Baghdad!=Stalingrad

by Andrew

Having enjoyed a little 'Leon Time,' I thought I'd take a look at one of the issues hilzoy raised last week: the vulnerability of the U.S. Army in Iraq to having its supplies cut off. In particular I'll be looking at Billmon's Losing an Army and Patrick Lang's piece on U.S. supply lines in Iraq. I should begin with a few disclaimers. I have not been to Iraq, so my opinions on this are based on my general military experience. I have served all of my time in the Army at Brigade level and below, so grand strategy is something I've never been involved with. I will also not reveal anything I do know about Army capabilities that is not in the public domain.

The current fighting in Lebanon has severely degraded the U.S. position in Iraq. If there is one thing that unites Arabs from Egypt to Iraq, it's hatred of Israel. The perception that Israel is hammering away at defenseless Lebanese has fanned the flames of that hatred. Because the U.S. is justifiably seen as Israel's patron, Israel's actions reflect poorly on the U.S. as well, and this past week we saw demonstrations in Iraq that looked like they could have come from Iran. Our good, dear friend Moqtada al-Sadr is threatening to send elements of his Mahdi Army to Lebanon to fight the Israelis, and Ayatollah al-Sistani has spoken up to warn the U.S. that its support for Israel could cost it dearly in Iraq. While the situation is not yet beyond repair, there are signs that Iraq's Shia majority might just turn against the U.S. If that event occurs, the U.S. will have to shift its focus from stopping the violence to force protection.

As Billmon and Lang note, the U.S. Army in Iraq currently depends on ground transport to provide it with the supplies it needs to keep its various Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) running. To date, the Iraqis have generally left those convoys alone, but they represent by far the most vulnerable aspect of the American presence in Iraq. Iraqi attempts to storm U.S. FOBs would have poor chances for success, but blocking the roads could accomplish much the same thing without the need to risk thousands of Iraqi lives. With the roads shut down, the U.S. would quickly run short of supplies and would have to shift its focus to force protection.

As I noted above, such a shift in the fight would mark the end of any U.S. attempts to support the Iraqi government. Facing the threat of losing most of the ~135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, U.S. leaders would have to worry about either consolidating U.S. forces into a few, easily defended FOBs, or extracting them completely from Iraq. Since, in either case, we would no longer be able to conduct counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, that would mark an end to the U.S.'s ability to influence events in Iraq.

Given that fact, a Shia uprising in Iraq would probably result in a U.S. withdrawal to Kuwait and a massive blow to U.S. credibility regarding force of arms. I think Billmon markedly overestimates the chances of losing the Army itself. Faced with that threat, the rules of engagement would loosen up drastically. Resupply planes would be preceded by suppression of enemy air defense missions (SEAD) that would devastate any potential SAM sites that might be used to take shots at U.S. aircraft. We would likely see AC-130 gunships utilized to clear corridors for American troops to move along in order to extract our forces. U.S. artillery, which has generally been highly constrained due to fears of causing more damage in PR than it could inflict in enemy casualties, would be unleashed against concentrations of enemy forces.

The results would be devastating. For those who think the Israeli actions in Lebanon have been horrid, the results of a U.S. fighting withdrawal from Iraq would be orders of magnitude worse. U.S. forces would, by and large, be able to get out of the country, but they would leave thousands if not tens of thousands of Iraqi dead behind.

This ought to make it quite clear that the U.S. cannot afford such an outcome. Whatever good U.S. forces have accomplished in Iraq over the past three years would be completely destroyed. Our enemies would have a massive victory they could use to rally more fighters to their cause. Iraq itself would not only devolve into chaos, but we would have an inordinate amount of blood on our hands. Whatever mistakes this administration has made thus far, they simply must find a way to avoid inciting the Shiites against the U.S. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

Update: I probably should note, since I compared Baghdad to Stalingrad in the first place, that this assumes that the chain of command recognizes the problem and acts to extract the Army. The Sixth Army wasn't lost at Stalingrad because it couldn't break out; it was lost because Hitler ordered it not to do so.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"Now that, ladies and gentleman, is a punchline."

Yep. I done been pwned.

[Donald Johnson]

Gary wrote--

"And actually, I was mistakenly thinking you were Donald Johnson, who was previously commenting upthread. My apologies".

I'm not sure how to take that. But I did see "Donald" over on the side and came here just to make clear it wasn't me. I've thought of dropping my last name in my posts (sometimes partial anonymity has its appeals), but then there's always the risk that some other Donald would start posting. As just happened.

[Donald Johnson]

Gary wrote--

"And actually, I was mistakenly thinking you were Donald Johnson, who was previously commenting upthread. My apologies".

I'm not sure how to take that. But I did see "Donald" over on the side and came here just to make clear it wasn't me. I've thought of dropping my last name in my posts (sometimes partial anonymity has its appeals), but then there's always the risk that some other Donald would start posting. As just happened.

[Gary Farber]

"I'm not sure how to take that."

Not badly, I hope; I have plenty of respect for you and like you. I just didn't think of you as necessarily knowledgeable about air weapons systems (not that I hold myself out as any kind of expert, either, of course; merely someone who reads stuff).

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, a few thousand rounds loadout isn't going to get you very far against the mob of millions. I imagine the aircraft could actually carry more than that if needed, but I have no idea if one can reload the weapon in the air.

I know slightly more than doodly-squat about the AC-130, in that I have a Spectre teeshirt, have touched a 105-mm casing, and have done some trivial amount of work on the fire control system. I am making fun of myself, to be clear, and myself is a little irked at being made fun of. Myself is just going to have to deal with it.

I do know almost exactly doodly-squat about operations, though, and if Donald (thanks for being there, by the way, and anything you might say about your role would be read with great interest by at least one participant here) does know something that could edify, I'd appreciate some detail. Detail that's not sensitive, naturally.

[Freder Frederson]

However, if we are assuming the enemy has 100,000-500,00 Iraqis, a few km down the road will be another 1,000-10,000 person attack and another. A B-52 with cluster bombs is removing grid squares at a time.

Remember, my nightmare scenario was this. The insurgents completely cut off U.S. fuel supplies while George and Don pretend everything is just fine until the Joint Chiefs inform them that the Army up north is out of fuel and the M1s are just 70 ton hunks of metal. The Iraqis overrun the airfields and the Americans have to literally fight their way out on foot. The Insurgents would be ensconced in population centers just waiting for the Americans to show up.

That is the nightmare scenario. If the Army and Marines lose their mobility all the air support in the world won't help them because the Iraqis will able to stay close enough to prevent the use of the heavy assets. Even reestablishing the supply lines to Baghdad by massive scorched earth bombing won't help much since the military is so reliant on contract labor to supply fuel, and those assets will just disappear.

My scenario assumes incalculable incompetence on the part of the President and the SecDef. But I have found that every time I think they can't do anything more boneheaded or incompetent, I turn out to be wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

So, your scenario is close-in fighting between a bunch of heavily armed but completely untrained and undisciplined natives and a bunch of even more heavily armed and well-trained soldiers?

I think the results depend on how many of the natives have seen Zulu and are willing to live with the implications. Of course, too, that in order to stay close enough they have to a) have either leadership that can be effective in getting and keeping them there, or some mass appreciation of the value of exposing themselves to small-arms and heavy machinegun fire so as to avoid the 2000 pounders, and b) a way to get that close without being spotted, and the leadership to make that happening.

Me, I can't see it. Not that it couldn't happen, but I think the odds are low.

[Nell]

We don't have many AC-130s in the inventory

There are fifty sitting in Kuwait right now.

[Slartibartfast]

Cite? af.mil says they only have thirteen AC-130U; eight -H models.

[Nell]

Slarti, "completely untrained and undisciplined"? Don't bet too heavily on that part.

[Slartibartfast]

So, you're thinking Iraqi civilians are trained to fight as a unit? Ok, then.

[Slartibartfast]

af.mil says they only have thirteen AC-130U; eight -H models.

To clarify, I'm sure that the USAF has many, many C-130s lying about, but they make lousy fighting machines.

[Gary Farber]

"So, you're thinking Iraqi civilians are trained to fight as a unit? Ok, then."

I'm guessing she's thinking of the 100,000+ former soldiers of Saddam's army who Bremer offered out as freelancers to the insurgency.

Presumably they've not all actually committed hari-kiri by now, nor been rounded up, nor decided to love America and the new government.

So, yeah, I'd say quite a few "civilians" are trained to fight as a unit.

Although, on the other hand, how much use discipline is in the face of a fuel air explosive, or a cluster bomblet, or the weapons set of an AC-130, I'm unclear.

[Nell]

I'll look up the cite, Slart; I'm pretty sure I clipped it when it was reported, about six months ago, that a large number of AC-130s were moved into Kuwait. I remembered the number as fifty, but it may have been thirty. I wondered at the time how large a percentage of our total AC-130s the deployment represented.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm guessing she's thinking of the 100,000+ former soldiers of Saddam's army who Bremer offered out as freelancers to the insurgency.

I didn't get that from the conversation, but ok.

I wondered at the time how large a percentage of our total AC-130s the deployment represented.

Offhand, based on what I've seen, a couple of hundred percent.

[Slartibartfast]

I mean, a couple of hundred percent.

[Gary Farber]

Yeah, I was thinking 50 sounded impossibly high, something like twice the number that there were.

[Slartibartfast]

I was thinking that if they'd built another 29 in the last eight months or so, we'd be shipping out gunsighting systems at roughly three per month. Which we're not.

[Nell]

Okay, I must be wrong; thanks for making me check, Slart.

Four AC-130s were moved to bases in Iraq this past March. The reason given was their reconnaissance capabilities, to supplement the drones.

They were used in the November 2004 assault on Fallujah, and are still available for whatever the hell the current operation in Baghdad involves, but unlikely to be used in that populated an area.

Some are still being used on a regular basis in Afghanistan.

So if there are only twenty-one in all, I must have dreamed that story.

Here's an on-topic quote from a recent Tom Lasseter story documenting the extent to which the civil war is underway:

"I don't think there's any winning here. Victory for us is withdrawing," said Sgt. James Ellis, 25, of Chicago.

[Nell]

Re the civilians trained to fight as units: Yes, I believe that substantial numbers of Shia civilians (not in the millions of the hypothetical nightmare scenario, but in the high thousands) have been training to fight as units. Some of them are receiving their training from the U.S. military, some from Iranian advisors. And the civil war is making many more fighting-age men, on either side of the Sunni-Shia divide, see the point of "joining up".

[Donald Clarke]

Upfront disclaimer. This is a theoretical excercise. Like Slart I believe this is an extremely low probability event, for the reasons I mentioned in a preceding post (as soon as we decide to leave, we will go far down the target list, because we will no longer affect who will rule Iraq).

"Remember, my nightmare scenario was this. The insurgents completely cut off U.S. fuel supplies while George and Don pretend everything is just fine until the Joint Chiefs inform them that the Army up north is out of fuel and the M1s are just 70 ton hunks of metal. The Iraqis overrun the airfields and the Americans have to literally fight their way out on foot. The Insurgents would be ensconced in population centers just waiting for the Americans to show up."

It is very, very unlikly that US commanders would be that negligent as to allow themselves to run out of fuel scattered over a hostile landscape. The idea that large concentrations of Iraqis could appear out of nowhere and overrun the key airfields in the teeth of their defenders is even less likely. If it did happen, US troops might try to walk out, but they certainly wouldn't walk into cities. Why should they? Without vehicles they would not be road bound and could go around the cities. Air power would still be critical, both to resupply ammunition, food, and water; and to kill any enemies that tried to get within weapon range. The Iraqis would certainly try to get close to avoid the airpower, but they have to survive to do that. Sure, some would get through, but they would probably suffer severe attrition (50-70%) trying. As Slart said, it depends on how many have seen Zulu and are willing to deal with the implications.

Even if something like this did happen, I don't think they would try to walk out. What would probably happen is that US forces would fall back to (or recapture) the nearest airfield and hold a perimeter resupplied by air and eventually evacuate by air. Imho, the troops would dig in and rely on their organic weapons and the field fortifications to deal with Iraqis that get close, and rely on air power to eliminate most of them before they get that close.

You are quite right to identify this a nightmare scenario. This is the only way I could see a real mass attack, say 500,000 from Sadr city walking and driving over to Baghdad International Airport and trying to over run it. Airpower and artillery would be thinning them out along the way and the survivors could charge the defenses. I think the Iraqi casualties would approach WW1 dimensions. Think Passchendaele in a few days.

I don't see the Americans walking out, though some outlying posts might have to walk to airfields. Once at the airfield, transports would bring in supplies (or air drop them) and fly out evacuating soldiers.
It is hardly what I would think of as an easy or low risk operation and the potential for a disaster would certainly exist (from either bad luck, friction, or stupidity); but it could be done.

Yes, the transports would have to worry about shoulder fired missiles, but you are already trying to kill everyone in a 5-10 km circle around your air base and that includes the SAM operators. They would be fueled outside of Iraq and probably need air refueling enroute.

As for the troops trying to get to the airfields, They would also rely on airpower to clear the way ahead of them, and they would walk around any built up areas that airpower could not flatten. If you assume they have to abandon their vehicles for lack of fuel, they are no longer roadbound either.

Just to be quite clear, I regard this as a truely horrible outcome. It would be ghastly for the Iraqis and rough for the Americans. It would be the biggest US defeat since Bataan, but we would still be the lucky ones. World War 1 took place over 4 years. For Iraq, this would be WW1 in the course of a few months.

Donald Clarke (the other Donald :)

P.S. In the interests of honest debate, I must confess to about the same level of knowlege about AC-130s as Mr Farber. I may have a slightly better appreciation of the limits imposed by logistics on a weapon system's theoretical performance. I am in the Army Reserve in southern Iraq, in a relatively safe rear area job. Thank you for your good wishes.

P.P.S. According to the 97-98 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an AC-130U carries 3,000 rounds of 25mm. Unfortunately, its behind a government paywall equivalent or I would provide a link.

[Slartibartfast]

Same info is available at fas.org, Donald.

Thanks for your feedback, too. I too was thinking that the troops could simply avoid populated areas and have the guys flying CAS take out everything that came, as you said, within a few km of the troops.

And yes, it would suck. Thousands of troops would die, and many, many tens of thousands of Iraqis would die, all pointlessly. It's not ever a thing that we'd want to have happen.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, and my expertise is limited to this, which I am somewhat more than grazingly familiar with.