50,000 Troops can save Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jonwilly, Jan 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. in a while they will disengage from iraq, 'peace with honour' (deja voo!)

    and in a few years the 'son of rambo' series of movies will come out to show all just how 'we wernt allowed to win' because of the UN.
     
  2. too little too late again! Sending more conventional troops will never work as they invariably end up creating more insurgents. Plus as they try and dominate the ground, the insurgents will just melt away (after being tipped off by local officials-SCU in Basrah anyone?) and resurface once the troops have gone.
    Really liked the article's statement of how it's all been great in Basrah and Britmil's actions have subdued the locals 8O . keegan's on a different planet if he believes that one! Oh yes, the brits are really in control down in basrah..... :roll:
    it went pete tong a long time ago due to fukd up policies and wallpapering the cracks will do no good here.
     
  3. He's a lame duck. He'll not be allowed to send in more troops. The game is up.
     
  4. I'm surprised by John Keegan, whose views I normally respect. Whilst there is a (fairly strong) argument for more resources across the board, he seems to suggest that 'conventional' application of force will win the day ie more of the same. It is this thinking that has manifestly failed so far. How are you going to undertake massive armoured assaults on the enemy's bases, when those bases are the houses he lives in? This is the Israeli approach of using overwhelming force against the population, simply because you can, rather than because it works.

    Whilst there have been limited and local successes in the south by expressions of force (OP WATERLOO in Al Amarah being one), they have not achieved long lasting effects. The concept that Johnny Arab will 'respect' those who destroy his town and kill his mates, and thus return to peaceable existence seems a little weak in my mind. For every cowed individual there will be 10 angry ones clamouring to join the fight (I have heard first hand accounts of how even fairly trivial slights have led to Baswaris taking up arms against British troops). Sure, any force needs to be credible, and demonstrations have their place, but any consideration of human nature or history would not indicate that a population can be won over by what is effectively fear.
     
  5. Keegan really can't accept that he was wrong all along. He is the type who will say that the decision to invade was right but the post invasion plan was poorly executed by the Americans. Wrong wrong wrong. Do not invade and occupy, especially muslim land. Just admit it Mr Keegan, you made the wrong call. This was always going to go bad. The window of opportunity to withdraw from Iraq has been and gone, and now we are stuck in a terrible mess with no exit in sight.
     
  6. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    This just doesn't scan. John Keegan should have enough sense not to comment about the use of conventional troops against unconventional forces.

    and

    Oh come on. What are your targets? A civilian clad force in a civilian town with loads and loads of potential collateral targets.

    And the likelyhood of you having enough intelligence to attack a insurgent base/group before they bugger off and melt back in to the local populous? Practically nil. If I was an insurgent leader and these were the tactics, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee at this rubbish and saying "more targets coming, boys"

    John Keegan generally makes sense but this article and its v worrying journo generalship is frankly daft and smacks of living in a different world. Sad thing is, with his rep, some people may believe it.
     
  7. Many of the lessons learnt by TE Lawrence have been forgotten or more likely ignored. Are the Seven Pillars of Wisdom no longer read?
     
  8. nigegilb, as a matter of interest when was that "window of opportunity" to withdraw in your opinion?
     
  9. Military logic requires that any reinforcements should contain a sizeable number of armoured vehicles. Insurgents, though they have had some success in attacking tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, are not properly equipped to resist a heavily armoured enemy.

    The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.

    Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.
    The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.

    A recipe for a counterinsurgency triumph if ever there was one
     
  10. I dont like Keegan, he's another British neo-con wannabe. His analysis is a load of BS frankly, events in Iraq are too far gone for any military solution to be effective. Historians should stick to history, and avoid strategy.
     
  11. John Keegan seems to get more and more out of tune with the realities and the zeitgeist.

    Frankly the only people who can save Iraq is Iraq. Whether they choose to do it "western democracy" style-y is up to them but on balance I cannot think of a western democracy that I would recommend to anyone else.
     
  12. Not just Keegan, the Daily Telegraph has been out of kilter on Iraq from the beginning. IMO the coalition forces should have withdrawn when the interim Govt was set up or soon after the democratic elections. The West made the big mistake of interfering with true democracy in the beginning and insisted on their own puppet Govt. Iraq is never going to be a liberal democracy in the Western sense, but that probably wouldn't have gone down well with the electorate in US and UK. I increasingly feel that the electorate doesn't care any more. They just want the hell out. I don't see that as an option anymore. Blair and Bush have shown poor judgement throughout.

    29 December 2004

    Window of Opportunity in Iraq

    By Gwynne Dyer

    As the Bush administration often says, "failure is not an option"
    in Iraq. It is an accomplished fact. The initial US goals in invading the
    country are now completely unattainable, and the remaining uncertainties
    are mostly to do with the timing of the American pull-out and the extent of
    US humiliation. But is it possible that the Bush administration has
    understood this, and is planning to declare a victory and leave within the
    next six months?

    A window of opportunity is about to open for an early American
    withdrawal from Iraq. It would involve a handover to an elected Iraqi
    government that will refuse to serve any of Washington's aims in the
    region, but will not insist on publicly humiliating the Bush administration
    on the way out. Will they have the wit to take the exit?

    President Bush continues to call all the anti-American resistance
    forces in Iraq "terrorists", thus implying that a withdrawal from Iraq
    would somehow mean a defeat in his "war on terror," but he is also starting
    to shift the blame for the mess there to the Iraqis themselves. "The
    American people are taking a look at Iraq and wondering whether the Iraqis
    are eventually going to be able to fight off these bombers and killers,"
    he said last week -- as if Iraqis were proving unworthy of the efforts that
    Americans have made to help them.

    The window of opportunity is the election of 30 January. The
    winner, barring a last-minute cancellation or massive fraud, will be the
    United Iraqi Alliance, a candidates' list sponsored by Grand Ayatollah Ali
    al-Sistani that includes all the strongest Shia parties and groups. Since
    60 percent of Iraq's people are Shia Arabs and many of the 15-20 percent
    Sunni Arab minority will not vote, this alliance will almost certainly win
    a majority in the 275-member national assembly and choose the new
    .government.
    The last line?
    It probably won't happen, in which case things will go from bad to
    worse.


    Full article

    http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Window%20of%20Opportunity.txt
     
  13. Too little, too late. Rumsfeld screwed it up in 03 and there's no going back. In any case the militias know that the the US can't sustain that force level for long. If the pressure gets too much they will just keep their heads down until the US f#cks off.