Iraqi Freedom II: Lighter, More Mobile, More Vulnerable?

[Mr. Brown of MD]

According to news reports over the weekend, Operation Iraqi Freedom II is in the works, slated to have the existing operation in Iraq transferred to it. This change is scheduled to take place early next year, when troops who have been in Iraq for a long time are relieved.

The units who will be coming to Iraq are said to be the Army's 1st Cavalry Division (Fort Hood, Texas,) the 1st Infantry Division (Germany,) and 3,000 Marines from an unspecified unit and location. The purpose of this reorganization is to make what is described as a lighter, more mobile, rapid-reaction force, designed for small-scale urban warfare. There will be more infantry troops deployed, and fewer tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Which units are coming home has yet to be specified. The most beleaguered and in need of coming home are units who have been there the longest. I believe the longest-serving unit currently in Iraq is the 101st Airborne Division, which has been in the theater since at least April. The fragging incident at Camp Pennsylvania involved that unit, one of whose Captains was killed in the attack.

Many of the other units currently in Iraq have been there since at least May. I don't know where to find exact deployment times for units, but a morbid way to approximate can be found by looking over casualty reports. The Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment suffered its first soldier killed on May 1. It is still under fire. Over the weekend there were two of its soldiers killed in a mortar attack in the western parts of Iraq.

The 4th Infantry Division has been there nearly as long, or perhaps longer. Its first soldier killed was on May 18. Several of the "one day, one soldier dead" periods of the summer involved 4th ID soldiers. The same can be said of the 82nd Airborne Division, and the 1st Armored Division, both of which have been in the theater since at least mid-June, which suffered many attacks and casualties over the summer, and continue to suffer them. In the month of November, every one of these units suffered at least one fatality. Many suffered far more than one.

Whether it is the same troops from these units who have been in Iraq the entire time, I'm not sure, nor do I know how to find out. There are many, many other units who are, and have been, in Iraq, whose functions are less easy for a curious person to guess, by their name. I wonder about the fates of these units, too.

These are all secondary points, however, ones I merely wanted to bring up to underscore the situation over there. Six months of wondering who is going to be next, whether or not the person doing the wondering will be the one, or two, who are next to die, that in itself is a terrible thing.

But there is one question that is in my mind as I read about this lighter, more mobile force. I'm not exactly an expert in military tactics and strategy, or anything of the sort, but I've never seen this question asked anywhere, and I think it is one that ought to be asked:

Will this reorganization make our forces more vulnerable to attack?

According to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who is the commander of ground forces in Iraq, tanks and APCs have been the targets of roadside bombs (IEDs,) rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs,) and even automatic weapons.

That's great, but what does that mean for a force that will contain more infantry? I'd rather be sitting in an armored vehicle if there were bombs going off, or RPGs flying, or automatic rifles being shot at me, than walking along on foot.

Now, maybe all of those armored vehicles mean jack when it comes to defending against IEDs, RPGs, and the like. Maybe we've been losing a vehicle in nearly every one of these attacks, and the US military is just keeping a lid on this. In that case, maybe the new force is no more vulnerable than the old force.

I don't think that is the case, though. If tanks and APCs were being blown apart left and right, I'm not even sure that this press blackout could contain that from being released.

I envision two tanks rolling down a street, and then an IED goes off. Or maybe someone pops out of a donkey cart and shoots an RPG round, then runs. Or maybe there are a few people hiding in a building who have these automatic weapons. They're sure as heck not going to attack a couple of tanks.

But what about ten guys walking down a street, or five? Those men (and women) are way more vulnerable than they were in any kind of vehicle. More vulnerable to each and every one of those kinds of attacks that we are told are common. We may yet see more situations where small groups of coalition soldiers are completely overwhelmed, like what happened just on Saturday with the Spanish soldiers who were killed.

I'd like to believe that they know what they are doing over there. But then I remember who is in the White House, and whose people are, by extension, in charge of the operation. I hope that I'm completely wrong with these fears, because if not, things are already looking grim for the troops who will be a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

-CollegeDude
Keeping them in his prayers

[leftofthedial]

1. Tanks or Chevy Suburbans, es macht nichts

it will all boil down to intelligence. In a low-intensity insurgency like this, the native intelligence will always be better than the occupier's intelligence.

Force composition won't matter, except that it is cheaper to keep light infantry there than to keep high tech armored forces and light infantry is more agile. Tanks schmanks. The insurgents won't attack tanks directly if they can avoid it. An armored division has plenty of softer targets than its tanks to go after. Even infantry divisions in the US military have lots of armored vehicles. All are overpowering ina conventional sense, when compared to the insurgents.

It's going to continue to be an illegal, immoral occupation, an unwinnable war, and a total mess on the ground there, whether we send Imperial Death Stars or troops of Girl Scouts.

[Patriot_Spear]

2. A tiger can kill an elephant...

If he bites him once day...

[newyawker99]

3. Hi Dude!

Great post!! :thumbsup:

[Mr. Brown of MD]

4. Thanks, Roni!

I sure didn't mention any of the buzzwords for guaranteed huge threads, but it's nice to know some people read this post all the same. :)

-CollegeDude
Wiped out early in the evening