NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

What Failed In Iraq, Fails in Afghanistan

February 23, 2009:  The use of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Device, a roadside, or suicide car bomb) in Iraq has moved to Afghanistan. So have the techniques U.S. troops developed to deal with these devices. The U.S. mobilized a multi-billion dollar effort to deal with IEDs, and that paid off. New technology (jammers, robots), tactics (predictive analysis and such), equipment (better armor for vehicles and troops) and a lot of determination did the job. In 2006, some five IEDs to cause one coalition casualty (11 percent fatal). A year later, it took four IEDs to cause one casualty (8 percent fatal) and by 2008 it took nine IEDs per casualty (12 percent fatal). The important thing was avoiding, detecting or defeating IEDs. In 2006, only 8 percent of IEDs put out there caused casualties. In 2007, it was nine percent. In 2008, it was less than five percent. The main objective of IEDs was to kill coalition troops, and at that, they were very ineffective. In 2006, you had use 48 to kill one soldier. In 2007, you needed 49 and by 2008, you needed 79.  IEDs are doing worse in Afghanistan,

In Afghanistan, the enemy starts off at a disadvantage, because they don't have the expertise or the resources of the Iraqi IED specialists. In Iraq, the bombs were built and placed by one of several dozen independent gangs, each containing smaller groups of people with different skills. At the head of each gang was a guy called the money man. That tells you something about how all this works. Nearly all the people involved with IED gangs were Sunni Arabs, and most of them once worked for Saddam. The gangs hired themselves out to terrorist groups (some of them al Qaeda affiliated), but mainly to Baath Party or Sunni Arab groups that believed the Sunni Arabs should be running the country. You got the money, these gangs got the bombs.

The money man, naturally, called the shots. He hired, individually or as groups, the other specialists. These included scouts (who found the most effective locations to put the bombs), the bomb makers, the emplacers (who placed the bomb) and the trigger team, that actually set the bomb off, and often included an ambush team, to attack the damaged vehicles with AK-47s and RPGs. The trigger team also usually included a guy with a video camera, who recorded the operation. Attacks that fail, are also recorded, for later examination for things that could be improved.

The specialists most in demand were the emplacers. This is the most dangerous job, as coalition and Iraqi troops watched carefully for IEDs being placed, and shoot fast, and to kill, if they saw a bomb being planted. Needless to say, the highest casualties were among the emplacers. Overall, the Iraqis lost more people than the foreign troops did during the IED campaign.

Many of these specialist teams were independents, and hired themselves out to the money man who paid the best, or had a reputation for not losing people. Some of these teams were found advertising on the Internet. Men in each team got from $50 to several hundred bucks for each IED worked on.

Interrogations of captured IED crew members indicated that most IED teams operated on a two week cycle. During this period, the gang prepared and placed from a few, to a dozen IEDs in one, carefully planned operation. Once the money man decided on what area to attack, the scout team (or teams) spend 4-5 days examining the target area, to see how troops, police and traffic operated. They recommend places to put the bombs, and the money man decided how many to build and place where.

The bomb makers were contracted to build a certain number of bombs and have them ready for pick up by the emplacers on a certain day. The trigger teams were either already in place, or arrived shortly after, the emplacers successfully planted their bombs. Most of the bombs were discovered and destroyed by the police or troops. Increasingly, the trigger teams were discovered, and attacked, as well. This is where a lot of bomb team members were captured. These men often provided information on other members of the team, which resulted in more arrests. Thousands of men, involved with these IED gangs, were killed or captured. There were always plenty of new people willing to have a go at it. The main reason was money. With over 20 percent unemployment nationwide, and even higher rates in Sunni Arab areas (because the terrorism there reduced economic activity), an opportunity to make a months pay for a few hours, or days, work, was worth the risk.

For the more senior members of the gangs, there was another reason. These guys had worked for Saddam, had blood on their hands, and were known to the Kurds and Shia Arabs they terrorized for years. They could either flee Iraq, and risk getting picked up eventually for their crimes, or stay in Iraq, and hope that their IED efforts put Sunni Arabs back into power before the police, or vengeful kin of their victims, caught up with them. Most of the key IED people were either killed or captured, with many of the survivors fleeing the country. Some ended up in Pakistan or Afghanistan, where they continued to be hunted. As in Iraq, what drives the Afghan IED campaign is money. This time, the cash is coming from the drug gangs, who use the Taliban to help keep the soldiers and police from the drug production operations.

In Iraq, Saddams henchmen got away with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. This was known, huge amounts of this cash, and financial records,  were seized by coalition troops as they overran Iraq in 2003. The subsequent IED campaign cost the terrorists one or two million dollars a month. Eventually, several hundred IED and car bomb factories were captured, along with large quantities of cash. The IED campaign was driven by the cash, plus all the bombs, explosives and shells Saddam had stored all over the country, and, most importantly, Sunni Arab fear of being brought to justice.

A small percentage (less than 20 percent) of the terrorist attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, which had a different agenda. These differences (al Qaeda wanted an Islamic dictatorship, Saddams buddies want a Sunni Arab secular dictatorship) were put aside, as both groups tried to get the foreign troops out of Iraq.

Al Qaeda preferred to use car bombs, in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. This was because al Qaeda had a big supply of Sunni Arab volunteers. Many of these volunteers were worthless, as they had no military training, and some of them were deranged. But some of these men were capable of driving a suicide car bomb, or used as trigger teams. The car bombs were produced in auto repair shops, where cars had seats, and other components removed so that the explosives could be installed. Better suspensions were often installed so that the vehicle would not be so obviously overloaded, and be easier to drive. Building a car bomb costs more than an IED, but al Qaeda saved money by using volunteers for other jobs, besides drivers. The emplacers would drive another car, behind the suicide bomber, radioing the suicide bomber instructions, and sometimes setting off the explosives themselves. Suicide bombers often have second thoughts when it comes to doing the deed. The emplacers prevented this any way they could. The emplacer car would often have a cameraman, taping the operation. These vids turned up a lot on pro-terrorist web sites.

There was no terrorist high command for the IED effort. All of the gangs were independent, and many of the teams within the gangs were independent as well. What drove the operation was money, a desire to regain control of the country, and fear of punishment for past crimes. Political negotiations between the Shia Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurd leaders, dealt with the subject of amnesty for Saddams most notorious thugs. The victims (or their surviving kin) were reluctant to let the current bunch of terrorists off scot free, but were willing to negotiate over the issue. The more blood people shed, the harder it was to get an amnesty deal. The terrorists took a big gamble, that they will either see Sunni Arabs back in power, or that they would evade punishment once the police gained control over the entire country. Few of the bombers won this bet, with the police continuing to seek out who they are and arrest them. This was because most of the casualties, particularly from car bombs, were Iraqi civilians. The people won't forget, and they want revenge.

The same pattern is playing out in Afghanistan, with the Afghan population very hostile to the suicide bombing campaign in particular, because so many of the victims are civilians, or Afghan security personnel.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article RUSSIA: Fired Generals Refuse To Leave


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

jak267       2/23/2009 6:01:23 AM
It doesn't matter how many IEDs it takes. If only one soldier dies, the News Media will turn it into a national defeat for the US.
 
But let's not forget the most important thing. Not a single soldier would have been murdered by an IED if it the Terrorists didn't know that they had the support of American Liberals - including our new President.
 
Obama supported letting Saddam continue with his genocides and he made it clear to the Terrorists in Iraq that if they just murdered enough American soldiers then the US would Cut-n-Run.
 
Obama will abandon Iraq to de facto Iranian control and use his "surge" in Afghanistan as an excuse to negotiate with the Taleban and then pull out. (After all, it's not his daughters who will get acid thrown in their faces.)
 
Obama's legacy will be "reduced expectations" - and another big black death shrine to soldiers murdered by Liberal hypocrisy.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Cortez       2/23/2009 7:57:49 AM
I believe that a lot of Iraqi had guilty knowledge of the system and kept quiet, though they could have informed the US safely.  Should be consider the people those people who were there at the time innocent civilians?  They had no real reason to get involved because whatever happened cost them nothing.
 
Quote    Reply

verong       2/23/2009 3:11:40 PM
Hey Folks,
 
Like I told JP before he retired from CENTCOM and before the surge plan took root. I e-mailed him and basically said that the Iraqi civilian casualties were causing more problems here in the States than lost US troops. The Surge proved me correct!!!!!!!!!
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

kerravon       2/24/2009 3:00:26 AM

Well said jak267. The world is a strange place indeed. It's amazing just how much nonsense can be spouted without the left-wing being called on it.  I'm still waiting for them to be brought to account for their support of the USSR during the Cold War.

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/24/2009 10:39:56 AM

Hey Folks,

 

Like I told JP before he retired from CENTCOM and before the surge plan took root. I e-mailed him and basically said that the Iraqi civilian casualties were causing more problems here in the States than lost US troops. The Surge proved me correct!!!!!!!!!

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith

Keith, IRL are you someone who could reasonably expect CENTCOM to take your calls?
 
Quote    Reply

verong       2/24/2009 1:58:29 PM




Hey Folks,



 



Like I told JP before he retired from CENTCOM and before the surge plan took root. I e-mailed him and basically said that the Iraqi civilian casualties were causing more problems here in the States than lost US troops. The Surge proved me correct!!!!!!!!!



 



Sincerely,



 



Keith




Keith, IRL are you someone who could reasonably expect CENTCOM to take your calls?


Hey There,
You would think no, but they did! My arguement for the armored humvee was successful among others. At first I just e-mailed PAO (public affairs) then JP responded in about aug of 2006. we e-mailed each other off and on for the rest of his carrer until retirement, to bad though you know his full name is Gen. John P. Abizaid
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
note: I still have some of his e-mails
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       2/24/2009 2:28:05 PM

It doesn't matter how many IEDs it takes. If only one soldier dies, the News Media will turn it into a national defeat for the US.

 But let's not forget the most important thing. Not a single soldier would have been murdered by an IED if it the Terrorists didn't know that they had the support of American Liberals - including our new President.
Obama supported letting Saddam continue with his genocides and he made it clear to the Terrorists in Iraq that if they just murdered enough American soldiers then the US would Cut-n-Run.

 Obama will abandon Iraq to de facto Iranian control and use his "surge" in Afghanistan as an excuse to negotiate with the Taleban and then pull out. (After all, it's not his daughters who will get acid thrown in their faces.)
Obama's legacy will be "reduced expectations" - and another big black death shrine to soldiers murdered by Liberal hypocrisy.
Hmmm...
1.  If the media hasn't considered it yet to be a defeat for one soldier to die if an IED goes off, I don't see why they would start now.
2.  How do you figure?  The terrorists by that standard obviously had a lots of buddies in the Bush Administration - after all, they were the ones who went into Iraq with too few people to secure the million+ tons of ammunition dumps left behind, unguarded, during the invasion.  Note that when they went back, all the ammunition had disappeared, and a lot of it was later used to make the IEDs you seem to be blaming "liberals" for.
3.  Since when has the US given a damn about any genocides going on anywhere that didn't have oil underneath it?  And it appears that it is the Iraqi's own people and government that by virtue of every poll taken have wanted us out of their country - and in fact they never wanted us IN their country.
4.  The previous incumbant of the White House is completely at fault for putting Iran into the drivers seat in the middle east.  He was warned many times by the state department amongst others that taking out a toothless Iraq (that the Iranians were terrified of) would destabilize the ME and empower Iran.  So this is hardly a surprising development, and the fault of it lies squarely on the sholders of the Bush Administration.  Because we cannot stay there forever - and the Iranians LIVE there.
5.  W/r/t your last comment: GWB, according to the C-SPAN Presidential Ratings recently released, comes in at 36th out of 41 presidents (Jimmy Carter comes in at 25th - well above GWB).  He ranks the worst in history in foreign affairs, and second worst in history fiscally - and was easily the worst president in modern history.  But somehow, I don't think it matters matters how good the new guy is - you'll always find a reason to hate the man.  You really ought to cut him some slack, considering the disaster that the previous incumbant of the WH left behind.
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

verong       2/24/2009 3:55:40 PM




It doesn't matter how many IEDs it takes. If only one soldier dies, the News Media will turn it into a national defeat for the US.



 But let's not forget the most important thing. Not a single soldier would have been murdered by an IED if it the Terrorists didn't know that they had the support of American Liberals - including our new President.


Obama supported letting Saddam continue with his genocides and he made it clear to the Terrorists in Iraq that if they just murdered enough American soldiers then the US would Cut-n-Run.



 Obama will abandon Iraq to de facto Iranian control and use his "surge" in Afghanistan as an excuse to negotiate with the Taleban and then pull out. (After all, it's not his daughters who will get acid thrown in their faces.)


Obama's legacy will be "reduced expectations" - and another big black death shrine to soldiers murdered by Liberal hypocrisy.


Hmmm...


1.  If the media hasn't considered it yet to be a defeat for one soldier to die if an IED goes off, I don't see why they would start now.

2.  How do you figure?  The terrorists by that standard obviously had a lots of buddies in the Bush Administration - after all, they were the ones who went into Iraq with too few people to secure the million+ tons of ammunition dumps left behind, unguarded, during the invasion.  Note that when they went back, all the ammunition had disappeared, and a lot of it was later used to make the IEDs you seem to be blaming "liberals" for.

3.  Since when has the US given a damn about any genocides going on anywhere that didn't have oil underneath it?  And it appears that it is the Iraqi's own people and government that by virtue of every poll taken have wanted us out of their country - and in fact they never wanted us IN their country.

4.  The previous incumbant of the White House is completely at fault for putting Iran into the drivers seat in the middle east.  He was warned many times by the state department amongst others that taking out a toothless Iraq (that the Iranians were terrified of) would destabilize the ME and empower Iran.  So this is hardly a surprising development, and the fault of it lies squarely on the sholders of the Bush Administration.  Because we cannot stay there forever - and the Iranians LIVE there.

5.  W/r/t your last comment: GWB, according to the C-SPAN Presidential Ratings recently released, comes in at 36th out of 41 presidents (Jimmy Carter comes in at 25th - well above GWB).  He ranks the worst in history in foreign affairs, and second worst in history fiscally - and was easily the worst president in modern history.  But somehow, I don't think it matters matters how good the new guy is - you'll always find a reason to hate the man.  You really ought to cut him some slack, considering the disaster that the previous incumbant of the WH left behind.

 





 


Hey there,
The Bush administration had a military that planned to fight a MRC against Iraq or North Korea. The Fact is that was successful. The problem is that they ignored the fact that they needed to fight a SF force in either MRC which is why
I wanted  of my LCBA and 20 LID. Now I feel justfied but ignored.
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
note: at least I had a plan they are using much of it now
 
Quote    Reply

razputin    The truth about war in afghanistan...   2/26/2009 10:42:23 AM

U.S. losing Afghan war because of bad infantry tactics

By WILLIAM S. LIND
 
 
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- For the gazillionth time, the U.S. military in Afghanistan had to announce last week that an American airstrike had killed civilians. The incident followed a familiar pattern. U.S. military officials first announced that 15 insurgents had been killed, then had to climb down, finding after an official investigation that only three of the dead were fighters, while 13 civilians had died.

In congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that unless U.S. forces stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, "we are lost." So why do U.S. forces keep doing airstrikes?

The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad. They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire. The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes. So to win tactically, the U.S. armed forces have to lose strategically. At least from the Vietnam War onward, that equation has come to define the American way of war. It is the price of bad tactics.

Why does the American infantry continue to employ bad tactics? Superior alternatives are readily available. The "infiltration tactics" used by German infantry in the Kaiserschlacht of 1918 are far superior. Better still are true light infantry or Jaeger tactics, which influenced the development of infiltration tactics. Light infantry tactics rely less on firepower and more on stealth, surprise, ambush and encirclement. Their history is well known, and reaches back as far as the 18th century. The literature on them is extensive.

There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand. The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth that characterizes most of the American officer corps -- and infantry officers in particular.

Most read nothing about their profession. Of those who do read, most confine their study to doctrinal manuals -- the U.S. Army's are wretched rehashed French stuff, the Marine Corps' somewhat better -- or histories of American victories. The number of officers who really study tactics, learning about infiltration tactics, Jaeger tactics, the infantry tactics of Oriental militaries, etc., is tiny.

This ignorance is buttressed by hubris and false pride. The American military spends a great deal of time and effort telling itself how wonderful it is. Gorged on its own baloney, it thinks, "How could we possibly learn anything from anyone else? After all, we're the greatest." So there is no need for any study beyond study of ourselves. Hubris justifies the closed system that ignorance creates.

The second reason we persist with bad infantry tactics is bad training. Almost all American training is focused on procedures and techniques, taught by rote in canned, scripted exercises in which the enemy is a tethered goat.

Free-play training against an active, creative enemy generates imaginative tactics, because whoever employs such tactics wins. But free-play training is so rare in the American military that most American infantrymen receive none at all. They become expert in techniques for applying fire, but they know nothing else. In effect, many American infantry units have no tactics, they only have techniques.

The third reason American tactics are bad is a bad personnel system. American infantry units are allowed to maintain personnel stability only for short periods, and sometimes not at all. They are always receiving new, largely untrained troops who have to be taught "the basics," which is assumed to mean procedures and techniques. Even if they try -- and few units do -- they cannot get beyond just bumping into the enemy and calling for fire, because that's all the newbies can possibly manage.

A piece in the Feb. 19 Washington Post cited the American commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David McKiernan, as saying the planned increase in American troops could allow for the use of fewer airstrikes. On the contrary, the bad tactics those troops will employ, because they know no others, guarantee that the demand for airstrikes will go up. So will Afghan civilian casualties, and with them the speed with which we will lose the Afghan war.

How many wars does America have to lose before American infantry officers get serious about studying tactics? ))))


 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy