Al Qaqaa is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of ammo dumps that the US left un-guarded. It is however a well documented and shining example of the catastrophic systemwide failure to secure weapons depots. There are lots of other reports of people begging the US to guard other sites. In in each case the US military sayed they did not have the manpower, or orders made other things a priority.
Not only the IAEA, but civilians and soldiers on the ground were making urgent requests to the US miliary field commanders. Prompted by the NY times, other people are now writing about their experiences in attempting to warn the commanders on the ground.
At Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area:
As the post points out, The Oregonian news paper said “Two U.S. aid workers, including one from Oregon, said they reported the looting of an Iraqi weapons depot to U.S. military officials in October, 2003, but were told that there were not enough troops to seal off the facility.” An abridged version of this one has been picked up by the AP.
Another one,at Camp Anaconda, From Salon.com QUOTE:
“But Al Qaqaa is not the whole story. The same month it was being looted, I learned of another major weapons and ammunition storage facility, near my battalion's base at Camp Anaconda, that was unguarded and targeted by looters. But despite my repeated warnings -- and those of other U.S. intelligence agents -- nothing was done to secure this facility, as it was systematically stripped of enough weapons and explosives to equip anti-U.S. insurgents with enough roadside improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for years to come.”
It’s a long but good read on Salon.com by David DeBatto, a former U.S. Army counterintelligence agent who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/anaconda/index.html As the stories come out it looks more and more like a system wide failure. A failure of military priories that is having a catastrophic affect on our ability to wage peace. Talk about failure to join the dots, in this case people were drawing them pictures and they still failed to grasp the need to secure the weapons.
QUOTE: A Pentagon official told The Oregonian Thursday that the United States had been forced to leave many ammunition dumps in Iraq unguarded. The official, who declined to be identified, said the U.S. military had identified about 900 sensitive weapons sites in Iraq but had assigned "a brigade-sized force" to deal with them. A brigade typically has about 3,500 soldiers.
Now its time do some basic math. A brigade contains officers and support personal. So even in a good sized brigade, that only that leaves maybe 3,000 troops that could stand sentry. Given that for each sentry position you need a minium of three men, (8 hours on duty and 16 off when he eats, sleeps and showers) you can staff a little less than 1,000 sentry positions. That’s about one sentry for each of the 900 known weapons depots. BUT ....that’s not how the Army works. The Army does not have a command structure that would allow just three men to hold a base. Not day in day out, 24 hours a day.
If you assume that a platoon, with a lieutenant in command, is the smallest unit you can deploy, you quickly realize that, even with only one platoon at each site, you can only cover 200 of the 900 known sites.
But in reality platoons don’t carry out independent operations for prolonged periods of time. So at most sites you would probably have at least a company, (62 to 190 soldiers), three to five platoons commanded by a captain. If you had a very large brigade, (5,000 men) made entirely of very small company’s (less than 100 men) you still are only talking about guarding 50 sites. 50 out of 900, and that's on a good day.
So if you planed well your brigade would cover the 50 most inportant sights. Maybe, but probalby not because if you deployed like this the men of the brigade would be spread out all over Iraq making effective command near impossible. So even with a brigade you can't cover any where near the number of ammo dump sites that exist.
The importance of protecting the troops is an issue that both the right and the left agree about. It’s one thing that every soldier would agree on. The military calls it ‘FORCE PROTECTION’.
By not securing the weapons depots the Army failed a basic military doctrine:
At all cost and at every opportunity, deny your enemy access to arms that he can use against you.
Just look at the effort used in other wars to cut off enemy supply lines.
Is this the issue where the right wing may be persuaded that the commander in chief’s military policy and priorities were dead wrong? (Pun intended)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(382 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
