Article

2006-03-11 Iraq

Fall-out with Sunnis has Zarqawi running for cover

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 Dan Darling 2006-03-11 04:02|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I wonder how this would have turned out if we had a 600,000 U.S. boots on the ground. I'll admit I've on occasion lapsed into tirades (not here) about overthtrowing Saddam "on the cheap," but I have a hard time believing that we could have gotton the Sunnis to see anyone but the U.S. as an enemy if we had gone the McCain/Powell/Shali route of "overwhelming force."

Posted by Perfessor 2006-03-11 09:49|| 2006-03-11 09:49|| Front Page Top

#2 That's my suspicion too, Prof.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-11 09:57|| 2006-03-11 09:57|| Front Page Top

#3 agreed...600,000 US boots would have been a 2-edged sword.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2006-03-11 15:37|| 2006-03-11 15:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Only way is to see how things fare... and frankly, under what conditions the USG will actually determine are sufficient for getting out.

Posted by Whumble Whater5278 2006-03-11 18:43|| 2006-03-11 18:43|| Front Page Top

#5
This is an option but it is a basically a "putting all your eggs in one basket option"
Why?
The option is based on the belief that with 600,000 combat troops one would overwhelm the Iraqi resistance thereby:
1) ending it quickly or
2) rendering it insignificant/politically acceptable losses(one is too many for myself)
However there was a couple opposing factors:
1) The Bush Administration was operating under the belief that they would basically be welcomed in large parts of Iraq (as seen by their original choice to head the occupation, LtGen Garner).
2) Current military doctrine is based on maneuver warfare, using our superior training/technology as a force multiplier (being more places, more powerful with a "much less" logistic train).It is what our forces have trained for and is the best at.
3) With todays current forces putting 600,000 boots in Iraq is much easier said done. To accomplish this would require using a major portion of our active global forces(stripping them from some other needed places) and the activation of a very large portion civilian reserves for replacement/needed Iraq Force support(remember much of the '90s force reduction was transferring these functions to the National Guard).
Could we have done it, yes, but would it have accomplished reducing the resistance to at least an acceptable loss (the political left would howl about the loss of one but I believe you mean like me the excessive sickening loss of Coalition and civilian lives).
In this scenario the presence of large forces would permit the physical garrisoning/patrolling of Iraq. The resistance in larger areas would be faced with superior firepower and their lines of logistics/communications would be disrupted. It is also is possible that such a force would discourage much of the resistance from forming.
Would it work, maybe.
Factors working against short term resistance resolution:
1) It would require months to activate/transit/supply the forces. The resistance lives there and already have their stuff.
2)600,000 boots does not mean 600,000 combat troops. It takes many soldiers to service those on the pointed end of the stick. Today every soldier is a combat trooper that was not the case then.(lack of armor plating/insufficient small training for logistic forces). More forces in more places means more target of opportunities against logistic/protection forces. It is reasonable to expect proportional losses to increase force size. Would this have been politically viable?
3) Failure to understand Sunni/Arab character:
A) Sunnis are not Nazis. The have been on the top so long that can not imagine being on the bottom (a view shared by many in the west if we leave the sunni/baathist will be back in power tomorrow. What foolishness, if we left the summer of 03 the Shiite and Kurds wouldve slaughtered the Sunni but if the west believed it why not the Sunnis.
B) Combat forces are trained to fight with superior firepower and mobility (simply put pin it move kill it).This doctrine is not as effective because firstly, it is difficult to id on non uniform opposition and fails to take into account the Arab character. Two words to desribe Arab culture-Honor and fatalistic. Inshallah (as god wills it) is the viewpoint of those who fight. Honor to ethnic/family/etc. or revenge compel them to fight. Sunnis.Revenge, war is not clean; innocents get caught in the crossfire compelling Iraqis to seek revenge. More combat troops may very well increase support for insurgents due to crossfire. It took a sadist brutal Saddam to force the Iraqis to swallow their honor. Not an option for the Coalition.
Factors working against long term resistance reduction:
Will keep this short since I already owe Fred a car in bandwidth usage
1) War breaks equipment. Needed repair/maintenance/retrofit is presently accomplished during rotation, some repairs/maintenance require specialized facilities. Many retrofits were accomplished while gear was stateside/Established foreign bases.
2) Soldiers are human beings. Reading the mil-blogs one see the emotional stress or joy at midpoint of tour our forces endure. We could not ask multi-year combat deployments of our best yet it would be necessary since we do not have the reserves to replace them.
3) Political Correctness.600,000 boots would not deal better with Sadr or discourage support for insurgent/al queda.
4) Political viability. I am sorry to say this but America would not tolerate a long term massive deployment of forces (sorry boss my guard has been called up for a few years orI only see my child/spouse/parent 2 weeks a year).
600,000 may have reduced the short term resistance but it would have reduced the militaries options and may very well have increased the problems.
Unfortunately, it requires an Iraqi forces/solution to finally solve the resistance and that takes time.
Fred, I apologize for the length but second guessing our forces really frustrates me (no offense perfesser/lopt).
IMHO America is blessed to possess the finest military force in history and global society should kiss its ass in gratitude

Posted by Glert Clomoger8136 2006-03-11 21:19|| 2006-03-11 21:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Sorry the last excessive post was me and concerns the option of placing 600,oo boots in Iraq.A few problems with edicting,lost parts of it twice

Posted by AlterEgo 2006-03-11 21:24|| 2006-03-11 21:24|| Front Page Top

#7 No argument from me, AlterEgo. The logistical, doctrinal and political issues you raise would have required tactics that we're using now selectively, but which raise great resentment among many Iraqis. 4-5 times the troops there would have done so even more, without (as you noted cogently) guaranteeing we could have prevented / controlled the insurgency very much better than we have.

Ultimately we can set the conditions for Iraqi freedom, but they have to put it into action.

America is blessed to possess the finest military force in history

You'll get no argument from this wife of a retired career officer. ;-)

Posted by lotp 2006-03-11 22:02|| 2006-03-11 22:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Interesting post, AlterEgo. Keep it up.

nb: Fred accepts Paypal, that Amazon thingy, or cash in the mail. Go for it! ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-11 22:21|| 2006-03-11 22:21|| Front Page Top

23:55 Zhang Fei
23:55 2b
23:44 Zhang Fei
23:42 trailing wife
23:39 Jules
23:32 phil_b
23:28 trailing wife
23:21 doc
23:16 Zhang Fei
23:13 Bobby
23:12 Sherry
23:02 Anonymoose
22:59 Zhang Fei
22:56 Silentbrick
22:50 trailing wife
22:45 Pappy
22:42 Fred
22:39 BA
22:38 Pappy
22:31 Phil
22:30 Listen To Dogs
22:30 Zhang Fei
22:25 Zhang Fei
22:24 gromgoru