AAR from an American tanker in Iraq

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BigDuke6,

Rudel,

Yes, your boss is right that one can not win an asymetric war. One can only try to prevent one from getting started in the first place. The policy of the US since Vietnam was to simply avoid them, even if it meant "cutting and running" or leaving a massive mess behind after some sort of military adventure that went down the wrong path. Those who pushed for a war with Iraq used a different policy; if one doesn't know anything about asymetrical warfare then it doesn't exist.

Somewhere in the General Forum there is some quote from me prior to the war in Iraq. I said then that I believed we would make short work of the invasion and quickly take over the country with few losses. However, I expressed "fear" that we'd totally screw up everything after it. Either I'm some kind of briliant visionary or I'm just someone who is apparently more informed than many in leadership positions. I don't think I'm brilliant, so somehow I must be better informed. That is scary.

Steve

The US goverment is not stupid.

They knew the risks but felt the case for war was very strong and was worth the risk.

Or

They did and knew full well where the road would wind.

But to sell the war to the public and Congress of course downplayed the after invasion part of the conflict.

I do not think Bush and company are nerfarious individuals bent on a Pan American world rule or that the war was to help his oil friends get rich.

I think Bush and his goverment had an agenda in mind that was shattered by 9/11.

They had the world on them change overnight and quite frankly had no idea what the hell to do (and who did at the time?)

They fell back on their ideological roots.

And that was that in order to stamp out terrorism you have to attack it roots and therefore democratize the ME.

For some reason they saw Iraq as the first nation on the list.

On one hand I cannot fault them for doing what they very strongly belived was right.

On the other hand I have to take issue with under what reality they are operating which told them something like that would ever work.

I think history will be softer on this adminisration as the years pass.

Every new goverment is going to come into office and face the same challenges and try and do what they see as right.

Lots of mistakes are yet to be played out.

I just realized how pessimisitc that all sounds, but I don't see this problem going away.

The only solution I can offer is to no longer import foreign oil.

Once oil runs our or is no longer needed the area will no longer have any useful value to anyone.

Military forces can be pulled out and like Africa the area can be completly ignored.

I think that will get the extremists to leave the west alone.

But until that occurs I see this whole mess as something which is not going to be cleaned up.

Bush and friends are just unfortunate to have been the ones that had the mess dropped into their laps.

[V]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The Nazi regime was one of the most corrupt (in all senses of the word) governments the world has ever seen, and terribly inefficeint too, but man did they get stuff done.

Reminds me of a quote from John Goodman in The Big Lebowski:

"Say what you want about the tenents of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

Rudel,

Yes, your boss is right that one can not win an asymetric war. One can only try to prevent one from getting started in the first place. The policy of the US since Vietnam was to simply avoid them, even if it meant "cutting and running" or leaving a massive mess behind after some sort of military adventure that went down the wrong path. Those who pushed for a war with Iraq used a different policy; if one doesn't know anything about asymetrical warfare then it doesn't exist.

Somewhere in the General Forum there is some quote from me prior to the war in Iraq. I said then that I believed we would make short work of the invasion and quickly take over the country with few losses. However, I expressed "fear" that we'd totally screw up everything after it. Either I'm some kind of briliant visionary or I'm just someone who is apparently more informed than many in leadership positions. I don't think I'm brilliant, so somehow I must be better informed. That is scary.

Steve

I tend to believe the Bush administration and the Pentagon knew that an insurgency and civil war were possible, they just didn't want us to think about it, so they avoided talking about it.

They probably thought they would whip a minor Sunni insurgency and the Shi'a would worship us as heroes and the streets of America would flow with pride and oil.

I still believe we lost in Iraq when we failed to crush the Sunni insurgency when it first began to flair up.

Maybe thats too simplistic. I don't know for sure.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... the Big Lebowski is one of my favorites. Even have it on DVD, which is saying a lot if you saw the size of my DVD collection

We are straying a bit too much into politics, but this is relevant to the CM:SF backstory debate we've been having:

The desire for regime change was part of every Administration since 1990. In fact, such a change was the centerpiece of the Neoconservative concept of foreign policy in the Middle East. Because of this Iraq was very much on the agenda of key Bush administration officials before 9/11. This is not a matter for debate since it a part of the open public record. No matter how it is spun, 9/11 gave the Neocons a way to achieve their agenda.

Another matter of record is the amount of warning the Bush Administration and the Pentagon received prior to invasion. Such warnings were enough, thankfully, to get Rumsfeld to increase the size of the initial invasion force (IIRC by a factor of two). Colin Powell, then Secretary or State, was widely quoted as having said in a Cabinet Meeting "if we break it, we own it" and was reportedly at odds with the "hawks" within the administration over the need and wisdom of going to war against Iraq. A strong warning from the inner ciricle and someone with the military background to know what he was talking about. There were plenty of other informed warnings that should at least have been debated. Unfortunately, the record is rather clear that the Administration embarked on a smear and burry campaign to either discredit or suppress information and opinions that were contrary to waging an immediate war. At the same time highly dubious information was put forward as if there was no doubts about it, which we now know were well known by the people making the claims.

The purposeful shutting down of the debate was no accident. The desire for regime change in Iraq was a front and center policy goal, yet the case for war and the associated risks were not favorable. Therefore, the administration was in a pickle over the practical issues. If they presented the people with a balanced assessment, with full disclosure, it is doubtful there would have been strong support for the war and probably strong opposition to it. These were compounded by just about every single major traditional ally of the US actively opposing action, not to mention the failure to come up with significant troop contributions like the Gulf War.

The logic then follows its course. The decision to bring about near term regime change required a case for war that would be palatable to the American people. Since an honest and open debate would show that this case was not very sound, and carried serious risks with it, it greatly reduced the chances of being palatable. This then would put at risk the ability to bring about regime change in the very near term. Therefore, debate was discouraged and in far too many cases ruthlessly choked off.

With this logic in place the case for war was put on the table. It was added to as time went on, before and after the initial invasion, but it basically amounted to:

1. There were WMD in Iraq now and nukes were around the corner.

2. There were strong ties to terrorism between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

3. The Iraqi people would treat the Coalition as liberators, not occupiers.

4. The costs of the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil.

5. The war would not need an insurmountable amount of troops to affect regime change and rebuilding.

6. The war would not be "another Vietnam".

7. Iraq would be turned into a bastion of democracy in the middle of generally hostile territory. The term "domino theory" was even used to describe how a success in Iraq would spread to other nations around it.

8. The war with Iraq would increase domestic security and decrease the chance of a terrorist attack.

There were other ideas that were put forward, but these are the ones that are most found in the runup to the war and just after. Unfortunately, every single one of these things has turned out to be wrong, with the possible exception of a friendly democratic regime in Iraq (though very few think this is still possible). So now the reason to continue the war is to simply "not cut and run".

One can debate to what degree the Administration lied, had bad luck, were naive (i.e. believed in their own infalibility), overestimated the conventional strength of the US military, or a combo of these things things. Personally, I don't think that matters very much. The fact is the war was billed one way only with the counter points of view being ruthlessly squashed or at least blown off. If the war turned out as planned, nobody would be making a big deal out of this whole thing. Obviously, that isn't the case by any means of measurement one chooses to use.

I won't even touch the irony that the opposite of #7 is already in full swing. The AAR that started this thread did a pretty good job of that already.

The relevance to the CM:SF backstory? For the next 5 years (at least) if a US President says "a ground war is the only option" he might find himself unable to affect it either because the military is not capable of it, the people won't support it, or a combination of both. Hopefully collective amnesia won't have kicked in too soon to stop people from remembering what happened the last time they didn't ask enough questions.

Steve

[ September 20, 2006, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel,

But until that occurs I see this whole mess as something which is not going to be cleaned up.

Very true. Unfortunately, look at the steps being taken to reduce oil consumption compared to the steps that could be taken. Look at the things that could be done to get modrate Muslims to help calm down, or otherwise mitigate, the extremists compared to waht is actually being done. Things could be so much beter than they are now, but they are arguably getting worse.

Bush and friends are just unfortunate to have been the ones that had the mess dropped into their laps

Correction, everybody was unfortunate that it landed in their laps. I'm sure it is possible to have done a worse job, but I think it is more likley that someone would have been able to do a better one. The war in Afghanistan was inevitable and necessary. The war in Iraq was neither. So when the next Afghanistan comes along, be it Syria, Iran, or some other country... our options to deal with it are significantly reduced. That didn't have to be the case.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I disagree, German society has for centuries had a respect for law, order, and responsible behavior by government officials. That a few of the top Nazis abused their positions in no way changes the fact that one of the key contributors to the unprecedented evil Nazi Germany created was the loyal behavior of millions of medium and small functionaries down the bureaucratic pyramid. They were not corrupt, they most of them obscessively kept to the rules.

The classic line is, of course, "We were just following orders."

Germany is a country with a deep European tradition, and a deep bias against things like murky laws, chaos, and unpredictability. Its tradition of professionalism is one of the most developed in the world, and that tradition definately extends to government officials.

Most of the world is very different from that, I think you will agree. Also, and probably a lot more important to our discussion, no basically corrupt country in the modern world is likely to be as utterly defeated as Germany was in 1945, which of course made it easier for the foreigners to enforce new rules.

This is not to say one could not, if one looked very hard at the modern globe, find a one or two places that could theoretically get a regime change and then obtain a government committed to honest service and avoiding corruption.

North Korea springs to mind, they seem to have the tradition of law and order down pat. Maybe Borneo; they seem to like the idea of a wise sugar daddy making the rules there, so if they got one well-read on Locke and Rosseau, properly-run representative democracy here we come!

But a Muslim nation at the beginning of the second millenium, AD? These are places where the tradition of officials milking their jobs at the expense of the populace goes back to the beginning of recorded history. Where responsible democratic government, literally, is an import from infidel countries.

Reversing attitudes like that is indeed a long term job - but IMO it's an issue of centuries.

For instance, in good old England the crown pretty much milked the state for itself and its relatives as late as the early 1700s, then made the switch to crony Capitalism through the Industrial Revolution.

By the turn of the 20th century England had a society where the populace basically wanted the government officials to be honest, and by and large had a state that allowed them to force the government officials to keep their fingers out of the till. (Mostly.)

This transition from a country run for the benefit of an extended family, to a country run on the idea that the government should work for the people and be honest, took between two and four centuries depending on how you count it. The transition took place in one of the world's birthplaces of democracy, and began, again depending on how you count it, when the country's founding democratic document - the Magna Carta - was about a half millenium old.

If a transition like that takes that long in Goode Olde Merrie England, how long will it take in Iraq, an essentially artifical state created from bits of the Ottoman Empire,?

Or in Afghanistan, which never in its history has had an effective central government?

Of course, you live in a basically honest country. I live in basically corrupt one. No doubt that has biased our views - but as to which of our two biases produces a view closer to the truth...well, ya got me there. :confused:

Nidan1:

This is sig material -

"What could we accomplish as a race if it were not for the effort we waste in perfecting new ways to kill each other?"

I will of course avoid snide remarks like the observation that if humanity devoted its full energy not to weapons but peaceful purposes, the first thing humanity would get would probably be new and improved versions of Madonna and Britney Spears...oh, sorry about that.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

You're missing my point. No way, not even remotely, am I suggesting that a non-corrupt Iraq could be created within my lifetime even. What I am saying is a practical, viable state could be created that functioned better than the old one and probably better than most other nations in the region. I am not an idealist, I am a realistic. I'll take what I can get from whatever I have to work with. I personally thing occupying other nations is a fool's game in general, but it is necessary from time to time so better to have realistic expecations and practical goals than to have nothing but emptyheaded idealism.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I get your point fine.

I am arguing corruption makes the steps you suggest to bringing Iraq even to a level of rough viability, practically impossible. That's where you and I part ways: you think construction of a more or less stable but far from perfect state is possible; I think corruption will inevitably undermine even those modest goals.

Well, we'll see I guess.

[emodin-]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Steve,

I get your point fine.

I am arguing corruption makes the steps you suggest to bringing Iraq even to a level of rough viability, practically impossible. That's where you and I part ways: you think construction of a more or less stable but far from perfect state is possible; I think corruption will inevitably undermine even those modest goals.

Well, we'll see I guess.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I don't consider Russia a model 'democracy', but a lot of my friends over here are a lot happier than they were in the early 90's. There is still a LOT of corruption throughout society, but there is also stability, and that's what counts for most of them at the end of the day.

[Battlefront.com]

Emodin is correct. All governments, including the US Federal Government, are corrupt to some degree or another. That doesn't mean they are unstable or generally nasty. Some are very capable and very corrupt (Nazi Germany for example), some are not capable and very corrupt (most of Africa for example), but I don't know of a single case of a corrupt country that is not corrupt to some degree, capable or otherwise.

Corruption simply gets in the way of the idealistic nirvana, it does not preclude realistic levels of stability and even, in the case of many Western countries, a high standard of living and the general rule of law.

Steve

[ September 21, 2006, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Bigduke6]

Emodin,

True, corruption was far worse in Russia during the early '90s than in the present, especially if the definition means "government officials abusing their positions, and screwing the populace". Gangsters seemed to be in control of everything, Russia loses a war in the Caucauses, people's savings disappear overnight, professors are selling socks on the street, etc.

Sure, compared to all that today's Putin-land seems pretty good. And certainly, the dollar value of bribe money is much greater in Russia today than ten years ago, just like the dollar value of bribes paid in Italy is greater than in Russia; after all Russia is a far poorer country. But few would say Italy is more corrupt than Russia.

Sure, the Putin goverment is popular - for all of its faults, and there are plenty - because it has reigned in lower-level corruption somewhat, took fire and sword to the Chechens, and established a reputation of attacking at least a few of the oligarchs, like Khodorkovsky.

All that plus plus affordable sausage will buy you a fairly content population in Russia. That is not the same thing as stability, nor is it a recipe for what to do about Iraq or Afghanistan, IMO.

Unlike many citizens of Iraq and most in Afghanistan, the Russians are afraid of their government.

Russians know quite well the government is willing to use force against citizens of the Russian Federation that don't play the Russian Federation's rules, and the Kremlin could care less about media, human rights, or convincing any one about the legitimacy of state violence.

Chechnya is there for any Russian needing an example of what happens if you try and oppose the Russian government by force. Khodorkhovsky is right there to prove to every citizen from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka, that no amount of money will protect you from the Kremlin.

I think you would agree with me that the traditions of a central state, a strong leader, and tight control of the populace are a lot stronger in Russia, than in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And also, people in Afghanistan and Iraq are alot better armed than in Russia, and what's more, the Russian state has one of the leading military traditions in the world, while the Iraqi and Afghan armies would crumble in a month or two if they lost their U.S. support.

Most importantly of all, Russian patriotism is aligned with the state, while Iraqi and Afghan patriotism is aligned with either the religion or clan.

Unsurprisingly, there seem to be a lot more Afghan and Iraqi citizens willing to take up arms against their government, than Russians, whom I think you will agree are not the most politically active people on the planet.

So I would say your comparison could be a bit more apt, IMO.

And if you think Russian society is stable, then ask yourself, what if Putin breaks his neck during one of his judo training sessions? Would you bet no blood would be shed figuring out who came next?

If Putin's succession turns out to be even a little bit violent, what the Iraq war has done to world energy prices is going to look like a hiccup, compared to what would happen if Russia had trouble with a regime change. That's one-third of Europe's energy needs and the world's second-largest oil producer we're talking about.

I don't call Russia stable, I call it a bomb waiting to explode. Sure the place is held together, right now, by what has always held Russia together: an autocrat in the capital.

But representative government is weakening not strengthening in Russia, wealth is concentrating not spreading out, and the truly poor are getting poorer not better off. Violent racism is on the rise, and the press is getting muzzled.

My opinion, all that means, sooner or later, the Russian people are going to have one choice left when the autocracy becomes unbearable: violence.

So I would disagree with your characterization of Russia as stable country, although I'm glad to admit it won't go critical as fast as Iraq or Afghanistan.

As for Muslim countries, if you got Russians to live in Afghanistan, then maybe you could make Afghanistan a stable place...wait, that's been tried, and it didn't work either.

Надеюсь, что не обидел. Просите, если что-то не так.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

But representative government is weakening not strengthening in Russia, wealth is concentrating not spreading out, and the truly poor are getting poorer not better off. Violent racism is on the rise, and the press is getting muzzled.

This is true, to some extent, in the US and most of Europe. Look at what is going on in Hungary right now. But overall, these countries are "stable".

My opinion, all that means, sooner or later, the Russian people are going to have one choice left when the autocracy becomes unbearable: violence.

One could have said the same thing about the decades under authoritarian Soviet control, but it was a largely bloodless changeover. This was true for most of the Eastern European nations, with Romania being the notable exception. Yugoslavia was not part of that block, and of course the worst example of violent change of power structure.

Long term all governments will fall or at least have a significant challenge. Therefore, by definition government stability is a temporary state of being. The US government had a Civil War wages against it that was one of the bloodiest wars in the 19th Century. Some would say it is shaping up for another one (Blue vs Red State), though I don't see that happening without some other major calameties thrown into the mix.

My point is that there is a difference between a stable government and a just government. It is possible to get a stable government in Iraq. It had one before. It is possible for it to be more just than the previous one. In some ways the existing government already is (the Brookings Institute ranks it as more free than Saudi Arabia, which tied 2nd to last with Syria). However, the power of the government comes from a foreign power and not its own people. The US could have done a much better job at getting the people involved in a much more fundamental way. The resulting government would likely be horrible by Western standards, but significantly better by Middle East standards. And that relativity is really all that is important.

Steve

[pad152]

I hate to say it, but the war in Iraq has already been lost.

Southern Iraq - You have British forces sitting on their hands while the local city governments (tribes) and police enforce Islamic law (AKA Iran).

Did anyone one hear the head of Iraq a couple of months ago while he was in the US? Every other word that came out of his mouth was "It's for Islam" and not Iraq. You can't have a democracy if all the rights are second to a religion.

Northern Iraq – if the Kurds go independent there is a good change Turkey will invade Northern Iraq the last thing they want or will stand for is an independent Kurd state on their southern boarder.

Central Iraq – they will be killing each other for decades to come, it’s now a war of religion!

[Sgt Joch]

It may be possible to get a stable government in Iraq, but right now, the situation seems to be getting worse, not better:

Kidnappers use victims as unwitting bombers

Iraq torture worse after Saddam

To bring the situation under control would require a massive reconstruction effort by the west, which given the current political situation, is a non starter. The best we can hope for now, is that the Regime which is in power after the civil war will be pro-western.

[Battlefront.com]

The stuff I wrote was all theoretical. I've heard people call the 2003-2004 timeperiod in Iraq and Afghanistan "the lost opportunity". I think that is well put. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've got another shot at this. I think it is time to switch into Realpolitik mode.

Make a massive PR campaign all over Iraq and inform the locals that all US forces, and I mean every single last pair of boots with feet in them, will pull out by the beginning of 2007 unless the Insurgency is brought under control one way or another. More imediately, the Insurgency in al Anbar has until October 1st to come to the negotiating table and declare a cease fire. If this does not happen, the US forces in al Anbar will withdraw and all available units of the Iraqi government's forces will be sent in at one time. Oh, and the US will close their eyes and shut their ears until December 31st when it sees if it should remain. "What happens in al Anbar, stays in al Anbar" to paraphrase the famous Las Vegas slogan.

Basically, it's time for the Iraqis to make with the #2 or get off the potty. It will come down to this sooner rather than later anyway at the rate things are going, so might as well be sooner.

Sometimes the body is so sick and broken that an amputation needs to be performed. If there is no anethestisa and sanitary conditions, that doesn't change the diagnosis.

Steve

[MoNuckah]

Hooray for civil discourse!

[LongLeftFlank]

Nice analysis, Steve, and other folks. I've enjoyed reading the thread.

Let me add a nasty wrinkle to the equation. Abandoning the Kurds as part of a general bugout of Iraq would result in the following:

a. Adding them to the long, shameful list of faithful US tribal mercenaries left to their fate when their usefulness had passed. Talk to the Hmong about that.... I have.

b. Resume the longstanding genocidal war waged against them by all their neighbors with a new fury (i.e. knowledge that the West would not come back to help them would make a Final Solution tempting).

c. ... which would also likely drive them to become the newest adherents to AQ brand Sunni extremism -- the Chechens of the Fertile Crescent.

An alternative -- neither tidy nor risk-free, but plausible IMHO -- would be to pull out of Arab Iraq but leave a significant US/UK (UN?) military presence in a de facto Kurdish republic. Out of consideration for the Turks, this state would not be internationally recognized, or enter the UN in the forseeable future. It would simply weather the storm as a relatively stable, secular Middle Eastern republic (notice I didn't say democracy).

The Kurds (95%+ of them, anyway) would love our honky asses as they have since the start, because they know what'll happen to them if we leave. Their backs are against the wall, literally.

Also, the Coalition's Arab Iraqi friends, including some of the best educated and wealthy Iraqis, who currently risk being mass beheaded as collaborators post-bugout could be resettled in Mosul and Kirkuk instead of Dearborn. (Phew, no helicopter lifts from the Embassy roof in the Green Zone!!!!) These people would KNOW how to identify AQ infiltrators in their midst. They might even be able to wield some influence in a post-civil war mullah Iraq.

The Turks would still bitch and obstruct, but would not invade or even openly subvert under such conditions. The always pragmatic Turkish army would much rather contain old style commie PKK rebels in their Kurdish areas than new style whacko-Islamist Kurds.

[ September 21, 2006, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: LongLeftFlank ]

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Fair points on Russia, you're quite right stability is a matter of degree. Fair comment that lots of European countries managed regime changes not so long ago, without so much violence.

Still, I personally would not say the breakup of the SU was basically peaceful: the 1991 coup attempt, the 19913 assault on the White House, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Transnistria, the terror bombings in Russia, and of course the gangster wars. I've seen some of the corpses actually, which probably makes me biased on this point.

It's relative just like stability - when do a few dead people become an unacceptable level of violence? Every one has his own line, it's a question of degree.

I would point out that in your European example, the region with the most artificial and ahistorical central government, and with the greatest ethnic and religious variety - i.e. Yugoslavia - did worst at peacefully changing its regime from authoritarian Socialism to some form of democracy. Also, I think it is no coincidence that the Balkans also have a fine old tradition of inefficient and usually corrupt government.

So I would argue all that's evidence for my case that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, which like Yugoslavia lack ethnic and religious unity, are pretty much behind the civil society Eight Ball. (Yeah, that's a pretty dumb metaphor. Fortunately for me, there's no law against dumb metaphors.)

Getting back to the main topic (sort of), your suggestion on Anbar province is intriguing. My gut reaction is that the Iraqi military couldn't fight it out with the insurgents without the Americans holding their hands, and that the insurgents would literally be willing to die to fight and kill their ethnic brothers on those terms.

As I noted above, my instinctual and admittedly somewhat cynical prediction would be Iraqi army units are too riddled with corruption to function effectively.

Maybe some of the guys that have worked with Iraqi troops are reading this, and could kick in a comment or two. The ability of the new Iraqi military to supress an insurgency, and more generally to withstand combat, is pretty much the key to long-term stablity in Iraq. Who knows the answer to that one, let's hear from you!

A snide remark on your idea of walling off Anbar province and letting the Iraqis go at it; I fear it will be impossible to keep Al Jazeera out, their camera teams seem to be awfully enterprising and resilient. So if the Americans stand back and watch, I fear the news reported from the battle of Anbar will be heavily slated in favor of the insurgents; which not only helps the insurgent cause, but is politically damaging to the administration in the U.S. - and so almost inevitably makes your idea a non-starter, unfortunately.

Man, war sucks sometimes. That guy Clauswitz had it right, every friggin' thing is difficult.

[Sgt Joch]

There is a good article in today's New York Times on the strain placed by Iraq and Afghanistan on the U.S. Army.

Strained, Army looks to Guard for more relief

Of interest, is the statement that the Pentagon could only scrape up a small contingent if another emergency came up (say, for example, Syria ):

"That disclosure comes amid many signs of mounting strain on active Army units. So many are deployed or only recently returned from combat duty that only two or three combat brigades — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully ready to respond in case of unexpected crises, according to a senior Army general."

[Andreas]

The Brits have a similar problem:

No more Missions Please

All the best

Andreas

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Andreas:

No more Missions Please

Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and evacuated to a Birmingham hospital had, until recently, to pay to watch television.

The question is, how many wounded have we had? The numbers appear to be being concealed, which follows a trend. I wonder what public reaction would be if the true cost of our commitments was made known.

[emodin-]

Bigduke6

First off, no offense taken

Going back to Russia for a minute, I have to say that I disagree that things would get crazy here if Putin were to buy the farm tomorrow. I will admit that things would get very interesting, I believe that any blood shed would be shed behind the scenes, and not out in the open. And the Russian people tend to have a favorable view of their current government. Sure, there are some opposition movements, but they have been systematically squashed and are seen as almost completely irrelevant by the average Russian. And you don't need to go very far from Moscow or St Petersburg to find people that just don't care about the political situation so long as they can survive and maybe make a bit more money. And THAT is what Putin has done.

Putin has also given the Russians back their sense of pride. It is that thing, more than anything else, that I think the Russians love him for. That and they like the stability he has brought to most of them. After all, as I heard in a seminar last week, you aren't any more likely to get killed here than in any other major city in the world....so long as you aren't a businessman.

As for racism, it's my sincere belief that the government is deliberately ignoring that card to 1) make a bunch of the nationalists in the country happy so that they can control their votes/activities, and 2) scare the other Russians into supporting the government into 'cracking down' on the racists. I take a very cynical view towards the whole thing, and I would be willing to bet you that if anything the issue of ultra-nationalism in Russia actually HELPS Putin.

Moving back to Iraq, I have to agree with you that the whole thing is pretty much lost unless we come up with some wiz-bang new way of dealing with things. I do, however, think that, due to their experiences with Saddam, the Iraqi people were actually used to, and even prepared, to have another dictatorship. That's not to say that it would have been bloodless; simply that if Saddam could do it another dictator could as well (so long as he had the backing of the right people and institutions). After all, even with all of the sanctions still levied against Iraq, Saddam was able to stay in power.

The problem I have (and always have had) with our invasion of Iraq was not that it wasn't morally justifiable, but that I never thought that we could do it right. I am afraid all we have done is radicalize the Middle East even more than it was before while at the same time alienating both the more moderate elements of society in the region and our traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere. Those are the things I am most worried about.

[EDIT: I almost forgot to mention that contract hits still occur here, just much less than in the 90's. And a friend of mine witnessed a couple of guys jump out of a car and start shooting at another one not far from the center of Moscow a couple of months ago. Like I said, these things still happen, but most Russians are unaffected by them]

[ September 22, 2006, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: emodin- ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

No more Missions Please

Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and evacuated to a Birmingham hospital had, until recently, to pay to watch television.

The question is, how many wounded have we had? The numbers appear to be being concealed, which follows a trend. I wonder what public reaction would be if the true cost of our commitments was made known. </font>

[Sirocco]

The BBC had an interesting documentary on the treatment of casualties subsequent to their service in Iraq, and it made some important claims on deliverate obfuscation on numbers, for example, IIRC, casualties treated in US military hospitals not showing up in the figures, even casualties not treated at a particular British facility not being counted. This all seems massively under reported, and I'm not sure why more hasn't been made of it by the media.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

Proportional to the amount of military force that was available, the number of people involved, and the plethora of ethnicities... yeah, I'd say the breakup of the Soviet Union was relatively bloodless. Compare this to the breakup of the Russian Empire, which is an unusual (historically speaking) repeat performance within 100 years. The Soviet breakup, which included far more nationalities and ethnicities, was pretty smooth compared to the long, drawn out bloody civil war that resulted in the fall of the Tzars. Again, it is relative since the gangsters and wars against the former southern provinces of the Soviet Union are indeed bloody.

So I would argue all that's evidence for my case that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, which like Yugoslavia lack ethnic and religious unity, are pretty much behind the civil society Eight Ball.

Absolutely. But that's my point. Everything in the world seeks out stability, be it populations or a physical object or a chemical reaction. It's one of nature's most unavoidable features. Unstable structures can exist, but they will eventually become stable in some way or form. For example, an unstable rock on a cliff will eventually fall and shatter into lots of pieces when it his the canyon floor. It will no longer be recognizable as the rock it once was, but it will be stable none-the-less. No different than groups of people.

The lessons from the natural world is that stability can be artificial. An odd example of this is something like the F-117 stealth fighter. It is, in a natural way, an unstable object. If the engines cut out or the computers screw up, the plane will come down to Earth in a really nasty way. It is, in every sense of the word, artificial. But it works.

The trick is to figure out what artificial bits need to be installed BEFORE flight. Just imagine if the engineers said "we don't need computer aided flight controls for the F-117. Here Mr. Test Pilot, take 'er for a spin on your own". It probably wouldn't have gotten off the runway before crashing and burning. This is basically what has happened in Iraq. So I agree, Iraq is likely beyond salvage at this point. But there WAS a point where there was a chance to avoid the crash.

The social engineers might make bad decisions and underdesign for the conditions, obviously, just like the aeronautical engineers might have done for the F-117. But it isn't the only possible result.

The best time to introduce stability is while the item in question is still in its current unstable form. The more it starts to change, the more velocity it will pick up to acheive a new form of stability (which might be temporarily stable, and barely so). Therefore, the insertion of a stabilizer that could have worked at the beginning is less likely to work if inserted later. The later in the process, the less likely it will work. This is the same for a place like Yugoslavia or Iraq, Earth's climate, a dish on the edge of a table, whatever. The principles are the same.

The breakup of Yugoslavia is something I know more than a little about. I was there just before it went under. It was clear that thigns were on the move even to me, a realtively young guy with no experience in politics other than from books I had read. NATO and Europe should have been preparing for what was about to happen. They did not. So when things started going wrong, but before the point of no return, they could have done something that likely would have kept the breakup from being so messy. Remember, stability is what is sought, and if it comes artificially it has a chance of satisfying that goal. Instead, no significant action was taken.

Even after the war started there were several times when NATO could have done something, but did nothing. When it finally did to something it did it half assed and without resolve. Again, no plan for the future, just short term thinking. When NATO finally did get involved in a big way, the war was already winding down. NATO likely improved the transition to the more stable state the area is in now, but it would have likely wound up where it is now sooner rather than later.

There are some benefits of allowing a situation to acheive its own stability. In theory it is likely to be the better long term solution. Now that the Balkan states are pretty much ethnically divided and in control of their own destinies, there is less chance of things going bad in the future and better chance of things finally reaching a very stable state (it isn't there yet). Which is why my Realpolitik concept for Iraq would likely work long term.

And yes, I do think the Iraqi government forces could clean out al-Anbar. It would be extremely bloody, but unleashed from the constraints of conventional, civilized fighting rules (which is what the US is imposing on them) I think they would do a pretty good job of getting rid of the Insurgency. At least in its present form. But it would be soooooooo very messy.

Steve

[ September 22, 2006, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sgt Joch]

There is an article in today's New York Times on the toll the Iraq war is having on the readiness of the U.S. army. The Third infantry division, which is getting ready for a third tour in Iraq, is having a hard time getting all the equipment it needs and training its men up to the desired level.

"FORT STEWART, Ga. — The pressures that the conflict in Iraq is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq for a third tour.

Col. Tom James, who commands the division’s Second Brigade, acknowledged that his unit’s equipment levels had fallen so low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and defense.

The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is moving back to full strength after many months of being a shell of its former self.

But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the division’s situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are playing out on the ground.

The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank’s main gun or driving in a convoy under attack.

“It’s a good tool before you get the equipment you need,” Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a low state of readiness would have been “unheard of.”

Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire Army — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army general.

Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq.

After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only 11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by mid-2007, Army planners said.

Yet almost all of the division’s equipment had been left in Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home, leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers were replaced in June.

In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the division other missions it had to be ready to execute, including responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer, General Lynch says, is that he is getting there.

Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the soldiers are raw.

The two brigades started receiving tanks and other equipment to begin training in the field only in the last month, leaving the division only partly able to respond immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said.

“I’m confident two of the four brigade combat teams would say, ‘O.K., let’s go,’ ” General Lynch said in an interview. “The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, ‘O.K., boss, but we’ve got no equipment. What are we going to use?’ So we’d have to figure out where we’re going to draw their equipment.”

Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to Iraq on an abbreviated timeline.

The brief time at home does not sit well with some soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who re-enlisted after returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife and daughter for only a year.

“I knew I would be going back,” Specialist Patterson said. “Did I think I would leave and go back in the same year? No. It kind of stinks.”

Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy, the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is little doubt they are headed there early next year.

Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton, the brigade commander. “It’s about taking all the requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,” he said.

The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less time to form close relationships that can be vital, several officers said.

And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems. Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a counterinsurgency fight like Iraq.

The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have when at full strength.

“There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just enough equipment,” said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the division’s logistics officer. “We’re accustomed to, ‘I need 100 trucks. Where’s my hundred trucks?’ Well, we’re nowhere near that.”

Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance.

Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned officer for the brigade’s unmanned aerial vehicles platoon, said only 6 of the brigade’s 15 operators had qualified so far in operating the aircraft from a ground station.

All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but the training has been slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant Melbourne said.

This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission rehearsal for Iraq.

Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a brigade’s worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a month, which the schedule would not permit.

So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq, were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert.

Unit makes do as Army strives to plug gap

The article itself has obviously serious real world implications since it illustrates the serious strain which continuous operations are placing on units in Iraq.

However, strictly in terms of CMSF, will the impact of the Iraq war on the US army, in terms of lack of equipment, shortened training schedules, be somehow taken into account in the modeling of the Blue side?

I understand the Syrian/Red side is being modeled with all of its current RL imperfections, regarding poor training, poor leadership, poor equipment maintenance, therefore will the US/Blue side be based on the RL state of the US army in 2007, or on a theoretical, fully staffed, fully trained peacetime US army?

[ September 25, 2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]