Iraqis excel at intelligence, report says

WASHINGTON -- In a conclusion that bodes ill for U.S. troops, an Army study asserts that the Iraqi military, though inept in the battlefield during the conventional phase of the war, excelled in intelligence, shadowing virtually every movement of coalition troops -- a skill, military analysts say, that is being carried over into the current guerrilla conflict.

(snip)

It said that the Iraqi scouts shadowed virtually all allied movements and communicated positions up the command chain using phones and couriers, often resulting in accurate anticipation of planned coalition offensives. In some instances the Iraqis were able to conduct massive division redeployments through paths they knew to be undefended. In Nasiriyah, Marines captured a detailed, accurate sand table of U.S. positions, the study discloses, indicating precise, real-time knowledge of allied movements. A sand table is a miniature model of the battlefield that helps commanders plot the next moves.

(snip)

But when some of the Iraqi units stood ground, especially from the Special Republican Guard and paramilitaries, they fought stubbornly. On April 5, when a 3rd infantry brigade entered Baghdad with hundreds of tanks and fighting vehicles, every vehicle (was) hit by (rocket propelled grenade) fire.

(snip)

Defense analysts generally praised the report and said it was the first official document to surface publicly that covered the entire theater and evaluated the performance of both sides of the conflict. It's a very significant report, said Lang. One of the surprising findings in the study, he said, was the conclusion that Iraq never intended to destroy its oil fields but may have tried to bluff the allies with such a threat to deter us from invading.

(more at link)

http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~1753620,00.html

There's a lot more in the article, including a healthy criticism of Rumsfeld's 'Feith-based' military ideas

But it warns against projecting similar results using small forces relying on technological advantage against a more skilled enemy -- challenging an evolving doctrine supported by top Pentagon civilians, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that the U.S. military of the future should be streamlined, speedy and intelligence-driven. Many Army officers feel that radical transformation could harm their combat ability.

"Without Iraqi ineptitude, even 2003 technology could not have enabled a force this size to prevail at this cost. ... To assume that precision and information will always permit small forces to succeed would be high risk," says the study, a 20-page PowerPoint document dated Aug. 18 and obtained by Newsday this week.

In other words, don't expect Syria or Iran to be that easy...(as if Iraq is 'easy'...)

Iran has mountains.

We don't do mountains.

Now just how do we suppose that the "cradle of civilization" ever made it this far without us? It's not because they are stupid people.

Some BDA figures would help, but they are not forthcoming.

It did seem for the most part they just went home, which does
not seem inept so much as smart. Why stay there and get
the shit bombed out of you when you can live to fight another
day and on a more even playing field?

after conflict/war, much more than can be said for Bush and company so who is the smart one?

We really don't know who we can trust. One thing we do know for sure is that we are in their country and these people have every right to fight us to the death using any means possible...and I think they will.

They did a pretty good job in the South, when they weren't expected to, and in Baghdad they were bought off (which Gen. Franks himself confirmed). No way to tell how well they would've done.

Eloriel