Posted on 12/11/2006 6:34:25 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
U.S. SECURITY IN IRAQ: AN OUTLINE FOR VICTORY
2006.12.12
I. OBJECTIVES
A. Original Objectives
• Destroy Iraqi WMDs and WMD production capability: partial success
• Destroy and disrupt Jihadi currently operating in Iraq: success
• Attract outside Jihadi to Iraq and destroy them: partial success
• Establish a secure forward base in Southwest Asia: not yet a success
• Secure Iraqi oil supplies: not yet a success
• Kill or capture Saddam Hussein and destroy Ba'athist regime in Iraq: success
• Establish a stable multi-ethnic Iraqi government: not yet a success
• Establish, train and equip effective multi-ethnic Iraqi military and police forces: not yet a success
B. Actual Consequences
• WMDs gone missing
• Jihadi no longer major threat in Iraq
• Outside Jihadi now wary
• No security for U.S. Forces in Iraq
• Oil supplies less secure
• Iraq now vulnerable to foreign forces
• Outbreak of virulent Balkans-style ethnic/sectarian warfare
• Quasi-independent Kurdistan created
• Natives resent foreign interference in domestic affairs
C. Status Quo
• Iraq's military forces destroyed by U.S. main force
• Ba'athist government destroyed
• Saddam and other war criminals captured
• Power vacuum created
• Yugoslavia-like eruption of simmering ethnic/religious warfare
• Iraq now in a “Balkans”-style civil war
D. Revised Objectives
• Locate and neutralize “missing” WMDs, if any
• Destroy and disrupt remaining Jihadi forces currently operating in Iraq
• Establish a secure forward base for U.S. Forces in Southwest Asia
• Secure Iraqi oil supplies
• Maintain territorial integrity of Iraq
• Contain Iraqi sectarian violence within national borders
• Guarantee security of Kurdistan as bastion of order in region
• Allow Iraqis to settle their own affairs
II. ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE REVISED OBJECTIVES
A. STRATEGY: IRAQIZATION
1. Introduction
a. As in Vietnam, U.S. Forces cannot win a civil war in a foreign country. Conventional tactics will not stop civil war. In Vietnam, Westmoreland's operational concept emphasized the attrition of North Vietnamese forces in a "war of the big battalions": multi-battalion, and sometimes even multi-division, sweeps through remote jungle areas in an effort to fix and destroy the enemy. Such "search and destroy" operations were usually unsuccessful, since the enemy could usually avoid battle unless it was advantageous for him to accept it. But they were also costly to the American soldiers who conducted them, and to the Vietnamese civilians who were in the area.
b. Given strong U.S. support, the South Vietnamese fought well, blunted the Communist thrust, and recaptured territory that had been lost to Hanoi. Given strong U.S. support the Iraqi army can blunt the sectarian militias and gradually bring the country under control.
c. Attempts to fight an “American War” doomed to fail. Iraq must solve its own problems. U.S. Goal should be to “manage” civil war, allowing Iraqis to settle their own differences without compromising regional security or U.S, interests. This is “Iraqization”.
2.The Abrams Option
a. Make Iraq an Iraqi Responsibility: In Vietnam post-Tet, Gen Creighton Abrams placed emphasis on improving the South Vietnamese army, beginning the process of its recovery from the effects of long-term neglect that had prevailed under Westmoreland, who had pushed it aside so he could pursue an American war. Likewise, U.S. Forces should be focused on improving the Iraqi army, beginning the process of its recovery from the effects of collapse of civil order.
b. Play To Our Strengths. U.S. Is best at naval warfare, special operations, and massive destruction delivered by air. The United States provided massive air and naval support to South Vietnamese forces from secure bases, both in Vietnam and offshore. Likewise, the U.S. should withdraw from the bulk of Iraq and establish secure and defensible power projection bases both ashore and afloat.
B. TACTICS: FORT AND FLEET
1. Kurdistan: Fort Saladin
A permanent military installation occupied by U.S. Army, Air Force and SOCOM forces should be established within Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Kurdistan should be offered guarantees of its borders in exchange for long-term basing rights in Kurdistan (“Fort Saladin”), from which the northern half of Iraq can be managed. This facility would also serve as an airborne/airmobile/air strike power projection base for the region. Kurdistan is stable and peaceful. Once their security was guaranteed by the establishment of the northern No-Fly Zone, the Kurds set up their own civil democratic structures and developed their judiciary, police and security forces. Over the next thirteen years Kurdistan became a relative oasis of law and order, winning the reputation of being the safest region in all of Iraq. Fewer than two hundred coalition troops are currently stationed in the Kurdistan Autonomous Region. Not a single coalition soldier has lost his life on Kurdish soil.
2. Persian Gulf: Strike Force
A standing naval Strike Force Persian Gulf (SFPG) consisting of two Carrier Battle Groups, Coast Guard units, and an associated Marine Corps amphibious fleet should be stationed in the Gulf to manage the southern half of Iraq and project power throughout the region.
C. METHODOLOGY: AIR ASSAULT
1. Focused Power From Secure Bases
In Vietnam, Abrams's approach focused not on the destruction of enemy forces per se but on protection of the South Vietnamese population by controlling key areas. North Vietnamese offensive timetables were disrupted by preemptive allied attacks, buying more time for Vietnamization. In Iraq, U.S. tactics would focus not on pacifying all of Iraq but on the protection of Iraqi population centers from Jihadis, foreign forces, and sectarian militas. Militia and Jihadi offensive timetables would be disrupted by preemptive U.S. attacks, buying more time for Iraqization. Attempts at ethnic cleansing, genocide, and other crimes against humanity would be shattered by focused application of U.S. power.
2. Air Assault
Staging from Fort Saladin, U.S. Army Air Assault teams, SOCOM commandos, and USAF attack aircraft would surgically strike religious and ethnic militias, capture or kill warlords, suppress Jihadis, and prevent acts of genocide, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing in the northern half of Iraq.
3. Forward From The Sea
Staging from SFPG ships, U.S. Marine Corps/Navy SOCOM helicopter/tiltrotor strike teams and U.S. Navy/Marie Corps attack aircraft would surgically strike religious and ethnic militias, capture or kill warlords, suppress Jihadis, and prevent acts of genocide, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing in the southern half of Iraq.
III. ENDGAME
Over time, the Baghdad government would gain enough strength to establish firm control over the entire country. Whatever solution the Iraqis came to regarding their religious and ethnic differences (partition, etc.), it would be their own solution, not one imposed by the U.S., and thus would eventually achieve a natural stability.
END OUTLINE
thank you. BTW, couldn't access this article....
got it. :)
bump
Some truth here...
AMEN!
""Maybe, but one thing is clear... it's impossible to underestimate the good sense of the average American voter today..."" I don't questions the common sense of some portion of the populace. Recall, Clinton was elected twice to office and people in NY elected his wench from Arkansas to be their senator, not to mention, Barney Frank (aka the homoped from MA) and John Kerry, the spoiled rich kid who never had a real job.
""At some point, don't we have to claim responsibility for our own laziness and ignorance? Or is everything the media's fault?" The media is the gatekeeper of information released for public consumption. How can one make informed decisions when deprived of appropriate information??
You and I clearly depend upon ourselves for the quality of the information we work with. Why shouldn't the rest be held to that standard? After all, we are each responsible for self-governance. If that is based on B.S., and we accept that B.S. because we are too lazy or distracted to find truth, who can be blamed?"" Again, the media is the gatekeeper. Thank the Lord for the internet. The media monopoly has lost ground but they still wield tremendous influence on those not having access to alternative sources of information.
No, I don't. I wasn't born then.
I do have some idea what tensions combat creates though. I was in the military for seven years.
Yes we did kill many civilians in WW II but remember, that was nation against nation. We don't have that type of war going on in the present day.
IF our troops slaughtered surrendered prisoners on the orders of their commanders then both commanders and troops should have been brought before a court and charged with war crimes. Do you know if this happened?
They that begin it have put themselves there and that is where we must fight it if we are not to let Hell subsume us.
There is no nation that "began" it.
Once again, we are not fighting nation against nation. If we can prove that a nation supported terrorism, like Afghanistan or Iraq, we SHOULD move against that nation, just as we did.
Because the government of that nation acted against our interest doesn't give us carte blanche to create the hellstorm of firebombings as we did in WW II.
If we don't live up to our reputation, which is a good one in the international community as far as war goes, we become, little by little, as bad as the terrorists we fight against.
Who do your think owns and operates "the media"?
I don't have names at hand. The point is, the old media is owned and operated by liberals that decide what stories are to be reported and editors decide how they are delivered to the public. The few people picking the stories for the day at AP and Reuters are the primary gatekeepers.
Yes, but they are answering to a boss. There is more to it. The press is just another expendable pawn, another stooge in the equation. They are jumping to someone elses orders... We no longer have a "free" or "independent" press in this country. As much as I enjoy bashing the lamestream press, they are only a cog in the machine.
Figure out who is at the helm of that machine and you have identified the real enemy of this nation. We will have to cut the head off of this snake too... Chopping away at its tail will only anger the snake...
I don't disagree with anything you write, but, journalists always pretend to be the mouthpiece for the downtrodden, the advocate of the weak or victimized if you will -- this sold papers for decades and now the agenda has changed in that many journalists have also embraced a liberal/socialist/elitist political agenda they were taught by the liberal minions inhabiting J-schools. A mind of mush seems easy to mold.
I am only able to speak from personal experience but the Muslims I have had direct contact with have never indicated to me that they harbor any ill will towards any other religion. I can say the same for the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus I've known.
In the course of history, how many have died in the name of "religion"? I believe the terrorists have perverted Islam and are using that view as justification for their actions. Personally, I think that, in the end, none of this is about anyone being a devout follower of any religion. It's about power and control. It's about who will rule the world. If wasn't, then why haven't bin Laden and the other terrorist leaders sacrificed themselves and reaped their rewards?
Regards
It happened several times.
I deem becoming the same as the terrorists to not be worth surviving.
You think so?
The thousands of Spanish speaking Canadians sneaking across your border every day, to do the jobs Americans won't do, and no doubt sneaking in a few Al-Qaeda along for the ride........
Oh, wait, wrong border.
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.