Russians to Show How It's Done in Iraq

[Guest]

From the Strategy Page:

Russia To Show The Americans How It's Done in Iraq
June 29, 2006: In Iraq, the Russians are about to show the Americans how it's done. Or at least try to. After four Russian embassy personnel were recently murdered by terrorists, many experienced counter-terrorism professionals expected the Russians to act. Russia, over some two centuries, has developed some very successful techniques for dealing with terrorists. When confronted with terrorist attacks like this, the Russians go in and play by terrorist rules. They terrorize the terrorists. Back in the 1980s, for example, Islamic terrorists in Lebanon kidnapped a Russian diplomat. The Russians (then the Soviets, a distinction without much difference in these matters) quickly found out which faction had their guy, kidnapped a relative of one of the kidnappers, and had a body part delivered to the Islamic kidnappers. The message was, release the Russian diplomat unharmed, or the KGB (Soviet secret police) would keep sending body parts, and grabbing kinfolk of the kidnappers. The Russian diplomat was released. Apparently that lesson has been forgotten, at least in some parts of Iraq. This time around, the Russians let the Americans and Iraqis deal with retrieving their four diplomatic personnel. The Russians blame the Americans for not getting their guys back alive, and now say that they will show the Americans how to proceed in these matters. That may be a little more complicated than the Lebanon operation. Back then, Lebanon was in chaos, in the middle of a civil war. These days, there is a pretty strong government in Iraq, with over 250,000 security personnel. And then there are 150,000 coalition troops. All of these people may not have been able to find the four Russian embassy staff, but they can get in the way of Russian secret police searching for the kidnappers. Not that it's impossible for the Russians to do what they want to do, but it will be under more complicated conditions. Then again, the Iraqi government and the Coalition may simply give the Russians a free hand, with the usual admonition to avoid making too much of a mess. Moreover, Russia has developed a lot of contacts in the Middle East over the years, and seems prepared to call in some favors to get the job done. Whatever the case, it's going to be an interesting example of Old School counter-terrorism.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[AggieDave 6]

Sure. They did a bangup job in Afghanistan, they obviously know exactly how to deal with small bands of motivated fighters.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ryanocerous 0]

I wish they would come back here to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. That would be much more interesting! Maybe the insurgents would stop attacking other coalition forces altogether.

Those Marines that massacred those civilians will look like saints after the Russians bomb a few villages.

[slug 1]

Hi Mark

we keep hearing this crap about the 150k "coalition" troops

There used to be a ratio of 10 G.I.s in a support role for every G.I. on the front line. Now our friends like Brown & root and other Merc's excuse me contractors are doing some of the support duties.

So the question is of the 150k G.I.s in the sand pile how many are REMF's and support people? 10% ?

I'm sure it's classified info but anyone got a WAG?

The russians in afghanistan? I just can't figure out how the freedom fighters got hold of all the hi tech stinger things that were able to shoot down the russian planes & choppers.

Lucky for us the cold war is over.

We need all the help we can get, if our russian friends want in to help us in our nation building efforts in Iraq more power to em.
R.I.P.

R.I.P.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

So the question is of the 150k G.I.s in the sand pile how many are REMF's and support people? 10% ?

I'm sure it's classified info but anyone got a WAG?

I'd imagine it's rather higher than that.

[vmsfreaky1 0]

Hi,

The USA has also used such tactics already, in vietnam, it was called the phoenix program....

[ryanocerous 0]

Quote

So the question is of the 150k G.I.s in the sand pile how many are REMF's and support people? 10% ?

I'd say it's closer to 30%. Even with all these civilian contractors for support roles (e.g. cooks, mechanics, etc.) the soldiers that would be doing these jobs are still deploying, only they have a very high paid (starting around 80k tax free) civilian doing some or all of their job for them.

These civilians are very rarely more skilled than their military equivilent, i really don't understand the reason we have these people. Isn't this why we have military cooks and mechanics?!

I was just thinking about this the other day. so yeah.

peace.

[namgrunt 0]

there aint NO ACLY in russia

no ABC,CNN,NBD,MSNBC,CBS or teddy kennedy,john kerry IN RUSSIA

the RUSSIANS are so UN-PC

..

59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT
LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI)
www.dzmemories.com

[jumperboy357 0]

Do you mean the Russians will be able to do the job and get it done without the press getting in the way and reporting bad things about the soldiers? What a concept! There is war going on and our military leaders seem to have their hands tied trying to be so politically correct in the eyes of the media. I believe the Russians should go in kick some insurgent ass! By the way, thanks for serving your country namgrunt.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Sure. They did a bangup job in Afghanistan, they obviously know exactly how to deal with small bands of motivated fighters.

Actually they did until the US started shipping stinger missiles there in quantity.

[jumperboy357 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure. They did a bangup job in Afghanistan, they obviously know exactly how to deal with small bands of motivated fighters.

Actually they did until the US started shipping stinger missiles there in quantity.

Two points for you. For some reason people don't realize that we trained and supplied the Afghan fighters during the cold war.

[shropshire 0]

Again.... ya reap wot you sow.....

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jumperboy357 0]

I would have to agree with you. From my understanding that many of the Taliban fighters were trained by the U.S. during the cold war to fight the Russian invasion. If my info is wrong please let me know but I would still like to see the Russians come in and destroy whomever is responsible for killing their embassy personnel.

[slug 1]

I'm wondering if the situation in Iraq in hind site isn't going to end up as a big training camp for the bad guys.

OBL had some training camps but now the bad guy's have had 3 yrs of experience in IED making, ambush's import export etc.

R.I.P.

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

These civilians are very rarely more skilled than their military equivilent, i really don't understand the reason we have these people. Isn't this why we have military cooks and mechanics?!

Last time I checked, the US military was having difficulty reaching its recruitment targets - they may simply not have enough personnel to do the job.

Or maybe, like in many corporations, contractors come out of a different budget to staff?

Quote

peace.

Nice way to end a post about war .

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So the question is of the 150k G.I.s in the sand pile how many are REMF's and support people? 10% ?

I'd say it's closer to 30%. Even with all these civilian contractors for support roles (e.g. cooks, mechanics, etc.) the soldiers that would be doing these jobs are still deploying, only they have a very high paid (starting around 80k tax free) civilian doing some or all of their job for them.

These civilians are very rarely more skilled than their military equivilent, i really don't understand the reason we have these people. Isn't this why we have military cooks and mechanics?!

I was just thinking about this the other day. so yeah.

peace.

Actually, most of the contractors are prior service, continuing in the same type of jobs that they did in the military, so they do tend to be more highly experienced than the military personnel they replace.

Also, the 'contractor corps' makes for a stable basis of support for the miltary to settle in with as units change over.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So the question is of the 150k G.I.s in the sand pile how many are REMF's and support people? 10% ?

I'd say it's closer to 30%. Even with all these civilian contractors for support roles (e.g. cooks, mechanics, etc.) the soldiers that would be doing these jobs are still deploying, only they have a very high paid (starting around 80k tax free) civilian doing some or all of their job for them.

These civilians are very rarely more skilled than their military equivilent, i really don't understand the reason we have these people. Isn't this why we have military cooks and mechanics?!

I was just thinking about this the other day. so yeah.

peace.

Actually, most of the contractors are prior service, continuing in the same type of jobs that they did in the military, so they do tend to be more highly experienced than the military personnel they replace.

Also, the 'contractor corps' makes for a stable basis of support for the miltary to settle in with as units change over.

Which happens on a frequent basis. This therefore allows the US military to concentrate more manpower and resources on war-fighting, and less on day-to-day hassles with sanitation, food service, environmental, power, logistics; the list goes on and on.

GIs are better cared-for than in any time in history. Gone are the days of washing one's clothing in a helmet. GIs in Iraq have a safe haven where they can cool off (LOTS of air conditioning), rest, get cleaned up (lots of clean water), change clothes, call or email home (in my day it took two weeks to send a letter and get a reply), etc.

It's all because of the infrastructure that the civilians (who are also at risk, though obviously not to the extent that the GIs are) provide.

There aren't that many people willing to go overseas and work for the US military for an indefinite amount of time in less-than-ideal conditions. It is uncomfortable at best, and downright dangerous in places like the Sandbox and the Stan.

I, for example, am now living in a Connex (military shipping container). It's furnished like a bedroom in a trailer, but it's pretty small (10x20), and has no plumbing. The A/C is holding up for now, but I don't know how well it will be working when it hits 100 F outside, and Winter will be very interesting too.

Uncle Sam is getting his money's worth.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."