I have no disagreement with you wrt the conduct and course of military operations. Where I take issue is with what you call the common understanding of the "war" as a brilliant achievement of American arms. It wasn't and it isn't. People here don't even think of the 2003 war as conventional war and there is little if any chest thumping about it. What is remembered is the guerilla war against the American occupation and then the Iraqi Civil War that resulted, with America intervening on one side.
The 1991 Operation Desert Storm, on the other hand, is remembered for precisely all the things you say about Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is helped, in part, by Chuck Horner's book (ghost written by Tom Clancy), in which Horner recounts the campaign to gain air dominance over Iraq. Even here, it is fairly well remembered by people who pay attention, that this was a battle between two completely different adversaries. People do wonder -- myself included -- why it is that Russia has been at it a year and still cannot at will bomb Ukrainian trains hauling Leopard Tanks using fixed wing aircraft. People do not understand why Russia remains unable to shut down Ukraine's ability to move troops or equipment anywhere. I haven't seen a well written piece that describes how difficult it is to degrade Ukraine's air defense assets, or what Ukraine has done to evade Russian attempts to stifle troop and weapon movement.
Americans do fail to compare America's inability to shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with Russia's inability to shut down the Zelensky trail from Poland to Donbass. Everybody seems to have forgotten about Vietnam. each for his own reasons.
The war which established the perception of American military supremacy was actually the Gulf War (1991). Against a battle-hardened Iraqi army (post Iran-Iraq), the US-led coalition won a stunning victory with minimal losses
There was a lot different back then - that war was when Precision became part of the lexicon. The tomahawk, JDAM, and other guided munitions saw their debut. The US military as well was still at its peak anti-Soviet dispensation, and trained + equipped accordingly. Still, I don't think anyone expected such a one-sided defeat of the Iraqi army. American armor, particularly on the Abrams, had a very significant advantage and was more or less impenetrable by anything the Iraqis had. And the scale of planning, execution, and frankly competence was really something to behold.
The 2nd Iraq war was against an Iraq that was a shadow of its former military self - but still, getting the vast majority of the Iraqi defenders to lay down their arms just because they were paid off is a stunning victory in of itself. Why sacrifice life? Setting aside the propaganda - I'd rather Iraqi soldiers surrendering than being blown to pieces by 30mm fire.
I still remember stories of Challenger tanks and Abrams tanks taking multiple (37 to the Challenger) RPG hits and still not being penetrated. My sense is that Western tank armor had a period of dominance - 15 or 20 years - where nothing could really kill it
That changed in 2006 when Hezbollah deployed tandem charge RPG's against the Israeli Merkava, and turned them into targets again. I suspect the current balance remains against armor for the moment, just due to the sophistication and penetration of modern AT weapons.
You know, this mirrors WW2 a bit, doesn't it? When German Tiger tanks first emerged onto the battlefield they were feared due to their perceived invulnerability. A short time later - not so much. But the legend lives on, till today.
Back to 2003. The Iraq war was not just a sham, but a crime. That country, which in the 70's had a healthcare system that rivaled France, world-class universities, and was one of the cultural centers of the Middle East has been sent back 200 years, and today in 2023 remains a broken nation.
When US forces are eventually committed to Ukraine (does anyone doubt it?), we will see what they can do. My sense is that some illusions will be shattered, but the battlefield is where truths are told.
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Simplicius
What's an interesting contrast in the Ukraine situation; the US has to pay Ukraine elites NOT to surrender to Russia, and use their men as human drones to bleed as much Russian blood as possible. Untimely this is a civil Slavic war, engineered and payed by Western interests. If one was to compare it to history, it would be if the Confederates leaders in the US Civil War were payed by the British, French, Prussian to bleed the Yenkees to the last man.
Good context. Of course, none of this means the US Army is particularly bad! War is difficult and all armies encounter major problems. Various of my (now deceased and much older) male relatives served in the British military in WW2 and just after. Their stories of military incompetence were legion. I was also told that it was standard practice in the war for over keen officers to suffer “accidents”. Snipers who attempted surrender were apparently also just shot out of hand. How true all that was is unclear to me but we have a habit of forgetting these things and then over indexing on specific incidents with respect to both sides in the Ukraine conflict.
Useful to be reminded that much of the real fighting in the Iraq (and Iraq) insurgency was carried out by local troops. Just as it was in Vietnam. They also took by far the overwhelming majority of the casualties. Hollywood rarely portrays this. The Netflix film Faisal seems to be one of the few exceptions. The U.S. SOP of fighting proxy wars is clearly not a new one though and seems to have been the predominant model since Korea with respect to casualties and deployment. Also puts into context all the false reports that Wagner PMC is entirely made up of convicts!
Magnificent piece! And less we forget, the U.S. Army "won" against the Confederacy only after achieving 3-1 superiority and a general was found (Grant) callous enough to hurl conscripts against Southern breastworks and otherwise accept the brutal mathematics of attrition. And, of course, the great triumphs of Sheridan, Sherman and Banks against unarmed women, children, old people, barns and livestock in the Shenandoah, Georgia and Louisiana.
It's also worth noting that the Southern soldiers fought to defend their homes, hearths and families. American soldiers otherwise have been mercenaries deployed in the interest of some ideological crusade. (the wretched Victor D Hanson describes the various armies deployed by the US from the Civil War on as "ideological armies" fired with the power of ideas, which is ridiculous.) From that perspective it's not surprising that they're not gung-ho for the Kagan cult.
When this war ends (hopefully soon and with good terms for Russia), we will need some books stating the truth (why and how it began, how it was fought) so we do not forget it.
Hope there are some writers willing to face the challenge (wink, wink XD)
My prediction is that you are never going to see units from the country formerly known as the United States. And the reason is they know they are a paper tiger that will get beat like a step-child.
AINO kit is crap. It is expensive crap but crap nonetheless. An Abrams is just a 70 ton paper weight without a huge logistics tail.
Another prediction. You will never see the F35 in combat because 1) it is crap and 2) the cowards that run AINO dont want to risk losing their shitty wunderwaffen texhnology.
This great essay details the degree to which AINO (America In Name Only) forces will never be able to fight a near peer. AINO can barely feed its high heel wearing soldierS.
I dont think the Empire of Lies know how much it is hated around the world It appears the hatred of the pedophile friendly Empire id Lies is reconciling Shia and Sunni Muslims. Your average over-fed, over-stimulated, under-educated, just wanna grill AINO idiot has no idea what the Sunni-ShiA schism is much less even being able to grasp the ramifications of the end of the schism.
Egypt and Syria are reconciling. AINO doesnt have allies but vassal. And it looks like the entirety of the world is uniting to maybe fight it.
Thanks for your meticulous research displayed in this post.
For the past year I have asked people to engage in a thought experiment where it was our military fighting the Ukrainians rather that the Russians. Most asked have a rather inflated view of our ability to establish no-fly zones on a whim. They have not contemplated that Ukraine's S-300 air defense system is far better than anything we have deployed on our own shores, and for that matter, anything we deploy elsewhere.
And when it comes to Russia's S-400 and the S-500 yet to come, forget about it!
It is legitimate to suspect such "bribes" were carried-out in Ukraine 2022 as well, but that one side outbid the other.
- Was Kiev supposed to be delivered as Bagdad was, with a short SMO in view as plan A?
- What was actually the role of once negociator Denys Kiryeyev?
Russian Spy or Ukrainian Hero? The Strange Death of Denys Kiryeyev
Hours before Russia first sent troops into Ukraine, Mr. Kiryeyev warned of Moscow’s plan to capture Kyiv. Days later, he was killed by security agents.
Yeah but we successfully killed a half million Iraqi children. In the words of the immortal Madeline is Albright, now burning in hell for eternity, "We think it was worth it."
I remember listening to navy SEAL Jocko Willink talking about how in the battle of Ramati, on one night raid on a target, they blew the door and literally threw the Iraqi soldiers into the building.
And these were guys who were reluctant to have Iraqis around, because of their poor training...
The IRAQ war was 100% fraudulent, from beginning to end. Continues US presence in Iraq, and for that matter Syria, is 100% fraudulent.
I have no disagreement with you wrt the conduct and course of military operations. Where I take issue is with what you call the common understanding of the "war" as a brilliant achievement of American arms. It wasn't and it isn't. People here don't even think of the 2003 war as conventional war and there is little if any chest thumping about it. What is remembered is the guerilla war against the American occupation and then the Iraqi Civil War that resulted, with America intervening on one side.
The 1991 Operation Desert Storm, on the other hand, is remembered for precisely all the things you say about Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is helped, in part, by Chuck Horner's book (ghost written by Tom Clancy), in which Horner recounts the campaign to gain air dominance over Iraq. Even here, it is fairly well remembered by people who pay attention, that this was a battle between two completely different adversaries. People do wonder -- myself included -- why it is that Russia has been at it a year and still cannot at will bomb Ukrainian trains hauling Leopard Tanks using fixed wing aircraft. People do not understand why Russia remains unable to shut down Ukraine's ability to move troops or equipment anywhere. I haven't seen a well written piece that describes how difficult it is to degrade Ukraine's air defense assets, or what Ukraine has done to evade Russian attempts to stifle troop and weapon movement.
Americans do fail to compare America's inability to shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with Russia's inability to shut down the Zelensky trail from Poland to Donbass. Everybody seems to have forgotten about Vietnam. each for his own reasons.
The war which established the perception of American military supremacy was actually the Gulf War (1991). Against a battle-hardened Iraqi army (post Iran-Iraq), the US-led coalition won a stunning victory with minimal losses
There was a lot different back then - that war was when Precision became part of the lexicon. The tomahawk, JDAM, and other guided munitions saw their debut. The US military as well was still at its peak anti-Soviet dispensation, and trained + equipped accordingly. Still, I don't think anyone expected such a one-sided defeat of the Iraqi army. American armor, particularly on the Abrams, had a very significant advantage and was more or less impenetrable by anything the Iraqis had. And the scale of planning, execution, and frankly competence was really something to behold.
The 2nd Iraq war was against an Iraq that was a shadow of its former military self - but still, getting the vast majority of the Iraqi defenders to lay down their arms just because they were paid off is a stunning victory in of itself. Why sacrifice life? Setting aside the propaganda - I'd rather Iraqi soldiers surrendering than being blown to pieces by 30mm fire.
I still remember stories of Challenger tanks and Abrams tanks taking multiple (37 to the Challenger) RPG hits and still not being penetrated. My sense is that Western tank armor had a period of dominance - 15 or 20 years - where nothing could really kill it
That changed in 2006 when Hezbollah deployed tandem charge RPG's against the Israeli Merkava, and turned them into targets again. I suspect the current balance remains against armor for the moment, just due to the sophistication and penetration of modern AT weapons.
You know, this mirrors WW2 a bit, doesn't it? When German Tiger tanks first emerged onto the battlefield they were feared due to their perceived invulnerability. A short time later - not so much. But the legend lives on, till today.
Back to 2003. The Iraq war was not just a sham, but a crime. That country, which in the 70's had a healthcare system that rivaled France, world-class universities, and was one of the cultural centers of the Middle East has been sent back 200 years, and today in 2023 remains a broken nation.
When US forces are eventually committed to Ukraine (does anyone doubt it?), we will see what they can do. My sense is that some illusions will be shattered, but the battlefield is where truths are told.
Superb summary. I almost feel sorry for them, when they have to face a tier one enemy themselves the Americans will learn a brutally, bloody lesson.
What's an interesting contrast in the Ukraine situation; the US has to pay Ukraine elites NOT to surrender to Russia, and use their men as human drones to bleed as much Russian blood as possible. Untimely this is a civil Slavic war, engineered and payed by Western interests. If one was to compare it to history, it would be if the Confederates leaders in the US Civil War were payed by the British, French, Prussian to bleed the Yenkees to the last man.
Good context. Of course, none of this means the US Army is particularly bad! War is difficult and all armies encounter major problems. Various of my (now deceased and much older) male relatives served in the British military in WW2 and just after. Their stories of military incompetence were legion. I was also told that it was standard practice in the war for over keen officers to suffer “accidents”. Snipers who attempted surrender were apparently also just shot out of hand. How true all that was is unclear to me but we have a habit of forgetting these things and then over indexing on specific incidents with respect to both sides in the Ukraine conflict.
Useful to be reminded that much of the real fighting in the Iraq (and Iraq) insurgency was carried out by local troops. Just as it was in Vietnam. They also took by far the overwhelming majority of the casualties. Hollywood rarely portrays this. The Netflix film Faisal seems to be one of the few exceptions. The U.S. SOP of fighting proxy wars is clearly not a new one though and seems to have been the predominant model since Korea with respect to casualties and deployment. Also puts into context all the false reports that Wagner PMC is entirely made up of convicts!
Keep in mind Falluja was no battle. Rather it was a massacre against what in essence was an unarmed population.
Excellent post, super illuminating. Subscribed and happy I did.
Magnificent piece! And less we forget, the U.S. Army "won" against the Confederacy only after achieving 3-1 superiority and a general was found (Grant) callous enough to hurl conscripts against Southern breastworks and otherwise accept the brutal mathematics of attrition. And, of course, the great triumphs of Sheridan, Sherman and Banks against unarmed women, children, old people, barns and livestock in the Shenandoah, Georgia and Louisiana.
It's also worth noting that the Southern soldiers fought to defend their homes, hearths and families. American soldiers otherwise have been mercenaries deployed in the interest of some ideological crusade. (the wretched Victor D Hanson describes the various armies deployed by the US from the Civil War on as "ideological armies" fired with the power of ideas, which is ridiculous.) From that perspective it's not surprising that they're not gung-ho for the Kagan cult.
Really interesting, as always.
When this war ends (hopefully soon and with good terms for Russia), we will need some books stating the truth (why and how it began, how it was fought) so we do not forget it.
Hope there are some writers willing to face the challenge (wink, wink XD)
My prediction is that you are never going to see units from the country formerly known as the United States. And the reason is they know they are a paper tiger that will get beat like a step-child.
AINO kit is crap. It is expensive crap but crap nonetheless. An Abrams is just a 70 ton paper weight without a huge logistics tail.
Another prediction. You will never see the F35 in combat because 1) it is crap and 2) the cowards that run AINO dont want to risk losing their shitty wunderwaffen texhnology.
This great essay details the degree to which AINO (America In Name Only) forces will never be able to fight a near peer. AINO can barely feed its high heel wearing soldierS.
I dont think the Empire of Lies know how much it is hated around the world It appears the hatred of the pedophile friendly Empire id Lies is reconciling Shia and Sunni Muslims. Your average over-fed, over-stimulated, under-educated, just wanna grill AINO idiot has no idea what the Sunni-ShiA schism is much less even being able to grasp the ramifications of the end of the schism.
Egypt and Syria are reconciling. AINO doesnt have allies but vassal. And it looks like the entirety of the world is uniting to maybe fight it.
Thanks for your meticulous research displayed in this post.
For the past year I have asked people to engage in a thought experiment where it was our military fighting the Ukrainians rather that the Russians. Most asked have a rather inflated view of our ability to establish no-fly zones on a whim. They have not contemplated that Ukraine's S-300 air defense system is far better than anything we have deployed on our own shores, and for that matter, anything we deploy elsewhere.
And when it comes to Russia's S-400 and the S-500 yet to come, forget about it!
It is legitimate to suspect such "bribes" were carried-out in Ukraine 2022 as well, but that one side outbid the other.
- Was Kiev supposed to be delivered as Bagdad was, with a short SMO in view as plan A?
- What was actually the role of once negociator Denys Kiryeyev?
Russian Spy or Ukrainian Hero? The Strange Death of Denys Kiryeyev
Hours before Russia first sent troops into Ukraine, Mr. Kiryeyev warned of Moscow’s plan to capture Kyiv. Days later, he was killed by security agents.
By Brett Forrest Jan. 18, 2023 11:29 am ET
WSJ: https://archive.is/SbEW8
Yeah but we successfully killed a half million Iraqi children. In the words of the immortal Madeline is Albright, now burning in hell for eternity, "We think it was worth it."
Beat that *record* Russia!
I remember listening to navy SEAL Jocko Willink talking about how in the battle of Ramati, on one night raid on a target, they blew the door and literally threw the Iraqi soldiers into the building.
And these were guys who were reluctant to have Iraqis around, because of their poor training...