The Iraq thread 3

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

ABC news link to the story has the video, here's the text

Quote[/b] ]The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

Ok, my mistake, but the fact remains as you can see from the video that the tractor was plowing the field. And it was not near any road, so that rules out the "planting explosives" option.

Great, thank you so now my Shamal term turns useless after all. Well done!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I can look up the webcast if anyone wants to see the documentary.  It was VERY VERY well done and had extensive interviews with Republican Guard commanders, some of whom gave very interesting insights into the conflict that any military person should be interested in hearing.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

DO IT!  ... something missing? aehm....please!

This is a good site by the way

looky looky!

[bn880 5]

It was very clear they were preparing a terorist attack, probably a road side bomb..or something. What they were throwing into the bush...maybe just an AA, maybe an AT, dont know!

Even IF, they could have been pro coalition. (not that I think they were doing what you suggest)

[miles teg 1]

Here's the website for that documentary on the Iraq invasion.  This is by far the most comprehensive and detailed documentary on the invasion that I've yet to see.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/

Below is the interview with that Republican Guard commander that I mentioned.  This guy was VERY interesting, a seemingly competent military commander, as well very sinister looking.  Hehehe... With his bald head and strange eyes, he looks the part of a Arab military commander (with a big gold earing he'd look like Sinbad).  Unfortunately however they only have a video sample of the entire show on the main page and not the entire documentary on webcast.   But hopefully soon they will. Below is a transcription of that interview with Lt. General Raad Al-Hamdani.

After reading the interview (it has more then what they actually showed on TV), I believe actually that this is the sort of man the US Army needs to put back into the Iraq Army (at least after they verify from soldiers formerly in his command and junior officers, that he's a good military leader).

The strategies he speaks of do not sound ludicrous or anything. However in my own opinion, I believe his and other Iraqi commander's decision to fight away from the cities was a big mistake when instead they should have been heavily fortifying the cities, turning Baghdad and other major cities into fortresses rather then thousands of fighting fighting positions out in the open desert. The Russian experiences in Grozny shows how difficult it is to take a well defended city where as in Baghdad it was mostly just the Fedayeen and some Republican Guard units that faught hard with what they had. The areas in which US forces saw the most casualties were in places of fierce urban combat like El-Nasariyah where apparently the Iraqis had some solders who knew how to carry out proper anti-armor ambushes.

At any rate, for me all of this is fascinating stuff as it really gets to the heart of the art of war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh....ad.html

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Very very interesting and unique interview. Thank you Miles Teg for posting it. I strongly recommend anybody remotely interested in the war to read it.

[quicksand 0]

This is a dream come true..I`ve been searching crazy for an interview from the Iraqi side,I`ve found some,but this is the first one that appears so authentic.

My opinion after reading this very emotional interview is that this persons were most unlucky to be fighting such an unbalanced war.In a diffrent war I think many of this guys would have ended with a hand full of medals

But their poor tactics and the lack of coordonation brought in the end their failure to plundge into a longer and more costly war for the Americans..Why haven`t they learned from many examples history gave us?I think the biggest mistake Iraqi Command made was not acknowledging from the beggining that this war was lost from millitary prospects from the beginning..Their aim should have been to frustrate their enemy. I am gonna give you one example:

What if they would have taken the Russian example from WW2 and layed delayed timed bombs on every potential HQ the enemy would use..This was a tremendous succes for the russians,killing high ranking Germans,would it have been conceivable to trigger bomb the most evident choices for HQ like the palaces?

But I guess Saddam was never ready to make such sacrifices during the war,the only thing that would have woke him up was if somebody told him where he`d find his miserable humiliating end..

[ran 0]

What if they would have taken the Russian example from WW2 and layed delayed timed bombs on every potential HQ the enemy would use..This was a tremendous succes for the russians,killing high ranking Germans,would it have been conceivable to trigger bomb the most evident choices for HQ like the palaces?

The first thing you do when you want to set up a HQ is to check for potential threats ranging from hidden explosives devices (timed bombs, remotely triggered ones, AP mines), marksmen who would have been left behind and all kinds of booby-traps and other bad surprises ... and you do that especially when the HQ will be the shelter of z General or any high-ranking officer, this implies a systematic and complete reasearch and checks in everypart of the said building.

That said, in a war situation, nowadays war leaders tend to avoid towns and cities since these places are either strategical targets for the defender or snipers/saboteurs nests for the attacker

[bn880 5]

Thanks for a good read Miles.

[miles teg 1]

True... but I've not heard of any of Saddams palaces being sabotaged in any significant manner.  False columns could have been built packed with explosives, along with false walls and things of that nature that could have been very difficult to detect.   But then again, these mostly would have been destroyed during much of the bombing perhaps.... and there is also the problem of actually detonating the explosives after the palaces are occupied by an invading force... which may be difficult...but not impossible.  

I wonder if military commanders in Iran and Syria are taking note?  If by some miracle things settle down in Iraq and stability takes hold, I imagine that Iran and/or Syria will be next on the hit list if Bush wins the next election.  It simply is the logical way to continue the Bush style of "war on terror" using preemptive invasions.

In fact there was alot of such talk right after the initial success of the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration.  It was only after it dawned on them that Iraq was going to take a LOOONG time to control that they realized that the American military simply did not have the manpower to invade and occupy any more countries as we were already occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq along with sizable forces in South Korea and other parts of the world.  After they realized this the talk of invading Syria and Iran diminished and the Bush administration took a more diplomatic attitude with these two countries.

What was interesting about the interview with Gen. Al-Hamdani was that he was well aware of the weakness of central command in the Iraqi army historically but that the structure of the Baath party political/military hierarchy really prevented military officers like himself from radically changing the system.  Other Middle Eastern countries face very similar problems and would likely face a similar fate as the Iraqi army against a modern Western military forces like what the US put forth in Iraq.  

With that said, Gen. Al-Hamdani seems like a very bright guy.  

If the American Iraqi administrators win the friendship of men like him (assuming their is nothing horrible in their past that they did under Saddam's regime), they could field a new Iraqi Army that could have real potential as a regional stabilization force.  This particular commander talks alot about honor and about his own shortcomings.  You usually don't hear that from Middle Eastern military commanders who often are politically appointed idiots or just very arrogant men who dominate by fear.  A humble attitude is the hallmark of a good leader.  Some of the best military leaders I've met in the US Army were very humble men who were aggressive and assertive when they needed to be, but who were also just as quick to accept responsibility for their own failures.  

I wish you all could see the actual interview with this man because it really gives you a better sense of his character and manners.  Even if you don't understand Arabic, you can tell that he is a very charasmatic individual with genuine leadership qualities.

I just hope that the US administrators in Iraq can see potential when they see it and nourture such former leaders into the capable military leaders of a new Iraq.  

A good example of where America has done this successfully with other Middle Eastern military forces is in Egypt and Turkey.  Our strong relationships between the American military and the Egyptian and Turkish military forces has been EXTREMELY beneficial diplomatically.  While in Egypt for example, I learned that American tank commanders often were good friends with Egyptian tank commanders...  this cuts across all political BS as these men see each other as fellow soldiers with much in common and thus often form very strong and lasting friendships that heavily influence the politicals both our countries in a very positive manner.  

From the FrontLine interview I  get the sense that Gen. Al-Hamdani was treated with respect by the US military.  So my *guess* is that it is Paul Bremer and the White House that prevent any stronger relationships between former Baath party Army officers and the US military.

The Iraqi administrator before Bremer (I can't remember his name offhand) indicated that this was a key issue why he was removed.

It turned out to be a huge mistake with alot of rioting by ex Iraqi Army soldiers and officers.  Some of these ex-officers are also now leading resistance cells.   But this mistake is not one that can't be reversed if the American military approaches the more respected ex- Iraqi Army officers with an air of humility and forgiveness.

But I don't think it's likely to happen because as the more time goes on, the more their hearts harden against the United States.

 

It's really very sad.  

But perhaps there is still some hope.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[EiZei 0]

His looks do remind me of a certain another famous military commander:

But yeah, nice to see something from Iraqi military viewpoint for a change.

[Baron von Beer 0]

I was fortunate enough to tape that show Thursday night. Won't have time to watch it till tomorrow. Thought it would be interesting, now I am even more confident it will be.

[quicksand 0]

Yes my point exactly no single effort was made to sabatoge anything..And detonating wouldn`t have been a problem.They just had to time trigger them and explode after 1 week..

BTW what makes you think that this guy is willing to work for the Americans..As it says in the interview he was in the frontline and saw how his comarades got sloughtered by the Americans and innocent civillians geting killed.If anything he should be out there helping the resistance.

[Gollum1 0]

Extremely interesting article. It clears everything up, thank you Miles Teg.

[bn880 5]

I realize not many people read my posts anymore as they leave little room for discussion, but here comes another one:

I have several comments on what Raad has said about the defense of Iraq. Mainly my comment is "were Iraqi military leaders living in a cave???" I mean what the heck do you expect to gain by confronting US armed forces in an open battlefield, with no air support, limited if any artillery, and T72 tanks + BMP's?? What the heck was going through their heads? Well as he says 85% of the Iraqi soldiers just decided not to fight and blend in with the population, no wonder, having insane leadership.

If you are going to defend in such unbalanced odds, you have to decide to prepare your major cities for major combat/demolition (yeah), or just surrender FFS.

I don't believe his entire story on North vs South defense of Baghdad, it is otally irrelevant as they could haveprepared for all angles of attack. All roads and most bridges were intact in Baghdad so shuffling a defensive force to meet the enemy was not difficult. Bunch of bullshit.

Also he fails to point out throughout his "tried to gather men" paragraphs that most of them just didn't want to fight, that's why he had no one. A lot of boloney in what this guy says. Looks like some sort of Napalm was used though. I don't understand where his reports are of coalition artillery, or did I miss something?

What's with blowing up the bridges? What kind of a stupid plan is that to ask for approval at the last moment? Don't they prepare this a month in advance, 3 backup methods which are guaranteed to take out the bridge, pre-approved based on this and this?

So anyway, I think he bullshits a bit there, and also Hussein himself tried to play military leader too hard...

[miles teg 1]

Bn-880 you are making alot of assumptions based upon a Western attitude of military operations.  In fact I do think his report is quite credible based upon what I know of highly centralized Middle East armies.  The Syrian and Egyptian armed forces were ravaged by the Israelies for precisely this very reason.  Many of the decisions (or I should say lack of them) by the Syrian and Egyptian military during the various wars with Israel we would regard as insane when in fact they simply were just obeying orders in fear of losing their command if they did not.  Their military systems are heavily based on the old Soviet Union's military command structure in which individual unit commanders are not given much room for independent action in order to exploit weaknesses in an enemy.   The complete failure of the commanders in charge of that bridge to blow it up is an example.  It just boggles the mind that they did not blow the bridge up... they just waited and waited for orders that never came or obeyed orders not to blow it up.   But that's often what happens with that type of military structure.  Innovative thinking is punished.

So personally I would not be so hard on this commander.  Also they did have plenty of artillery.  However US and British counter-battery fire is deadly effective.  Iraq lacked good self-propelled artillery systems so using anything more the light mortars against US forces with good artillery and air support was very hazerdous.  As far as aircraft goes...I have yet to hear any explanation as to why the Iraqis didn't even attempt to get any fighter bombers or helicopter gunships airborne.  One helicopter gunship can wipe out entire sections of a convoy with a rocket attack.... of coarse it probably would be shot down very quickly also as were most of the Iraqi helicopters and aircraft during the first Gulf War.

Quicksand: You asked why this commander would help us?

The answer is simple... because he is an Iraqi patriot and he is a professional soldier who most likely wants to regain his honor.  If he can be convinced that by helping to rebuild Iraq and the Iraqi military that he would regain his honor and that his men and fellow Iraqis would not have died in vain, then he may be convinced.  But I couldn't tell you if this would be possible for sure without talking to the man himself and getting to know him on a personal level.  

But I see him as a commander with definite potential as a good leader who Iraqis will follow.  If we don't even try to bring him to our side, then he could become a very nasty enemy who could cause us a lot of pain.

I also would not blame him for resisting the US occupation, but I would see that as a real waste of what he has the potential of becoming as he would likely die a brutal death getting gun downed by US soldiers, or he'll end up getting captured and imprisoned for many years.

However this I think is the type of man who, if you show him a glorious and honorable way of redeeming himself as a soldier and an Iraqi, by making him belief in a new Iraq, then he could become a powerful ally and a strong force for Iraqi unity by helping to build a strong Iraqi Army.   But for that to happen, the US really needs to get serious about truly making the Iraqi army a capable one...but within a budget which means buying Russian equipment.   It just simply is not happening.  Whether this is done on purpose (to keep the Iraqi military dependent on the US for air support and armor support) or because of a lack of funding, I do not know.   But whichever the case, this issue of the Iraqi Army's mechanized forces is not being dealt with or even acknowledged publicly.

Instead all we see is lots of lightly armed Iraqi policemen and soldiers with terrible morale, poor pay, and who are ill-equipped to handle counter-insurgency operations.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[bn880 5]

I have not blamed everything on him and said everyhting he said is bullshit, some points i made were jsut showing the insanity of their tactics from top-down command chain perspective. Only a couple things I feel he twisted, then again he only did say a few things.

In a way you could say the Iraqi armed forces deserved to lose, because they were highly ineffective in their strategy and command. I personally can imagine how this kind of system existed and I can tell you at least that farce is gone.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

some points i made were jsut showing the insanity of their tactics from top-down command chain perspective.  Only a couple things I feel he twisted, then again he only did say a few things.  

In a way you could say the Iraqi armed forces deserved to lose, because they were highly ineffective in their strategy and command.  I personally can imagine how this kind of system existed and I can tell you at least that farce is gone.

I fully agree. Considering the resources they had, The knowledge of the country, the teritory and the preparational time. It is not the first time in history an arab nation sais "you will drown in the river of blood of your own soldiers" and what follows is a great failure.

[miles teg 1]

That farce is gone only because Saddam is gone. They should have learned from their mistakes after the first Gulf War but apparently they learned very little from that war.

Well actually I think they probably did on some level but that what they learned was not allowed to be implemented.

Whatever the case, the new Iraqi Army is probably in much worse shape at the moment.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[bn880 5]

Of course. I agree...

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/29/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's Governing Council has agreed on an interim constitution and is expected to sign the document after the end of the Shiite feast Ashoura on Wednesday.

Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for council member Ahmad Chalabi, said the meeting ended at 4:20 a.m. (0120 GMT) with "full agreement ... on each article," The Associated Press reported.

He said the draft charter will recognize Islam as "a source of legislation" -- rather than "the" source as some officials had sought -- and that no law will be passed that violates the tenets of the Muslim religion.

The constitution is intended to govern the nation until an elected assembly can draft and make into law a permanent charter.

The agreement missed its Saturday deadline, but the handover of power to an Iraqi transitional government will still take place on June 30, according to various officials.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I got something for RAN! You wanna fight alongside the americans in Haiti, well I hope the american soldiers are not the same as the ones coming from iraq

[ran 0]

I got something for RAN!    You wanna fight alongside the americans in Haiti, well I hope the american soldiers are not the same as the ones coming from iraq

TodayBagdadTomorrowParis

we got a nice toy called RAC 112 ... also know as APILAS ...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

you mean

[ran 0]

disposable heavy duty unguided AT rocket launcher, yeah, the APILAS

[hellfish6 7]

On topic, por favor.