Richard WarnickThe Achilles’ Heel of US Forces in Iraq
This is a sensitive subject, which I have stayed away from up to now. But it’s important, and as far as I know it wasn’t mentioned at last week’s congressional hearings on the Iraq occupation. General Petraeus announced plans to reduce American troop presence by five combat brigades across the country by next summer, but he wasn’t asked how he plans to secure his supply line. That’s the Achilles’ heel of the US occupation. The problem is widely recognized but not discussed very often.
After the British Army withdrew from Basra Palace, US commanders and planning officers at CENTCOM and in Iraq were forced to once again evaluate the fact that they are at the end of a rather perilous main supply route (MSR) stretching from Kuwait to Baghdad and beyond. This vital supply line, named “MSR Tampa,†goes through southern Iraq.
On any given day more than 3,000 vehicles are on the road in convoys hauling food, fuel, ammunition and other equipment through territory that is home to militias and criminal gangs. Fuel is critical for the American occupation force: they use about 3.3 million gallons per day – enough to fill the tanks of about 150,000 passenger cars. That means an average of at least 367 tanker trucks have to make the 600-mile round trip to Baghdad daily. Fuel tankers are big targets, easy to attack, and it’s a very impressive sight when one of them catches fire.
The British have handed over security to the Iraqis in three southern provinces: Maysan, Dhi Qar, and Muthanna. According to Main and Central, the Brits have stated they will actively and aggressively patrol the supply roads in Basra province until they officially turn over responsibility next month, at which time nearly all their remaining 5,000 soldiers may retreat to Kuwait. Supposedly, they will still maintain an “overwatch†on the Iraqi security forces.
In an interview with the New York Times, General Petraeus optimistically claimed he was confident that continued allied and Iraqi patrols along the supply routes, and a growing Iraqi security presence in the south, would guarantee protection of MSR Tampa.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s quarterly report (PDF) on security and stability in Iraq noted, “The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August.”
We don’t have what it takes to secure our supply route. This was demonstrated in the spring of 2004, when the Mahdi Army attacked bridges and turned MSR Tampa into a shooting gallery. Air resupply couldn’t take up the slack. Supplies were rationed up north until the crisis was over. A sustained interdiction of MSR Tampa could force the US command to radically alter its plans, to say the least.
More analysis:
The vulnerable line of supply to US troops in Iraq by Patrick Lang
September 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
There’s an old military adage (which, if memory serves, you yourself have quoted before): “Amateurs plan operations; professionals plan logistics”. For a completely dispassionate, non-partisan view of why it would probably take at least two years to un-ass Iraq (if done right), read the article How To Leave Iraq in Baseline magazine.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Your are right about the adage, of course I haven’t been a military professional for many years* so I wouldn’t quote it now. You can bet the professionals are worried about their supply route- no doubt that’s one reason why General Petraeus went to London, regardless of his upbeat statement to the NYT.
I don’t agree with the conventional wisdom of withdrawing a brigade a month over two years. When Hillary Clinton and other politicians advocate this, they probably think it makes them sound like experts. But what is the mission of the units left behind? Force protection? We can do better than that.
In fact, last month 3rd Army Commander LTG R. Steven Whitcomb (one of those professionals who talk logistics) said he could handle the withdrawal of 160,000 troops from Iraq in a matter of months. Two months or less, he implied. The plan is already in place and ready to go. No doubt that means the Iraqis will get to keep the Burger Kings, etc. we built on our 14 “enduring” bases– it’s a price I’m willing to pay. Military equipment can go to Kuwait for temporary storage.
(* I realized recently that some of the lieutenants who came on active duty in 1976, when I did, are generals now)
September 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The insurgencies strategy of “terror” in regard to what the US command states its goals as, is really rather cunning. All acts of “terror” are met with a small contingency of US soldiers stationed in the region. Invariably our forces become spread and separated from one another. Logistically their removal at this point, since we no longer control any ground, is strictly by air route.
Should a concerted attack begin on outposts and then generalized fighting in the areas of Baghdad, happen simultaneously, it will be like Tet. We may prevail, but the situation will be a deteriorating one from that point on. Not that it isn’t now.
Meanwhile rapid removal of forces in a combat environment is never easy, and we do not have the equipment available to do the job quickly. Our troops would literally have to fight their way out. We have lost, but those that dreamed this madness up, cannot accept it.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Don’t forget it took 18 months to withdraw last time (Desert Storm), and nobody was shooting at us then.
Rich, I know the “OMG I’m old!” feeling very well…I’m in the same year group as Petraeus (1974).
September 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Ed and Rich,
You’ve given us two wildly different estimates of the minimum time frame for removing our 160,000 troops from Iraq. Rich says a couple of months, Ed says two years.
Ed, which do you find more plausible, the statement by Lt. Col. Marvin Benoit of the Transportation Command’s Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, quoted by Baseline as saying that “generally it takes three weeks to process a brigage combat team–about 5,000 troops and its gear–for home� (That’s where the 2-year estimate comes from.)
–or the statement by General R. Steven Whitcom, the very person who would oversee the removal of troops from Iraq, that “But even with equipment included…the operation here could handle more than the “brigade-a-month†estimation some officials have voiced.â€
Of course, it should be noted that General Whitcom also added in the same breath, “I don’t know how much more†than one brigade per month. Doesn’t know! And this despite “having a plan that we have executed over the past four yearsâ€! What we have here is another General Patreus, who, called upon as the world’s foremost expert on a given subject, to give us the clearest possible picture of what he DOES know, “just doesn’t know†to save his life, because to know ANYTHING in particular would be to violate the first rule of politics.
If we are to believe General Whitcomb, the Army HAS moved 700,000 men a year–about 58,000 per month. At that rate the 160,000 US troops in Iraq would be out of there in 3 months. But that was just men–NOT the thousands of items of equipment needed to support each of those men. Each of those items must be inventoried and washed down and decommissioned, because to simply leave them behind would be to hand over intelligence and actionable materiel to the enemy.
Since BOTH of these estimates come from deep within the U.S. military, I think is safe to say that the U.S. military is at least as incompetent as the Democratic party politicians who, like Rich Warnick, pick whatever Army spokesperson quote they may happen to have found while last browsing the web, and present it as fait accompli without further thought or analysis.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
What we have here is a most difficult choice between two overwhelmingly plausible and compelling theories.
1.) As the Iraq war has proved again and again and again and again during the past four years, the U. S. Miliary is clearly not COMPETENT enough to manage a speedy withdrawal of troops from Iraq!
Or–
2.) As the Vietnam War proved, if there is one thing the U.S. military IS competent at, that would be hasty retreat!
Who better than our proud military veterans Ed and Rich, to help us decide which theory is more plausible?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Given the history of Romans in Parthian lands, it would be advisable to leave now, as quickly as possible before the inevitable joining of forces and settling of differences between the tribes and religious sects. This event is of course the precursor of virtually any enemies expulsion from greater Parthia. There is little left to be gained in staying. If there is anyone, please state it. We have deposed saddam, and set up a government there. Declare success, and leave.
The Romans learned this, to great disaster, in the Battle of Carrhae, 54 BC. The Roman commander, and co-Emperor of Rome in the Triumvirate, Crassus was captured and put to death, after attempting to bribe his way to freedom with the offer of gold. The tribes cooperated, it is the sign of tough times ahead.
He was put death by the application of a large volume of molten gold down his throat.
Rome fled, never to return. Past, the precursor to present. There is nothing new under the Sun.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Thank you, Ray Wheeler, renown tree-hugging photographer and world-famous military historian (not). As a matter of fact, I did not offer an estimate of how long it would take to withdraw from Iraq. I merely suggested an article that focused on the logistical challenges attendant to the eventual withdrawal.
To judge the competence of what Wheeler calls the “U.S. Miliary” (sic) to conduct redeployment operations based merely on the instances of Vietnam and this illegal, immoral and ill-advised war, would be…well, sorry to be so blunt Ray, but you probably deserve it…stupid. You see, Ray, as many people, including Warnick and me, have pointed out numerous times over the past four to five years, this was probably the first time in the history of the United States that a massive military operation was staged WITHOUT PLANNING FOR THE FINAL REDEPLOYMENT PHASE. And the reason for that, Ray, is because the political geniuses behind BushCo forbade that planning, and acquiescent generals went along.
We’ve pointed this out for years, Ray. Where have you been? Perched on a rock perusing your navel?
You so remind me of some scum I knew in the years immediately following Vietnam. Has your name always been “Ray Wheeler”?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I must remind one and all that our supreme commander and his close aides and supporters, both in govt. and in the corporate world are not on board with anything other than an enduring ass-kick and extension of the status quo. So though it might take six months or two years (give or take a F.U.), our C.I.C doesn’t want it to happen at all. Then there is all that oil up for grabs, so don’t plan on beating too hasty a retreat. A retreat would probably require more petrol product than we presently have cashed anyway.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Ed; Maybe there was no planning for the final redeployment phase because from the get go, we never intended to leave. After all, the oil fieldd do need a garrison.
That’s cached Caveat. We might not have the cash either.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I stand corrected Moe, thanks.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am
I think it ought to be obvious that a complete withdrawal of combat units from Iraq, along with their support units, can take place in a month or two years, depending on how you plan it. The article that Ed linked to in the first comment above goes over all the details.
Don’t forget, the invasion of Iraq was completed in less than a month (March 20-April 15, 2003). Sending everybody back to Kuwait shouldn’t take much longer, if you abandon the nonessentials. The looters will thank us.
OTOH, all this is moot at present because President Bush has upped the ante again, calling for an open-ended security commitment in Iraq at a cost of trillions of dollars. Remember when they used to deny the existence of the permanent bases?
September 25th, 2007 at 7:18 am
[...] have been castigated by anonymous poster “Edâ€, who calls me “scum†for suggesting that the U.S. military is at least as incompetent as our Democratic leadership in [...]
October 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
New and Used Car Reviews…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…