Question prompted by the recent apparent suicide bombing in Iraq . . . .

Mess hall blast was suicide bomb

How would you assess the security for our troops in Iraq since the start of the war in March of 2003? Excellent? Good? Bad? Negligent? Something Else?

In a word - Fair

Our most serious problem is, it's difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys - they pretty much look the same. Also, with terrorists coming in and supported from outside Iraq and the borders not sealed off (extremely difficult to do), it's hard to keep track.

As a DAV (USAF) with front-line ground combat experience, although I support our action in Iraq, I would have prosecuted it differently.

Our initial invasion was swift and decisive, however, once we got to Bagdah, I would have surrounded the city with armored infantry supported by attack helicopters armed to the teeth. Then, section by section gone through the city securing it piece by piece - any resistance, oh well - meet Allah. Once the city was secured, move in NGO's for humanitarian purposes, maintained a curfew for a while, and had armored patrols on a regular basis. And then continued this process throughout the country.

General George S. Patton:
"We as attackers have the initiative, ... We must retain this tremendous advantage by always attacking rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, and without rest."

“Always take the offensive...Never Dig in."

General Tommy Franks:
"If we get people who want to give up, we take them, If we get people who do not want to give up, we kill them."

General Norman Schwarzkopf:
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."

"Accommodate him."

IMHO, what we need to do is:
1 - ensure our troops have all the armored vehicles they need,
2 - start pulling troops from other inconsequential deployments and reassign them to Iraq to bolster our strength, and initiate a proper rotation
3 - assign the troops necessary ie: Security Forces to patrol the cities allowing our combat troops more freedom in the field, etc.

How would you assess the security for our troops in Iraq since the start of the war in March of 2003? Excellent? Good? Bad? Negligent? Something Else?

Fair. Essentially, the troops can never be totally safe unless they would be removed from all urban areas, placed in the middle of the desert, with clear fields of fire around them, and to disallow the hiring of Iraqi nationals to work on the camps.

That's unfortunately not feasible or practical, as we would be surrendering the population centers to the terrorists, as happened in Vietnam. The Americans owned the day and the VC owned the night.



In reply:
1. Agreed, though I would not rely on HMMWV's that were not designed to be armored in the first place. More LAV's and Strykers would be nice, but production can only crank out so many, and would they be in time?
2. Agreed, we have just closed out our Bosnia mission (Yay!), we need to do the same with the MFO in Sinai. The Army at least already has a coherent rotation schedule that makes sense. I can't speak for the other services.
3. Again speaking for the Army, the combat troops are the security forces. Unless we had an overnight increase in the thousands of Military Police, there is no other option except turning the support guys into patrollers. They already guard their camps, provide Quick reaction forces (QRF) and do their day job. I'm not sure we can task them for anymore.

Apparently, Stormin' Norman doesn't think we're doing enough to facilitate insurgent rendezvous with their maker. Here's a quote from a recent Hardball:



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6708495/

Of course I don't have a military background or firsthand experience, and I think this was a misguided war that contradicts the major goals it set out to accomplish, . . . But considering the fact that their have been insurgents at work in Iraq since March of 2003 trying to probe and find the weak spots of our troops I think the security for troops has been pretty darn good. In this I do not mean out on operations or in convoys. (feel free to continue to use these activities in your assessments I didn't constrain the range of security in my opening question)

If I recall accurately the worst similar episode like this happened in Kuwait in the first weeks of the war when an American soldier threw a grenade or grenades into a command tent.

Considering such an attack must have been on the minds of enemies of the US occupation all along, and considering the difficulty of providing all services for the armed forces without relying on any civilian and local employees, it seems that we must have been doing a pretty darn good job of providing security to not have had such an attack up to this point.

Our 100-150K in personnel over there are considered fair targets by some, and they have had ample time to study the systems and try to plan out such attacks.

Of course, the recent track record is horrible, but I am surprised that such a thing had not yet happened.

Based on these unscientific observations I give the security a good rating.

being iraq is around as large as california and has millions of people in it, i find that security is not much as an issue as how long they may have to be around to do whatever it is. I read stars and stripes and its pretty much the same thing with highlights here and there. So not knowing the variable of how exactly the insurgents conduct business is going to hurt on saying how well our security is doing. Being it seems the insurgents can strike anywhere at anytime would say the have the upper hand and each day will be a repeat of this. Then you have to deal with such things as like the attack in mosul, and that the conflict for the most part takes place in residential urban environments, which goes off into another thread i would imagine.

I hear that the mortar attacks of bases is a regular thing, so on with ieds and just in general the overall ambush type nurture of it all. I dont think any equipment is going to make such better, save you can filed divisions with training for such a mission, that have strykers at their disposal, and even then it just comes down to the foot soldier deal. I find its like how we fight crime in the states, its the pattern you make and or using any advantage the enemy gives you, or even how the cold bug continues to plauge humans in a certain aspect. If you have to run a convoy to another point, that means at sometime people you may want to kill will be in that area, and being i doubt we could amass enough troops to make a ratio of even 10 iraqis to one coalition soldier, it just makes such even easier to do. I am all for equipment being rushed to the troops, but i am also for finding out when this whole thing that makes troops needed over there is going to maybe come to an end or such, or what they are even doing for that matter anymore.

My rating of security is moderate, then again i am missing all kinds of data to make a scientific position on it, or find data really, and most likely i am bias in some form anyways.

I think worsening would be the best adjective. As the US military starts to intergrate more Iraqi troops into its forces, I think more of these inside attacks will occur. There is evidence that the insurgents have infiltrated the newly trained Iraq security forces.

Also the longer our troops are there, the more time insurgents will have to develop their strategies and attack tactics. I talked to a soldier who was stationed near a highway who said that the mortar attacks were getting closer and closer. He said that they had a defense system which fired back at the missile source, but that they never hit anything since the insurgents would always fire than move, never staying in the same place to get hit.

Thank you very much for your comments, and I am glad to see we agree.

1 - I would think that we should have a pretty hefty supply of armored personnel carriers in Europe that are no longer needed for NATO that could be shipped to Iraq. Am I mistaken??

2 - Again, looking at troop deployments in Europe, IMHO, why can't we transfer some of those units to Iraq to bolster our forces???

3 - Yes we do need to increase our Military Police (Army), and I think it's still the Air Police (Air Force) in order to release more troops into combat. And I agree, we can't over task our troops and still keep battle ready efficiency as well.

Thanks, I have seen Stormin Norman on a couple of TV interviews, and IMHO, he is correct. My reason for using the quotes that I did was that I agreed with what was stated and in support of my comment:

"As a DAV (USAF) with front-line ground combat experience, although I support our action in Iraq, I would have prosecuted it differently.

Our initial invasion was swift and decisive, however, once we got to Bagdah, I would have surrounded the city with armored infantry supported by attack helicopters armed to the teeth. Then, section by section gone through the city securing it piece by piece - any resistance, oh well - meet Allah. Once the city was secured, move in NGO's for humanitarian purposes, maintained a curfew for a while, and had armored patrols on a regular basis. And then continued this process throughout the country."

If I'm not mistaken, this is what Colin Powel also subscribes to - use the power of overwhelming force to ensure that enemy contact is totally on our terms, with the least number of casualties to our side.

A couple of my Vet friends have a more direct approach, which kind of goes with what General Curtis LeMay once stated - Nuke Em. However, that won't really solve the problem, just make it worse.

It's damn near impossible to separate the good guys from the bad when it comes to building the Iraqi defense forces. I'm sure some of them know who the insergents are, but are afraid for their families to speak up.

I do strongly feel that we need to shut down the borders in order to minimize the nember of these fanatics who are getting into Iraq, and to cut off their supply routes. We can let the Interum Government concern itself with domestic matters, but when it comes to security - we have to be in total control and do whatever it takes to destroy these terrorists.

Concerning APC's. Most mech units in the Army, much less Europe, are Bradley's. There are M113's to be sure, but not in the numbers that we had in the 80's. Operating a Brad takes some time and training, and one hell of a logistics trail.

The units in Europe have been rotating through Iraq at the same pace as stateside formations, and bringing their armored vehicles with them. We simply don't have a lot of 'spares' lying around.

The same with Military Police. All of the Active, Guard and Reserve MP units are rotating over also....some for the second time already. Unfortunately we can't snap our fingers and make more appear.

There seems to be no easy answer for increasing security in Iraq, other than three options:
1-elections....democracy...insurgency withers on the vine.
2-Withdrawl of US forces...and come what may for the Iraqi's.
3-Across the board offensive operations like we haven't seen since the start of OIF.......and possible repercussions that we really don't need.

On a related note from the NYT:

First, thank you for the info update as I wasn't quite sure of the particulars.

Second, I lay the blame for most of our military problems with the last administration, namely Bill Clinton. During his eight years he unconsconably decimated all branches, while commiting our Armed Forces to more deployments and demanding they do more with less, for example:

http://www.clw.org/milspend/dodbud97.html
FISCAL 1997 MILITARY BUDGET AT A GLANCE
5. FORCE LEVELS IN FY 1997 BUDGET
10 Active Army divisions (down from 18 in 1990)
42 Army Reserve component brigades (down from 57 in 1990)
3 Active & 1 Reserve Marine Corps divisions
11 Deployed aircraft carriers & 1 trainer/reserve (down from 15 and 1 in 1990)
357 Battle force ships (down from 546 in 1990)
10 Active and 1 reserve Navy carrier air wings (down from 13 and 2 in 1990)
3 Active and 1 reserve Marine Corps air wings
13 Active & 7 reserve Air force fighter wings (down from 24 and 12 in 1990)

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19536.html
MARCH 29, 1999
The excrement of propaganda
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
From 1946 to 1991 the United States of America deployed military troops to eight foreign campaigns. From 1992 to the present (The Clinton reign), the United States of America has deployed military troops to 33 foreign places.
• 709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel
• 293,000 reserve troops
• Eight standing army divisions
• 20 air force and navy air wings with
• 2,000 combat aircraft
• 232 strategic bombers
• 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with
• 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles
• 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads
• Four aircraft carriers
• 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.

All of the above are GONE ... history ... they have been attired by the Bill Clinton "Reduction in Force" from the military of the United States of America. A foreign enemy did not destroy those significant assets. They were not combat losses. Those military assets have been eliminated by civilian political policy wonks.

IMHO, if our military had not been destroyed as shown above and maintained at the levels they were before Clinton took out the scissors, we would be in much better shape today in manpower end-strength, weapons systems, armored combat vehicles, support logistics, etc.

I agree that the Iraqi's must really start to take control of their country, however, for the time being in the domestic arena: economics, agriculture, industry, etc. As far as the terrorist threat is concerned, yes we need to build up the Iraqi's Armed forces, but at this point in time we need to forceably take the bull by the horns and shorthairs, and as General Patton said "Attack, Attack and Attack" by going all out on the offensive preventing the terrorists from regrouping and cutting off their aid and escape routes.

How would you assess the security for our troops in Iraq since the start of the war in March of 2003? Excellent? Good? Bad? Negligent? Something Else?

Security for the US troops in Iraq is deteriorating, however security for the nascent Iraqi police force and army is practically non-existent. This is because the insurgency has been building up "steam"; all the signs point to the insurgency growing stronger not weaker. There are insufficient troops in Iraq to quell the insurgency, maintain security for the US facilities/soldiers/contractors, protect the Iraqi police/army, protect the provisional Iraqi authority/election commission, protect infrastructure and civilians all while somehow preventing civil war from breaking out. The US can definitely do one of those things, likely two of those things and possibly three of those things with the current troop strength.

Here's how I see it: in for a penny, in for a pound. If stabilization is ever to occur, the US must increase the troop number by a factor of 3. There is no other way. This blind optimism is getting the US troops and the nascent Iraqi civil authority killed.

Blaming Clinton for the security issues in Iraq seems a peculiar thesis. Afterall, I believe the current administration knew full-well US troop strength before choosing to invade and occupy Iraq. It wasn't Clinton's fault if he didn't anticipate this future usage of US military power. If the troop strength was deemed insufficient, then an aggressive recruitment campaign should have been started both before and after the Iraqi invasion. Should recruitment have proven insufficient, then a draft should have been instituted.

This is war. Soldiers will die even inside their own bases. People willing to kill themselves in order to kill soldiers will always have a tactical advantage over those soldiers. The insurgents are employing a very effective technique in sowing distrust between the US military and the Iraqi military. When there are insufficient US troops to do the job of stabilization, then the US must get help from whomever can provide it: the Iraqi military. If US soldiers can't trust Iraqi soldiers, what do you think will happen? Nothing good.

I don't support this war, but to not give the troops adequate armor is unconscionable. Is there anything that has gone "right" with this war. I pray for them because it isn't fair to send them out there like this. Think about it, if your kids or your family member was risking his or her life, would you want them to have armor that came from "wal-mart"

Speaking as someone who's wife just came back from a year in Iraq......can you explain the 'Wal-Mart armor'?
Better yet, can you name any units that went to Iraq without body armor period? Not the Interceptor armor that was being fielded at the time of OIF, but the kevlar armor that the Army had since the early 80'2?