Article

2006-07-24 Iraq

The vulnerable line of supply to US troops in Iraq

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 Hupiting Omeling6263 2006-07-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 There is a deterrence: escalation. Nothing can stop that. This is World War III.

Posted by Anginens Threreng8133 2006-07-24 01:10|| 2006-07-24 01:10|| Front Page Top

#2 LOL. How many reasons do we need to kill the Mullahs?

Now.

Posted by Champ Angeger5024 2006-07-24 01:14|| 2006-07-24 01:14|| Front Page Top

#3 It is a precarious situation. Since we can't control any territory due to manpower shortages, we could be in deep doo-doo. This is precisely what Gen. Shinseki had considered in determining necessary force estimates. Unfortunately, Dumsfeld and Wolfdog wouldn't believe him. It's soon going to be time to crap or get off the pot here. We need a lot more troops on the ground since this is a regional action, as we can readily see.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-07-24 01:15|| 2006-07-24 01:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Dumsfeld? Really? How Donkish and limited your vision.

Tsk, tsk. And here I thought you were a free-thinker, out of the box and all that rot.

Show me the post where YOU perfectly predicted the current situation 3+ years ago, then you can preen in public.

Climb out of that box and ask what would change the threat level - and kill 4 or 5 birds with one stone. Duh. Is it more boots, or something else? Duh. How about eliminating the threat? Duh. Go ahead, take your time. Duh.

Sheesh. 20-100 hindsight specialists give me enough gas to run a fucking flare. Great minds, heh. Champ Angeger5024 should demand a refund.

Posted by Glinesing Shock3562 2006-07-24 01:26|| 2006-07-24 01:26|| Front Page Top

#5 ROE's: You point a rifle. You harbor a rifleman. You are a target.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2006-07-24 01:46|| 2006-07-24 01:46|| Front Page Top

#6 If I remember correctly I posted an article about a year ago about ongoing efforts to create a supply line through Jordan.

Posted by DanNY 2006-07-24 02:10|| 2006-07-24 02:10|| Front Page Top

#7 Whoa, hot-button time. I agree that Iran is the key, Glinesing, and even the thing about boots, to be honest. Yup, it will solve several issues in one shot when we take it out... but you harshed my mellow, man. Ease up on the caffeine and tease instead. You don't happen to work in the DoD, do you? In the DefSec's office, perhaps? LOL.

So, okay, I'm in - let's take them down. Now.

Posted by Champ Angeger5024 2006-07-24 02:11|| 2006-07-24 02:11|| Front Page Top

#8 So the same forces that have only been able to blow up women and kids in the markets for the last year is going to suddenly cut off 100,000 US troops in a flat river basin for long enough for us to run out of supplies?

If they massed to do anything like this our forces and the air force would grind them to hamburger.

I'm supposed to be afraid of this?

Posted by Oldcat 2006-07-24 02:19|| 2006-07-24 02:19|| Front Page Top

#9 My bad - I'm sorry, SOP35. It is a major whopping big deal brain-stopper issue to me... And it stopped, so I fucked up. Apologies to all - and especially SOP35. Let's compromise and decapitate the Mullahs so we don't need more boots. Then we'll all be happier about where this WoT thing is heading.

Posted by Glinesing Shock3562 2006-07-24 02:21|| 2006-07-24 02:21|| Front Page Top

#10 We have a lot more manpower than what is in Iraq, just sitting around in old Cold War duty stations like Germany and South Korea. If we really need them, we can pull them out of those places and send them in. Also, what are the Shiites going to do about the Kurdish-led Phoenix program in Iraq that will start up as soon as the US supply lines are under full scale assault? The only reason the Kurds are behaving themselves at all is because we keep asking them to : lots of dead Arabs if we don't pull back on the reins. Kurds are NOT Arabs. Also, if we get attacked by the Shia in Iraq, we then have incentive to permit several more Baathist units to be reconstituted and sent against the Shias. Think that the Sunni Baathists would not suddenly end their terror campaign and join in an army smashing the Shias? Because they then get back their "historical leadership position" and get to oppress the Shias again.
This is tribal warfare writ large and the US has an excellent history of our own, in exploiting tribal feuds to kill large numbers of the enemy tribe of the moment.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-07-24 02:50|| 2006-07-24 02:50|| Front Page Top

#11 Did anybody here really think that only Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be the only names in the book of fried cities? We had the pretext then, and we have the pretext now. Iran can be neutralized without the cost of a single American life.

I had the privilege of observing New York from the WTC years before 9-11. When I saw the twin towers fall, the life of a jihadi lost all value. Hopefully, Condi's diplomacy is in the form of the "two track" policy that served to democraticize Central America. The World War 2 generation torched 200,000 Tokyo residents in 1 raid. Then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nukes will fly; whether they fly from US forces against the enemy or from Iran to the US Homeland, they will fly.

Posted by Anginens Threreng8133 2006-07-24 04:11|| 2006-07-24 04:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Unfortunately, Dumsfeld and Wolfdog wouldn't believe him

And I wouldn't either because the man to make the call is the Theater Commander in accordance with the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Now name me one Iraq theater commander who has complained he hasn't been given what he has asked for. The Goldwater-Nichols Act was established because deskjockies back in Washington were making the calls on operations in Vietnam. The Act switched the arrangement and the Washington folks support the theater commander. They can support'm or fire them, but they do not run the show. The man on the ground makes the call. So again which active theater commander for the region has been bitchin?

Posted by Omeamble Huporong4781 2006-07-24 08:47|| 2006-07-24 08:47|| Front Page Top

#13 Yawn, more worst case scenario whining. Would Shia guerillas supplied out of Iran be any more able to shut down our supply lines than Sunni rebels supplied from Syria? If we cut out all of the ice cream, sodas, and reconstruction supplies, could we supply enough bullets, spare parts and MREs to sustain the force by air? Would the situation be static? I mean, wouldn't we go on the counter offensive and kick Taters ass in short order just like we did the last time he got frisky? And build a new MSR in the desert to the south that doesn't go anywhere near the Shia areas and would be easier to secure?

I think that this is just another asshole, sitting in his office thinking, "If I come up with a really clever argument, that will force Bush to leave." Which isn't to say that this won't be soon added to the anti-war narrative and become another informational weapon for the Tranzis and other assorted fools. This is a battle in the informational war, not the shooting war.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-24 08:51|| 2006-07-24 08:51|| Front Page Top

#14 That would take a helluva lot of rebels. I was in TQ for over 6 months - (the logistics hub of western Iraq). We had convoys coming in from Kuwait every day (the "kuwaiti express"). I'm not sure of the author's credentials but he's assuming a very, very worse case scenario. Plus, if he's such a mid-east expert he may realize that Iraqi Shia's are arab tribalists first and foremost. Iranian Shia's are persian tribalists. (big difference) If he had the type of insight I would expect of one to write such an article this distinction would be stark. Just like how experts on the mafia understand the destinctions between Sicilians and mainland Italians. There were plenty of iraqi shia iirc that died fighting their co-religionists during the iraq/iran war of the 80s. Sadr may have some pull but Sistani is still the man there and he wants no part of a fight w/us.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-07-24 09:30|| 2006-07-24 09:30|| Front Page Top

#15 1. In 2004, we came damn close to having the supply lines to Baghdad cut off, with Sunnis making trouble to the west and north, and the Sadrists to the South. With things arguably worse on the ground in Baghad, a cut off doesnt seem like a loony tunes idea. Note, the main roads all go through urban areas, so the flat terrain may not be so helpful.
2. OTOH when the Sadrist rose in 2004, we took them down at large cost to the Mehdi army. And we know more about urban warfare than we did then. Clearly they couldnt maintain a siege for very long.
3. OTOH, it took us a while to clear them out in 2004. Clearing the siege might well NOT be instantaneous, and could create a lot of problems for us in the short term. Given the precarious political support for the war, the short term matters
4. OTOH IF, as seems likely, the Sunni insurgency in Anbar is quieting down a bit, then the Jordan route is more viable than it was in 2004.
5. Number of troops and prescience - I certainly didnt predict things would be just like this. But then I didnt have access to the intell, the knowledge of US capabilities, etc, that OSD had in 2003. At some level I had to go on trust. And then judge who was right, and who wrong. And, in retrospect, it sure looks like Shinseki was closer to right than OSD was. With consequences that have made Iraq MUCH worse than it had to be (granted it was never going to be a walk in the park, plans not surviving, yada, yada) As for the regional CINC, my impression is that Rumsfeld made it quite clear what his approach was, and what he expected the CINC to request and to accept. If even an Army COS could be dealt with as Shinseki was, it was clear what would happen to any CINC. And look at how folks here have ripped into the general who HAVE gone public with complaints. Now a regional CINC is supposed to report directly the President, not the SecDef. Does anyone think Bush has enough first hand knowledge of the military situation in Iraq to second guess Rumsfeld at the request of a regional CINC? Esp if Rumsfeld is backed by Cheney? I dont know for sure. Thats the kind of thing we wont know for sure for years, when all the memoirs come out.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-07-24 10:07|| 2006-07-24 10:07|| Front Page Top

#16 Now a regional CINC is supposed to report directly the President, not the SecDef.

Incorrect. The President and SecDef together are the National Command Authority, but the chain of command most assuredly goes through SecDef before the Pres.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-07-24 11:07|| 2006-07-24 11:07|| Front Page Top

#17 And one other thing, the term CINC is no longer used as of 2002. They're now called combatant commanders.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-07-24 11:14|| 2006-07-24 11:14|| Front Page Top

#18 A little more clarification on terminology. Commander in Chief now applies only to the President. The term National Command Authority has gone away. (I believe that it was originally a Cold War term... the senior man/junta that survived a first strike would constitute an NCA. It then mutated to mean the President and SECDEF.) The Combatant Commanders do report to the SECDEF in the chain of command. The Joint Chiefs are essentially the SECDEFs military staff. They have no command authority. The service secretaries are essentially procurement and budget guys these days. All of their pre-WWII authority has been given to the SECDEF.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-24 12:09|| 2006-07-24 12:09|| Front Page Top

#19 11A5S,

Don't know what branch you're with, but the term NCA is still very much in use in the Navy.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-07-24 12:58|| 2006-07-24 12:58|| Front Page Top

#20 I tried finding the Rumsfield quote (from memory: "There is no NCA. There is the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense).

If you don't believe me, repeat the little exercise I just did. Go to the JEL, and do a word search for "National Command Authority" in any of the JPs published from 2003 on. You won't get any hits. Then search for "President." You'll find that where the term NCA was used before, you find "President and SECDEF" instead.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-24 14:21|| 2006-07-24 14:21|| Front Page Top

#21 About.com
National Command Authority
The term National Command Authority is used in U.S. military and government circles to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders, nominally the President of the United States.

The use of the term dates from the Cold War era in which the United States and Soviet Union had nuclear missiles on constant alert and a responsible official had to be available to authorize a retaliatory strike within a matter of minutes. Detailed Continuity of Government plans provided for monitoring the whereabouts of certain key Government officials who would become the National Command Authority if the President were himself victim of an enemy attack.

From Wikipedia
National Command Authority

The term National Command Authority (or NCA) is used in United States military and government circles to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The term refers to the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.

Only the NCA can order the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Neither individual, by himself, can order that strategic nuclear weapons be used against any country or region.

If the NCA determines that a nuclear strike is necessary, they must jointly inform the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who in turn will direct a general officer on duty in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon to execute the SIOP.

The use of the term dates from the Cold War era in which the United States and Soviet Union had nuclear missiles on constant alert and a responsible official had to be available to authorize a retaliatory strike within a matter of minutes. Detailed Continuity of Government plans provided for monitoring the whereabouts of certain key government officials who would become the National Command Authority if the President were himself victim of an enemy attack.

That's what I remembered, NCA is the term used to describe who authorizes nuke release. Not used in any other chain of command area, at least not in military circles.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2006-07-24 17:00|| 2006-07-24 17:00|| Front Page Top

#22 Steve: NCA _had_ over the years become shorthand for the president and SECDEF in many, many military publications. Here is a quote from Joint Pub 1, Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States, published in November 2000 (the capstone publication of all joint operations and warfare):

National Command Authorities. The NCA, which consist of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors, are the highest levels in the military chain of command. The NCA exercise authority over the Armed Forces both through the combatant commanders for those forces assigned to combatant commands, through the Secretaries of the Military Departments for those forces not assigned to combatant commands, and through the Secretary of Transportation for the US Coast Guard.

As you can see, the concept had mutated to include chain of command responsibilities. Rumsfield was right to expunge it from the military lexicon. BTW, it no longer appears in the DoD dictionary.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-24 17:23|| 2006-07-24 17:23|| Front Page Top

#23 It also does not appear in Title 10 of the US Code.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-24 17:27|| 2006-07-24 17:27|| Front Page Top

#24 Then I'm guessing that we use NCA in the same way that people slip and say "CINCPACFLT". Terminology is out of date, but old habits die hard.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-07-24 19:49|| 2006-07-24 19:49|| Front Page Top

00:05 JosephMendiola
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:48 RWV
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:45 RWV
23:39 Swamp Blondie
23:38 Swamp Blondie
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:31 DMFD
23:31 RWV
23:13 gorb
23:12 Inspector Clueso
23:04 Thravirong Sloluling4860
23:03 crosspatch
23:03 Inspector Clueso
22:41 Shieldwolf
22:39 Griper Whegum8464
22:34 BA
22:27 Shieldwolf
22:20 Captain America
22:20 Griper Whegum8464
22:19 DoDo
22:08 Poison Reverse
22:01 Classical_Liberal