the American army. When it didn't pan out, he fudged and said something to the effect that he didn't factor something in [like the qualitative difference of the skill, training, education of the average troop and the NCO corps]. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-03-24 21:54:20 |
| #5 This discussion led me to dig out a book I bought before GWI, How to Deafeat Saddam Hussein by Col. Trevor N. Dupuy which has some interesting discussion about relative combat effectiveness. Back then, Dupuy concluded that US troops had a general effectiveness mutiplier ratio of about 2.0, that is, considering force quality, technology and force posture (Iraq on the defensive), 10,000 US troops would be equal about 20,000 Iraq troops. Today's multiplier ratio would be even greater for the US, considering that their forces have deteriorated over the past 12 years, and our technology has improved. Also, the figure of 2.0 was for ground forces only; it didn't take into account air power, which has to have a gigantic additional impact considering that air power will be brought to bear against them strategically before the fight (ie. against their command & control etc.) as well as tactically before and during the fight. Supposing, conservatively, that air power and new technology together will increase our ratio to 4.0, then our 20,000 troops will equal 80,000 Iraqi troops. We will however attack their divisions one at a time, so we'll be attacking at about an 8:1 effectiveness ratio. They will get crushed. z |
| Posted by: ziphius 2003-03-24 20:58:18 |
| #4 Gee, a war plan full of risks? Wow! What a concept! Such fascinating times we live in... |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-24 20:52:00 |
| #3 All the analysts now being out of the service, and more than a few because they were passed over for promotion. Hardly a sterling recommendation. The idea is to lop off the head. If Baghdad falls, the rest will follow. Cheap shots from the cheap seats. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-03-24 20:46:06 |
| #2 Man, I'm telling you, a few MOABS will fix all of these problems. Enough with the PC war. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-24 20:33:42 |
| #1 Not so risky when you assume that one of our battalions is as effective as one of their divisions. (I'm being very conservative.) The biggest risk that I see isn't that we've bypassed enemy concentrations. It's that (when I do the math anyway) we don't have enough folks to do the mopping up and root out the Baath scumbags. We should have called up a couple of NG divisions for this. Not for full scale urban warfare, but to wait out the sieges and establish order as towns and neighborhoods capitulate. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-03-24 19:34:08 |