Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marines will lead seaborne invasion of southern Iraq
The Telegraph ^ | (Filed: 22/12/2002) | By Robert Fox and Sean Rayment

Posted on 12/22/2002 10:33:35 AM PST by LSUfan

The Royal Navy is planning its biggest amphibious landing operation since the Falklands as the main British effort in a war to topple Saddam Hussein in the new year.

The whole of the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade, which made up the bulk of the landing force in the Falklands, will join United States forces to seize the strategically vital southern port of Basra, Iraq's second city.

Allied commanders regard the capture of Basra, along with its docks at the head of the Gulf and two airfields, as extremely important to the invasion.

The amphibious force being assembled for the task is likely to be at least 40,000 strong. The 5,500 Royal Marines will fight alongside two expeditionary units of the US marines.

The attack will involve the naval task force which sails to the Gulf early next month, led by the aircraft carrier Ark Royal after its conversion into a commando assault ship.

Four Royal Navy minehunters, which are already in the Gulf on exercise, have been asked by the Americans to lead mine-clearing operations in the northern Gulf and to open the important Shatt al Arab waterway leading to Basra and the Euphrates river system.

"The Americans have asked for the Royal Marines and we will send them," a senior MoD official confirmed. In all, Britain's naval contribution will involve more than 20 ships from the Navy and Fleet Auxiliary, led by Ark Royal and the helicopter carrier Ocean.

Men of 3 Commando Brigade are being vaccinated against anthrax and smallpox. They will soon undergo intensive training against biological and chemical attack, directed by specialists from the Ministry of Defence's chemical warfare research centre at Porton Down.

After a period of exercises, including practice landings in either the Mediterranean or the Gulf, they are expected to be ready for action by the end of January.

Preparations for action are being stepped up after signs that America has set its sights on February to begin an attack on Saddam - soon after the January 27 deadline for Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, to report to the Security Council on Iraqi co-operation.

The other main British contributions to the war are expected to be a small armoured division, RAF bombers, surveillance and refuelling aircraft, and special forces, which the Americans rate as the best in Nato. Some elements of the SAS and Special Boat Squadron are probably already in the region.

Their main priority is to prevent any attack on Israel by Scud missiles from mobile launchers in the western deserts of Iraq. The SAS and SBS will also be searching for secret command bunkers and mobile biological warfare laboratories, which have been identified to American and British intelligence by Iraqi defectors.

By the beginning of February the Americans will be expected to have between 250,000 and 300,000 ground troops in the region - including four armoured and armoured-infantry divisions together with the 82nd Airborne and the 101 Air Cavalry Division.

The war will be launched with a ferocious air assault designed to achieve the total annihilation of Saddam's forces within a month.

Planes from a large fleet of US carriers positioned in the Gulf will launch hundreds of sorties a day against Iraqi targets. British jets based in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and from the Ark Royal carrier group will also take part.

Advances in technology mean that each of the US carriers - the 86,000-ton Kitty Hawk, Harry S Truman, Abraham Lincoln and the soon-to-arrive Constellation - will be able to hit up to 700 targets a day, compared to no more than 162 in the last Gulf war.

The air war will be preceded by an attack involving the use of thousands of cruise missiles being fired from British and US ships and nuclear-powered submarines.

They will have as their targets air defence installations and command and control centres, effectively rendering Iraqi forces defenceless from air attack and unable to communicate with their high command.

British, and probably Dutch and Italian, fighter-bombers led by RAF GR4 Tornados from Bahrain will attack local military targets round Basra. By then the Americans will have up to four aircraft carriers in the Gulf and Arabian Sea with 348 strike aircraft involved. A fifth carrier, Kitty Hawk, converted to a commando and special forces platform, will lead the amphibious fleet, including the British.

The attack will be free flowing - with less of the rigid phasing of Desert Storm and Desert Sabre of 1991. The allies will attack in the south to take Basra, encourage rebellion among the Kurds in the north, where the British have been training local militia, and conduct commando sabotage raids throughout the country. An all-out attack on Baghdad will be mounted only as a last resort because it is hoped that the Saddam regime will have collapsed well before this becomes necessary.

The allies appear to be reserving the option of having to finish the job after August, when the weather becomes cooler and ground operations are more feasible. For this reason Tony Blair is offering a smaller ground force than the one that fought for Kuwait 11 years ago, a small division, or what the Army calls a "brigade battle group".

This will be based on the 7th Armoured Brigade commanded by Brigadier Graham Binns, who won a Military Cross for counter guerrilla operations in Bosnia. The whole ground group will be under Major General Robin Brims, who has a distinguished record from the service in the Balkans and Northern Ireland.

The brigade will have at least four tank and infantry battle groups, plus one in reserve and its own brigades of engineers, logistics and artillery equipped with at least four regiments of AS90 155mm self-propelled howitzers and the MLRS rocket batteries, which proved particularly deadly in the desert in 1991.

The main problem is sustaining the force in the field because logistical and repair services face being overstretched after four or five months. If a significant drive for Baghdad is ordered before summer, the 7th brigade is likely to be joined by the 4th Armoured brigade with three more battalion-sized battle groups by late February.

For planners and commanders in all three services, the process of going to war has begun. As one senior commander said this week: "War is now more probable than not."


TOPICS: Announcements; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amphibiousassault; iraq; marines
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
I still feel this scenario is unlikely for one reason:

The Army will fight it tooth and nail. Call it parochialism if you want, but the Army brass will fight any plan that calls for an amphib assault of that size. This would be the largest since Inchon in 1950. It will never happen...the US Army brass will never allow the Marines to start off a major operation with an amphibious assault. It would prove that MAGTFs are the only forced entry option this country has...I can assure you the Army will go absolutely ballistic if the plan calls for a major amphibious assault to kick things off. Generals in each service will likely see that as a means of setting future doctrine and budgetary priorities.

Not saying that is right, but that is how the game is played in the Beltway.

But there is no denying that the US Army has zilch forced entry capability. If the Kuwaitis and the Turks were to back off, what would the Army do? Call it parochial if you want, but that is a fact. The US Army couldn't kick in a screen door. The only forced entry capability we have is the Marine Corps.

The only part about the floated planning that rings true is the part about not wanting to expose ground assets to CBR warfare. Amphibious forces can seal up tight on the Gator freighters in condition Zulu, the ships can do their own decontamination by turining on built in sprinkling systems and turning hard into the wind, and then proceed with the mission. Moreover, amphibious task forces move and I would not want to be the Iraqi general who has been assigned the mission of hitting one with SCUD missiles. By the time they get their intel and launch, the task force could be dozens of nautical miles away.

1 posted on 12/22/2002 10:33:35 AM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
US Army couldn't kick in a screen door

You must be one of those Semper Fi dudes. The Army may have problems in training and mobility, but it has many combat elements that are downright awesome.

The Air Cav, V Corps, 82nd Airborne, 9th Mountain Division -- these and others will undoubdetly play a major role. Amphibious troops just don't pack the punch of coordinated Army units, and their gear is usually a generation old.

Granted, the Marines are tough warriors. But you can't do an amphibious assault through Kurdistan in the north, and going along the western border around Wadi al Bätin is perfectly suited to M-1 Abrams and Mechanized Infantry

Each service has its own specialty and should be applauded for their skills. There are not nearly enough Marines to go around to supply the minimal 50,000 troops with sufficient armaments needed at the desired locations.

2 posted on 12/22/2002 11:28:29 AM PST by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
A seabourne invasion of southern Iraq? Wouldn't that be an attack on Kuwait?
3 posted on 12/22/2002 11:58:28 AM PST by gundog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
But there is no denying that the US Army has zilch forced entry capability.

You are wrong and clearly don't know what you are talking about. The Army has a very good forced entry capability and if you don't know what that is then I rest my case.

4 posted on 12/22/2002 12:08:56 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gundog
Think a little more to the right...(:^)
5 posted on 12/22/2002 12:16:01 PM PST by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
The 5,500 Royal Marines will fight alongside two expeditionary units of the US marines.

This article cannot be accurate, since the Royal Marines in their entirety number close to the 5,500 cited in this story -- and that number includes its specialized RN, Army and RAF attachments. 3 Commando Brigade is essentially a regiment, consisting of three battalion-sized Commandos and supporting units, and is not a very large force.

Though more powerful than 3 Commando Brigage, neither do the two US Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) cited in the article constitute a very large force. If combined without further reinforcement, these two MEUs would comprise a very minimal Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), which combat power would include two Marine infantry batallions, two aviation squadrons, two artillery batteries, and two tank platoons. While nothing to sneeze at, this is not a major force capable of large-scale forcible entry.

Any mission approaching that described in this article would require one or more heavier MEBs, or more likely a full Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). The larger MEF would include at least one entire Marine Division, a Marine Aircraft Wing (with almost 400 fixed and rotary wing aircraft), and a large combat service support element. [For perspective, I MEF in the first Gulf War included two Marine Divisions and two Marine Aircraft Wings.] I doubt the US Army's manhood is threatened by the small Marine presence now in the Gulf...

6 posted on 12/22/2002 12:37:50 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Fool me once?

In Gulf War I, the Marines were used as a feint, holding down large numbers of troops on invasion beaches while the huge left hook of the army swept out of Saudi Arabia and outflanked the Iraqis.
7 posted on 12/22/2002 12:57:05 PM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
Looks like a pretty stupid place for an assault of this size. That amphibiuos feint at Kuwaits shore in Gulf War I would have been more realistic, hence its success. Why strike an area that tiny with a huge Naval contingent when you could just roll in from Kuwait?
8 posted on 12/22/2002 12:58:02 PM PST by gundog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
The point is, they don't have a forced entry capability. They are outstanding, but are dependent on some host country or a secure environment in which to delpoy, except for the 82nd, which has 48 hours of beans, bullets and band aids when they hit the ground, plus no major armor, artillery, or mechanized support when they get there.

Only the Marines can kick in the door. If Kuwait is not safe due to CBR warfare threat, then the only way for heavy armor units to get through is for the Marines to take Basrah.
9 posted on 12/22/2002 1:29:39 PM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
Wrong. The Army is dependent on host nations or a secure port/airfields for entry.
10 posted on 12/22/2002 1:31:37 PM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
The 75th Rangers and the 82nd Airborne SEIZE airfields. Yes they rely on the AF, just like the Marines rely on the Navy. If you have not seen or know about airfield seizure (the 75th does it far better then anyone in the world) then you do not know 'all' about "Forced Entry".
11 posted on 12/22/2002 1:37:39 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
Have to agree with you. The rangers primary task in any large scale operation we have done is seize and hold airbases. The MEU's that float every six months are quick reactionaries. The MEU's that achieve SOC status are some bad ass unit's, but still, I have not heard of a MEU consisting of more than 1000 ground pounders. On top of that, coming from a MEU(SOC), I can certainly tell you the last thing I would want to do is storm a beach unloading my platoon's supplies via LCAC. Maybe a Marine Raider company punches a hole and the LCAC's come soon afterwards, but unloading them puppies takes a LONG time and the Marines are big time exposed during the process.
12 posted on 12/22/2002 1:47:22 PM PST by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
This can't be right...I read elsewhere that we would be invading primarily through Kurdistan. Wait, before that it was from Kuwait. But what about all those tanks I heard about in Syria? Didn't Saudi Arabia say we could use their soil if the UN was on board? Maybe it'll just be an air war.

Oh well, I'm soooo confused...
13 posted on 12/22/2002 2:13:23 PM PST by Toskrin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toskrin
Oh well, I'm soooo confused...

You and me to brother. If two countries the size of the US and GB, can't take out some desert rat toy dictator, we should disband the entire military, and send in the Salvation Army. Maybe they could get the job done.

14 posted on 12/22/2002 2:22:41 PM PST by biffalobull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: unix
Thanks .... The Marines may be used to seize Basra and protect the Right Flank but I would think the Marines' primary mission would be making SURE that the Straits of Hormuz remains open. If those Straits aren't open .... we lose BIG TIME!
15 posted on 12/22/2002 2:59:47 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Preparations for action are being stepped up after signs that America has set its sights on February to begin an attack on Saddam - soon after the January 27 deadline for Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, to report to the Security Council on Iraqi co-operation.

Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

16 posted on 12/22/2002 3:00:40 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
In Gulf War I, the Marines were used as a feint, holding down large numbers of troops on invasion beaches while the huge left hook of the army swept out of Saudi Arabia and outflanked the Iraqis.

This is partially correct. The 4th and 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigades remained afloat as a feint, causing Iraq to waste many divisions defending his beaches against an amphibious assault that never came. However, the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions were already ashore on D-Day, and launched directly into Kuwait with unexpected speed and devastating success. Already on their heels, the Iraqis never knew what hit them when VII Corps came sweeping in from the west. Sharp guy, that Schwarzkopf...

17 posted on 12/22/2002 3:26:37 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
That is the most uninformed and simplistic assessment of an initial assault I have read in quite some time. It is the mission of the USMC to take and establish beachheads from which the army can safely load, organize, and mobilize their heavy equipment for a progressive land battle. The Marines are not expected to land and push all the way to the North ... their job is to open the hole through which the flood can flow.
18 posted on 12/22/2002 3:32:53 PM PST by BlueNgold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
The Marines have little to no role in protecting maritime passages. That is the role of the Navy. There are 13 'choke points' worlwide that the Navy has plans in place to control if ever needed .. Hormuz is one of them. We have the most advanced warships and combat craft in the world. To use the Marines at Hormuz would mean an invasion of Oman and Iran.

It will be protected from the sea in defense of international right of passage under accepted tenets of international law and acted on by our naval forces under what is known as the Reagan Doctrine.

19 posted on 12/22/2002 3:39:02 PM PST by BlueNgold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
I hope you are correct. If I remember correctly until 1989 the Navy refused to put carriers into the Persian Gulf because it was TOO risky. Hormuz could be closed by Iran (part of the 'Axis of Evil'), and I hope the Navy can keep it open. I would think that the Marines would definitely be part of that planning and needed to keep it open.In that part of the world, logistics is our greatest enemy and they know it.
20 posted on 12/22/2002 4:18:53 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson