Article

2004-07-27 Iraq-Jordan

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 Steve White 2004-07-27 12:20:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is closer than you think.

If there is no Bin Laden "Surprise", look for this to hatch - and some of our guys to come home.

One Corps HQ, aviation assets (mainly transport/lift, some heli support about a battalion), 3 divisions - one airborne, 2 mech. The Russians want to get some life-fire in, and they want some Ops experience with the US. ANd this leads to one of the wierdest things; US F16's and A-10's and AC130's flying support for a Russian battalion-sized task force. The 80's era mind boggles.

This gives them a good way to get "winning" combat experience for their troops, whome they can then later use in Chechnya and some of the Caucasus area problem centers.

Also, this puts them in a position to get the oil contracts and such from the Iraqi government that they had signed before the war. Boots on the ground = protected Russian oil fields, pipelines, and and port facilities.

And Putin goes into the books as a "World Leader" in time for his election - and Bush will definitley "owe him one" for this will make his election. Expect the favor to be called in over Chechnya China and oil contracts.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-27 12:44:12 AM|| 2004-07-27 12:44:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Fascinating... Extremely so, in fact...

Note this IS the A-Times. The author, "Spengler": Wikipedia lists him on the official Oswald Spengler page as:
""Oswald Spengler" is also the pseudonym of a Jewish-American columnist for the Asia Times Online, whose particular focus is on America."

Link.

So credibility IS something of an issue... Other articles here and here and here and here. Whew! Wotta collection! On the whole, he's written some pretty straight-forward stuff, so he's (potentially) an A-Times exception - the second I've come across.

Given OS's comments, I'm encouraged. BUT... If only Putty wasn't also gutting Russia for his own ends... I fear the "price tag" for Russian support will be far far higher than just looking away from Chechnya. In fact, I figure it's a "debt" that will never be cancelled. In sum, I don't much like the deal as described - too little for too much... The Jarines can handle Fallujah, as they've shown. All they need is to be backed up by their leadership, instead of undermined in a political ploy which has, thus far, utterly backfired, IMHO. Grrrr. This is like a Twinkie, filling if you eat enough of them, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Posted by .com 2004-07-27 1:15:46 AM|| 2004-07-27 1:15:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 In the end, .com, the impression I get is that the presence of proxy forces (CIS) are distinctly BECAUSE of lack of leadership backing for the Jarines ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-27 1:26:22 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-27 1:26:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Okay... maybe so - what about the value vs price?

I'd have to see bouncing rubble in Fallujah, Armadi, hell - throughout the Sunni Triangle - to get anything like a warm feeling... Just $0.02.

Posted by .com 2004-07-27 1:31:27 AM|| 2004-07-27 1:31:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Point taken. In the end, perhaps the "calling in the Russians" is an assymetrical countermanuever against the Lefties who won't let the Jarheads run wild on Fallujah ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-27 1:39:25 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-27 1:39:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The Russians are taking a dozen KIA a day in Chechnya in an area perhaps a fraction of 1% the size of Iraq. I don't think they can handle either the logistics or the combat. They'd be lambs to the slaughter. And that bit about the author being "Jewish-American" is just spooky - just what is Jim Lobe, the wacko writer regularly featured in ATimes? Arab-American?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-27 1:41:38 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-27 1:41:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 This could be a step closer to seeing Russia in NATO one day.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-27 1:45:13 AM|| 2004-07-27 1:45:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I don't think they can handle either the logistics or the combat.

By themselves, no. But with American support???

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-27 1:46:51 AM|| 2004-07-27 1:46:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 ZF - Scan those articles - an interesting POV was required for that collection... cynical, hipster, joker, patriot, quite a raconteur / critic / believer... I echo your WTF? response, lol!

Posted by .com 2004-07-27 1:47:38 AM|| 2004-07-27 1:47:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 A simple question, why can not the US handle the situation on its own in Irq?
If it is the super-power, why the need of other's help?

Posted by Ricks 2004-07-27 5:36:52 AM|| 2004-07-27 5:36:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 A simple question, why can not the US handle the situation on its own in Irq? If it is the super-power, why the need of other's help?

Cuz we aint multi-lateral if we don't ask others for help nicely and saying "with sugar on top" and we if do go it alone we're called bullies and imperialists? Seriously Ricks thats basically a no brainer question you just posed. We're damned by the international community whichever way we choose (if we ask for help as you've seen with the UN, France, Germany and others) we get turned down most often than not, our international allies that ARE there (I believe thats about 30 countries still?) get no attention or respect at all and whenever we try to do things by ourselves we're called everything from "torturers, warmongers, greedy oil bastards" to whatever else.

As for this piece about the Russians, color me skeptical. Theres so much I could say just about logistic issues alone that could get an idea like this bogged down that I'd have a hard time getting to the communications sharing that any coordination they might do with US forces is gonna have. Heck we have that problem right now with our current on ground allies, it isn't going to get better with the Russians on the ground to boot. Then theres the whole doctrine and whos in charge issue, which rules of engagement do they follow, what tactics are going to be used, etc etc.

Posted by Valentine 2004-07-27 5:52:17 AM|| 2004-07-27 5:52:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Why is this topic even posted here? Someone would have to be brain-dead to believe it. Two more Iraqi cities were handed over to the enemy, last week. The US will leave Iraq to its new Iranian masters, and will do so like the "wounded animal" that Rafsanjani identified last April. And you can thank the over-achieving idiot in the White House for squandering hundreds of billions of American taxdollars, and American credibility in order to satisfy his infantile concept of how a resolute President should act. The Bush circus is the most collosal Presidential catastrophe since the Ulysses S Grant regime. To the minority who believe that democratic pro-US regimes are being created in Iraq and Afghanistan: show some self-respect.

Posted by Dog Bites Trolls 2004-07-27 6:44:14 AM|| 2004-07-27 6:44:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 *hopes no one bothers to feed the troll*

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-27 7:33:14 AM|| 2004-07-27 7:33:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 LOL! This one still got Charles' fang marks on his gamey troll ass.

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-27 8:39:08 AM|| 2004-07-27 8:39:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 In My Humble Opinion, getting Russian "help" would be a disaster. As Zhang Fei has pointed out, their policy in Chechnya is producing lots of casualties on both sides, but no resolution in sight, and with a lot more occupying soldiers per capita than we have in Iraq.

And since we're the responsible authority, and not fascist communists, the world will not ignore any atrocities the Russians do in our name, the way they do ignore the ones the Russians commit at home.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-07-27 9:08:56 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-07-27 9:08:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Assuming that Russians would send combat troops assumes way too much. The President of Iraq asked for Russian technical help. He remarked that Russians have a good reputation in Iraq for good quality products and construction. I would also like to add that, like our own, the majority of soldiers in Russia's army are *not* combat troops, but combat support and service support.
So, what would all these Russians do?
First of all, don't think big picture, except for some mild linkages of diplomatic niceties, like the US warming up to their joining the WTO. The #1 task of the Russian soldiers would be to observe and interact with their American counterparts--learning tons of useful stuff--and to establish a foothold in Iraq, the future economic powerhouse of the entire middle east (think "the Germany of the middle east").
In other words, to build the second largest embassy in Iraq, and possibly the infrastructure for Russian corporations who want to move "in country" immediately.
It also puts Russia in the middle of things--potential trouble spots--right next door to the US, and able to "force project" into Central Asia, the middle east, *and* northern Africa.
This strategic location is important enough, if you remember, for the US to make a new *command* out of it (on a par with CENTOM, SOUTHCOM, etc.), led by a four-star general. The Russians probably see it in the same light and their (possibly permanent) contingent will be led by a very high ranking officer.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-07-27 9:44:53 AM|| 2004-07-27 9:44:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 He remarked that Russians have a good reputation in Iraq for good quality products and construction.

Consider what that means...

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-07-27 10:08:19 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-07-27 10:08:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Wouldn't Russian troops in there free up our troops and let them look to the east....Iran?

I don't mind having the russians in there. I don't completely trust them but I trust them more than the French and Germans.

A Russia in Nato would change everything about that organization. It would nullify anything the Euros wanted.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-07-27 10:22:06 AM|| 2004-07-27 10:22:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 1) Russia has a long history of military help in Iraq.

2) Iraq is recalling its old Amry leaders, the ones least tainted by Saddam.

3) Iraq need and wants a "professional" army.

4) The US is too politically dangerous to use - the Iraqi people, rightly or wrongly, are resentful of the US Military.

5) Putin need to transform his military into one more like the US - look at the recent firings at the top

6) Putin need to put Russia on the World Stage for his own ends, to bolster himself politically at home and abroad

7) Iraq is already the geographic center of the middle east.

9) Iraq, once its economy gets fully going, will be the biggest free economy in the middle east. It has a history of secular business unmatched by anyone (Other than Israel) in the region.

10) Russia has historical oil contracts and development contracts that its economy must get - there is a real need for that money to flow into Russia which will help the econmy (and Putin again).

11) Politically - it casts Putin as a peacemaker, and an "old ally" come to "rescue an old ally". This plays well at home and in the middle east for Putin.

12) The US can provide air support and logistical support. The Russians would love to learn that from us: it (logistics of power projection) won the US WW2 and is one of the reasons we have such military power.

13) The US can supply training to "elite" units as well as to IRaqi units.

14) The IRaqis have already said they would welcom RUssian Civil help - this provides cover for a "protection force". Once the military is rebuilt, it will need advisors and more equipment - and they have a ton of old Russian gear around. Makes sense that Russian military advisors will be needed. And to protect them, more RUssian troops.

15) The US needs help, and given blood versus money, we'd rather spend money (At least those wwho care about the troops more than the politics).

16) Bush need some help politically, and having the Russians roll in shows that this was not a "Conquest" but a liberation, since the IRaqis will have chose to bring others in to help.

17) This takes some of the insurgent focus off the US troops, given the splash a large Russian deployment would make.

18) Russian troops would be "starting fresh" and woudl be able to patrol where we cannot politicially do so (Fallujah).

19) Showing a US changing of the guard type thing, US taking the garrison out, and Iraqis directing RUssian toops in, then shwoing US troops "on the plane home"... well thats fantastic for our troops! Any commander-in-chief would love to have a situation become more stable and pull troops home.

20) Timing: the pictures of 18 would be a massive political bonus.

Sum it up. There are tons of good things to happen here. Too many to be ignored by Putin or Bush. The only question is are there enough pragmatists on both sides to overcome the idealogues? Because if this is not done by October, then it could be President Kerry who gets the benefit of all this.

Come on Dubya, get on the pony and ride like hell - get this one done!

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-27 10:24:03 AM|| 2004-07-27 10:24:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 correction and clarification:

point 20 should refer to point 19, not 18.

the "old ally" relationship is primarily meant to refer to the Iraq-SOviet relationship. BUt it could also be an echo of the WW2 US-Soviet alliance.

A smart politician would leave it the way I printed it (Old ally, etc) without clearing up which old ally htey were talking about.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-27 10:28:42 AM|| 2004-07-27 10:28:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 OS: Come on Dubya, get on the pony and ride like hell - get this one done!

I don't really see this coming to fruition. The Russians are getting what meager results they are (remember - it's been ten years since they started fighting in Chechnya and they're still taking a dozen KIA a day) using extremely coercive methods that include deliberately targeting (i.e. raping, torturing, killing) family members and punitively shelling civilian areas. Immediately after a brigade was massacred in 1994, thousands of artillery shells were indiscriminately used on Grozny, reputedly killing thousands in a matter of days. And they're still losing a dozen men a day. We'll let the Russians in only if we want a real quagmire in Iraq. Their incompetence speaks for itself.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-27 10:35:23 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-27 10:35:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 This offers enough benefits to the Russians to be possible. Contrary to what you might think, it is not in Russia's interests to have a weak US president. John Kerry would not be perceived as having either the foresight or the courage to stand with Russia against China should the need arise. Russia has also shown itself more than willing to send troops where it perceives national interests (remember the surprise appearance of Russian paratroops in Kosovo). Certainly the political and economic opportunities afforded by a military presence in Iraq are substantial enough to be tempting.

Posted by RWV 2004-07-27 10:47:43 AM|| 2004-07-27 10:47:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Besides, the Russians are the only continental power that could put 40,000 combat troops anywhere. It would be a delicious reminder to the French and Germans of how irrelevant they have made themselves since the end of the Cold War.

Posted by RWV 2004-07-27 10:57:13 AM|| 2004-07-27 10:57:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 The whole idea of Russian troops in Iraq may cause more panic in Tehran that anywhere else. Putin may be supportive of the mullahs domestiuc nuclear program but I'm not sure he is prepared to have a terrorist nuclear threat on his southern border. As in, leave Chechnya or we take out Moscow.

Posted by john 2004-07-27 11:28:21 AM|| 2004-07-27 11:28:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 OS,

Add to list: Muslims, especially Iran, would get to look at how the US treated Fallujah versus how Russians treat it. If this doesn't convince the silent majority of Muslims to do something about their wacksos, they face the alliance that levelled Germany and find out how first hand.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-07-27 11:32:06 AM|| 2004-07-27 11:32:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 I will always be deeply skeptical of Russian motives, methods and competence. And can anyone give a single example of Russian troops improving a situation.

Posted by Grunter 2004-07-27 11:52:19 AM|| 2004-07-27 11:52:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't know.
It's the Russians.
I haven't been impressed with the way they've handled Chechnya and Grozny.
This may bear short-term benefits for us... but what happens if the Ruskies can't get anywhere in Fallujah and decide to come down heavy handed? What happens if they decide to flatten Fallujah and call on us for airsupport?

I'm thinking Russian security forces (Blackwater contractors) *may* be acceptable.

*shrug* I dunno. I don't like it.

Posted by Anonymous4021 2004-07-27 12:00:16 PM|| 2004-07-27 12:00:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 If Pres.Bush has a twisted sense of humor,he would get a brigade of Russians initially,but assign them to the Polish Div.Area of OPs,and put the Poles in charge of them.

Posted by Stephen 2004-07-27 12:27:32 PM|| 2004-07-27 12:27:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Grunter: I will always be deeply skeptical of Russian motives, methods and competence.

I think the key word is motives. What if the Russians plunk down in one part of Iraq and refuse to leave, as they did in Pristina, Kosovo, in 1998? My feeling is that our interests in Iraq don't coincide, and the Russians are notorious for being difficult just for the hell of it.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-27 12:31:20 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-27 12:31:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Russian force projection/logistical lift capacity is limited or decrepit. They are going to have a hell of a time moving and supplying 40,000 troops. I think that the benefit to the US is very short-lived while the long-term benefit would accrue to Russia. Not sure this one works for me.

Posted by remote man 2004-07-27 12:34:05 PM|| 2004-07-27 12:34:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Stephen, LOL. That has the makings of the biggest blue-on-blue episode since World War 2.

Posted by Matt 2004-07-27 12:39:04 PM|| 2004-07-27 12:39:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 If it sounds too good to be true......yadda yadda. This would be a good thing overall....but 40,000 seems unrealistic - 4000 I could see but I'm not gonna hold my breath

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-07-27 1:10:53 PM|| 2004-07-27 1:10:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 What if the Russians plunk down in one part of Iraq and refuse to leave

Hell, what if they refuse to leave Iraq at all? They do have a tendency to stay way past their welcome.

Two things: where would Russia find the money for this? They would have to get their hands on something really lucrative in Iraq, perhaps in competition against the US and the other coalition members. This in itself could negate any military help from the Russians.
On the other hand, the troops that Russia would send to Iraq would be the real thing, not some "special" Police units (presumably). Chechnya is seen more as a police action within Russian territory, with troops assigned from all over the place: ministry of the interior forces (MVD), police forces (OMON), contracted soldiers and conscripts.
The other thing about Chechnya, is that there's a presumption here by most people that Russia is actually interested in winning that conflict. I propose that Putin could care less as long there is relative calm, and the conflict doesn't spill over into neighbouring areas.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-27 2:16:03 PM|| 2004-07-27 2:16:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 #17 He remarked that Russians have a good reputation in Iraq for good quality products and construction.

Consider what that means...

Robert, belive it or not there is some validity to that comment. Consider that Bechtel and KBR and the other E&C contrators there must work to US regs and rules - including OSHA, FCPA, etc. This does slow things down especially the security and safety issues. But the Russians have no equal set of requirements to hold their contractors and techreps to - so they work to the Iraqi tradition of shit construction, bribes, favorite sons, etc. Of course, the souks would love to see the Euros and Russkies back - they can deal with them - quality, safety and anti-corruption aren't on the agenda and they can play easier.

Posted by Jack is Back! 2004-07-27 3:23:41 PM|| 2004-07-27 3:23:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 As Old Spook says in his excellent analysis, this would be a great opportunity for the Russkies, who will be looking at the long term, 20-plus years out. However, as Zhang Fei says, they will not likely want to ever leave, as they would see it as a foot in the door to a new imperial venture in the oil-rich south. 40K troops on the border of Saudi, later building to what 100K? 200K? It would also be a good counter-move to the US lily-pad strategy in the "arc of instability".

Posted by virginian 2004-07-27 4:19:53 PM|| 2004-07-27 4:19:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Meanwhile, elsewhere in the 'burg, read "U.S. deployment in Kyrgyzstan shows new lilypad strategy" and learn that Russia is agitating with the 'stans to expel U.S. forces and setting up an airbase 70 miles from the Kyrgyzstan base. Fighter jets, ground attack craft, etc. This is how Russia welcomes the U.S. to its backyard. Should we trust them in Iraq? Russia is the enemy just as much as France, but smarter and more much more dangerous. As it always has been.

Posted by Grunter 2004-07-27 5:16:13 PM|| 2004-07-27 5:16:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Maybe the Russians and the US are looking at different long-term game: They both have the problem of Central Asia. They both have the problem of Iran going Nuke. The demographics and projections are rather complex for the next thirty years. This could become one interesting globe.

Posted by Anonymous5650 2004-07-27 5:55:35 PM|| 2004-07-27 5:55:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 What if the Russians refuse to leave? Or increase their numbers? If so they better figure out their own logistics or they'll be eating sand.

Posted by Yank 2004-07-27 7:26:33 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-07-27 7:26:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Extraordinary Russian actions in Chechnya have their cause in past historical events: 1)Chechnya has quite often been rebellious - Romans would have salted the fields long ago: 2)Many from Chechnya vigorously supported the fascist beast during the late "Great Patriotic War"...

Posted by borgboy 2004-07-27 7:27:40 PM|| 2004-07-27 7:27:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 borgboy: Many from Chechnya vigorously supported the fascist beast during the late "Great Patriotic War"...

As did many Muslims. Some might object that Christians also fought in Hitler's armies. The rejoinder is that most Christians fought against Hitler, whereas most Muslims fought in his behalf.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-27 7:30:07 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-27 7:30:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Hope they are Spetznats,heard a story in wich some Russians(diplos I think)in Beruit were kidnapped and urdered.The Spets whent in there,found out who did the crime.Since they couldn't find the perps the Spets kidnapped and killed members of thier familys.Don't how true this is.

Posted by raptor 2004-07-27 8:59:45 PM|| 2004-07-27 8:59:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 What if the Russians don't leave? By the time that matters, the Iraqi Army and political system will be strong enough to diplomatically push them out.

Russia cannot afford to sustain a corps sized element in that region without US help and the cooperation of the Iraqi government.

So its not an issue. Remember - one of the big things Putin gets out of this is *training* for his troops and he doesnt have to foot much of the logistical bill.

You guys tend to drop the context, and that makes you have some misguided worries, like Russia trying to take the oil fields.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-27 11:03:27 PM|| 2004-07-27 11:03:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Not necessarily OS, you're assuming that Russia wouldn't try to develop economic ties, remember thats what this whole thread here has been alluding to. A combination of economic power plays through the use of using a physical force on the ground to create a potentially stable situation while gaining favor with the Iraqi government in order to gain contracts. If the Iraqis go with Russian equipment, contractors, business whatever then they could face some serious financial penalties. Its entirely possible that Russian contractors may offer lower bids to get work done or may offer higher payoffs (or bribes) to get something they want. To say this wouldn't happen would be naive. Personally I'd be against russian combat troop deployments, if they want to deploy observers then thats a different package deal, but keep those troops to a limited time frame or you can face some SERIOUS problems.

Posted by Valentine 2004-07-27 11:27:37 PM|| 2004-07-27 11:27:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I'm not worried about the Russians one way or another about staying, my questions are more organizational - who do they work for? The U.S.? The Iraqi Gov? Who are they Opcon to? What logistics does it take to feed and *fix* ruskie troops and ruskie equipment? More questions then answers especially in the light that we want to downsize all coalition troops in Iraq. Overall, I say keep them at home. We don't need any more cooks in the kitchen. With the ruskies you get the ego's of their politicos in the way, I'd just stay put w/what we got going.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-27 11:30:40 PM|| 2004-07-27 11:30:40 PM|| Front Page Top

09:47 Steve from Relto
16:31 Aris Katsaris
13:23 Robert Crawford
12:55 GreatestJeneration
10:31 Aris Katsaris
09:59 Robert Crawford
09:51 Zhang Fei
03:16 GreatestJeneration
03:08 Aris Katsaris
01:48 OldSpook
01:35 .com
01:27 Asedwich
01:25 GreatestJeneration
01:19 GreatestJeneration
01:06 Rafael
01:06 Rafael
01:04 Rafael
00:53 rex
00:48 Rafael
00:42 .com
00:42 Zhang Fei
00:33 Rafael
00:30 Rafael
00:27 .com