.                

War in Iraq: Random Thoughts

Venik

The ongoing war in Iraq is, perhaps, the most unusual armed conflict in history of modern warfare: disappearing armies and governments, illogical offensive and defensive operations on both sides of the front, information warfare on an unprecedented scale - this is not a war but a tale from Scheherazade's Thousand and One Nights. All is missing is a magic genie lamp. Well, the lamp may be there but the genie is gone. The following is not an attempt to analyze the current events in Iraq, but rather a quick look at some general impressions most of us share about this war.

Early stages of the war in Iraq boosted the positions of antiwar activists who predicted another Vietnam. The proponents of the war begun searching for the guilty party, pointing fingers toward Rumsfeld, Mayers and Franks. The latest US advances in Iraq reinforced the supporters of this war and the aggressive US foreign policy in general, while sending the antiwar activists into a downward spiral of pessimism and depression. Now the "hawks" are claiming victory without knowing or understanding anything that happened in Iraq. At the same time the antiwar masses focus on the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, accusing the US military of failing to protect the civilians.

Disappearing into the night

Independent of whether you support or oppose this war, you have to admit that the developments in Iraq during the past week took you by surprise. Granted, the US military capability is difficult to compare to that of Iraq - a country that was in a state of perpetual war for the past twenty-three years and under international embargo for well over a decade. Nevertheless, for about two weeks the Iraqi army was putting up stiff resistance - a fact acknowledged by the coalition military command. This was the first surprise. For nearly two weeks the superior coalition forces struggled to capture Umm Quasar - a tiny town with the population of 1,200 located on the border with Kuwait just a few miles from coalition positions.

During these two weeks the Iraqi troops held on to the Fao peninsula and in the face of overwhelming odds were deflecting all attacks by the British forces supported by massive numbers of coalition aircraft. The Iraqi defenses held around Basra, An Nassiriyah, An Najaf and a number of other cities. During a single day of fighting near An Nassiriyah the coalition forces lost 33 troops - a fact officially confirmed by the coalition command. The coalition was clearly running out of steam required for the push toward Baghdad, its overstretched supply lines were under constant attacks and reinforcements were weeks away from entering combat. The northern front never materialized due to Turkey's unexpectedly strong opposition.



Saddam Hussein was killed at least five times during this conflict. Donald Rumsfeld's definitive position on the subject was that "Saddam is either dead or alive." The very first bomb dropped on Baghdad in this war killed Hussein. And then he was killed every other day until he appeared in the middle of Baghdad surrounded by ****guards and cheering public - a gutsy move for a man being hunted by the world's most sophisticated war machine. With this single move Saddam destroyed two weeks of coalition propaganda efforts. But this public appearance turned out to be a farewell gesture.

Hussein always avoided making public appearances. He even avoided live TV broadcasts. His appearance in downtown Baghdad - and, yes, there is a consensus that it was actually him and not his double - under bombs, surrounded only by a small group of ****guards was a remarkable event. Many anticipated more fierce Iraqi resistance as the result of this public appearance by Hussein. What happened was exactly the opposite.

One after another Iraqi defensive positions have folded. Clearly they were not defeated and the coalition never actually claimed to have defeated them. Iraqi defenses simply disappeared leaving behind unexploded bridges, few minefields, and mostly undamaged oil wells. Most bridges and oil wells were wired with explosives but never detonated. A few oil wells were set ablaze but only to provide a smoke screen against the coalition aviation. Some bridges sustained minimal damage from the Iraqi artillery but this was the extent of it.

The withdrawal of the Iraqi forces was very organized: Fao peninsula, Basra, An Najaf, An Nassiriyah and so on from south to north. The Iraqi army was gradually disappearing leaving little damaged or abandoned equipment behind. Out of thousands of armored vehicles we have seen just a handful old BMP-1s and T-54/55s. There have been photos of about 3-4 T-72s - none of them the easily identifiable upgraded type with the reactive armor used by the Republican Guard divisions.

"impeded" journalists and freelancers in Iraq produced no footage of any large-scale engagements in Iraq. We could see British artillery firing into the night, soldiers crashing into private residences, US Marines turning empty Toyota pickup trucks into Swiss cheese and on a few rare occasions a missile destroying a standalone tank or a building. Immediately before the war most intelligence services and analytical think tanks estimated Iraq's army at between 350,000 and 402,000 regular troops in addition to about 150,000 irregular armed formations.



The coalition claimed destroyed Iraqi divisions, captured hundreds of tanks and thousands of Iraqi troops. At the very beginning of the war the coalition command claimed that the entire Iraqi 51st Infantry Division has surrendered. Clearly staged videos showing only about a hundred Iraqi POWs - many not in uniform - accompanied this claim. Later the coalition admitted to being 'overly optimistic' in claiming the surrender of the 51st division. Recently the coalition claimed that the entire Iraqi army corps has surrendered. But there were no photos and no videos to celebrate such a monumental event.

In 2001 and 2002 Iraq conducted military parades in Baghdad using over a thousand armored combat vehicles, including BMP-type armored fighting vehicles and upgraded T-72s. This at least confirms that a large number of these vehicles were in serviceable condition. The total number of operational armored combat vehicles, including main battle tanks of several types, APCs, IFVs, reconnaissance vehicles was over 5,000. Operational. This means that we have to find all this armor somewhere in Iraq. Or maybe not in Iraq? In any case, we are yet to see any appreciable number of tanks and APCs destroyed or captured by the coalition.

There were no reports of Iraq using one of its most potent weapons - the mobile multiple-launch rocket systems of which Iraq had about 200. According to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, during just the first quarter of 2002 the Iraqi air defenses launched several hundred surface-to-air missiles at the coalition aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly' zones. In this war, however, after two weeks of minimal activity the Iraqi air defenses have disappeared. The few examples of SAMs and AAAs found by the coalition forces in Baghdad, Basra and other cities are just a drop in a bucket of Iraq's pre-war arsenal.

Some news reports suggest that a massive surrender deal was worked out between the coalition and the Iraqi Republican Guard. So far, however, we have not seen any evidence of such a deal. An agreement on this scale requires mutual trust on the same scale. This is likely to remain an unfulfilled requirement. Many Iraqi army officers remain convinced that the 1991 ‘Road to Baghdad massacre’ was the result of the US violating a ceasefire agreement reached between Iraq and the US as the result of Soviet mediation. In 1991 the Soviet Union attempted to negotiate a peace deal between the US and Iraq and in doing so the Soviets poorly coordinated their actions with the US.

The Soviet position was vague and some can argue that it was misleading as well. There is no question that Saddam Hussein had a clear picture of these negotiations, but many of his troops did not. It is a popular belief in Iraq that the US launched a cowardly attack on the withdrawing Iraqi army after a ceasefire agreement has been reached. This belief would make any large-scale agreements between the coalition and the Iraqi army very difficult. In any case, the recent reports by Al Jazeera and the Jordanian media regarding a possible deal between the US and the commander of the Iraqi Republican Guard Gen. Maher Sufyan are complete nonsense.

Rumors of Hussein’s death persist in the Arabic media. Al Jazeera reported that Saddam Hussein, his two sons - Uday and Qusay - and most of Hussein’s government were killed during the US bombing of a restaurant in Baghdad on April 7. If anything, this is a clear confirmation that Saddam Hussein is alive. Just a reminder: on April 7 the US dropped a guided bomb onto a residential building in Baghdad. The US military and government officials claimed that there was a bunker under the building and that Saddam Hussein was believed to be in there. A day later British intelligence sources told the press that Saddam is likely to be alive. About the same time it was uncovered that the destroyed building had no bunker (this was immediately obvious from the photos of the building’s remains). The "bunker" turned out to a small restaurant on the basement floor. Saddam has enough secret underground facilities in Iraq to avoid making a choice between secrecy of the ******** and its protection against US penetrating bombs. Most of these underground facilities were made to withstand a hit of tactical nuclear weapon. For example, during the 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia the US was not able to penetrate a single underground hangar used by the Yugoslav Air Force. A variety of weapons were used against these facilities, including penetration weapons and super-heavy volume-detonation bombs.

The likelihood of Saddam, his sons and his entire government meeting at a public place in downtown Baghdad under US bombs for bite of baklava with some tea is not very high. Saddam is many things but careless is not one of them.

War in Iraq: Random Thoughts, Part I

The failings of hi-tech
About a hundred of Iraq's operational aircraft have disappeared without a trace. There have been no photos, satellite imagery, video footage made by targeting systems of Iraqi planes, helicopters, tanks, SAM launchers or any other military equipment supposedly destroyed by the coalition. We have seen such images on a daily basis during the 1991 Gulf War and during the 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia. And speaking of Yugoslavia - here's another characteristic example: for nearly three months hundreds of NATO aircraft and dozens of warships attacked Yugoslavia with bombs and missiles. This was a very one-sided war in which the defending side chose a very passive strategy.

Even so, the NATO command claimed some 800 destroyed "tanks". It claimed that Yugoslav air defenses were completely destroyed and its army was on the verge of collapse. At the end of the war the Yugoslav side confirmed 26 tanks lost mainly to the Kosovo Liberation Army actions. It was said that about ten of those tanks were still repairable and were transported out of Kosovo. In the province itself the 'peacekeepers' found only 13 destroyed tanks and just three of them were the relatively modern M84s. No destroyed air defense systems were found.

Much to NATO's embarrassment the Yugoslav army paraded hundreds of armored vehicles and air defense systems when it was withdrawing from Kosovo. A review was launched by the NATO into the discrepancy between the number if claimed kills and the confirmed results of the bombing campaign. NATO's commander Gen. Clarke was sacked just two months before the end of his term. This war illustrated the weaknesses of air power at all stages: reconnaissance, real-time target acquisition and identification, targeting and guidance. This was just three years ago.

During the war in Yugoslavia NATO lost at least 45 unmanned reconnaissance vehicles. This was officially confirmed by the NATO command. This number includes almost all (12) of the new British "Phoenix" UAVs deployed in the war - the first operational deployment of this remarkably expensive type. The primary task of these aircraft was to provide real-time targeting information - a task never accomplished. Incidentally, a "Phoenix" UAV is one of only two UAV losses officially reported during the ongoing war in Iraq.

Another marvel of modern UAV design - the enormous Global Hawk - is reportedly being used over Iraq following its less than impressive performance in Afghanistan. Out of at least 16 confirmed UAV losses in Afghanistan two were the Global Hawks - the most expensive operational 'strategic' UAVs with intercontinental range. U-2s, satellites and numerous other reconnaissance systems are also being used in Iraq. Nearly all of the same systems were used over Yugoslavia with very poor results.

Massive failures of GPS-guided weapons, such as modernized Tomahawks and JDAM guided bombs, were likely cause by novel GPS jamming systems deployed by Iraq. The US accused Russia of supplying the GPS jammers to Iraq along with some of its latest anti-tank guided missile systems. Russia rejected these accusations but the fact of poor performance of GPS-guided weapons remains.

The Russian connection
Moscow's role in this war remains a mystery. On the one hand Russia was accused of supplying Iraq with GPS jammers, advanced anti-tank weapons and night-vision equipment. However, these allegations remained with no proof. A couple of destroyed "Abrams" MBTs and a few killed coalition soldiers do not amount to conclusive evidence. Still, Russia was concerned by these allegations and top Russian government officials stepped up to personally reject them. These accusations were quite specific: particular Russian companies were named as manufacturers of the weapons. Naturally, the management of these companies vehemently denied any connections with Iraq.

Russia distanced itself from Saddam Hussein and limited its public position on the war in Iraq to political rhetoric and occasional hit-and-run verbal assaults on Washington and London. But then something happened and Russia first hinted at and later confirmed plans to deploy considerable naval forces to the Persian Gulf area. Russian diplomatic convoy was attacked by the US troops while leaving Baghdad. Five Russian diplomats, including the ambassador, were wounded. Immediately the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the US of deliberately attacking the Russian diplomats.

At the very first opportunity Russia's ambassador to Iraq gave a televised interview accusing the US troops of deliberately firing at the Russian diplomatic convoy for nearly forty minutes and then refusing to provide any assistance. It has been confirmed that the bullets pulled from the stomach of one of the drivers came from a US-made M-16 automatic rifle. Numerous holes and bullets found in the cars came from the same type of weapon.

The attack on the Russian diplomatic convoy corresponds in time with the first signs of folding Iraqi defenses. Many wonder why the Russia's ambassador to Iraq took the great risk of leaving Baghdad and traveling to Syria and, later, to Moscow just to return to Baghdad two days later. Was there something so important carried by the diplomatic convoy that it required ambassadorial escort? Something important enough to cause the US troops to open fire on Russian diplomats? Furthermore, the Russian side alleged that the US troops were trying to stop and search the diplomatic convoy and were trying to deny it passage across the Syrian border.

Putin talked to Bush on the phone. It was reported that the conversation was long and not particularly pleasant. In contrast Condoleezza Rice's visit to Moscow the next morning was short and seemingly uneventful. Some sources claimed that the diplomatic convoy might have been carrying certain US military hardware captured by the Iraqis. This would include the advanced electro-optical systems from the downed AH-64D Apache Longbow. As you may re******, this helicopter - the most advanced in its class in the US service - landed with minimal damage after supposedly being hit by simple rifle round. With the exception of some light damage to the undercarriage the helicopter was intact. The two pilots were captured.

The CENTCOM representatives confirmed that this AH-64D was later destroyed by a precision-guided bomb dropped by a US plane (presumably an F-14) so not to let the advanced technology fall into the enemy's hands. The US destroyed a number of its downed aircraft during the first war in the Persian Gulf and during the war in Yugoslavia. However, the first official confirmation of this practice came during the continuing war in Afghanistan, where an F-14 used a laser-guided bomb to destroy the remains of an MH-53 transport helicopter. During the first war in the Persian Gulf Iraq claimed to have shot down an F-117 'stealth' bomber with an SA-8 'Gecko' mobile SAM systems. Iraq also claimed that the remains of this F-117 were destroyed by another F-117 before the Iraqi troops could locate the crash site.

Classified technology
If you read the "Ramzaj" reports you know that using satellite imagery of the AH-64D's crash site Russian military intelligence concluded that the US planes destroyed a crude mockup of the helicopter and that the real AH-64D was transported away from the crash site. Later video footage from Iraq showed an AH-64D Apache Longbow being transported by a truck, confirming the initial analysts of the satellite photos. It is worth particular attention that the most sensitive electro-optical systems were removed from the helicopter. If you look at the video still of the AH-64D loaded onto a trailer, you will notice missing targeting and surveillance equipment in the nose section of the aircraft.

What exactly was missing and how important are these systems? Are they worth a political and, possibly, a military confrontation with Russia? There were also some rumors that these systems were bought by China and not by Russia. China is attempting to develop its own attack helicopter, while Russia already has similar technology. The AH-64D contains a lot of classified technology including the Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman AN/APG-78 Longbow mast-mounted 360-deg radar that can track up to 256 airborne and ground targets. The communication suit includes AN/ARC-164 UHF, AN/ARC-222 SINCGARS secure UHF/VHF, KY-28/58/TSEC crypto secure voice, C-8157 secure voice control, AN/APX-100 IFF system with KIT-1A secure encoding.

The helicopter's sensor turret, present on the original photos of the downed AH-64D but missing on the video footage shot later, contains a number of advanced optical and electronic systems including the TV camera, laser range-finder/designator, laser spot tracker, FLIR sight and other systems. The helicopter is also equipped with Litton AN/APR-39 passive RWR, Sanders AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer, Raytheon AN/AVR-2 laser warning receiver, ITT AN/ALQ-136 radar jammer and chaff dispensers and Lockheed Martin AN/APR-48A radar frequency interferometer.

The missing turret is obvious but it is difficult to tell what other systems were removed from the helicopter even before it was loaded onto a truck. By all accounts the captured Apache Longbow was loaded with technology worth billions of dollars in development costs. But would this cause the US troops to try to kill the Russian diplomats, or was there something even more important riding in ambassador's Mercedes-Benz? Most importantly, however, did transporting pieces of the attack helicopter really require 25 embassy staff ******s and the ambassador himself? This does not seem very likely. On the other hand, in 1999 Russia acquired a number of NATO weapons captured by the Yugoslav military, including the British Phoenix UAV and the US F-117A ‘stealth’ bomber.

Saddam and his archives 

Some say that, if the US troops really wanted to search the Russian diplomatic convoy or to kill everyone in it, they could have easily done so. Security of Russian diplomats is ensured by the SVR (Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki – the Foreign Intelligence Service). The fact that the US troops fired on the convoy for about forty minutes but did not come close may indicate that there was resistance. This is unlikely but possible. On the Syrian border the diplomats were met and escorted by a unit of Syrian Special Forces.

Another possibility is that the Russian diplomats were trying to remove Saddam’s archives from Baghdad. It is difficult to estimate the significance of such a scenario without knowing what was contained in the archives. If there were any archives. The US needs to justify the war in Iraq. It needs to justify its decision to go to war without the UN support. The only possible way to justify this is to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If Saddam’s archives contained some information in this regard then this may certainly justify the attack on the Russian diplomats.

US oil supplies are running low and Iraqi oil will not resolve the situation any time soon. War-related ups and downs of the market are now being replaced by the pre-war downward trend. The war was indecisive, its results are unclear and its conclusion is still in the distant future. But right now the Bush administration needs to find a way to lift the UN sanctions against Iraq. That’s the only legal way of doing business in Iraq. And the only way the UN can lift its own sanctions is to put the weapons inspectors on the ground, who will certify that Iraq is free of illegal weapons. Before this happens the US absolutely has to find these weapons - even if they do not exist.

One possible cargo that would certainly explain the attack on the Russian diplomats would be Saddam himself. A number of newspapers in Russia, Middle East and in the West speculated that Saddam Hussein may be in Russia and that Russia might have played a key role in the unexpected disappearance of Hussein, his ministers and his army. Russia is one of very few countries that may have the will and, most importantly, the ability to provide Saddam Hussein with asylum. In this regard Syria may actually be Saddam’s last choice for a refuge. In Russia Saddam can get lost and nobody will ever find him, his family, or the members of his government.

What’s in it for Russia? Why should Russia put so much on the line to snatch the Iraqi dictator from the hands of the Pentagon? Why should Russia aid the US in dismantling the Iraqi defenses? Russia has certain financial interests associated with the situation around Iraq.

Follow the money

There is a range of Russia’s financial interests associated with Iraq. There are Iraqi debts to the USSR for purchased weapons, among other things; there are oil deals between Russian oil companies like LUKoil and the former government of Iraq. There also is a number of possibilities for Russia to benefit from the situation in Iraq. The US and the UK went it alone in the war against Iraq. No US resolution – no legal government in Iraq – no diplomatic recognition – no UN humanitarian programs, etc. Amid all the talk about the UN’s irrelevance the US still needs cooperation of countries like Russia, France and China to make sure that the quick victory in Iraq (with most of the Iraqi army and paramilitaries still armed and “missing”, the Baath party gradually returning to power and the country being filled with domestic and foreign Mudjahaddins) does not follow in the footsteps of the Soviet “quick win” in Afghanistan.

Some people were surprised by how quickly Russia agreed to consider forgiving Iraq’s Soviet debt estimated at around $10 billion. Russian government is now sending mixed signals but there may be good reasons for this decision. Currently Russia itself owes about $123.5 billion in old Soviet debts to the IMF representing creditors like US, France, Germany, the UK and other countries as well as to individual creditors represented by the London Club and the Paris Club. Just during the last few years of its existence under Gorbachev the USSR borrowed over $40 billion from the West on top of the already very substantial Soviet foreign debt. Since Gorbachev Russia borrowed about $65 billion ($9.6 billion in foreign loans in 1992; over $3.4 billion in 1993; more than $3.3 billion in 1994; nearly $7.6 billion in 1995; about $14.3 billion in 1996; almost $7.3 billion in 1997; $17.5 billion in 1998; under $1.4 billion in 1999 and a just over $1 billion in 2000).

In the 2003 Russian budget the debt repayment expense category for the IMF debt is $3.5 billion, which is roughly 1% of Russia’s GDP – a huge amount equivalent to about $100 billion in the US economy. Russia was able to restructure most of the old Soviet debts. Between 2002 and 2010 Russia is expected to fork out about $31 billion on the Soviet export credits. This is about six times the amount Russia spends yearly on its entire law enforcement system. After the 2010 Russian debt payments are scheduled to rise and will reach their peak in 2015 at $4 billion. Just in April of 2003 Russia will pay over $1 billion on its foreign debts and the overall debt payments in 2003 will amount to over $15.5 billion. Last year’s payments were $7.67 billion.

The situation in Iraq offers Russia a number of opportunities to get rid of some of the old Soviet debts or to restructure them. In exchange Russia may be willing to forgive Iraq’s debt (it’s not like Moscow expected to get this cash any time soon in any case). The US needs Russia’s support to give the air of legitimacy to the puppet government in Iraq. The US also needs support to get the UN involved in Iraq. While it may appear that the US is very reluctant to share the spoils of war with the UN, it is just an appearance. The US has no interest in providing the Iraqis with social services and security – this role the Americans would rather share with the UN. There is a range of diplomatic and legal problems for the US with the status of the aggression against Iraq and the existing UN sanctions against Iraq. Many of these problems can only be resolved with the UN support.

The US cannot afford to fund Iraq’s restoration out of its own budget – Iraq is just too big and expensive. Already the cost of the war is estimated at around $80 billion, which includes about $20 billion in direct military expenses, according to Pentagon. The war is far from over – in fact the most expensive part of the conflict is just beginning. Right now there’s about a half left of Bush’s proposed tax relief. Using the money coming from Iraq’s oil for now remains a distant prospect, not to mention the questionable legal status of this oil – again, a matter that only the UN can resolve. The US wants to the IMF and other international financial institutions to get involved in Iraq and this requires… Well, you guessed it.

Russia may be looking forward to arming the new Iraqi army. Just like in Afghanistan the US is paying for the Russian weapons supplied to the Northern Alliance, Russia is hoping the US may pay to arm the Iraqi army. The logic here is the same as in Afghanistan: the US-made weapons are too expensive for the Iraqis; the US will spend far more trying to supply Iraq with its own weapons as opposed to buying them from Russia. It will be also too expensive to train the Iraqis to use US-made weapons on a large scale. Already Iraq’s army is equipped with predominantly Russian weapons; weapons that have not seen new spare parts and qualified service for more than ten years. News reports coming from Iraq suggest that the US troops are trying to preserve working Iraqi military hardware for Iraq’s “new” army.

Reasons for the war

http://www.aeronautics.ru

Power Search