Article

2007-01-12 Iraq

Intensified Combat on Streets Likely: Baghdad Thump Call

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-01-12 12:15|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "The 'surge' is actually quite small," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, who compared it with the 206,000 additional troops that Gen. William Westmoreland requested in Vietnam in 1968. "In effect, Bush is counting on the Iraqis to pull our bacon out of the fire," Bacevich said, adding that there is no evidence that the Iraqi military and government are capable of doing so.

One of the possible drawbacks of the fantastically effective professional militaries opted for by the USA and the UK: expense. Is it possible this surge of twenty-thousand is the most that can be mustered? And this against the back-drop of the UK canceling parachute training for the Paratroop Regiment and plans to mothball half the Royal Navy.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-12 12:40|| 2007-01-12 12:40|| Front Page Top

#2 The publication of this "surge" bothers me. If I were any sort of terrorist leader near Baghdad and found myself concerned with this troop increase, I'd just lie low for a few weeks until it blew over and tell my jihadi underlings to take their "hard-earned vacation time" (or the muzzie equivalent). Failing that, I'd try to relocate our efforts elsewhere at least temporarily.

I hope the real news is the change in RoE, masked behind the trumpets blaring all this hype about the troop surge. It seems to me taking the gloves off and, especially, kicking Sadr's ass would be of more use than 20,000 additional troops.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2007-01-12 13:00|| 2007-01-12 13:00|| Front Page Top

#3 On Hugh Hewitt's blog, they mention that the 17000 going to Baghdad is effectively doubling the amount of troops in baghdad.

Posted by Anon4021 2007-01-12 13:00|| 2007-01-12 13:00|| Front Page Top

#4 The prospect of a more intense battle in the Iraqi capital could put U.S. military commanders in exactly the sort of tough urban fight that war planners strove to avoid during the spring 2003 invasion of the country.

If it's not a quagmire it's another Stalingrad, Fallujah notwithstanding.

/I despise the MSM

Posted by xbalanke 2007-01-12 13:01|| 2007-01-12 13:01|| Front Page Top

#5 The Washington Post can always find someone to bash Bush.

Why else would you send 20,000 troops anywhere, except to intensify combat operations?

Posted by Bobby 2007-01-12 13:14|| 2007-01-12 13:14|| Front Page Top

#6 The significance of "the surge" is not the number of additional troops. It is the change in the Rules of Engagement. That and the fact that Iran and Syria have been explicity added to the board rather than remaining hidden players.

Previously, we were relying on Iraqi politcal maneuvering to bring the militias to heel. Iran and Syria helped make sure that did not happen. Now the choice for the militias is disarm or die. Maliki will not be able to save them. Given the arab love of martyrdom, no doubt "die" will be the most popular choice. It will not be pretty.

As for the British military meltdown, I suspect that has as much to do with lack of national will and purpose as budget.

Posted by SteveS 2007-01-12 13:15|| 2007-01-12 13:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Exactly. My thinking is that the main reason for the "surge" is to distract the moonbats.

While they whine and moan the ROE's serioulsy change and we get with business.

By the time the lunies figure it out it will be too late.

Posted by kelly 2007-01-12 13:43|| 2007-01-12 13:43|| Front Page Top

#8 "some in the Pentagon consider it [the Mahdi Army] more militarily effective than the Iraqi army."

That's rich when you consider the Mahdi Army is recruited largely from drug addicts in Sadr City. The last time we thumped them the kill ratios were astronomically high.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2007-01-12 14:10|| 2007-01-12 14:10|| Front Page Top

#9 Frozen Al-
The acknowledged kill ratios in Najaf were astronomically high, and it is my understanding that political sensitivities caused the ratios to be drastically understated (understated across the GWOT, lest we seem 'too mean' and 'unfair' to the poor, out-classed terrorists.)

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-01-12 14:33|| 2007-01-12 14:33|| Front Page Top

#10 With 2, 3, and some with 4 tours under their belt, those boys are getting hard and salty. I think they can take the heat. In fact I think most of them have been waiting for this for a long time.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-01-12 15:05|| 2007-01-12 15:05|| Front Page Top

#11 The acknowledged kill ratios in Najaf were astronomically high, and it is my understanding that political sensitivities caused the ratios to be drastically understated (understated across the GWOT, lest we seem 'too mean' and 'unfair' to the poor, out-classed terrorists.)

If the video I saw on the Jawa Report is accurate, I can believe that:

Video opens with jihadis in a tactics briefing. The "commander" pushes around a couple of toy cars in an improvised sand table. The objective appears to be a couple of bunkers near a road. The bunkers are connected by a trench. During the briefing the other jihadis stand around and try to look menacing in their black masks and AKs. There's no sign they're actually paying any attention to the briefing.

After an incredibly long time showing the "briefing", we cut to the back of a pickup somewhere in the desert. The jihadis are still in their black masks. It's daylight.

Camera pans over to show the bunkers. To my untrained eye, they're maybe 10 yards from the truck at this point.

I had no sound on the machine I used to watch this, so I assume at this point the US forces opened up on the trucks. I gather that from the camera man jumping from the truck bed, the smear of blood on the truck bed, and the general confusion among the jihadis.

Cameraman then hares off into the desert. Then stops, and the camera falls to the ground.

The video ends with "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU F*&^ WITH US" and a montage of the dead jihadis and their shot-up pickups.

From what I could see, these geniuses mounted a daylight frontal assault on a prepared position along an approach that allowed BOTH bunkers to fire on them. They DROVE up to the site in PICKUPS with black masks and carrying their rifles.

I'd honestly be surprised if they got off more than a handful of shots before they were all dead.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-01-12 16:03|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-01-12 16:03|| Front Page Top

#12 With regard to the change in the ROE: I already know how the NYT and WaPo will describe this when it happens: Syria = Cambodia, and Iran = Laos.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-01-12 16:41|| 2007-01-12 16:41|| Front Page Top

#13 Sadr City wont be as easy as Najaf. the Sadrists were in Najaf, what, a few months when we went in? In a city that was largely hostile to them?

Sadr City is their home turf, most of the locals are friendly to the Mahdi army, and theyve had YEARS to prepare. Hezb showed how hard an urban fight can be when the baddies are given enough time to prepare the ground.

Doesnt mean we cant win it. But it will be damned harder than Najaf.

Which is what I think Sistani talking to Sadr was about. Trying to give Sadr a chance to give in to coalition conditions peacefully, so we dont have to storm Sadr City. In return for which he gets to keep playing the political game. Win-win. Or we can take the costs, and break the Mahdi Army.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-12 16:57|| 2007-01-12 16:57|| Front Page Top

#14 A deal with Sadr is not a win-win. The Mahdi Army must be destroyed first. Then we can talk.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-01-12 17:06|| 2007-01-12 17:06|| Front Page Top

#15 liberalhawk said: Sadr City wont be as easy as Najaf. the Sadrists were in Najaf, what, a few months when we went in? In a city that was largely hostile to them?

Sadr City is their home turf, most of the locals are friendly to the Mahdi army, and theyve had YEARS to prepare. Hezb showed how hard an urban fight can be when the baddies are given enough time to prepare the ground.

If we take the gloves off Sadr City won't have to be stormed. Surround the enclave and cut off every route out. Announce nothing. Reduce the city using air bombardment and artillery. Do it hard, nasty, and brutally. Once the city has been reduced, then go in block by block from all directions using search & destroy or hammer/anvil tactics. Anyone with a weapon is killed. Anyone surrendering becomes a POW. Sort any hard boys out of the POW group using interrogation (we don't shoot POWs because we're not Nazi's).

I'm serious. Destroy Sadr City. Level it. Kill anyone with a weapon or stupid enough not to surrender. Clear the rubble then bulldoze it all level to enable the Iraqi government and people to rebuild it (tell 'em that we won't clean up all their messes for them).

Fear and power is the only thing these guys seem to understand. Let's instill some real fear in them and demonstrate what real power is once and for all.

Damn the condemnations of our actions and tell the rest of the world to either help us fix the problem or STFU.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-01-12 18:27|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-01-12 18:27|| Front Page Top

#16 As a former grunt {many moons ago}, I am happy with the surge concept as it has been outlined. The basic thrust is to double the amount of actual combat troops in Baghdad and create a series of urban assault bases, using joint Iraqi-US troops. 30 assault bases dispersed around Baghdad makes tracking the movement of the assault teams much more difficult - 30 places to watch instead of 5 big bases' gates. Plus, with 30 assault bases, any movement out of the gates will produce a warning call through the terrorist networks since they will have to assume that any movement is a raid. To do otherwise would lead to a rapid and terminal decline in operational cells, being rolled up in unanticipated raids.
Wear and tear on the enemy, and the eventual slacking off of vigilance on their part will lead to more dead terrorists. Will this mean the end of the terrorists in a single year? Probably not, but the grinding down of the terrorists, along with the loss of Saddam and his sons as the Baathists' Mahdi, will undercut much of the underlying rationale for continued Sunni stupidity. So in a couple of years, the terrorist problem in Baghdad, at least, will be down to a manageable level - sort of like the danger level in East LA.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-12 18:35|| 2007-01-12 18:35|| Front Page Top

#17 The usual suspects predict that Bush's "surge" will fail because US forces must fight along side Shiite (as opposed to Sunni b/c of sectarian strife) Iraqi forces, and they won't fight fellow Shiites in Tater's militia.

But I read today that Bush is going to use Kurds who are Sunni but not Arab, the Kurdish Peshmerga who are pretty tough fighters.

Posted by cajunbelle 2007-01-12 18:53|| 2007-01-12 18:53|| Front Page Top

#18 FOTSGreg nails it. They are pushing us to go "Israeli" (well, at least prior to Olmert) on them. Screw the "world's" condemnaions. They are pushing us into NOT caring what we do and forcing the average American to "wanna go postal" on these punks. Yeah, I know the polls say most don't want MORE troops in there. BUT, the same polls also show they don't want a pullout either. We learned that lesson 30+ years ago.

Listen, I used to be about as passive as they came on "international affairs". Rantburg has cured that for me, starting with 9/11. I've almost switched to the opposite, "nuke 'em all" pole. Clear the media, clear the attorneys and let's get down to business. Continuing to pussy-foot around is only gonna get more killed. When this nation gets backed into a corner, you'd better watch it with that stick, poking at us. I think Bush and crew are to that point now. I pray they are so we can WIN this thing and bring the boyz (and girlz) home.

Posted by BA 2007-01-12 20:04|| 2007-01-12 20:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Just cut off Sadr city and cut the power and water. Let anyone coming out unarmed go, then once it's cleared, go in to destroy the jihadis and weapons caches.

No power, no water -- I'd bet they'd be thirsty in a month or two. Sooner if they're too stupid to have prepared for a siege.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-01-12 20:10|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-01-12 20:10|| Front Page Top

#20 The key to success in Baghdad, Sadr City, and the WoT in general is to change the Rules of Engagement to that of heavy duty war, as outlined in the above comments. Precision weapons do not produce Shock and Awe. Concentrated, overwhelming force does. Something like a MOAB on Tater's house will produce SAA.

I am all for the so-called Surge, IFF the RoEs are changed to wartime, and not police standards, and we let our troops do what they were trained to do, and that is destroy the enemy.

We DO NOT need to play the very tough and dangerous urban fighting game like we did in Fallujah. Our Marines were magnificant, but too many good men died in this house-to-house stuff, where surrounding the city with troops and applying overwhelming aerial bombardment would suffice to break the will of the enemy.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-01-12 21:53|| 2007-01-12 21:53|| Front Page Top

23:48 Mike N.
23:41 newc
23:40 Shieldwolf
23:32 newc
23:05 Frank G
23:01 trailing wife
23:00 Mike N.
22:49 trailing wife
22:40 Frank G
22:22 Procopius2k
22:18 Mark Z
22:17 USN, ret.
22:14 Mike N.
22:11 Procopius2k
22:10 USN, ret.
22:04 DarthVader
21:54 Frank G
21:53 Alaska Paul
21:52 3dc
21:50 USN, ret.
21:23 Pappy
21:20 djh_usmc
21:13 bruce
20:59 Anguper Hupomosing9418