Article

2006-11-17 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 Fred 2006-11-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 20K?

Nope, need more like 35-40K for 6 months.

First set up 12 combat battlegroups, 1 as a fire-brigade to put otu fires, 7 on the borders to secure them, two in prep for assault, training with Iraqi units that will accompany them, and the other two active and engaging.

Take down 2 cities a month Fallujah style for 6 months.

15K Iraqi troops along with each assault group, and 5K police. Core is US battlegorup, rotated in from training then out to border duty so they have a chance to recover after the assault phases.

After the battle half the Iraqi troops and police stay. They get replaced in the next assault with new Iraqi units that come in with the US BG that was in training and prep. The current US BGs rotate out to the border, 2 border ones rotate into training and prep and one of the rested BGs in the border rotates out to the fire brigade duty.

Repeat the process.

By the time you're done with 5 months, you've hit and wiped the 10 biggest target areas in Iraq, and left 7500 combat hardened Iraqi troops and 2500 combat police in each of them.

For the last month, leave the previosu 10 cities with 2500 troops each and 1500 police each. This lets you pull in 50K combat experienced Iraqi troops from the cities, 10K police, and 4 rested and trained US BGs - mix of US Marines for the light infantry and US Army armor and mech. Go clean out Baghdad for 6 weeks.

Then start pulling down US troops levels, and jumping up air support.

If Iraq canot be pacified after that, then it never will be short of bombing it flat.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-17 01:16|| 2006-11-17 01:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Drawback?

Heavier casualties, and the DOnks and other traitors here woudl find a way to undermine the whole thing and stop it half way.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-17 01:23|| 2006-11-17 01:23|| Front Page Top

#3 It sounds like a good plan OS.

Posted by 3dc 2006-11-17 02:12|| 2006-11-17 02:12|| Front Page Top

#4 How do you avoid playing Mole Basher with the terrorists? They always seem to melt away when the going gets rough. Surprising them with which city is next by just suddenly surrounding it and attacking would work for the first few, but after that they would have plenty of places to sneak back into. It seems to me that this kind of activity might be our weakest link in dealing with the terrorists. It gives them the idea that even if they are going get beat, they can just sneak away and fight another day rather than just die like a good terrorist should. If they lost that idea, perhaps they would just give up and go with the flow. Then again, maybe they'd just wait to fight again after we left.

Posted by gorb 2006-11-17 03:12|| 2006-11-17 03:12|| Front Page Top

#5 If you define it as a 'last' big push, it WILL fail. Bad guys will hunker down and wait for it to pass. In the meantime the 'push' will kill some of the wrong people and break some of the wrong stuff and doing little good. In fact, if I was a bad guy looking at that scenario I would be busy supplying fraudulent tips to induce misguided attacks and otherwise framing the Coalition Forces. (This all assumes we are unwilling to be utterly ruthless and totally disregard collateral damage.)

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-11-17 08:29|| 2006-11-17 08:29|| Front Page Top

#6 I like OS' idea. But it may not be just 'a last big push'.

Lebanon is going to have problems with Hezbollah, and fairly soon. A 20K troop increase isn't going to go unnoticed by Syria and Iran. It's going to put pressure on the former and make it harder on the latter to resupply its proxy.

Posted by Pappy 2006-11-17 09:48|| 2006-11-17 09:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Shiastan. Sunnistan. Kurdistan. Move the forward operating bases to Kurdistan. Presto. No troops in Iraq.

Posted by john">john 2006-11-17 10:02|| http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/]">[http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/] 2006-11-17 10:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Move the troops to the oil fields, and presto, no more economy for shias.

Posted by wxjames 2006-11-17 10:41|| 2006-11-17 10:41|| Front Page Top

#9 Could be that the big push is not in Iraq, but through Iraq. Were I an Iranian mullah, I'd start worrying again.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-11-17 16:24|| 2006-11-17 16:24|| Front Page Top

#10 tw, I like the way you think. Not what 'fits the binder on file', but something that might actually be effective.
I doubt there is sufficient political or popular support to expand the war at this time, no matter how 'right' that action might be. I fear we will have to get whacked again, big time (nuke?) before we can get the support to push forward (and, depressingly, I am not even sure we have the broad national will to EVER push forward.)
National Ammo Week - stock up. Before it's too late. (Presupposes RBers are already well armed.)

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-11-17 18:13|| 2006-11-17 18:13|| Front Page Top

#11 I Still think that making it 3 countries will lead to wars between 3 countries. I say lets rotate presidents every 2-4 years electing a president from a different one of the factions each time. (Sunni, Shia and Kurd) Let the Kurds and Shias pick 1 Sunni candidate and let the Sunnis' pick 2 candidates when its Sunni. This would almost certainly ensure that the Sunnis' would split their vote and the Kurds and Shia would get behind a common candidate, effectively gauranteeing that the militant Sunnis' would never get the guy they want. This of course does not have a snowballs chance in hell until after the U.S. drops the hammer on Iraq, and Iraqis begin to actually want a real Nation.

Posted by Mike N. 2006-11-17 21:57|| 2006-11-17 21:57|| Front Page Top

23:59 trailing wife
23:57 .com
23:57 Zenster
23:56 Zenster
23:56 trailing wife
23:55 trailing wife
23:55 Zenster
23:55 Frank G
23:51 DanNY
23:50 Frank G
23:50 .com
23:48 Pholing Glineque9578
23:47 Frank G
23:47 Zenster
23:43 Zenster
23:42 twobyfour
23:41 trailing wife
23:39 Pholing Glineque9578
23:37 Zenster
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:33 trailing wife
23:33 Frank G
23:32 Pholing Glineque9578
23:31 Zenster