Posted on 02/20/2003 5:01:56 PM PST by 11th_VA
The US war plan for Iraq is being prepared in great detail by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush's civilian advisers.
US generals are outraged at this. It is the equivalent of Britain's war plan being made by Prime Minister Tony Blair's Director of Communications and Defence Secretary.
Secretary of State Colin Powell created the idea that the US should always use massive and overwhelming force in any war when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the late 1980s. Mr Rumsfeld has set aside the Powell doctrine in favour of a more adventurous approach.
Despite the war talk, the US has not yet sent enough forces from Germany or the US for a mass invasion. Most of the forces Mr Rumsfeld said had been alerted in January are still in their barracks. This is partly because he believes the war can be won with few ground troops, and also because of arguments inside the Pentagon about how to fight the war.
Mr Rumsfeld intends to abandon what he sees as old ideas, such as using tanks to seize territory. Instead, he favours thousands of precision air strikes and an immediate landing around and inside Baghdad.
This attack is intended to be a "head transplant". The transplant would kill Saddam Hussein or force him to flee. He would be replaced - for the time being - with a figurehead from the existing regime who would keep the existing army and Ba'ath party in place. This would help keep order and prevent a civil war with the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south.
The troops that the US has sent already could carry out this transplant operation. They include the 3rd Mechanised Division and 1st Marine Division in Kuwait. Between them, they have more than 300 tanks, hundreds of smaller armoured vehicles and a great many attack and transport helicopters.
The marines train to fly hundreds of kilometres inland supported by their Harrier jump jets and tanks. Britain will soon have another 100 or so tanks and helicopter-borne troops.
The 101st Air Assault Division and 82nd Airborne have more than 20,000 soldiers trained to attack by helicopter. Finally, the 4th Mechanised Division has been given orders to go. This division forms "taskforce ironhorse" of 37,000 soldiers, including more than 100 tanks and bridge-building engineers.
US troops can capture airfields deep inside Iraq, and within hours use them to fly in hundreds of tanks and troops. They already have prepared several bases in Kurdistan. They could also get to Iraq from the British airfields in Cyprus and old Soviet bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia.
Landing operations could have tanks rolling off transport planes at Saddam Hussein Airport and driving straight for central Baghdad. At the same time as this "head transplant" took place, helicopter units operating east from the Jordanian border would have the job of preventing any Scud missile attack on Israel, while air force bombers attempted to burn away any stocks of chemical or biological weapons.
There are numerous reports that President Saddam's troops have been told through leaflets and radio broadcasts that they will not be attacked if they stay put. These messages have been backed up with offers of large amounts of cash to bribe senior commanders. This was a highly effective in Afghanistan.
Any Iraqi troops that do move will be spotted and destroyed by US air power.
President Saddam may not topple quickly like one of the regimes of eastern Europe. US troops have been often ambushed in Afghanistan and may find themselves in trouble in the cities of Iraq.
This attack plan, designed to shock and awe the enemy into surrender, may win the war in days. Alternatively, it may merely be designed to intimidate President Saddam and the UN Security Council.
If the White House is still very cautious about risking US lives, then it could well be content in the end to go along with a UN-backed process.
Dan Plesch is a senior research fellow at the UK's Royal United Services Institute.
Huh? Powell doctine? Massive and overwhelming force has been the approach for at least 60 years. I don't think Powell had anything to do with it. Weird thing to say.
See for instance abcnews.com - Fighting Words - April 9, 2001:
The so-called "Powell Doctrine," most famously applied when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, advocates using American forces according to three criteria:
- A vital national interest is at stake.
- A clear strategy and objectives have been set.
- Massive, overwhelming power is used, as it was in Panama and the Gulf War.
Taking his lessons from Vietnam, the retired general has written that he would not have U.S. soldiers engaged again in "half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons."
Can't we have operations with different names, like "Operation Martin Sheen", "Operation Gephardt"? Just to p*ss the libs off.
I think we deviated from this in Vietnam. Powell started his career in a theater where it seemed that we were never quite willing to commit the resources necessary to decisively win the conflict. Too much piecemeal execution, which I believe make a big impression on Powell ... either you commit a force large enough to win or you don't get involved.
That said, "massive force" today does not necessarily mean what it did a few years ago. History is filled with a lot of examples where the military prepared to fight the last war, and failed to fully appreciate the implications of new technologies and techniques. (Billy Mitchell is a classic example of someone who had a vision of what was possible in the future yet paid a major price for thinking "outside the box".)
I think we have some leaders in place now that have truly thought about new ways to convincingly win. We are going to deploy massive force -- just a new definition of massive force.
Thanks. I understand now the context that this article was using it in. I, personally, still see it as wrong to associate a concept that has been around so long to Powell. But I applaud the guy for supporting it.
I think Rumsfield is a pretty cool guy. I love watching him on TV. I am concerned, however that he may have the wrong definition of victory (if I may be so humble :) ).
R is seeing victory as the capture of Iraq and the replacement of its government. Valid and resonable.
But I think the definition of victory should take into account the reaction of islamic forces. I don't think they are going to look at a really cool war plan and say "wow. those Americans really do cool war planning." Rather if we went in with good old fashioned massive force and blew the cr*p out of everything it would put the fear of (the real) God in them and they would respect us more.
Terrifying the enemy should be the definition of victory.
I'm concerned that a cool/nifty/out-of-the-box approach to this may win the battle but not advance the war.
I got stuck on the word always. It's such a broad incautious statement, and I don't believe very cautious Powell said it like that. It was probably more like ...created the idea that the US should use massive and overwhelming force in any war when and where we can.
Compare that to less than 500 or so precision munitions used during the entire first Gulf War.
Also, nearly 80% of the munitions planned for use this time around are some form of 'smart' weapon compared with 20% in 1991.
Add to that all of the new 'toys' the folks in military R and D have been putting the finishing touches on for the last decade or so and this Nation has an incredible amount of punch to deliver in the first few days of the coming War.
"Shock And Awe" isn't going to apply solely to the poor bastards in the Iraqi military once GWB decides to pull the trigger (assuming he does). It's going to shock and awe a whole bunch of petty tin pot dictators both in the Middle East and around the world. At least that's what I hope.
That doesn't mean that getting the job done in Iraq isn't going to come down to soldiers with mud on their boots and blood on their uniforms. That's the only way to effect what is called these days 'regime change'. Always has been, always will be.
God willing, the politicos don't think they can pull this thing off from 50,000 feet and they have a plan to massively take and hold ground.
Regards,
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.