[Destro]

Any thoughts? The Iraqi's do seem to be drawing us in toward the "red zone" around Baghdad, which corresponds to the location roughly where the battle of Ctesiphon crushed the British advance. Does not mean the Iraqi's will succeed with this strategy (not by a long shot), only that I think I see the inspiration for their strategy.

[Destro]

That should read: Is Iraq inspired by strategy that caused the greatest defeat in British military history?

[Shermy]

Any thoughts?

Inspired by repeated viewings of "Blackhawk Down"

[OperationFreedom]

I hope and pray our military leadership has learned lessons from the past and is on top of all this.

[Porterville]

No, we have big planes now and bigger bombs.

[x]

This approach was reversed at the Battle of Ctesiphon (after an initial withdrawal by the Turks) with a counter-attack launched at the retreating British force under Sir Charles Townshend.

Must remember to pack extra vowels this time.

[Arkinsaw]

There were never enough shallow-draught boats, nor enough mules or camels, to adequately supply the fighting forces that were to be up to 500 miles away from port.

Oh damn, we forgot the mules and camels. We are screwed.

[expatpat]

I think that Stalingrad is perhaps more likely as a model for Sadam's strategy. The US presumably has a plan for handling Baghdad when they get it surrounded, but I don't know what it is.

[ggekko]

It is not analogous situation. The present day Iraqi's have no realistic way to interdict our supply lines.

Once Baghdad is surrounded we can lay seige to the city and attrit the Republican guard. They have no way to resupply themselves. Once Baghdad is surrounded the apple should fall from the tree pretty quickly.

[Kevin Curry]

There is no comparison.

The coalition forces are an Iraqi meatgrinder unparalleled in history. While Saddam feints and jabs and sends his fedayeen fools scrambling over the sand with AK-47s, the coalition forces annihilate them by the thousands. Saddam's elite thugs cannot continue to bleed in this way. There is a limited supply of them.

[jacksonstate]

No comparison!

We have F-16's!

:-)

[Jorge]

There were never enough shallow-draught boats, nor enough mules or camels, to adequately supply the fighting forces that were to be up to 500 miles away from port.

I think we solved this problem by inventing helicopters, airlifts, tanker trucks etc.

[mikegi]

Kinda reminds me of that old SNL skit, "What if Napoleon had a fully loaded B-52 at Waterloo?" [it may have been Wellington instead of Napoleon, I don't remember]. Anyway, the point is that things are slightly(!) different now. Our army can't be cut off these days. The ONLY chance Saddam has is if he managed to be successful in a massive chemical weapon attack on our 3rd ID.

[Ymani Cricket]

Interesting. You know, earlier this evening I was thinking about the German 6th Army in the battle of Stalingrad and how the Russians lured the Germans in.

It would be nice to have some historical strategy discussions going on here. Because it seems like the best strategies in history are overlooked, or ignored by our modern day overconfident politician-generals.

In WWII the greatest minds challenged one another (i.e Rommel-Montgomery)
Now it seems like our strategies are only half planned.

On hearing the news of sending 100,000 more troops (and saying we meant to do it all along) I can only think of the attitude of the Japanese commander in Guadalcanal that was so overconfident that he kept back more than half of his force - he was wiped out.

If we are going to war we need to go in to win. Period.

[WOSG]

The Iraq strategy was the same as the Russian strategy of 1812. Fall back and wear down the attackers by attrition and logistics dificulties and using terrain and weather on their side.

It's Saddam's fantasy. It wont happen.

1. The HUGE error here is the assumption that we would out run our logistics. We wont. we were able to operate in a theatre - Afghanistan - last year with logistics that were worse. Technology is massively different today than in 1914 or 1812. Enough trucks and gas and any army can be supplied.

2. Most of our firepower is in the air. We go to Baghdad from carriers. So on both logistics and attrition, we are winning, not losing. The kill ratio is massive both from the air and from the ground.

[Cicero]

It's not really relevant.

[aristeides]

The army in Kut became surrounded and besieged; eventually 9,000 (3,000 British and 6,000 Indian troops) surrendered five months later - the greatest defeat and loss in British military history up to that point.

"Up to that point" being the operative words. The fall of Singapore in 1942 was a much greater defeat.

I suspect the Iraqi leaders would like to have decisive fighting take place in Kut. It no doubt has a mythic significance to them, in view of its history.

May not matter to U.S. troops. But it may have an effect on the morale of Iraqi troops.

[rolling_stone]

Landscape for battle

Mesopotamia is an ancient land, through which run the great Rivers Tigris and Euphrates.

Ah yes an ancient land unlike any other on earth....Could be that Iraq and its great leader Sadaam are trying this strategy, however I am sure the Brits for sure and probably the Americans are well aware of this piece of history...while not ancient it is a battle several wars ago...things have change, weapons supply and city population...my only fear is WMD beyond chemical...such as biological or nuclear...could a suitcase nuke or smallpox from Russia have ended up in Sadaam's bag of tricks? Other than those concerns, I feel confident of our commanders plans...I also feel that if WMD are used and significant casualties are taken by the coalition, that Baghdag could morally be nuked back to the stone age...

[blam]

"The Iraqi's do seem to be drawing us in toward the "red zone" around Baghdad."

Drawing? They haven't had a choice.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Gee, the greatest defeat in British history was when they lost the American revolution to George W.

[Always A Marine]

Excellent post, Destro. I'll let others question your motives and draw inferences which you clearly did not imply. I believe your supposition regards possible Iraqi intentions, and not Iraqi capabilities. This is a very interesting article.

Rest assured that colonels and generals (ours and theirs) study military history -- and though weapons, ranges, speeds and communications have changed greatly over time, the basic principles of war have not. It is vitally important to know what your enemy intends, and you can gain solid clues to his plans from the history which inspires him. Thanks...