Why Liberals Can't Win Wars

Ive seen some stupid posts reading liberal blogs, but with the exception of anything from Oliver Willis, this faux "we care about the troops" post from Billmon piggy-backing on Christian Science Monitor excretion (currently now offline—were they embarrassed of it?) might be the new gold standard:

Earlier this week I linked to a commentary from William S. Lind in which he warned that war with Iran could result in the loss of the 140,000 man army America currently has bogged down in Iraq. This may have seemed far-fetched, given the enormous military disparity between the two sides. But Col. Pat Lang, a former intelligence officer, explains how and why it could happen:

American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq . . . Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long. (Christian Science Monitor, via No Quarter)

There's a saying: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. And in the case of the U.S. Army, they talk it about a lot. This has been true almost as long as there's been a U.S. Army. During the 1944-45 campaign in Europe, for example, each U.S. division consumed 650 tons of food, gas, ammo and other supplies per day -- roughly three times what the German Army managed to get by on. Logistical requirements have only exploded since then. Those lobster tails they're eating at Camp Victory don't grow on the trees.

If the supply lines back to Kuwait were to be cut -- or even seriously interdicted -- the U.S. military presence in Iraq would quickly become untenable. I'm not even sure the Army could scrounge enough gas to keep the tanks and Humvees moving, given that Iraq already suffers from a severe refining capacity shortage and must import most of its gasoline from Kuwait.

He then breathlessly (and no doubt hopefully) adds:

In other words, in the event of a real world war -- as opposed to the kind that pundits pontificate about on Fox News -- Centcom would either have to "pacify" the transportation routes through southern Iraq quickly and ruthlessly (which might not be possible, given the troops available and the possibility some Iraqi units might turn on their putative allies) or try to evacuate some or most U.S. forces from Iraq, either by air or ground.

We're talking, on other words, about a potential debacle -- the worst U.S. military defeat since Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor? Err, no. Laughably, no.

Billmon, thank you for once again proving why when it comes to discussing military matters, liberals aren't ready to move up from the kid's table.

Here is the reality of the situation.

According to credible sources Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army may number as many as 10,000 Iraqi Shia militiamen possessing mainly small arms (AK-47, light machine guns, RPGs). Only perhaps a tenth of that force has even minimal military training. Even with Iranian Revolutionary Guards providing some more modern weaponry and training, the Madhi Army has decisively lost every conflict it has engaged in against coalition forces in the past two years, including recent raids carried out by Iraqi government forces. A Madhi Army of lightly armed, poorly trained, and poorly led militiamen cannot hope to perform the feats required to fulfill the sick fantasy shared by Billmon and the CSM. Presently, it is a bit more occupied with not getting erradicated like crabgrass.

But what if they had help?

The quote Billmon pulls from the CSM article speaks of the "Badr Brigades."

I see that the crack staff of the CSM and Billmon are really up with current events, as the Badr Brigades haven't been called that for three years now, restyling themselves the Badr Organization and joining in the political process as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition.

They've played a lead role in fighting the insurgency around Karbala, and while occasionally at odds with the British forces in southern Iraq and seen as a sectarian militia by most, it has neither the manpower nor the weaponry (even with covert Iranian Revolutionary Guards support) to pose a military threat should it suddenly decide to forego the gains it has made as part of the political process. The several thousand man organization is even more lightly armed than the Madhi Army.

So who, praytell, will supply the OPFOR in "a 'shooting gallery' 400 to 800 miles long" that Billmon so fears?

The only discernible force left is Iran proper, and indeed, Pentagon planners have envisioned and planned for a multiple responses to the scenario of Iranian forces made a stab across the southern tip of Iraq in an attempt to cut off U.S. forces.

Sadly, the loss of life would be tremendous in such a campaign, but the victor of such a struggle has never been in doubt.

The Iranian Army numbers 350,000 with 200,000 being poorly trained and equipped (by U.S. standards) conscripts. It has only one true armored division and two mechanized infantry divisions, with no real air force or Navy to speak of, and air defenses severely outmoded even with the recent addition of Soviet TOR-1 batteries.

Iranian tanks—mostly T-72 variants that originated in the 1970s and T-54/55s that were originally designed at the end of WWII—would be the tip of the Iranian spear. Along with the hundreds of mostly-outdated infantry fighting vehicles they can bring to bear, these would all be inviting targets for allied air forces that unquestioningly own the airspace in the region.

Any southern invasion by Iran would be a replay of the Highway of Death on a massive, tragic scale.

This wuld be nothing like another Pearl Harbor as Billmon so hysterically intones, and would far more likely be another highway 80 in the first Gulf War, or the closing of the Falaise pocket Todesgang, or "death road" of World War II that sealed the German defeat in Normandy.

Start to finish, such an invasion would last less than a week, causing a discernable wrinkle to the supply lines (which would simply reroute westward for a short time) but fail miserably in its primary aim, while losing the bulk of the military force projected into Iraq in the process.

Of course were the Iranian invasion and massacre to come to pass, rest assured Billmon to be among the first to call for war crimes trials against the United States for crushing the Iranian invasion.

Of course, he'd probably screw that up as well.