On my lunch hour I read parts of Kenneth Pollack's other book [Kenneth Pollack (2002), Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 083237332)]--those parts dealing with the Iraqi army. I had not known that at the climactic battles of the Gulf War--when the U.S. desert-outflanking force ran into and over Republican Guards trying to delay their threatening encirclement--the forces were so uneven. At Wadi Al Batin, for example, the Tawakalnah division of the Republican Guards was attacked by 3 1/2 American divisions, outnumbering it by roughly 5 to 1 in tanks.
They did not try to run:
The Tawakalnah... were deployed in a British-style reverse-slope position with mines emplaced along the crest of the ridge. The Tawakalnah was badly outnumbered--U.S. forces deployed over 1000 tanks, while the Tawakalnah could muster only about 200. They were also badly outgunned because the armor-piercing rounds from the U.S. M1A1 tanks could easily destroy the Iraqis' T-72M1s at over 4000 meters, while the T-72m1's rounds could not penetrate the frontal armor of the M1A1 even at bore-site range. Despite these disadvantages, the Republican Guard fought tenaciously.... [T]he Republican Guards fought and died almost to a man, and U.S. forces captured few Tawakalnah soldiers and officerse. When the Iraqi tanks and APCs were destroyed, their infantrymen charged forwrad with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. The Tawakalnah maintained remarkable unit cohesion, with remnants attempting to conduct a fighting withdrawal long after the division had been virtually wiped out. By the morning of February 27, 177 Iraqi tanks and 107 APCs were burning on the battlefield... (pp. 252-4).
According to Kenneth Pollack, if the Iraqi army of today is like the Iraqi army of the past half century, its soldiers and unit commanders will be incompetent at using their artillery, unable to maneuver, unwilling to take the intiative, incapable of adapting to any surprise, armed with technologically-inferior and poorly-maintained equipment, and yet large numbers of them, especially from the Republican Guard, will stand their ground and fight--until they die.
Posted by DeLong at March 25, 2003 07:25 PM | TrackBack
Here's an interesting Blog for you.
http://dearraed.blogspot.com/
Know anyone who can verify it?
Posted by: Bruce Ferguson on March 25, 2003 08:06 PMI think that the conventional wisdom in blogosphere is that it is maintained from Baghdad, but nobody knows exactly by whom. Bloggers have apparently run a number of tests like IP tracing, emailing and asking consistency check questions. To the point where Salam Pax got upset and wrote "take it or leave it" more or less... I hope (s)he can keep on posting (which implies the hope that electricity be restored in Baghdad... unlikely.)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on March 25, 2003 11:20 PMHas it struck anyone else that Iraqi military planners seem to have thought this war through better. Knowing that they cannot stand on a ridge top and wait for US tanks, they now have adopted the classic tactics of the weaker force, hit-and-run, ambush, demoralization of an enemy that is perhaps overconfident (not our soldiers, but our leaders and public) and far from home (other way around). Combine that with tenacity, and 100,000 fighters in an urban setting, and we have some serious rethinking to do. Yes, things are going according to plan now (there are many plans - one of them must be right), but how about the end-game?
Posted by: K Harris on March 26, 2003 07:31 AM= All the gear but no idea =
(cite SMH http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/26/1048653748120.html )
BRITISH (operating minesweepers made of plastic so that they do not set off magnetic mines) initially boarded the ordinary looking tug looking for mines and weapons. They found nothing.
AMERICANS (with a multitude of divers and two trained dolphins used for clearing mines below the quays) in a coastguard cutter took a look. They found nothing.
AUSTRALIANS (working from ex-USN refitted supply ship trundles up in 2 inflatable boats) "So, mate, have you got any weapons or explosives on board?". "Explosive! Explosive!" the captain reportedly said, pointing to the drums and a raft towed behind the tug.
Not sure whether to laugh or cry.
Posted by: LL on March 26, 2003 08:32 AM= All the gear but no idea =
(cite TheAge http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/26/1048653748120.html )
BRITISH (operating minesweepers made of plastic so that they do not set off magnetic mines) initially boarded the ordinary looking tug looking for mines and weapons. They found nothing.
AMERICANS (with a multitude of divers and two trained dolphins used for clearing mines below the quays) in a coastguard cutter took a look. They found nothing.
AUSTRALIANS (working from ex-USN refitted supply ship trundles up in 2 inflatable boats) "So, mate, have you got any weapons or explosives on board?". "Explosive! Explosive!" the captain reportedly said, pointing to the drums and a raft towed behind the tug.
Not sure whether to laugh or cry.
Posted by: LL on March 26, 2003 08:35 AMwhat Pollack's book leaves out is this: isn't it interesting that Republican Guard troops are stationed all around the outskirts of Baghdad, but there's not a SINGLE unit in Baghdad?
you'd think that such a loyal, "fight-to-the-last-man" unit would be a little closer to Saddam, especially since it's Baghdad that's supposedly the central area they want to defend AND on th outskirts the RG is highly vulnerable to attack from the air, but if they were dispersed throughout Baghdad they couldn't be attacked . . . . . . . fact is, the RG isn't allowed into Baghdad for fear of a coup d'état.
which is good news for the US, 'cause they're easier to bomb where they are . . . . there are "Special Republican Guard" units in Baghdad, but they're not what Pollack is writing about.
Posted by: Anarchus on March 26, 2003 09:03 AMDr. DeLong writes, "According to Kenneth Pollack, if the Iraqi army of today is like the Iraqi army of the past half century, its soldiers and unit commanders will be incompetent at using their artillery, unable to maneuver, unwilling to take the intiative, incapable of adapting to any surprise, armed with technologically-inferior and poorly-maintained equipment, and yet large numbers of them, especially from the Republican Guard, will stand their ground and fight--until they die."
Well, yes. So did the dedicated Nazis and Japanese, in WWII.
Saddam Hussein's government is a completely unelected, minority (since Shiites compose the majority), totalitarian government, which has committed genocide against its own people (both Shiites and Kurds).
If there are fanatics who will fight and die for Saddam Hussein, as long as they don't have the equipment to kill anyone else, I don't see the problem with having them stay there and die. The world got rid of plenty of Nazi and Imperial Japanese fanatics that way.
This is the religion that produces suicide bombers. It makes sense that they would stand and fight, even stupidly.
We didn't want a land war in Japan because we expected every adult male to fight us, with massive slaughter. I don't think that helps the guy above's argument.
Well, the Protestants in Ireland apparently are just fine with using car bombs on civilians. I wouldn't go blaming it on religion.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on March 26, 2003 10:31 PMDon't you mean IRA Catholics? I haven't heard about the Unionist paramilitaries (repellent as they are) using tactics of this type, as opposed to a knife in a dark alley.
Posted by: andres on March 27, 2003 07:55 AMUnionist paramillitaries are just as bad. Basque seperatists are worse (leaving explosives within children's toys, where they might pick them up).
Suicide bombing is a tactic born out of despair, and gross military inferiority.
Posted by: Cian on March 27, 2003 09:41 AMI think it's pretty bigoted to say that the reason the Iraqi soldiers are willing to fight and die is that they're Arab Muslims and are therefore a bunch of suicidal fanatics. Chances are they're willing to fight and die because they're professional soldiers, and will follow the orders that are given to them. I would imagine that any unit in the US or UK military that was ordered to hold its position to cover the retreat of fellow soldiers would stand its ground and fight to its last man if necessary -- that's what soldiers do.
It Iraqi army is cleary not as well trained or equipped as the coalition forces are, but that doesn't mean they're a bunch of savages who are just out there because they have some sort of martyrdom obsession. One of the big reasons why we've had the problems we've had in this war is our unwillingness to take the Iraqis seriously.
Posted by: Rafe on March 28, 2003 06:45 AM"We didn't want a land war in Japan because we expected every adult male to fight us, with massive slaughter."
We didn't want a land war in Japan, because we expected massive slaughter on *our* side (anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000+ U.S. casualties).
If the slaughter had been only of fanatical Japanese soldiers, virtually no one in the U.S. would have objected.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 07:26 AM"We didn't want a land war in Japan because we expected every adult male to fight us, with massive slaughter. I don't think that helps the guy above's argument."
We didn't want a land war in Japan, because we were afraid how high our *own* casualties would be high (expected to be anywhere from 100,000 men to 500,000+).
We certainly didn't care how many Japanese military nut cases would die.
I am getting worried about the wall of jingoistic e mails being sent with such enthusiasm by mostly american and british war supporters. being a fervent war supporter myself and with the certain knowledge that we will have to fight several similar actions over the next few years;i worry that many who are uncertain of this course of action may be put of by what they see as an "old fashion" attitude to war.frankly , its uncool, to the point that people dislike discussing the underlying reasons for the war and fail to analysis their own beliefs.It is triggering anti amercanism in people not prone to it .we should reduce the noise and help the efforts by a quieter form of support.The world will need american activism over the next decade or so, a steadier more determined support would assist them in staying the course.
Posted by: Nick on March 30, 2003 02:25 AM