# The Iraq War



## plan_D (Dec 17, 2007)

I've become infinitely more interested in what has been going on Iraq after reading a great book called "Sniper One" by Sgt. Dan Mills. If anyone believes that those in Southern Iraq had it easy, then you need to read this book. Or if you want to find out how the Coalition are doing out there read this book. 

As in the book, I'm not interested in the politics of the war... that was sorted out for me in 2003... I agreed with the war, end of. Within reason (obviously operations still continue) I want to know more as to whats going on. I obviously respect people who have been there ... so I don't expect anything being rehashed that doesn't need to be.

But really... how do people think the Coalition ground forces are faring against the insurgency ? 'cos I think they're doing pretty damn good! For example, the battle group in Al Amarah got 249 confirmed kills in one month ... with one injury to them. 

I continue to read the book in astonishment as the bravery of the lads is amazing (by the way, Dan Mills was in Al Amarah in 2004 - when all the sh*t in Najaf was kicking off) - the scenes described in that book make Black Hawk Down (Battle of Mogadishu) look like a cake-walk (but we all know it wasn't). 

For clarification, Sgt. Dan Mills was the platoon leader of Sniper Platoon in Y (Support) Company of Princes of Wales Royal Regiment. They operated with L96s, SA80 Mk.IIs and Minimes. I've just read up to a bit when their compound is under siege ... and they've been supplied with a Royal Marine spotter and a 'Royal Marine' (... it doesn't say what unit 'Buzz' is from, obviously) sniper with a U.S .50 cal Barret rifle...nicknamed the 'Beast' by Sniper Platoon ... gave the Iraqi f*cks a surprise 'cos they worked out the range of the L96 (1,000 m effective)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2007)

From my experience of having served in Iraq we are kicking there ass but it is a fight we can not win. 

Let me say that differently. We can not win it the way we are fighting it now. You do not know who the enemy is and for every insurgent you take out another 10 to 15 stand up.

Can this war be won? Yes but not with the current tactics being employed.


----------



## Erich (Dec 17, 2007)

Chris knowing full well what has been going on over there, it cannot be won unless we are assisted by the rest of the world, but sadly the wimps of the modern nations will not voice that in approval. In time this will explode all over the mid-east, causing us to be ever weaker as a nation with more disgruntled politicians making the rules and regulations for our troops, they did it in Nam and they have been doing it here and you know what I am talking of.

As plan has read I pray for 1 relative which is in the same job league behind the front lines doing his duty against those dis-shelved bastar*s


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2007)

The war can not be won with the help of Arabs my friend.


----------



## Erich (Dec 17, 2007)

that is a fact, even with the ones we have they have their own personal adjenda and that is going to come down on us. I see it quite futile to even train up a new established Iraqi army.......worthless

what I mean is the rest of Europe and the Asians, please exclude the Chinese


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2007)

I dont know Erich, I have different feelings about Europe and Iraq. There are certain reasonings behind some European countries not helping out and frankly I can understand why some of these European Countries did not help out.

Whether they are in Iraq or not will not change a thing with the outcome of this war. 

Victory can only happen with a change in tactics and the Arabs and mostly the Iraqis have to stand up and police themselves.


----------



## Erich (Dec 17, 2007)

man you know how much I want to agree with your statements...........BUT.........I can trust the mideast mindset as about as far as I can hit them with a sniper rifle round right between their f***in eyes


----------



## ToughOmbre (Dec 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Victory can only happen with a change in tactics and the Arabs and mostly *the Iraqis have to stand up and police themselves.*



Couldn't agree more. The Iraqi people are the key to victory. There have been some promising signs during the surge, I hope it can be sustained. Not sure though.

TO


----------



## Erich (Dec 17, 2007)

again I would like to agree T.O. but if we leave and when, will the Iraqi D.F. be able to take on it's neighbors Iran and Syria, they are waiting like wolves though we are watching them closely


----------



## ToughOmbre (Dec 17, 2007)

Erich,

I don't think we'll be leaving anytime soon, regardless of who occupies the WH in 2009. So it's doubtful that the Iraqi security forces will have to deal with Syria and/or Iran. We didn't let Saddam keep Kuwait, I don't think we'll let Iran have it's way in the ME. It's certainly a messy situation, no thanks to us.

TO


----------



## Erich (Dec 17, 2007)

well you're right about us leaving the Mid-E I tried to be subtle in my message tones ......... both syria and the other goofs are flaunchin at the bit hoping the witch of Endor wins so she can pull us out asap. rest assured if we get troops in iran then they will be in syria as it will heat up, I do prefer Israel to bitch slap that silly state senseless

E ♫ ♪


----------



## plan_D (Dec 18, 2007)

Well, the troops in Al Amarah found how easy it was for the entire Iraqi population to turn against them after the mosque in Najaf was hit by a stray artillery shell ... and it soon became a holy war - that's when things were ugly ten times over...the numbers were immense. But the feeling in the book was that they were winning militarily at times when the gloves were taken off (the ROE were ...'altered' for this regiment by an excellent Col., the ROE seem to be up for interpretation.) ... the only problem was that the lads didn't have the ammo ! 

But then that gives me the impression that it's impossible to succeed at the moment without killing them all ! 

My thoughts on the British ability have been falling in the past few years, but f*ck our lads are still brave, smart and deadly to anyone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2007)

Marc you are correct that our military forces over there are winning on the battle field the problem is that for every battle won another 100 possible enemies rise up.

It is kind of like a vicious circle or we take one step foward and 2 steps back.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 18, 2007)

What's your take on what should be done Chris? And I mean other than "giving the Iraqi's time to build a stable government". I don't have alot of confidence in that happening this century. Assuming that they can't get their act together (?) whats the "change in tactics" or the Plan "B" in your mind?


----------



## wilbur1 (Dec 18, 2007)

The problem lies with religion, who can say that the belief of one is stronger than the other. I feel that if we are fighting a war then act like it instead of trying to pull another Vietnam, dont get me wrong OUR soldiers<the world> are doing the best ive everseen or heard of, But why are we holding back?


----------



## Freebird (Dec 18, 2007)

wilbur1 said:


> The problem lies with religion, who can say that the belief of one is stronger than the other. I feel that if we are fighting a war then act like it instead of trying to pull another Vietnam, dont get me wrong OUR soldiers<the world> are doing the best ive everseen or heard of, But why are we holding back?



Because if you "don't hold back" ie loosen the ROE's you run a greater risk of civilians getting hit, which defeats the purpose to begin with. If the population sees the US soldiers as trigger happy occupiers, however wrong that may be in reality, it becomes more difficult to do the mission. It's no surprise that every mistake become an "atrocity" on Al-Jazeera.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Dec 19, 2007)

The wonders of propaganda...one thing is clear...the iraqi people like most of you said need to police themselves because if they are not capable of taking care of their own country then all this effort and sacrificed lives have been in vain...My country supports the U.S. troops and we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but our people is getting tired of so many deaths specially when our military is so poor and maintaining the troops there costs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2007)

freebird said:


> What's your take on what should be done Chris? And I mean other than "giving the Iraqi's time to build a stable government". I don't have alot of confidence in that happening this century. Assuming that they can't get their act together (?) whats the "change in tactics" or the Plan "B" in your mind?




I think the hands of our soldiers are tied behind there backs (this is just my observation of having served there) and we should untie there hands. 

Also we need to put more pressure on the Arabs to step up and do something.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2007)

freebird said:


> Because if you "don't hold back" ie loosen the ROE's you run a greater risk of civilians getting hit, which defeats the purpose to begin with. If the population sees the US soldiers as trigger happy occupiers, however wrong that may be in reality, it becomes more difficult to do the mission. It's no surprise that every mistake become an "atrocity" on Al-Jazeera.



The problem is who is a civilian and who is an insurgent? We never knew down there....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 19, 2007)

That's the feeling I was getting from the book; there were unarmed Iraqis target spotting for the mortar crews that were out of sight. Initially the snipers could not engage these obvious spotters until the officer commanding was given R R and the new man declared these spotters as hostile because they pose a threat to safety even if they were unarmed... as I said, the ROE are up for interpretation. 

I assume the problem with the Iraqi police and 'military' is the same all over Iraq. During the ceasefire [2004] it was decided to use Iraqi military to guard the CIMIC compound in Al Amarah ... they were always late, and would leave the gate unguarded for hours ... or just go home early. The police were even worse ... they'd allow many get away with anything, many were drunk on duty, and a lot were on the insurgents side. Sgt. Mills had a officer of the law in Iraq point his AK at him ... but he quickly panicked and claimed it was a joke when the snipers put their SA80s in the sh*t bags face.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think the hands of our soldiers are tied behind there backs (this is just my observation of having served there) and we should untie there hands.



Yes, and I can imagine how frustrating it can be, as Plan D writes, they suspect that the civilians are spotting for the bad guys. Here's the problem I see though Chris, if there are some REAL civilians killed (and there will be, it can't totally be avoided) then AL Jazeera etc. will be filming the corpses from 20 different angles. The population sees the USA as heavy handed, and loses faith in their Gov't who are allied with the US, opening the door for rhetoric from the local mosque. It looks like a catch-22 to me, by loosening the ROE's you do better against the militants, but may lose the battle for "hearts minds"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2007)

I agree with you. It is a no win situation in the case of civilians.

Thats why this war is like no war before.


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2007)

semi-chuckle on the inside .......... the last half dozen postings sound like what we went through in Nam

the facts of war gentlemen, civilians will take it harder than the military. It always happens, too many innocents will get killed and there is no way to avoid this. As in Nam the villagers had an Ak 47 pointed at their backs, in the mid-east they are forced to take a bullet or their children/themselves rounded up for possible future useage as a bomber ............ I know this as fact


----------



## wilbur1 (Dec 19, 2007)

Well Erich, if thats the way its going to be i say..let the dogs loose, God will sort them out


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2007)

we've had that saying let God sort em out since suvivalist times here in southern Oregon since the late 60's. sorry wilbur but it is the truth, there will never be peace in the mid-east we have to take this as fact, if any it will be too short termed. Adler and I and others know full well the simple possibilities of tribal war that has been going on for centuries even while we were over there and are still over there, one one leaves as a protecting force, another will surely move in, it is almost one of logistics, the place is volitile and this is what happens even with an overwhelming presence. The Iraqis do not want us there, even knowing that if we left tomorrow that they would probably get creamed. And again with our way of thinking we are westerners not having any clue how the eastern way of thinking acts nor responds


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2007)

Erich said:


> semi-chuckle on the inside .......... the last half dozen postings sound like what we went through in Nam
> 
> the facts of war gentlemen, civilians will take it harder than the military. It always happens, too many innocents will get killed and there is no way to avoid this. As in Nam the villagers had an Ak 47 pointed at their backs, in the mid-east they are forced to take a bullet or their children/themselves rounded up for possible future useage as a bomber ............ I know this as fact



Agreed 100%


----------



## Derfman (Dec 19, 2007)

The thing I'd really like to see would be a two edged sword.

A huge part of the problem is mushy politically correct thinking in western countries, especially on military issues.

If the point could be driven home that there is a CRITICAL difference between a bomber (suicide or not) that blows up a sidewalk cafe, and a soldier that shoots at an enemy combatant but hits a non-combatant by accident, then we would see much more support for the ugly cost of cleaning up that mess.

However, if you stress the above point enough, some "militant" groups would avoid killing random non-combatants, and would ambush soldiers and cops and such, and you'd be pretty much forced to recognize that their fighting methods were a step above the subhuman trash that TARGET sidewalk cafes and busy markets for attacks.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 20, 2007)

Another problem ... the Coalition is supplying the insurgents with weapons. Many a time the Royal Regiment handed weapons over to the police and Iraqi military ... and within a day they'd disappeared ( the regiment checked up on them almost everyday ) ... they'd gone to the insurgents ! 

The Royal Regiment though ... what I have had read is fantastic. While on foot patrol some of the lads heard an ambush against some land rovers (Snatches, name from Northern Ireland) ...and ran 900 metres just to go give 'em a hand..against all orders, of course. On another patrol, one of the lads got in trouble because he was shooting out all the street lights - for obvious reasons. 

The Iraqi insurgents really are getting a battering, but as Chris has says they just keep coming.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2007)

The problem Marc is that the government is so currupt. The Police regular turn ther backs on the insurgents. Those that dont are found in a ditch with there head cut off several days later.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 28, 2007)

Bought this for myself for Christmas after hearing about it here. Only 3 chapters in so far and enjoying it, gives a real insight to Southern Iraq. I would certainly highly recommend it.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think the hands of our soldiers are tied behind there backs (this is just my observation of having served there) and we should untie there hands.
> 
> *Also we need to put more pressure on the Arabs to step up and do something*.
> Marc you are correct that our military forces over there are winning on the battle field the problem is that for every battle won another 100 possible enemies rise up.
> ...



I don't think it was a good idea to get US soldiers involved with a Muslim factional fight. Chris, I think part of the problem was that the US government was too open about "staying until the job is done" or "it's too important we cannot leave", because that tells the Iraqi Gov't that no matter how much they screw up, the US is staying. An interesting point, after the democrats some Republicans came close to passing the pull-out bill, *the Saudi's said that if the US left they would send in troops to support the Sunni's.*



Erich said:


> we've had that saying let God sort em out since suvivalist times here in southern Oregon since the late 60's. * There will never be peace in the mid-east we have to take this as fact, if any it will be too short termed*. Adler and I and others know full well the simple possibilities of tribal war that has been going on for centuries even while we were over there and are still over there, once one leaves as a protecting force, another will surely move in, it is almost one of logistics, the place is volitile and this is what happens even with an overwhelming presence. The Iraqis do not want us there.



Erich I think you are right about that, I don't see the idea of a stable, democratic Iraq as obtainable, given the mindset of the Muslim leaders.

About 2 months ago the "Federal" plan was passed in the US congress by about 75 - 25, but without much publicity. What do you think of that idea? 

Basically the plan was something like this: The US pulls back from populated areas, establishes 3 or 4 bases near the borders, and the troops concentrate on going after Al Quaida bases, and stopping weapons from crossing the Iranian border. The 3 sects of Muslims will each be in local control in their own "province", just like it is now in the Kurd area. 

The advntage is that it will give the US troops more of a regular mission, instead of supervising a religious civil war, and less chance of civilian "incedents". I think each "Imam" or warlord in charge of his own territory will be more inclined to keep the peace with his own militia, nor do I think a national army is attainable anytime soon. 

I think the advantage would shift, instead of the US begging the Iraqi's to get their act together, they could use some "hard diplomacy" on the warlords. For example the US representative goes to conference with the Sunni (or Shite) leader, and says something like this:

_ "We are not inclined to support your side, because you are associated with Sunni Al Quaida (or Shite Iran). However we are willing to give you a chance, if you manage your provincial government reasonably well, stop insurgents from operating in your territory, and provide for the needs of the people, we will support you with money, supplies weapons. If you screw up - we won't stop sending the money weapons, we'll just send them to your opponent" _

Kind of a stick and carrot approach. meanwhile, the US troops instead of patrolling the cities are free to seal off the Iranian border.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

About your previous post Chris...



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Problem is that {Biden's "Federal plan"} wont work. When I was in Iraq we brought the idea up. My Division covered everything north of Baghdad up to Turkey. Kirkuk and up was in "Kurdistan" which was pretty much run by the Kurds. We trained the Kurds to protect there own region.
> 
> The problem is this the Kurdish area is a very oil rich area. The Shiites and the Sunni's dont want the Kurds to have all the "power".
> 
> ...



About the oil - the Kurds (or anyone else) cannot make any money from their oil unless they export it, if the US sealed off the border they can't do anything with the oil. The US would just have to "lay down the law", all oil revenue would have to be equally split on a per capita or whatever basis. The Kurds also have to realize that without US "goodwill", there is a good chance that Turket will come in and destroy the Kurd area.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2008)

This is starting to get complicated already, Freebird. Divide the land into three sections essentially, all autonomous. But the oil from one region gets divvied up to the others in terms of revenue. There are other resources and things as well and it will get even more complicated. Then add to the fact that peacful coexistence between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of separated sections is not an easy thing to maintain either. 

The key is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, with enough stability so that we can leave without someone else just waltzing right in to take over, or the fundamentalist a-holes from taking over. It's a tough road.

Personally, it would be fine with me if we found an alternative to oil and let those crazy countries turn back into the third world toilets they were before oil was found there.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

evangilder said:


> This is starting to get complicated already, Freebird. Divide the land into three sections essentially, all autonomous. But the oil from one region gets divvied up to the others in terms of revenue. There are other resources and things as well and it will get even more complicated. Then add to the fact that peacful coexistence between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of separated sections is not an easy thing to maintain either.



Yes, it's complicated for sure, but the whole thing is a mess already. It's kind of like the program in Canada "equalization" where the rich provinces (B.C., Alberta, Ontario) subsidise the resource poor ones (Atlantic provinces etc) I'm sure there is something similar in the US. 



evangilder said:


> The key is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, with enough stability so that we can leave without someone else just waltzing right in to take over, or the fundamentalist a-holes from taking over. It's a tough road.



Would be nice, I have my doubts that it can be done though. There are too many factions that have no interest in a peaceful Iraq. 



evangilder said:


> Personally, it would be fine with me if we found an alternative to oil and let those crazy countries turn back into the third world toilets they were before oil was found there.



I couldn't agree more. One thing I don't like though, is some media comments that "The US has to stay in Iraq until we win", to my mind the US is not going to get a "win" over there (ie a stable, democratic US ally) so the idea of a "successful outcome" would be more realistic, like you say, find some way to leave without the whole place going down the crapper. 

It seems to me that the current situation is almost a "lose" for the US, a huge drain on the US treasury, public opinion shifting against foreign deployments, and 150,000+ troops tied up in Iraq. 

Looking at it from the point of view of Iran or N. Korea, the current situation is pretty good, the US government public are distracted by Iraq, and the public mood is turning against military action, if it was needed in the future (like in Korea or Iran) 

I don't like the idea that because of the Iraq situation there won't be public support for future action to keep the A-bomb away from these B*****ds!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

There's no quick solution to a problem like Iraq, a steady hand-over of power to the Iraq government is the best option for success. The only alteration to the plan for me would be when the Iraqi government believes its time to run the country safely then pull the troops out of cities and into bases like the "Federal" plan but have a whole Iraqi nation, instead of trying to split it up. 

In Al-Amarah the British forces knew where the HQ of the OMS was but because of politics it was impossible for them to raid the building [it was not a mosque]. This is where the problem lies, the insurgency [in Afghanistan and Iraq] need to be rid of any areas where they feel safe. The military commanders know this and it was this feeling that sent British forces into the Helmand province in Afghanistan. The Coalition (in both nations) need to constantly apply pressure to the enemy and make them constantly look over their shoulder. 

I know a Para who served in Afghanistan and he informed me that the easiest way to stop the mortar attacks on their compound was to constantly patrol and harass the enemy. Even as a Para he admitted that the Royal Marines that took over their position did a better job of applying pressure and thus received less mortar attacks, the Royal Regiment (those in Sniper One) apparently sat tight in their compound and received a hammering. 
I'm not saying that we should be gung-ho but I am saying that Coalition presence needs to be there all the time, making the insurgency worry.


----------



## wilbur1 (Jan 2, 2008)

too true pland


----------



## ccheese (Jan 2, 2008)

This morning John Edwards was interviewed for Good Morning America. He said, almost in words of one syllable, that if he is elected as President of the US, _*within his first year *_he will have ALL U.S. troops OUT of Iraq, and there will be NO permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. I didn't think the GOP was thinking in this direction !

Charles


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2008)

That's because he's a Demo, Charles.


----------



## ccheese (Jan 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> That's because he's a Demo, Charles.





Charles


----------



## renrich (Jan 2, 2008)

John Edwards is not only a democrat but he has no chance of being president of the US


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2008)

Ambulance chasing lawyer POS.


----------



## wilbur1 (Jan 3, 2008)

To hell with it all...flatten the damn continent and let mother nature take over....i.e. The U.S. Marines. End this stupid "war" and lets get back to football


----------



## Freebird (Jan 3, 2008)

plan_D said:


> There's no quick solution to a problem like Iraq, *a steady hand-over of power to the Iraq government* is the best option for success. The only alteration to the plan for me would be when the Iraqi government believes its time to run the country safely then pull the troops out of cities and into bases like the "Federal" plan but have a whole Iraqi nation, instead of trying to split it up.



If we could have any confidence in their "Government".....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2008)

As long as a presence is maintained outside of the cities any possible uproar could be dealt with. The course of action now should be a quick development of Iraq and leaving with a minimal amount of backlash. The problems are numerous and the civilians are not helping, to be honest. In Afghanistan, the REMEs attached to the Para Battle Group wanted to plumb in a washing machine given to a hospital by the Americans but they were not allowed because they were a military outfit. The Afghans would have thought more of the troops if they saw them helping [we hope] but the civilians were stopping them, and after several months to washing machine was still not plumbed in.


----------

