Coming battle of Baghdad

Well, according to me I think that the people on this forum have matured enough to start including topics about Iraq. We had a great Hezbullah/Israel thread over the summer without any major issues and the other threads about Iran are going quite well too. So let us now descend about what is probably going to be the turning point of the Iraq war-the Battle of Baghdad.

The troop surge that is already happening will target Baghdad and the surrounding areas. Nearly 21,500 troops will be put into the streets. The US wants to target both the Mehdi Army and the Sunni insurgents, but I don't think it will be possible to fight both sides. So the real target are the Sunni insurgents. And it seems like the insurgents are pretty much preparing for this unlike Fallujah where the majority of them fled the city. This seems to be it. Within two months we will probably witness another bloody battle in this already bloody war.

Please keep conversations civil. Don't involve politics (like whether the war was right or not etc. etc.) This is a military discussion so keep it that way!:nono: And this thread will be both for news about Baghdad and about discussions relating to it. So, I guess I shall begin by posting two articles by atimes.com about the Sunni insurgency. They are an interesting read. And please try to focus more on the military points on the article.

I think comparisions with the British experience in Northern Ireland are probably more apt than the usual ones of Vietnam.

The reason is simple, whatever the insurgency begain as, it has now developed into a civil war, irrespective of whether or not it is called by that name.

The British Army spent 20 years trying to contain sectarian violence and were often the target of Nationalist attacks for appearing to be an extension of the Loyalist forces.

In Iraq, the situation will be different as both sectarian groups will be anti Western forces and so it will be a 3 way fight. I find the notion that somehow just one more charge of the cavalry and it will all be alright as very naive. This is far more than a military struggle, as it also marks the rise of new power groups (militia and gangs) which will fill the political and economic vacume. The militia will offer not only "patriotic" or "faith" struggle but also provide livelihoods for many of the community. These gangs will control criminal activity and much of the violence can be seen just as clearly as turf wars. Where there is crime there is also corruption and it is highly likely that Iraqi goverment and Security officials will be either directly or indirectly involved.

I see this operation as a no win situation. If you clear out one group you simply extend the territory and interest of another, the losing side will accuse you of collusion etc etc, and the prospect of western forces unwittingly participating in sectarian cleansing is a very real one and one which will make for very uncomfortable TV viewing.

This kind of situation can drag on for decades and in Iraq it probably will.

If you're really serious about militarily solve the situation, you have to go forward against both sides in the city.
That counter-insurgency plan mentioned in the first article is something strange. And if pursued, something that could perahaps only be done in Baghdad and few other cities.
What I mean is the "forces will stay in a cleared area" point.
I mean somehow it was the US forces problem from the beginning that there were not enough troops to police each and every street in Iraq, far away from it. The small size was focused on modern warfare, but not on the following nation building. Remember that incident in the early month were US troops left a dump with large amount of explosives behind because they had not enough personnal to guard it? If you dissolve all of a countries military and police units, you should compensat that.
The 21,500 troops to be send additionally now can make a difference in Baghdad, and mayby a few other cities, but fore sure not in the hole country.

The 21,500 troops to be send additionally now can make a difference in Baghdad, and mayby a few other cities, but fore sure not in the hole country.

Click to expand...

True. But>>> only if the Iraqi "government" allows the US to do what it is capable of doing. How's that? By not interfering with the military aspect of the operation. They quite often put restriction on what sort of action US forces can take against known insurgents. This happened in both battles of Fallugah and in many other instances in Iraq.

And of course while this surge has been trailed since before Christmas and has been debated at length in the US Congress, the Mahdi Army, Al Qaeda and all the other militias have had plenty of time to work out what to do in response, which will probably be to melt back into the background and give the Americans and the Iraqis very little to fight against. They know that Bush will be gone in 2 years and that his successor will be unlikely to have the same level of personal commitment to Iraq.

Neutral Zone said:

And of course while this surge has been trailed since before Christmas and has been debated at length in the US Congress, the Mahdi Army, Al Qaeda and all the other militias have had plenty of time to work out what to do in response, which will probably be to melt back into the background and give the Americans and the Iraqis very little to fight against. They know that Bush will be gone in 2 years and that his successor will be unlikely to have the same level of personal commitment to Iraq.

Click to expand...

If the Sunni insurgents simply back down and not put a fight, they risk the Mehdi army swooping in and taking over all the Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad. The Sunnis aren't about to let that happen and that's why there will probably be a long and bloody fight.

I have just finished reading the two articles that Crazyinsane posted with his opener.

Its the second article you posted Crazy that bothers me the most. The idea that the entire push could be largely aimed at creating a "just cause" for striking Iran is highly distasteful, but sadly, fully in line with the degree of mendacity that we have seen from the Bush Administration in relation with Iraq.

The most horrifying prospect however would be that such a strike would be nuclear. I think it needs to be fully understand that such an act, on a pre-emptive basis, against a country with whom the US is not at War, which has not invaded or is threatening to invade any other country and which certainly is not threatening the US homeland , would to be cross a very fundemantal line and that such a crossing could not be tolerated by the rest of the world community, including those that the US regards as its staunchest allies.

Such an act would represent a catastrophic misjudgement and set in motion events that would very quickly spiral out of America's ability to control. I sincerely hope that the author was simply voicing his own darkest fears and not articulating the genuine policy view of the US Government.

SampanViking said:

The most horrifying prospect however would be that such a strike would be nuclear. I think it needs to be fully understand that such an act, on a pre-emptive basis, against a country with whom the US is not at War, which has not invaded or is threatening to invade any other country and which certainly is not threatening the US homeland , would to be cross a very fundemantal line and that such a crossing could not be tolerated by the rest of the world community, including those that the US regards as its staunchest allies.

Such an act would represent a catastrophic misjudgement and set in motion events that would very quickly spiral out of America's ability to control. I sincerely hope that the author was simply voicing his own darkest fears and not articulating the genuine policy view of the US Government.

Click to expand...

Those stories have been kicking around for about a year, I remember reading one story about how Rumsfeld wanted to consider using nukes against Iran only to be met with a point blank refusal from the top brass and the claim that "no pilot in the USAF would drop a nuke in those circumstances." Personally I think (I hope!) that these stories are just propaganda. I still don't think America will ataack Iran, rather the Americans know that Ahmadinejad is under pressure in Iran for his handling of the economy and for making an attack more likely with his fiery rhetoric. Rather than attack, I think America is cranking up the pressure on Iran, politically, economically and militarily in the hope that enough of the regime's leadership are so unnerved that they reign in Ahmadinejad and negotiate a settlement on the nuke issue. And if the Iranians suspect that the surge to Iraq is linked to an offensive against them, then the Americans will be happy to let them think that. Another factor that makes it harder for America to attack Iran is the Iraq situation, if the attack happens then the Shia areas are likely to erupt completely and there will be all out civil war.

SampanViking said:

The British Army spent 20 years trying to contain sectarian violence and were often the target of Nationalist attacks for appearing to be an extension of the Loyalist forces.

Click to expand...

The main difference is that in Northern Ireland, the British authorities sympathised far too much with the Loyalists. What is official knowledge now, in terms of the collusion, was generally suspected by the Catholics for a long time. Gerrymandering also created huge problems. Things were only able to get better when the authorities treated both sides more even-handedly.

However, in Iraq the coalition troops are already trying to be less partisan and will tackle any illegal or dangerous military forces - the member countries have also encouraged all ethnic groups to participate in the democratic process, rather than favour one group to support their interests. If they are in the long-run unable to contain the violence, it will be because the Shias and Sunnis want to kill each other, regardless of what anyone says or does. I don't think they'll really care about the non-Iraqi troops (it's more of an excuse) - things would continue as they are now after they'd left.

The ways I think the chance for peace could be lost (when it could have been secured) is if:

• The US and/or other coalition countries chicken out and run for it.
• The Iraqi government stops Shia death-squads/militias being dealt with.

There is still a chance for peace, but it has to be pursued by both the Iraqi government and the coalition forces. If either one is unwilling to go the whole way, things will fall apart. I don't think we've seen the worst of the potential violence at all! I think the troop surge is worth a shot, but only if all three of the "clear, secure and rebuild" targets are fully applied (rather than just the first, which has been what happened in the past).

Interesting.

When U.S. and Iraqi forces step up an offensive against militants in Baghdad, 4,000 Kurdish soldiers will be there on the frontlines, taking part in their first major operation under Iraq's new army.

Those soldiers, drawn largely from Kurdish Peshmerga militias in the northern autonomous region of Kurdistan, will have to navigate a different language, a largely foreign city and perhaps a hostile population.

But they will bring with them a reputation for discipline and in Iraq's bitterly split Shi'ite and Sunni Arab sectarian divide -- could be seen as neutral, even if some Kurdish soldiers have mixed feelings about their deployment.

Click to expand...

SampanViking said:

The most horrifying prospect however would be that such a strike would be nuclear.

Click to expand...

There was an interesting flash animation posted by FAS (I think?) about the possible fallout from such a nuclear strike. After looking at it, I told my loved ones in China that if such a thing happened, they should stay indoors for a week. Such things lend one perspective.