Iraq, The Covert War

Assuming that conventional coalition forces in Iraq can redeploy to more pressing world regions as Iraqi forces acquire more of their responsibilities, one cannot as readily assume that Iraq’s importance to coalition nations has in any way diminished. The war in Iraq can remain primarily important but addressed in a different way that is equally, if not more, efficient and effective. The air-land battle concept of which every infantry soldier becomes familiar is a concept in which every resource synergistically comes together to accomplish a mission. It is not enough to deploy a battalion of infantry to defeat a company sized enemy. That battalion must have coordinated air, artillery, and armor assets as needed, along with communications and intelligence, to accomplish that mission. The type of mission, however, dictates the assets required to accomplish it. The mission in Iraq does not require conventional forces and so does not need an air-land battle concept of the kind that supports large units. Rather, the concept must be adjusted to support small, specialized units, which can exclusively focus on counter-insurgency and on supporting Iraqi forces. The amount of soldiers in a given area can mean the difference between failure and success. American-led indigenous soldiers, like those that bravely fought in the Vietnamese jungles, can meet Iraq’s challenges. Our military is entirely capable of specifically adjusting an air-land battle concept to suit their war fighting needs. By doing so, Iraq’s importance will not be lost on the withdrawal of conventional coalition forces.