THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: Why Baghdad Fell in 23 Days

StrategyPage.com ^ | December 29, 2003

[John Jorsett]

The 23 day campaign to defeat Iraq in 2003 is now being examined by all the participants to determine what made the big difference. Researchers at the Army War College did a study, interviewing 176 participants (including Iraqis) and concluded that the major factors were the new technologies (GPS smart bombs and satellite communications like Blue Force tracker) and the much higher skill levels of coalition troops. The Iraqis had expected smart bombs, but they were unable to cope with the sheer speed of the advance and the fighting. And when the Iraqis fought, and they often did, and quite steadfastly, the better trained American troops just blew them away. The Iraqis were in shock from all this, and after about 20 days, resistance collapsed. The word got around that to fight the Americans was to die quickly. Nothing worked against them, and they would keep coming at you and kill you.

This is nothing new to a military historian. The ancient Assyrians, Alexander the Great's Greeks, the Roman legions, the medieval Mongol army and the German blitzkrieg of 1939-41 were all examples of a "skill imbalance" (as the army researchers put it) that regularly brought the more skillful armies quick victories. The new technologies allowed the better trained coalition troops to move even faster and with more devastating effect. The "battlefield Internet," as best exemplified by the Blue Force Tracker, made it possible for the American commanders to always know where all the friendly troops were. This capability was unique in the history of warfare, and it took well trained officers to quickly adapt to this new tool. Same with the JDAM GPS (satellite guided) bombs, which got their first real front line workout in Afghanistan. The army also used new long range, GPS guided rockets for the first time, but their achievements were overshadowed by the JDAMs.

It's easy to assume that a bunch of new technologies will just come together fine the first time they are used in combat. Historically, such is not the case. It takes very well trained troops to get it right the first time with this new stuff. We tend to be fascinated with the technology and lose sight of how important the skill of the troops is. A common reaction among the 700 embedded reporters was along the lines of, "these guys are real pros." Yes they were, and that's why Baghdad fell 23 days into the campaign.

[Joe Bonforte]

The word got around that to fight the Americans was to die quickly.

I sure hope this word gets around the whole Middle East.

[CasearianDaoist]

And they are mostl in their late teens or early twenties. Better than any Harard PhD., IMHO.

[Loyal Buckeye]

I would add another very important factor: The troops were given the authority to do what was necessary to win. The President did not sit in the Oval Office selecting targets.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The word got around that to fight the Americans was to die quickly. Nothing worked against them, and they would keep coming at you and kill you.

Superior training coupled with superior weapons coupled with superior tacts destroyed the Iraqis. This old addage is proven true yet again: "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

[TheGeezer]

IMHO that Lyndon Johnson and McNamara attempted to micromanage the Vietnam war, which resulted in massive problems. Thank heaven GWB is not the egomaniac LBJ was!

Regards.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yep. Bush let slip the dogs of war and din't try to muzzle them with illogical and often dangerous rules of engagement. If you see an enemy and he doesn't surrender immediately, kill him.

[Southack]

Somebody "gets it" around here!

[ErnBatavia]

The President did not sit in the Oval Office selecting targets.

...with an intern's face in his lap.

[TEXOKIE]

Testimonial to the troops! We have great tech, but it takes even greater people to use it!

[hresources]

Cudos to the Brits. 1st Marines and 3d ID.. Hoohah!

[KarlInOhio]

And no one in authority is telling the troops to give back captured terrain to the enemy. The DNC is, but I hope they aren't in authority for a very long time.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think a telling video was one I saw where an Iraqi tank was hiding a berm on three sides, leaving an escape path behind, with its gun just peeking out over the top, as the missile zeroed in on it from above (thus the pictures). They never saw what hit them.

The thing is, the Iraqi's were doing all the right things. Their mistake, however, was in fighting the tactics of the last war, while the USA was inventing the tactics of the next war.

-PJ

[Bosco]

The full article is a worthwhile read as well.

[Chewbacca]

They forgot to add one other reason.

Many of the Iraqi's wanted to be liberated from Saddam and refused to fight.

[Theo]

"Shock and Awe," it turns out, worked. Despite what "disbelievers" argued....

[AngryJawa]

...while the USA was inventing the tactics of the next war.

Agreed. Let's just hope that complacency doesn't set in amongst the leadership. We do have a history of dialing it back way too far after winning a war.

[Plutarch]

The word got around that to fight the Americans was to die quickly.

Or as it is more commonly phrased:

Mess with the best; Die like the rest.

[colorado tanker]

I would add to this a brilliant plan by Gen. Franks and his staff. I am convinced the Iraqi's expected another 4-6 week preparatory aerial bombardment, as in Gulf War I, which would have given them additional preparation time. Instead, Franks launched the ground attack BEFORE the air attack, judging, correctly, that with the tremendous improvements in precision guided munitions he didn't need the extra time to soften up the Iraqis. They were taken off guard, which may have explained why they hadn't produced an inventory of chemical munitions to distribute to the field commands.

[xp38]

This sounds like the 23 day campaign was a success. I seem to recall at the time the media was saying weather and supply problems and fierce unexpected resistance was creating a quagmire for the good guys. Was the media reporting at variance with the facts?