Invasion and Victory

“The U.S. military is assembling a ground force for a possible invasion of Iraq that could exceed 100,000 troops and include three to four heavy Army divisions, an airborne division, a Marine division and an assortment of Special Operations forces, according to defense officials and analysts.” The Army has plans for a heavy invasion force, apparently (which is a relief). Toss in a British armored division and we have more than enough firepower to crush conventional Iraqi opposition in the open; and possibly fight off an Iranian intervention.

My relief that no “light” options are still on the table is balanced by the time it will take to get this force to the Gulf in order to invade. This size of a force seems to point to an invasion date well into February if not later. If Iraq is the only target, two heavy divisions are enough to destroy the Iraqi armor that might resist us and drive to Baghdad. If we are waiting for five American and British heavy divisions, we are either being overly cautious regarding Iraq or fearful of Iranian intervention.

Or, we are seeking tactical surprise by lining up a huge invasion force in a pipeline all the way back to Germany and then America, so that everybody will be waiting for the last troops shipping from America to arrive.

We could gain tactical surprise by attacking with what is at the front of the pipeline. What is at the back would be ready to roll either to the Gulf in case the war widens; or to South Korea much faster than we could otherwise accomplish if they sat in their bases.

North Korea is already trying to exploit our war with Iraq and it is possible that Iran will see a lesson in that and figure they can smother domestic unrest with a stab at the “Great Satan.”

It seems to me that we need more infantry rather than more armor if we are to fight our way into Baghdad. Maybe one or two of the heavy divisions cited will never go; but infantry units that nobody is mentioning will be airlifted in instead. Shoot, maybe everything is as the papers are reporting. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

Iraq’s main hope is to prevent our war machine from rolling over them. Once we start, we won’t stop until we take Baghdad. We give our enemies too much time. Time to increase our casualties and time to distract us.

Assuming victory, it is good that we plan for an occupation of Iraq to purge it of Saddam’s thugs, uproot the WMD programs, and get the country on its feet. I don’t see what choice we have. Hopefully, we can draw down to minimal conventional forces in a relatively brief period of time.

One thought on invasion: Could reports of increased Saudi cooperation mean our heavy armor will make the main effort out of northern Saudi Arabia? A couple roads heading north out of Saudi Arabia toward Baghdad could be used for two heavy divisions. Equipment in Kuwait could be moved fairly quickly to jump off points there. A minor thrust out of Jordan could be all that is needed from that direction to open up that road as a supply line. The 101st might airlift from Germany right into captured airfields in the west seized either by the ground invasion, paratroopers, or the lead brigade of the 101st if it can make a long helicopter assault into western Iraq from Kuwait. The northern thrust with the Turks and 10th Mountain would not need to change, nor would the feint by a phantom V Corps out of Kuwait heading north via Nasiriyah or the Marine/British capture of Basra. I’m just speculating, but months ago some unnamed military official said our invasion plan was imaginative; and everything public seems to point to a relatively plain sledgehammer launched from Kuwait. That just can’t be right. We used a left hook to go around the Iraqis in 1991 to go right for the Republican Guards that were the Iraqi center of gravity. Now it makes more sense for an even wider left hook to bypass the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers valley to strike directly at Baghdad out of the west.

On to Baghdad, hopefully before the Blix report.