This story does not inspire a lot of confidence in the current Coalition effectiveness of dealing with islamists and sundry Baathist dead-enders in Iraq.
Some 22 people have been killed and many more wounded after a rocket attack on a U.S. military base in the northern town of Mosul. A grim day. Now, call me a pajama strategist, but I wonder whether it ought to be possible to make some use of the tremendous technological advantages of America’s modern army in defending soldiers against such attacks on their own military encampments. No, I am not going to make the mistake of supposing that we can create the ‘perfect’ military. I am aware that all organisations, even relatively well-run ones, have their weak spots, and that includes the armed forces of the West. But it does stick in the craw that a group of servicemen having a meal can end up being killed by a bunch of insurgents running around with a few rocket launchers a few thousand yards off.
I have been looking around a few websites for possible enlightenment on what can be done. DefenceTech blog gives some insight into how ordinary servicemen and women are improvising their own techniques, including piecemeal bits of engineering, to make their vehicles and equipment less vulnerable to attack. It goes to show that crushing the insurgents is not just about the fancy stuff like flying an Apache helicopter. Improvisation has its part to play.
As an aside, it makes me wonder how those critics beating up Donald Rumsfeld at the moment would have written about the calibre of F. D. Roosevelt’s defence chiefs 50 years ago, during the Battle of the Ardennes, better known as the Battle of the Bulge. Andrew Sullivan might have been calling for Eishenhower’s head on a stick by now.
Why don’t they use artillery flash/sound locators or mortar detecting radar? That stuff’s been around since the 1970’s and can pick up an incoming shell or rocket and trace it back to the launch site, ensuring swift and deadly retribution from on – call aircraft or attack helicopters……………
Give me a break, the jihaddies achieve a freak hit with a wildly inaccurate weapon, apparently a 122 rocket, and al lof a sudden its the end of the world. These things happen in war.
Give me a break, the jihaddies achieve a freak hit with a wildly inaccurate weapon, apparently a 122 rocket, and all of a sudden its the end of the world. These things happen in war.
Given the accuracy of the attack, if it was a rocket, I have to assume there was a spotter in the camp.
All the talk about not having enough armor on the vehicles makes me wonder how we managed to avoid this sort of thing happening much more frequently in Viet-Nam. The VC had weapons as good or better (they could call on the USSR’s resources) and they could get a lot closer to attack and escape afterward much more easily in a jungle than one can in a desert.
We used 2 1/2 ton trucks with sandbags on the floor for armor. The drivers usually took off the doors and roofs so they would be blown clear in an attack rather than burn inside. The armor we are using now will stop shrapnel, small arms fire and some improvised munitions but not others. Nor will it stop an RPG or a .50 cal slug.
Is the brouhaha about armor the invention of a bunch of civilian reporters? Or do the insurgents truly have no ability to come up with something to shoot through light armor?
I suspect that the nature of the situation, with Iraqi allies closely intermingled with our troops makes counterintelligence extremely difficult. That, rather than not enough ineffective armor may be the problem.
Perhaps we may soon see Peter Jennings calling for armored mess halls.
You put enough rounds down range and one is bound to connect. That is why Auromatic Rifles have replaced muzzel loaders.
Stuart, yes we can backtrack the rocket launchers. Within a few meters. But that doesn’t really matter. A rocket launcher can be two boards nailed or tied together, 20 feet of wire and a battery. You can set it up in front of a school during recess. That takes 15 seconds or so. Cross the wires and jump back into the pick up and away you go. It takes 30 seconds to a few minutes to get the counterbattery fire back on that location, depending on how alert the gunners are. So the 155 rounds come down and the school becomes a pile of bricks and bodies. Young bodies. Thank about that for a minute.
War is a dynamic prosess. Both sides are fighting to win. What bothers me is that there were no patrols out and in the area. If you have ever seen one of the rockeys fired, you would understand. Anyone within miles knows about it. Loud, bright and most leave a smoke trail from the Rocket motor. Why wasn’t there a Patrol close enough to get to the site immediatly? Between this and the Armour brewhaha, I wonder about the Army developing a bunker mentality. It also shows thathe command structure was not up to the task. It was the Stryker brigade that got hit, which to me means the commander is a “perfumed Prince”, not a warrior or Leader. He should be relieved of command.
The US Army is neck deep in Colonels. Find one that understands staff work. Commanding the Stryker units is a ‘plum’ assignment. All the political officers want those jobs. Find a Mech Battalion S-2 with some combat time and promote him into the job.
While there is no way to prevent the enemy from getting lucky, you can increase the degree of difficulty and make sure that they get dead shortly after they get lucky. Marines are not clustering in Mess halls, but eating MRE’s in their tracks. Hot meals are good, but the Mess line has been a target for the last several centuries. Trust me, Army food isn’t worth dying for.
The problem of getting hot food to the men in a combat zone was solved centuries ago. The Unit commander is an incompetant fool and needs to be booted.
One Hand Clapping(Link) links to a report(Link) which says the jihadis are claiming it was a suicide bomber, which is a possibility if Arabs were working in the mess tent, and the article points out that FOB Merez is used by both US troops, and Iraqi interim security forces. I haven’t heard about very many Iraqis donning bomb vests, though it is possible that some other nationality got hold of a uniform and got inside the wire somehow.
His most recent post states that that mess tent had already been under mortar attack 30 times this year, and the a concrete bunker was under construction to replace it.
Listen you are missing the point, It wouldnt be cost effective to actually put armor & defences, anyway 19 US soldiers, so what? it’s a tiny drop in the ocean of blood that has been shed in this “war”.
The US lost in Vietnam because they are shit at fighting, it’s as simple as that. All the US does is get the most expensive bits of kit they can & shove as many young men as possible behind it then usually end up killing their own. thats what happens when you combine inexperienced kids with highly devastating equipment. Try reading The Art of War before you go into combat & then you might actually win a war. Perhaps bother to (as the Vietcong did rather succesfully) observe your enemies culture & use strategy, I know it sounds radical.
No, it sounds stupid. Stick to what you know (whatevere that is, it aint military affairs)
-I know it sounds radical
-No, it sounds stupid. Stick to what you know (whatevere that is, it aint military affairs)
Well I have to hand it to you, the guys that are handling military affairs are obviously doing a great job. No armor, outdated equipment, giant marquees as bases, bombing civilians & torture, a war that’s panning out indefinately, turning moderates into radicals.
You didnt point out any flaws in my argument so I’m guessing you either don’t know that much about military affairs yourself or you have trouble forming any sort of argument.
Stick to what you think you know & never question it because you obviously have no idea whats going on in the real world.
Mursfo, U.S. forces did rather well in Afghanistan, if I recall. Avoid hasty generalisations.
on a more general point, what do people think will happen in the iraqi elections next month?
it seems that the moderate & radical Shi’ite parties have formed an alliance and the two Kurdish parties (despite their history of feuding) are forming a coalition as well.
given that the terrorism (in general) is coming from Sunni grps and it is Sunni parties that have called fora boycott; it looks like the new parliament is going to not really represent the 20-30% of the people that are sunni Arabs.
Some left-wing commentators think the Communists [who were a major party in Iraq pre-Saddam] might do well; but that depends on whether they can convince poor Shias to vote for them rather than religious parties. [Harry’s place is currently singing the praises of the ICP and is painting them as a positive alternative to the grim forces of religious conservatives].
I think that it looks likely that the Shi’ites will be able to get an absolute majority come Jan 31. The real dispute will then be within the Shi’ite alliance – between moderate (pro-American?) and radical (pro-Iranian?) forces. As one who is skeptical of the US keeping to its professed wish to spread freedom and democracy to other states, i strongly suspect that the US will sideline this new parliament etc if the Shi’ite MPs elected do not do their bidding. We could then see an uprising that makes the present one look mild. At the moment it is mainly Sunni extremeists and ex-Ba’athists who are fighting. Most radical Shi’ites are biding their time to see if they can have a big role in the Shi’ite alliance after the elections. If they don’t and if the Americans try and sideline them, then i think there will be a bigger insurgency.
The Shi’ites are guaranteed to win the elections. That is just fine with the Sunni insurgents. I do not think they are trying to stop the elections. Shi’ite domination of Iraqi government allows them to say to Iraqi Sunnis, and all Arab Sunnis, “Join the resistance or submit to the will of Shi’ite heretic puppets of Iran.”
The Election will NOT have any immediate affect. Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War. For some reason this scares the Pentagon. The CIA loves it, they know that Civil Wars are kool when you have all the cards in your hand. And now that Goss has cleaned out some of the dead wood down on Turkey Run, I’m sure that the USA will pick the side that is gonna win and give them the help they need. Big Sis ( Atollaha Sistini) has discovered that Religous authority and AC-130 gunships will get you more then religous authority alone. Big Sis seems to be happy as the power behind the throne, which gives hope for rotating throne warmers. This might be an ideal compromise between western beliefs in democracy and it’s incompatability with Islam;
(Link)
Up front it looks like a liberal democracy, while in the back room there is a strong man pulling the strings. The USA had this sort of democracy for decades during the 19th century.
Of, course Condi has to clear out the old farts at State, so they can get back to playing the diplomatic game of “Which shell has the pea under it?” that the Popoli (sp?) likes so much.
The Battle of Iraq part of the War on Terror is about won. The violence will peak in March or April and then taper off as Iraq figutres out where it’s priorites lay. Once the Sunni’s figure out that it is to their advantage to have the American out of Iraq and the best way to get them out is to stop fighting, they will. Then the US can get on to the next part of the WoT.
That debate is raging now, behind closed doors. That is why President Bush is going to Europe right after he is Inaugerated. We need to see if Iran and Syria are next up, or if it’s France and Germany. I expect that the Frencch and the Germans are not aware that they are going to be judged by President Bush.
nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam
Old Europe is caught between a rock and a hard spot. The US can help them out, IF WE WANT TO. The Last time German unemployment hit the levels it is at now, a guy name Hitler was ELECTED. Europe may have forgotten, America hasn’t. A conflict between the USA and Old Europe won’t be along military lines. It will be economic. The EU cannot win. To compete, they will have to get rid of their Socialist welfare state, which is what America wants anyway. So Europeans need to be very nice to President Bush. He holds the future of the EU in his hands and I hope that pisses off a bunch of Europeans. I hope the French are foaming at the mouth and biting themselves by the time he comes back to the States.
Lost Vietnam? True. Shit at fighting? It’s kind of hard to do any fighting when all of one’s troops went home a couple of years beforehand.
The Paris Accords left significant areas of South Vietnamese territory under control of the enemy, and by the way, the Viet Cong weren’t that big a factor after 1969. The North attempted a conventional invasion in 1973, and were repulsed by the South, with a little help from Strategic Air Command, and some troopers from the First Cavalry Division.
After a couple years passed, along with the Nixon Administration, and the Soviet Union made good the North’s grievous materiel losses suffered in ’73, the North invaded again, with a tank army larger than the one Hitler used to attack Poland. This time, there were no American formations in country, and the Congress of the United States stained the reputation of the US forever by cutting off funding to an ally in a mortal struggle for its’ existence. At the end ARVN troops were rationed twenty rounds of rifle ammunition a day, and were washing and re-using sterile dressings.
Abandoning the RVN caused a lot of problems for the US over the next few decades, such as increased Communist aggression around the world, and questions raised by our own allies about what an American security guarantee is worth.
Mursfo, would you mind stating what you consider to be the benefits of the Coalition forces cutting and running from Iraq? Thank you.
Mursfo needs to actually read up on military history, and on recent events instead of repeating little mantras. Militarily, the US won the combats in Vietnam handily, try reading up on the military events of the Tet offensive for example. However, politically, the US lost the war.
On the comment in the original post regarding the Ardennes offensive by the Germans in late 1944, calling for the head of Bradley would have made more sense. Eisenhower gave a good deal of local autonomy, as well he should, to his major commanders, and Bradley’s forces were very badly deployed at the time. He was intending to attack across the Rohr river, but could not until the threat of the germans opening the dams was past. This was not going to happen for some time, yet Bradley continued to have his forces in position to attack at that point while leaving the Ardennes sector seriously under-garrisoned. He compaunded the problem by being too slow to react to the offensive, and by not having any reserves in place, then by trying to hold ground at the expense of accumulating reserves. Montgomery got a lot of criticism for his comments afterwards, but he at least had a strategic overview, and could see that as long as there were reseves and forces available to protect the Allied supply lines that ran through Belgium, the German offensive would never be a serious threat. Eisenhower was right to appoint him to be in overall command in the Northern sector although he also took a lot of politically oriented criticism from US sources at the time. Bradley especially took it very badly, as he probably should as it reflected on his poor performance.
” The US lost in Vietnam because they are shit at fighting,”
Traditionally, from the Revolution on, the US has been devastatingly effective at fighting. Small numbers of US troops and militia have repeatedly won against much larger foe. The British will recall a certain battle near New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812. In Vietnam the US Army won 9 out of every 10 battels it fought against the NVC. That war was lost politically, not militarily.
Slowly we are in fact winning in Iraq. The increasing desperation of the enemy is obvious. They know they have lost, and they are simply trying to take as many down with them as they can.
http://powerlineblog.com/ has the goods on the reality about shortages and other criticisms of the Iraqi phase of the wot in its fisking of Andrew Sullivan’s arguments.
OK shit at fighting was a bit harsh. Perhaps I should’ve said inefficient. For the amount the Iraq war has cost thus far the US could have given every Iraqi citizen $6750. thats every man woman & child. I’m sure for that they would have willingly helped overthrow Saddam & welcomed the US to pillage their oil.Perhaps If the US (as I think I’ve already pointed out) had finished the job when they had Iraqi’s lining up to help overthrow Saddam in the first Gulf war & also had international backing instead of leaving them to be massacared or to become refugees in Iran. Or perhaps if they hadnt trained & armed Hussein (& Bin Laden for that matter) when they were meddling in the affairs of the Middle east way back when there would’nt be a question of cutting or running. There is more to fighting than having the biggest guns. Strategy is long term. Ask any martial artist & he’ll say the best way to win a fight is to avoid it. the art of fighting without fighting.
As for Vietnam the cost for every US killed was far lower than the cost of every VC killed.