The first thing that needs to be done is that the borders with Iran and Syria need to be locked down. This will require two divisions of integrated infantry/armor. The Army's 3rd and 4th Divisions fit the bill. Both divisions would then have to be supported by a minimum of one squadron each of Spectre gunships, Apache attack helicopters and A-10 close support aircraft. The armor units, with the infantry in support, would engage any, and every, enemy group attempting to gain entry into Iraq. When these enemy insurgents are caught in the open the attendant aircraft would then kill them without mercy. If terrorists were killed just inside either Syria's or Iran's borders, so be it. It is important that the flow of insurgents and material support be stopped as completely as possible. The cost of attempting entry into Iraq across either border must become so high as to be prohibitive. Without this action no stabilzation is possible.
Once the borders are closed to insurgent reinforcements, US Army and Marine infantry, as well as combat-ready Iraqi Army units, could begin the push from the interior of Iraq. In a classic hammer and anvil action, conducted on a large scale, the American and Iraqi units would relentlessly push the Sunni insurgents, al-Qaeda forces and Baathist holdovers back toward the borders, and smash them on the anvil of the 3rd and 4th Infantry. Both infantry divisions boast high-profile Medal of Honor recipients, Audie Murphy from the 3rd and Teddy Roosevelt Jr from the 4th. Neither unit will shirk the responsibility, and both divisions will comport themselves like the tigers they are. The line will hold in the face of the undisciplined terrorists who run into it. The fighting would be ferocious, aggressive and bloody, but more so for the enemy, which would be treated to a "no quarter asked, none given" type of warfare to which they are unaccustomed. It is an unassailable fact that when actual battles are fought our troops always win. It will be no different here. The added bonus will be that the accompanying Iraqi units will earn respect and confidence. The majority of these Iraqi forces, once bloodied, will learn the invaluable lessons that cannot be taught through rehearsal. Some of the Iraqi troops will have no stomach for it, but those who do will eventually become the much-needed NCO corps of the still nascent Iraqi Army. The majority of Coalition casualties have been from IEDs, not major engagements. We would take casualties, to be sure, but this type of action would reward the aggressive, highly disciplined nature of both our Army and Marine infantry. With the Sunni insurgency thus destroyed or rendered, at the very least combat ineffective, the political situation could then be addressed.
At this point, the Sunni insurgency would be largely destroyed. We could then turn our attention to the Army of the Mahdi. An American surge, coordinated with Iraqi Army units, could then push into Sadr City and the other problematic neighborhoods of Baghdad. It would be bloody, door-to-door fighting and the US Marines would have to bear the brunt of the action. The Marines are, by nature and design, "shock troops." Need a beach taken? Need a perimeter breakout? Call the Marines. This would be the Marines' beach. Invoke the name of Chesty Puller and the Marines will fight like caged lions. Fighting this way would best utilize the Marines as a force, and give the Iraqi Army units a reason to stand and fight. Soldiers the world over will fight for their flag, but they die for their friends. I have no reason to believe the Iraqi soldiers are any different. The Devil Dogs would have to be unleashed for the operation to succeed. If enemy forces, of any stripe, seek shelter inside buildings, and that includes mosques, the full weight of American firepower should be brought to bear. We should not sacrifice a squad of brave Americans or Iraqis to neutralize a sniper hiding inside any building. Any structure used as cover or concealment should be unhesitatingly destroyed by all available means; several high-explosive shells fired from an Abrahams tank would end most engagements. The Geneva Accords are very specific on the illegal use of religious houses of worship, and it is high time we recognized that. In the long run, denying the enemy safe harbor, at the expense of infrastructure, will save American military and Iraqi civilian lives. On Sherman's March to the Sea he laid waste to the Southern countryside with very little loss of Union or, for that matter, Confederate, life. This had the effect of breaking the backbone of Southern resistance, and it will work in Iraq equally well. We have paid too much attention to buildings, cultural sensitivities and our public image. The American military and Iraqi civilians have paid the price for that misguided policy.
Once Muqtada al-Sadr's militia is fully engaged, Prime Minister Maliki will be able to publicy denounce al-Sadr for the thug that he is. With the Sunni insurgency on the run and the Shiite militias being crushed the democratically elected Iraqi government will be able to stand on it's own and make the tough decisions necessary to stabilize the country; that includes the arrest and trial of any group in armed defiance of the government. If any group, or it's members, attempt to resist arrest through armed revolt they will be terminated. The Iraqi National Police could then be purged of the bad apples. Local communities could begin to constitute their own police forces, which would be beholden to their citizenry, and not the local warlord. Business as usual would cease, and Iraqi civillians could begin to go about their daily lives without fear of retribution for collaboration. They would also be free from indiscriminate bombings designed to foment sectarian strife.
While all this ground action is going on, al-Qaeda would probably attempt to divert resources through a terror campaign. This could manifest itself in any number of ways. That is why it is important that the USS Eisenhower and its battle group be tasked with rapid response to any threat in the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The Ike, and her guided missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines would have to be reinforced, at least temporarily. The battle group would have to have, at least two guided-missile cruisers, two to three guided-missile destroyers and one ASW frigate, as well as her normal two attack submarines. Any attempt to close the Straits and/or sabotage oil platforms, refineries, and pipelines would have to be met with immediate, overwhelming force. This means, if necessary, helicopter insertions by the Marine forces and lightning quick retaliation against any attempt to attack oil tankers. The protection of international sea-lanes has always been the primary mission of the US Navy, and they are good at it; better, in fact, than anyone in the world when they are allowed to do it.
My airborne qualified friends are by now, no doubt, wondering how I have left the 82nd and 101st out of the fight thus far. Those two units would have to remain on alert as a rapid response force. Their "light" nature would best be utilized whenever and wherever a little extra muscle was needed. If the 3rd or 4th Divisions need some assistance drop in a brigade of paratroopers to give them a quick boost. Marines a little out-numbered in Anbar, or while defending a port from terrorists? Nothing like death from above to cause a reversal in fortune. My grandfather, a veteran of the 82nd and Merrill's Marauders in WWII, would tell the story of an 82nd Airborne specialist. During the Battle of the Bulge, US forces were retreating en masse before the German Panzers. A US tank commander heading away from the "bulge" noticed a soldier digging in alongside a road . When the tank commander questioned what in the hell the specialist thought he was doing the response he received in reply was, "Sir, I'm 82nd Airborne and this is as far as the bastards are going." Thus chastened, the tank commander turned his tank command around, and the line held. The 82nd and the 101st have earned their reputations. Involving the paratroopers as a quick reaction force will give them ample opportunity to showcase why that reputation is so well deserved.
This will not be a 100 hour series of engagements. The border phase would take at least 6 weeks, and maybe as long as 10 to 12 weeks. The hammer and anvil component, in conjunction with the push into the Shiite neighborhoods currently dominated by the militias will take roughly the same amount of time. We are, therefore, looking at a minimum of 6 months of major combat. I know some of the opponents to the war will trot out the old "Mission Accomplished" photos and decry the further loss of life. The UN will assuredly hold conferences, and the French will wring their hands at the lack of humanity involved. Cindy Sheehan will call our fighting men terrorists, Hugh Chavez will label it imperialist aggression, and The New York Times will gleefully report it all. We, as a nation, will have to ignore them all. We will have to respond to the nightly news footage of dead and dying Americans with the bitter resolve our grandparents did during World War II. We will have to flood any lawmaker with phone calls who dared to suggest a pull-out or cut-off of funds to our troops, until the deeds were good and truly done.
The end result would be a relatively stable Iraq able to support the assured growing pains any democracy must endure. Without daily suicide bombings and IEDs to distract them, the civilian administration branches of our uniformed military could then do what they do best; train police, build roads, repave airfields, etc. The Marshall Plan worked specifically because then retired General Marshall utilized military and civilian forces in coordinated projects. He did not see the plan to reconstitute war-devastated Europe purely as Secretary of State, but rather as a general overseeing the military improvising, adapting and overcoming all obstacles. It would be no different in Iraq. Without the daily threats of terrorim, job creation would accelerate, oil pipelines would begin to operate at near capacity, and the Iraqi government could go about its bureacratic business. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not going away. The exit strategy for Iraq is either we win and rebuild the country, or lose and fight somewhere else on as grand a scale as Iraqi Freedom, soon. The Islamists see the United States as a "paper tiger" to use bin Laden's words. If we prove them wrong in Iraq, continue to assist Afghanistan with its problems, fill in the military gaps for countries like Ethiopia as they battle Islamic extremists, all while taking the fight to terorists in lightning fast raids whenever they rear their heads, we can make both our country and the world a better, safer place.
Peace only works when both sides want it. Islamic terrorists have no reason to want peace, while shedding the blood of innocent people gets their demands heard and met. We must show the al-Qaedas of the world what the force of democracy means, and it must be merciless. No sympathy was shown for Emperor Hirohito. No tears were shed for Hitler. We must make those who would destroy us pay, and pay dearly every time they attack us. It must be done now in Iraq, so that we do not have to fight on a larger scale a generation from now. I do not expect that my plan will be the one the President puts forth tomorrow night. I doubt he will have the time to read my blog today, but I hope that tonight's speech has elements closer to mine than to those elucidated by Rep. Murtha or Sen. Feingold. The plan I have laid out is not chimerical, nor are the threats to our country. My plan for victory is strategic in nature. Tactical decisions must be made by the commanders on the ground. The field commanders must know that if they do not achieve their objectives they will be immediately replaced by their deputies. It worked for Patton, and it will work in Iraq. If the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen know we, as a nation, are behind them, they will succeed. Many have accused President Bush of being a trigger-happy cowboy. Well, my heroes have always been cowboys. I just hope that tonight the President is more Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral than JR Ewing on the North Forty. All our lives depend on it, whether we wish it so or not.
View My Milblogging.com Profile
3 comments:
Thank you for this--you're thoroughness and level of detail are to be particularly commended.
What you suggest reminds me of our tactics in the 2nd Battle of Fallujah, only on a national scale. There, we circled the city then applied a street-to-street "hammer" that drove the vermin across the river that runs through the city and then up against our "anvil" on the other side. I remember reading that Belmont Club (see HERE & HERE) or someone had a detailed account of how we fought, very successfully, there.
You rightly address the borders--and as a top priority. I think you also need to ponder a way in which we could address what VDH calls the "denial of culpability" on the part of Iran & Syria. That is, they "survive" as funders of terror because we don't do more to expose them for what they are and educate the American public on the
So, tactically, CO's must give priority to capturing, killing, &/or somehow documenting Iranian agents that we encounter during operations. Then, Gen. Petraeus must showcase this evidence in his daily press briefings.
Which brings me to my final point: somebody (Petraeus?) needs to "do a Schwarzkopf" over there. I mean that they need to be put a personal, savvy face to this offensive. This will educate the American people on the fact that we (a) are really at war, (b) doing something about the insurgents (not just sitting back and "taking it") and (c) start the work of educating them (as we should have done in 2002-3) that we are in a regional war that involves the Iranian Mullah's and the Syrians.
I'm sure I have more...like a Naval posture that will increase pressure on the Iranians to get the hell out of Iraq by blockading their shipping, etc. (you are clearly thinking along these lines as well).
I accidentally truncated one paragraph of my comments...it's important, so here's the whole thing:
> You rightly address the borders--and as a top priority. I think you also need to ponder a way in which we could address what VDH calls the "denial of culpability" on the part of Iran & Syria. That is, they "survive" as funders of terror because we don't do more to expose them for what they are and educate the American public on their role as "the terror masters". This is so crucial for exposing the roots of the regional problem and for reversing the tide propaganda that says that we, the US, started this whole thing.
That's probably the smartest assessment of the situation I've seen anywhere. Including my time on the ground in Iraq (and my time with the Joint Staff, and at HQ SOCOM, and at the Defense Intel Agency...).
Post a Comment