Analysis: Strategy Behind Samarra Ambush

The Washington Times ^ | December 2, 2003 | Martin Sieff

[Perseverando]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- The failed attack on U.S. forces escorting a currency convoy in the Iraqi city of Samarra Sunday represents a failed but highly significant attempt at escalation by guerrilla forces and confirms their centralized, sophisticated command structure and confidence.

[observer5]

It also may show that the currency update may have made the goofs desperate to get their hands on money!

[RJCogburn]

Interesting to say the least.

I wondered yesterday what the change in SOP, including reportedly having the bad guys in uniform of the Fedayeen Saddam might signify. Could be correct here.

[alloysteel]

In the 20-20 hindsight of studying the results, the fedayeen Saddam made the mistake of fighting the other side's war. They proved to be totally ineffective in direct confrontation (if ambush may be called confrontation) and got drubbed. They will revert to the low-level, sniping resistance, never winning any battle on the broad front, but never retreating very far either. Their allies in this battle will be the "peace at any price" crowd and the appeal to the walking worried, augmented by the steady daily drumbeat of "give up, you are only making the other side even more angry with us" message to be found in much of the major media in this country.

Peace is the dividend of conclusive victory over your opponent, not the opposite of war. Unconditional surrender is the only real basis for establishing a workable relationship with the vanquished.

[A Simple Soldier]

T.E. Lawrence, aka Lawrence of Arabia, had this to say,

"[A] 2% active insurgency is successful because 98% of the population is sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements."

I know Bill Lind personally. He has some weird theories and beliefs in areas outside of military theory, but in general, his military stuff, especially when talking about 4th Generation warfare, is generally very good. Having said that he has had some spectacular misses also, like when he predicted the possibility of the 3rd ID being cut off, surrounded and forced to surrender on the drive to Baghdad.

Bottom line, he and Keegan are always worth listening to.

[txhurl]

bump

[Coop]

I think the author may be overlooking one thing. While it's pure speculation from me, it seems at face value that our forces may have laid a trap for these goons. To have such an incredible discrepancy in casualty numbers tells me our folks were extremely prepared for a supposed ambush.

[LS]

Interesting that the two examples the author gives of "mistakes" both resulted in ultimate losses for the "occupier." How about some examples from the 7 out of 10 successful anti-guerrilla wars where the "occupier" won, such as Malaysia?

[mikegi]

I know Bill Lind personally.

I offer my condolences.

He has some weird theories and beliefs in areas outside of military theory, but in general, his military stuff, especially when talking about 4th Generation warfare, is generally very good.

Lind's a regular columnist on counterpunch.org along with such luminaries as Alexander Cockburn and Robert Fisk. They're the worst bunch of pu**y-whipped humans on the planet (they certainly aren't "men" and I'd have to see a certified karotyping containing both X and Y chromosomes before I'd call them "male").

[mikegi]

I think the author may be overlooking one thing.

Oh, he overlooks lots of things. That he mentioned William S. Lind should have been your first clue. Google is a wonderful thing. I did a search on Martin Sieff and found this jewel:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Is George W. Bush a competent president? And is he a lucky one? In terms of his personal political effectiveness, the answer to both questions remains a resounding "Yes!" But if one asks whether that luck and competence also carry over to the great nation he leads, the answer appears to be an unnerving "No." Consider, the president inherited a United States blessed with peace, prosperity, a booming stock market and a healthy annual budget surplus. It now has none of those things ... the shock and horror of the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and her seven-person crew Saturday morning throw new, ominous shadows over the basic competence of the Bush team ...

That's all I'll cut-n-paste here. You can click on the link to read the rest of the drivel from this Bush-hater. It's pretty clear that Sieff is cheering for the Saddamites as a way of weakening Bush in 2004. Sickening.

[mercy]

I think this whole deal was a sting. It was designed to draw out the enemy and expose the moles within the police department. Well done. Somebody in the military still knows how to think. The way to beat guerillas is to out guerilla them. There should be a large price on every Sadaam supporter's head and payment should be swift and in cash.

[diamondjoe]

I think the Belmont Club, found at the link below, has a much better analysis of recent engagements in Iraq, and dissect's Saddam's faltering "strategy" point by point.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107024609450321565

Here's their summary (though I do advise everyone to read the whole post):

"Serious historians may recall the fate of combatants who gadfly over the battlefield without achieving serious or decisive results while being pummelled in their vitals by their enemy. It will be the fate of Saddam."

[Dead Dog]

The same William Lind that wrote the USMC Manuever Warfare Handbook? As in Boyd's William Lind?

[A Simple Soldier]

Yes. Same guy, except Lind learned from Boyd.

[Gumption]

Analysis: Strategy Behind Samarra Ambush

How is it possible to have this headline and not even mention the money. I mean, come on.

[Dead Dog]

I'm curious what Lind's political affiliation is? Wasn't he an advisor to Sen. Gary Hart? Not that it would matter much, his work stands on it's own. I've just started reading Manuver Warfare...great stuff.

Unfortunately, I read Robert Coram's book "Boyd", which painted the entire group as being pro-Democrat and anti-Reagan. I'm hoping this was just Coram's little wet dream as it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[A Simple Soldier]

Lind is very right wing. He actually admits to being a monarchist when you can pin him down.
He started working for Senator Taft in 1969 and eventually went to work for Hart who was once considered a conservative Democrat before that creature went all but extinct. He currently works for the Free Congress Foundation. He is a Patrick Buchanan conservative. The Military Reform Caucus was actually pretty bipartisan. Newt Gingrich started to make a name for himself there as well.

Coram paints a picture of guys who were against reckless spending, lying, blatant corporate greed, and people who substituted spending for a real strategy (think Department of Education's solution to most problems. Sadly, DOD has a similar default all too often. Don't believe me, check out www.d-n-i.net). Those are not Dem or Pub issues, they are American issues. I admire President Reagan as much as anyone on this site, but if you sit down and look at the numbers, you will see he was ill served by some of his subordinates.