"Iraq exit logistics" de Borchgrave

"Watching them drive by at 30 miles per hour, would take 75 days. Bumper-to-bumper, they would stretch from New York City to Denver. That's how U.S. Air Force logistical expert Lenny Richoux described the number of vehicles that would have to be shipped back from Iraq when the current deployment is over. These include, among others, 10,000 flatbed trucks, 1,000 tanks and 20,000 Humvees.Even in an emergency, said Col. Richoux in DefenseNews, the evacuation of 162,000 troops in 23 ground combat brigades and millions of tons of equipment would take some 20 months. Military shipping containers, end to end, would stretch from New York City to the gates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The main resupply route for convoys that runs 344 miles from Kuwait (skirts Basra to the north) to Baghdad is already under the constant threat of hit-and-run insurgency attacks, including improvised explosive devices. Driving empty, on their way back to pick up another load in Kuwait, convoys are just as vulnerable.  Arnaud de Borchgrave

-----------------------------------------------------------

I guess it was to be expected that a journalist who flew into the airstrip at Dien Bien Phu the day the French paratroops seized the place would take an interest in the hard realities of military operations.  Nevertheless, I am gratified and grateful that he has written this very useful piece.  It tells the story so well that I am relieved of the burden of trying to write it myself.  As I said at the Miller Center last week, I was an intelligence officer but always was "logistics driven" in my thinking.

The Democrats who talk about leaving about leaving Iraq by the end of 2008 are as deluded as the Republicans who think that Iraq is South Korea. 

The United States can not afford to run helter skelter for the door in Kuwait.  There are a myriad of geo-political reasons why that is true, but looming alongside that set of reasons is the fact that we can not afford to depart militarily in other than an organized, rational, carefully planned way.  To do otherwise is to court a collapse of the internal situation into a chaos that would make present events seem mild.

And then there are "our things."  As De Borchgrave explains, there are a vast number of armored vehicles, trucks, Strykers, and aircraft in Iraq that the United States can not afford to lose.  These things need to be brought back to the US for factory re-build so that the taxpayer's money will not be wasted buying analogous equipment.  Pacifists will argue that it would be better to leave the equipment because we should "study war no more."  That concept is as unrelated to reality as the Jacobin flathead view of a homogeneous mankind.

The road out of Iraq will require several years for a safe passage. pl

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/COMMENTARY/110070005

Comments

[JohnH]

Once again the WWI soldiers' song rings true: we're there because we're there. Talk about absurd!

And to think that Vichy Democrats want to attack Iran!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/who-wants-to-bomb-iran-_b_67229.html

[Clausewitz]

To my mind, these facts make it plain that: 1) the logistics of an orderly withdrawal should have been thought out and implemented long ago; 2) they weren't because US policy is set by reactionary idiots; and 3) the implications for an utter debacle increase by several geometric factors as a result.

[jonst]

Would that pacifists (however divorced from reality they may or may not be)have even to mentioned in the same breath with the flatheads. Pacifists(for better or worse) have as much influence on day to day events as do the members of The Sovereign Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows

[CSTAR]

Huh?

Pacifists will argue that it would be better to leave the equipment because we should "study war no more."

Now that is a strawman argument if I ever saw one, and I'm surprised to see you propose it so cavalierly and thoughtlessly. First of all, as a question of environmental responsibility, most war opponents would insist on the removal or at least proper disposal of all that crap.

As to the rapid extrication of US forces, surely there has to be some contingency planning which involves leaving behind all that materiel. For example, lets say (conservatively I believe) that there is a supply of 5000 suicide bombers that are deployable to Baghdad, What would the US military do in a tet-offensive scenario consisting of (hundreds of) waves of suicide bombers used to blast through the green zone on several fronts? How is an orderly rational withdrawal going to happen then?

Lang you really have to do better than that.

[DaveGood]

It should be remembered that the USA actually spent five years pulling out it's troops and equipment from Vietnam before the USA embassy fell.

And that Soviet Russia withdrew its forces from Afghanistan over a period of twenty months.. and all Russia had to do was drive it's equipment and men across the border.

The thought that America has (say) five years to pull out millions of tons of equipment plus tens of thousands of personnel in an orderly fashion is"optimistic".

Most of that stuff will be left there.

America's Army, a few years from now will look like the British Army after the evacuation from Dunkirk.

We got the men out... but not the equipment that made them an army.

PL knows better then I do how badly worn and damaged the US armies heavy equipment is..... I understand that literally thousands of vehicles of all kinds are piled up at US depots right now awaiting a total rebuild.

You can write off the bulk of the US heavy equipment as of now, most of it will not be coming back from Iraq in any sort of condition to be re-used.

You might also want to consider the fact that the average age of an airframe in the US Airforce is now 24 years old.

As a rule, civilian aircraft are retired before they get that old.

As for the cost of replacing all that expensive stuff.... Good luck.

DaveGood

[William R. Cumming]

Actually the National Guard needs the equipment since it appears they only have 50% or less of their assigned equipment needs.
Disasters can always occur domestically.

[W. Patrick Lang]

C-STAR

Well, Pilgrim. You ARE ill mannered. You just have to avoid hitting the post key twice in the future. (among other things)

DaveGood

Actually -

1 - US forces withdrew from VN over a three year perion beginning in 1969 and ending in 1973. I believe I have pointed that out before. During that period of time the US evacusted what equipment it wished to turned over the rest to the SVN forces complete with factory maintenance services for it.

2- There then ensued a two year period of quiet in SVN under the cease fire agreement, followed by Congress' prohibition on any further aid of any kind for SVN. The North Vietnamese then attacked and over ran the country capturing all that equipment in the process. At that time there ahd been no US combat forces in the country for two years.

"You can write off the bulk of the US heavy equipment as of now, most of it will not be coming back from Iraq in any sort of condition to be re-used."Nonsense.

Jonst, if pacifists do not want to be grouped as imbeciles with the flatheads, then they should try to get a grip on reality. pl

[DaveGood]

Fair enough PL.

Do you think the USA will have four years to run an organised withdrawal ... plus another two of relative peace afterwards? (While handing over large chunks of Material that they couldn't ship, to the Iraqi Government)?

Mr. Lang........ The discussion here is not how America's armed services can "Win" in Iraq.

It's now about how America... ( And my own country)... can salvage what it can from the catastrophe.

DaveGood

[mike]

If the US army is so deeply committed in Iraq, and shall remain so for a number of years - indeed for the foreseable future (since there are no current declarations from any potential presidential candidate) - what happens if there is in some other part of the globe for military action by the US involving ground troops?

[Steve]

The reason no logistical withdrawl plan was made under President George W Bush is quite simple. There will be no withdrawl until every drop of ME crude has been pumped. This is why we are there, and this is why we will stay. Period.

[Will]

little known facts about Arnaud de Borchgrave
from the wiki

"Born in Belgium to a Belgian count, Baudouin de Borchrave d’Altena, who was head of Belgium's military intelligence for the government in exile, during World War II. Arnaud de Borchgrave was educated in Belgium, Britain and the United States.

He served in the British Royal Navy from 1942 to 1946, at the age of 15, after running away from home and using falsified papers on his age to enlist in the service. He gave up his title of nobility in 1951.[1]

In 1947, he was appointed Brussels bureau chief for United Press International, and three years later he became Newsweek's bureau chief in Paris and then chief correspondent. In 1953 he became a senior editor for the magazine. The Editor-in-Chief of Newsweek once said that "De Borchgrave has played a role in world affairs known to no other journalist. He has been able to tap the thinking of numerous world leaders... despite his intimacy with major policymakers, he has never aligned himself with either side of a dispute... Arnaud de Borchgrave has made significant contributions to world peace and understanding."

[Bill W, NH]

I was at DaNang Air Base when the war was declared over on or about Jan 18th, 1973. We were ordered to be out of there not later than Mar 29th, same year, about 45 days all told. We left a lot of "stuff" there and I had to spend my last two weeks there shredding paperwork by hand. I myself left on the 29th of March, bound for NKP, Thailand. I could go on and on about the absurdities of that situation. I doubt it will happen that way in Iraq but, yes, you can get out rather quickly.

[eaken]

CSTAR

With all due respect, please tell me how you envision the process of deciding which of the supposed 5000 suicide bombers would go in first? Straws?

[Will]

Monseiur Anraud is speaking for effect. Of course an extraction need not be single file nor need it be back thru Kuwait.

Consider von Manstein's extraction of the Caucus group and the remainder of the German forces after the surrender at Stallingrad. He was able to stabilize the front and even to envelop the advancing soviets and inflict severe losses on them at Kharkov.

A retreat can be toward Anbar with extraction thru Jordan at the red sea port. There would be plenty of room to maneuver, favorable air support circumstances, and avoidance of Shiite civilians. The 75 days timeframe is for emphasis. It is just another way of saying two months- a not unreasonable time frame.

Water and fuel baloons would have to be dropped by air.

[W. Patrick Lang]

Will

What you are describing is the retreat of a defeated army. Manstein? The Caucasus? Stalingrad?

I don't believe that you are serious. pl

[Cold War Zoomie]

This part stuck out to me:

'"The time for half-measures and experiments is over," they argue. Now's the time "for a logistically sound strategic redeployment."'

And it's in the Washington Times, no less.

[Jose]

Will, IMHO, we are not yet in such a Strategic position for American forces to withdrawal in defeat just yet.

Maybe when we bomb Iran.

So is Patreus a von Mainstein or a Model?

[Walrus]

It appears that others are now sharing some of my deeper concerns.

That is that we are making a bold assumption when we assume that America will get to choose the time it begins withdrawing.

De Borchgrave has just outlined the scale of the amount of treasure that will be left behind, let alone the casualties, if the decision is forced on us by circumstances.

The Greeks didn't dream up Hubris and Nemesis out of thin air.

[McGee]

Pat,

We could always follow De Gaulle's example when he withdrew Franch forces from NATO Command and they left their bases in Gemany - drive the excess equipment into very large holes, cover with dirt, and leave.

c'est la vie....

[Sidney O. Smith III]

The Hasidic Jews of Satmar recently have issued an analytical statement focusing on strategic intelligence in the Middle East. Their analysis, if correct, suggests that events will soon take place that will threaten the supply line between Baghdad and Basra. In my opinion, their analytical statement is an extraordinary development because these devout Hasidic Jews -- the vast majority of whom live in the US -- are extremely dedicated to a religious life and, as is their right in a land of religious liberty, prefer not to partake in a political or secular life. The fact they have issued such a statement suggests the extreme concern they have for all the people in the Middle East as well as all Americans. I cannot overemphasize this point:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/news/currentarticle.cfm?id=49

The analytical statement by Satmar suggests that the Wurmser option is becoming operational. An attack on Iran would threaten the logistics now in place in Iraq and lead to a terrible loss of US lives in Iraq. It will also lead to asymmetrical attacks against the West. In an article in the Christian Science Monitor, Col. Lang wrote about the catastrophic consequences of severing the supply line. William Land has also written the same.

One last point. I am not a theologian and I don’t know if the underlying assumptions of Satmar are correct, even with regard to Zionism. But I do know that these Hasidic Jews believe that they are under an oath to be loyal to and empathetic with the nation in which they reside while, of course, maintaining a very Jewish identity. It is our duty as Americans to treat them the same. And when it comes to the welfare of the Jewish people, at this point, I just trust Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum more than I do Pastor Hagee. And their analysis appears to show more concern for Americans than anything Pastor Hagee or David Wurmser has done of late, at least in my opinion and based on an analysis I have read at sst. These Hasidic Jews are warning America the best they can from their analytical perspective, and I appreciate it.

[Rob]

Yes as I remember being told at the Naval War College about winning wars, "Junior combat officers will ask what the combat strategy is. Senior combat officers will ask, what the logistics strategy is...

We win wars by logistics and I agree if we do pull out we need to do it orderly and with the assets we have in theater it would take about three years.

But do not be deluded to think we will totally pull out. That is not going to happen no matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We have to much at stake and too much money and assets in Iraq to do such. We morally owe the Iraqi people a working government that "THEY" can live with. How we achieve that is the big question.

While I believe we will militarily end up as we did in Europe after WWII.

[Brian Hart]

Presumably much of our humvee fleet would be given to the Iraqi army as we did with Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines not to mention WWII Europe. Its the cheapest and speediest way to upgrade our allies - besides they have a 2.5 year useful life at this point.

Further it seems most likely Iraq will fragment. Thus we will likely have at least bases in Kurdish areas if not others if we want them.

If we air attack Iran in 2008 before Bush leaves office, what prevents the Iranian Revolutionary Guard from taking off the gloves, arming Shia in Iraq to the teeth with EFPs and RPG-29s and then using these surrogates to cut off our extended MSR Tampa convoys with channeling bridge destruction and urban ambushes?

[Dan M]

Good grief...

"For example, lets say (conservatively I believe) that there is a supply of 5000 suicide bombers that are deployable to Baghdad, What would the US military do in a tet-offensive scenario consisting of (hundreds of) waves of suicide bombers used to blast through the green zone on several fronts?"

I think I played this video game once. What you do is you shoot them all with 50 cals before they reach your perimeter.

[meletius]

20 months just to get the gear out, eh?

I guess this is why they're called "foreign entanglements".

[VietnamVet]

Reminiscences at times can illuminate the future. My battalion was trying to pacify a valley in II Corps when I left in June 1970; not unlike the Surge if you discount the Sand, Contractors and an Arab Capitol. American troops were withdrawn and the valley retaken by the Communists in 1972 Offensive.

With the leading Democratic Politicians planning to stay in Iraq till 2013, the river of blood and treasure will continue indefinitely. To pacify the populace, ethnic cleansing will continue and to quench the flow of blood American troops will retreat to their Sand Castles in Al Anbar and Kurdistan. Resistance will continue against the Christian Overlords, till finally broke and exhausted, America leaves the Middle East.

But, to quote Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal. The draft, total war and American domination of Middle East Oil.