Iraq unsettles US planners (Handwringer alert)

BBC ^ | March 28th, 2003 | Jonathon Marcus

[Sabertooth]

Iraq unsettles US planners

By Jonathan Marcus BBC defence correspondent at Central Command headquarters

With the weather fast improving, US and British air attacks against the Republican Guard units south of Baghdad are moving into high gear.

Military sources also say that US marines have pushed northwards closer to the town of al-Kut on the Tigris river.

But the difficulties of fighting a multi-front war could well slow the pace of this military operation.

Invading forces have not met the reception they were told to expect

"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we had war-gamed against," says Lieutenant General William Wallace, the senior US ground commander in Iraq.

His comments, made yesterday during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division, have reportedly caused some unease at the Pentagon, as they seem to illustrate that this campaign is not turning out quite as the US war planners expected.

Bad weather exacerbated the problems of long supply lines - a factor that could lead to a pause before the full-scale ground assault on the Republican Guard is launched.

But it is the level of opposition on the ground from irregular Iraqi units that is causing the greatest delay.

The Americans have had to battle to keep supply routes open.

The Euphrates valley is still far from secure and another thrust by the US Marine corps towards al-Kut on the Tigris river is facing similar resistance in towns like Qalat Sukkar.

Different views

Perceptions as to how this war would unfold seem to be very different in London and Washington.

There is a feeling here that the Pentagon's assessment of a rapid Iraqi collapse was based upon a poor understanding of the dynamics of Iraqi society.

IRAQ CAMPAIGN

Map: Military operations

The Fedayeen

As one senior British source put it, the United Kingdom's contribution was configured for medium-term success, although it could equally exploit a rapid Iraqi collapse.

That does not seem to be quite how the Pentagon saw it.

Weather and resistance are not the US planners' only problems.

The absence of a heavy US mechanised division moving southwards from the Turkish frontier means that it will be harder to pin down - or fix, as the military put it - the Republican Guard divisions protecting the northern approaches to the Iraqi capital.

Building up a force with any real combat power in the north is going to take time.

Many more US troops are on their way, but the first unit to arrive, the 4th Infantry Division, will not be ready for battle for some weeks yet.

Its troops are beginning to fly into Kuwait, but much of its heavy equipment is still at sea.

All the signs are that this war could be longer and harder than many people expected.

[Sabertooth]

That all depends on whose expectations we're talking about, doesn't it? It's important to get all of the handwringers on record.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[Mystix]

how do you do the graphics?

[Travis McGee]

The untold show is going on at our new airfields in the north and west.

One word: Globemaster.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Many more US troops are on their way, but the first unit to arrive, the 4th Infantry Division, will not be ready for battle for some weeks yet.

Yeah, "some" is one or two. Good Lord, you take a few days to establish forward logistics bases and airfields while cleaning up the rear areas of the advance and degrading the enemy you've fixed at the front with artillery and air, and the linguine-wristed leftist press is ready to proclaim the task just too tough.

That's because they've done anything more daunting than trying to pound 1,000 stupid words out of their computer keyboard while complaining that the support staff made the coffee to weak.

[cyncooper]

All the signs are that this war could be longer and harder than many people expected.

And as Miss Marple has pointed out, it was none other than bill clinton sowing the seeds of this expectation.

There is a feeling here that the Pentagon's assessment of a rapid Iraqi collapse was based upon a poor understanding of the dynamics of Iraqi society.

Hmmmmm. I see no evidence of the Pentagon's assessment of a rapid collapse, but here is clinton "helpfully" setting the bar before action started:

The former president also said he believed Iraq's army would crumble within days in the event of a U.S. invasion, given the battering it took in the 1991 Gulf War.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864435/posts

And here is what Miss Marple found:

In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/867363/posts

But something tells me the author of this "piece" would be one who claims clinton knows what the hell he's talking about.

Ooooh, and Rush just read from a speech (not sure if it's the same speech I have excerpted above, the quote was different) pointing out clinton was running around saying this would be a piece of cake.

(At the same time he saying to get the UN resolution)

[Sabertooth]

how do you do the graphics?

First, let me welcome you aboard, Marine. Thanks for your service.

Here's a good HTML "how-to" website, Funky Chickens. It'll tell you most of what you need to know for posting in more than plain test.

Once you're feeling like trying some of it out, go to the Freeper's HTML Sandbox for newcomers, which has more instructions and will give you a place to try your hand.

Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions.

[Mystix]

Thank you :)
I appreciate it!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Military sources also say that US marines have pushed northwards closer to the town of al-Kut on the Tigris river.

But the difficulties of fighting a multi-front war could well slow the pace of this military operation.

Multi-front war? Looks to me like a simple pincer encirclement of the Soddomy Hussein forces in Baghdad.

Starve 'em out. It won't take long. Another hand-wringing alert.

[Sabertooth]

And as Miss Marple has pointed out, it was none other than bill clinton sowing the seeds of this expectation.

Thanks for pointing that out. I usually avoid Clinton threads because I can't think of anyone less relevant. I shouldn't, I suppose, given the many journalists still lapping up his slop.

[Sabertooth]

the linguine-wristed leftist press is ready to proclaim the task just too tough.

That's because they've done anything more daunting than trying to pound 1,000 stupid words out of their computer keyboard while complaining that the support staff made the coffee to weak.

More on that...

The unpredictable war

By Barnaby Mason BBC diplomatic correspondent

There has been no popular uprising against the Iraqi regime

Wars never go as predicted, and the problems encountered by American and British forces in Iraq serve to underline that reality.

The commander of United States army forces in Iraq, Lieutenant-General William Wallace, has told American newspapers that unexpected resistance by Iraqi paramilitary forces means the war will probably last longer than forecast.

And the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, hinted at a delay before any attempt to take Baghdad, saying it had to be isolated first.

Both President George W. Bush and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been warning of difficulties ahead.

'Miscalculations'

Nevertheless, the question arises whether there were both military and political miscalculations in the run-up to the war.

Specific military criticisms are being voiced in the US and elsewhere of the strategy pushed through by Mr Rumsfeld.

The reliance on a relatively small force with vastly superior technology and air power was based on the assumption that most of the Iraqi armed forces would crumble quickly and the people would rise up against a hated regime.

Troops have met unexpected resistance outside Baghdad

That did not happen.

Nor did President Saddam Hussein abandon most of the country and confine serious resistance to Baghdad - as some in the Bush administration believed he would.

The politicians were in general more confident than the military.

A long-standing associate of Mr Rumsfeld, Kenneth Adelman, said repeatedly that demolishing Saddam Hussein's power and liberating Iraq militarily would be a cakewalk.

But many others have been surprised by the tactics of Iraqi irregulars: General Wallace voiced incredulity at pick-up trucks with small calibre weapons charging tanks and armoured vehicles.

Beyond the purely military, there were political miscalculations too.

'No serious uprisings'

The American and British authorities are disappointed that so far there have not been serious uprisings against Saddam Hussein.

Initial reports of unrest in Basra by British military sources were clearly exaggerated.

The coalition governments attribute this uncomfortable reality to two main factors: the memories of Iraqi Shias, especially in the south, of being abandoned when they revolted in 1991; and the fear still wielded in the cities by the regime's repressive apparatus.

That must be significant.

People under attack tend to stick together

The machine of coercion is all-pervasive in Iraq; since the Ba'ath Party came to power in 1968 it has drawn large numbers of people into complicity at least with acts of violence and intimidation.

Many will feel they have their backs to the wall, with no future outside the regime.

But there are other factors too, which western politicians may have unwisely discounted.

People whose country is under attack from outside tend to draw together.

The feeling of national resistance to invasion may grow the longer the war goes on and the bloodier it becomes.

US and Israel

Long-standing Arab hostility to the US and its support for Israel is another ingredient in the brew.

And the fatwa issued by a leading Shia cleric in the Iraqi city of Najaf calling on Muslims to unite to defend Iraq against the enemy may also be having an influence - even if it is dismissed in the West as being made under coercion.

The degree to which the Iraqi regime and its followers will fight if it comes to a final battle for Baghdad is unknowable.

But the resistance encountered on the road to the capital is giving American and British commanders and politicians a lot to think about.
BBC link

[Shermy]

Planners were thinking Gulf War I, in a fashion, with armies committed to the nation, not so much Saddam.

But Saddam seems to have "Somali-ized" his defenses with people who are fanantics, and whose well-being is dependent on the survival of Saddam alone.

Plus Saddam is spreading a lot of money around. Time for us to buy some loyalty, like we did in Afstan.

Also I saw a comment from a Jazeera person. Apparently many of the Shia have been radicalized like Iranians, seeing Americans as the greater "Satan" than Saddam.

Propagandistically, the Turks maimed us in the North. Instead of charging into Kurd cities where you would really see images of welcome, we got checked. If the Kurd armies moved, that would promote a perception that Iraqis want liberation.

[Shermy]

Oh, and where are all these Iraqi opposition leaders? And the Iraqis we were supposedly training militarily?

[b4its2late]

Iraq unsettles US planners

I should read

Iraq unsettles US talking heads

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[numberonepal]

These reports about set-backs and timetables are starting to become enormously annoying. Doesn't everyone know at least 10 people that are never prompt consistently? Anyone? Beuuuuuuler? I didn't think so. You, yourself, may rarely be prompt. It's OK, sometimes things just come up. Right? How many times have your plans with 3 or more people gone wrong? Did you adapt? I'm not going to go into the hierocracy.

< !-- Ladies SKIP -- >

As any gentleman knows being "on time" doesn't necessarily mean arriving on someone else's timeline. If the gentleman has made no commitment to a timeline, then he has absolutely no obligation to show up a prescribed time. "On time" is when he deems necessary and appropriate. Besides, who wants to show up for a party on time? For the fellahs out, there this is a pearl of insight into the mind of a woman - listen up! Having someone anticipate your arrival can reveal so much good stuff.

< !-- Ladies RESUME -- >

There is something else going on out in that desert that we don't and won't know for a while, so hang tight timeline people. We'll get there and we'll accomplish the mission. This coalition has not committed to a timeline. They just said they were coming.

"It's seems a little early to write history to me"
--Rummy

[maestro]

Your#16).......................Yes!

There is something else going on out in that desert that we don't and won't know for a while, so hang tight timeline people. We'll get there and we'll accomplish the mission. This coalition has not committed to a timeline. They just said they were coming. "It's seems a little early to write history to me"
--Rummy

God is in Control in His Plan to defend and protect THE INNOCENT,.... "Over-There",..... and here at home.

9-11.....Never Forget!

[AppyPappy]

Dare I say it? Dare I say it?

[ambrose]

Globemaster?

[Travis McGee]

USAF C-17 Globemaster. "Carries a C-5 load to a C-130 field." (Well, almost.)

Carries one M-1 tank or 4 APCs per sortie into the fields we are capturing.