Into the Storm: On the Ground in Iraq

President George W. Bush said in an address to the nation on 11 September 2001,

As I write these new chapters, the United States Army has more than 300,000 soldiers in day and night combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, forward stationed in nations like Korea, or in other active operational areas like the Balkans. Of the thirty-three active Army brigades, thirty-one are involved in those operations, have come back within the last six months, or are getting ready to go within the next three months. More than 160,000 Reserve Component soldiers are currently mobilized. Whether back in the U.S.A. or in those forward stationed areas, their families also serve in their own courageous way. In our nation and in nations who have given their young men and women to serve, other families bear the pain of loss for those who have "given their last full measure of devotion" fighting for our very freedoms. Still more soldiers, recovering from wounds, battle on in hospitals and in their hometowns to go on with their lives after giving all they had. All of these soldiers inspire us with their fierce commitment to their mission, their versatile and innovative skills, their bottomless reservoir of courage, and their ability to win as part of a joint military team. Formed on 14 June 1775, and older than our nation it serves so faithfully, the U.S. Army has had many magnificent moments in its almost 229 year history of service to America. This is one of those times. America can remain proud of her Army.

From the early 1990s until today, there has been no strategic pause, nor any timeouts. U.S. armed forces have stayed ready and they have transformed themselves into a military able to fight and win two different campaigns against two different enemies in entirely different conditions.

On opening day of the 2002 baseball season at Camden Yards, the Baltimore Orioles honored the men and women of our military Special Operating Forces with a ceremony on the field before the game. It was a splendid tribute to those who, with our Afghan allies, had taken the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan and both freed that country from the grip of a repressive regime and destroyed Al Qaeda and their terrorist training camps responsible for attacks on America on 11 September 2001, just seven months before.

After that ceremony, Tom Clancy, one of the Orioles's owners, invited me to join him to meet and talk with these great Americans. I was proud to be with them and listen to their stories of what they had done for America and the world. Theirs were stories of extraordinary professional skills and of uncommon valor. It was my first talk with combat veterans since 11 September 2001. Those discussions and my own impressions would be repeated many times afterward in formal meetings, briefings, hospital wards visiting fellow amputees, and casual meetings on the street or in airports. It would always be the same for me no matter the rank or position of those I met — I was always inspired by their courage, great professional skill, and fierce commitment to this noble cause to defend our freedoms.

TRANSFORMATION

What I witnessed was a quiet transformation in the U.S. military from the early 1990s and Desert Storm to today.

It is a transformation that occurred in the U.S. Army amidst what could have been a ruinous rapid demobilization from an eighteen-division active force of 780,000 to a ten-division force of 480,000 and corresponding reductions in the Reserve Component so that the total Army is about half the size it had been during Desert Storm. Demobilization and wavering commitments to tough battle-focused training had almost ruined the post-World War II Army of 1945, so that when it was called to battle in Korea in 1950, it suffered some early and costly defeats.

Army Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan (1991–1995) challenged the Army to "break the mold" of demobilization and resultant unreadiness for war as happened after World War I and again after World War II. The U.S. Army has broken that mold by showing a remarkable ability to adapt to a wide variety of operational missions from 1991 to 2003. From 1950 to 1989 the U.S. Army went on ten major deployments. From 1989 to the present the number has more than tripled and counting from disaster relief in the U.S.A., to battle in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, the Sinai, rapid deployments to Kuwait, the Philippines, holding the line in Korea, to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. No one predicted many of those scenarios nor did they predict when they would occur because such predictions are not possible. What is possible is for the U.S. Army to keep itself trained and ready, to continue to develop officer and NCO leaders, to focus on service to the nation, and to develop the expertise to operate where our nation needs its Army to operate. Current Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker calls this "relevant and ready." For this war on those who practice terrorism, this war where our nation was directly attacked, our Army and our military were ready, and they have fought this war with extraordinary courage and skill.

FIRST BATTLES

In an old U.S. Army's capstone Field Manual 100-5, published 1 July 1976, there is one timeless statement: "Today the U.S. Army must, above all else, prepare to fight and win the first battle of the next war" (U.S. Army Field Manual 100-5, Operations, HQ Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1 July 1976, p. 1–1).

Earlier in this book we described the "rebirth," the remarkable transformation that had taken place in the U.S. Army from the dark days in the 1970s to winning so decisively in Desert Storm in 1991. That war in my own judgment was a Janus War, combining a bit of the past and a bit of the future. Together with Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989, it was the first battle of the next war after the Cold War, and it pointed to the future in many ways. That first battle was a decisive battlefield victory with the U.S. Army as good in the field as it had ever been. One of our major strategic goals in the early 1990s was to ensure that the future Army would have the same battlefield edge we had in Desert Storm when it next went to war.

In these chapters, I would like to add to that story. Today's Army does possess that same battlefield edge and more. The U.S. Army did not stop the momentum of that "rebirth" after Desert Storm because it is the duty of America's Army to continue to transform itself to be ready, to fight and win the first battles of the next war. Our Army did just that in Afghanistan, as those veterans related in their combat stories on opening day, and it did so in Iraq. Our forces continue to fight remaining elements in Iraq who oppose a free Iraq, and those in Afghanistan who oppose a free Afghanistan.

In the military one never knows how long it will be before the nation issues the call to battle. The period of rebirth that occurred from the 1970s lasted almost twenty years. The period following Desert Storm, from 1991 to 2001, was shorter and involved combat in Somalia in 1993. This post-Desert Storm era has been a continuum of operations requiring the Army to transform itself even while performing a wide variety of missions worldwide. For the U.S. Army or the U.S. military, there is no such thing as a timeout or "strategic pause." Those ten years were full of radically different challenges than those faced from 1973 to 1991, yet the Army met and continues to meet them. As successive Army Chiefs including current Chief General Pete Schoomaker have said, there is only one acceptable standard for America's Army, to win the nation's land wars as part of the joint team. All the talk about transformation, budget processes, size of the Army, and arguments over weapons programs, is only relevant if you win.

Moving into the future, as Professor Bob Quinn says in his book, Deep Change, is "building the bridge as you walk on it" (Quinn, Robert. Deep Change, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1996). The U.S. Army knows it can never predict the future with precision, yet it also knows it must continue to build that bridge even while walking on it because that is what our nation expects and needs. My mentor and former Army Chief of Staff General Carl Vuono (1987–1991) used to say the Army is constantly in "continuity and change." Indeed it is.

What has happened represents an extension of the study in command and rebirth of the U.S. Army we told earlier. I want to draw attention to the inspiring performance of duty of soldiers and leaders in tough battlefield conditions. They have shown our enemies that America once more has both the will and the military capable of going anywhere to seek them out and capture, kill, or bring them to justice. It is also possible to reflect on the splendid efforts of our Army in Afghanistan and Iraq to show how the U.S. Army has evolved into the magnificent Army it is today over the years since the first publication of Into the Storm. It is relevant and ready to continue to meet national security challenges now and in the future. The U.S. Army, and indeed all the U.S. Armed Forces, succeeded in that most difficult of military tasks, dramatically downsizing in an environment where many believed history was over, balancing that task with frequent overseas employment and structural transformation with no attendant loss, indeed actual growth of capability, while overall personnel numbers went down. In spite of many disincentives, what happened was a transformation not unlike from the 1970s to the early 1990s to win these first battles in this new war.

The U.S. Army has gone "into the storm" once more, or from Shakespeare's Henry V, "once more unto the breach." Recent and ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are the nation's military response so far to the ruthless attack on American citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania in September 2001 and a coda to the war that is the subject of the original text. It is not my intent to provide a comprehensive account of these campaigns or to probe into lessons learned. What follows is a short summary of the successful campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq as results of the Army's and joint service's continuing transformation during this "interwar" period and some of my own reflections based on what I have seen in those intervening years.

NO NOTICE START OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

On 7 October 2001, in response to orders from Commander-in-Chief President George W. Bush, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) launched a campaign in Afghanistan to destroy Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, to free that country, and to deny it to Al Qaeda as a training sanctuary. It was a campaign begun with no notice. It would be a campaign like no other in American military history, testament to the military's rapid transformation since 1991 and its ability to adapt rapidly and win.

When the extremists' intentions became clear on 11 September, the U.S. military was ready and immediately went into action at home and overseas, opening a campaign in Afghanistan right into the heart of the enemy. President George W. Bush said on 7 October 2001, announcing that operation:

Afghanistan is a land-locked country far from ports and the U.S.A., making it a difficult theater of operations for U.S. and allied forces to operate in. Almost immediately in opening this theater, U.S. and allied forces were able to use a staging base in Uzbekistan, the fruits of a mid-1990s initiative to develop new strategic relationships.

Given a wide range of options made possible by the versatility of continually transforming U.S. military forces, CENTCOM was able to project power from the sea at great distances. They also used land-based air power at some distance from Afghanistan, operated long and sometimes fragile supply lines, and set up a rapid medical evacuation system that got wounded soldiers to treatment facilities more rapidly and in better condition than was done in any of our previous campaigns. All of that work was done by a U.S. military with a capability to adapt and to tailor a force rapidly to meet mission conditions.

The campaign devised by CENTCOM commanded by General Tommy R. Franks fit the situation and enemy, and was as imaginative as it was effective in routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda, in denying Al Qaeda a sanctuary to train, and in setting the conditions for a new Afghanistan.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

Special Operating Forces (SOF) teamed with Afghan Northern Alliance forces defeated the Taliban and drove them from power. They achieved their objectives because of their skill and courage and because they were networked with external support for intelligence, logistics, medical, and fire support, which included devastatingly effective precision munitions from the coalition air forces in a series of brilliantly executed operations. These operations effectively liberated six provinces of Afghanistan. They did all that in about a month, adapting to severe terrain and weather conditions, enemy actions, and using all modes of transportation including horseback riding. They completed the destruction of the Taliban and liberated Kabul (Stewart, Dr. Richard, "Army Center of Military History (CMH) initial summary of the Afghanistan War," final draft, 2003, Washington, D.C., pp 6–7, 15).

EARLY RAID

I had the opportunity to visit with Captain Shawn Daniel, Commander of Company C, 3d Battalion, 75th Rangers, who led his Ranger Company in an early airborne raid near Kandahar 19–20 October 2001. He told me of the extraordinary skill and courage of his Rangers during the night assault. Once on the ground he thought he had only a few injuries from the jump, only to learn after the operation that the injury rate was double what was reported because soldiers continued on their mission, sometimes with broken ankles. It was an early indicator to me that in this war, soldiers had a fierce commitment to the mission because this one was for us, for our freedoms, because the United States of America had been directly attacked. They felt it early in the war in 2001 and still feel it today.

FIGHT OUTNUMBERED AND WIN

Other battles demonstrated that U.S. and allied forces could, with imaginative combinations, fight outnumbered and win. In late November at the Quali Jangi fortress prison, small numbers of SOF along with soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division with automatic weapons, fought a set-piece five-day battle with courage, skill, and tenacity and defeated prisoners who had gained weapons and attacked their captors. In the end, 26 SOF and 10th Mountain soldiers killed or captured almost 600 of the enemy (Hagenbeck, Franklin, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, interview, 31 December 2003).

Such a feat was repeated in Iraq more than a year and a half later on 6 April 2003 when a small group of SOF, in a position they called "The Alamo," defeated an attacking Iraqi tank-led assault in broad daylight. They did so with some of their own weapons including the Javelin missile, one of the new equipment additions during the '90s, and their ability to call on Navy and Air Force fighter aircraft armed with precision munitions (On Point, final draft, The United States Army in Operations Iraqi Freedom, OIF Study Group, Fort. Leavenworth, Kansas, December 2003, pp. 308–309).

CAPTURE OF KANDAHAR

The battles to capture Kandahar in the south indicate the effective teamwork that developed between SOF and Northern Alliance forces. Two simultaneous ground operations were set in motion to capture the city. From the north, anti-Taliban forces under Hamid Karzai teamed with Captain Jason Amerine and his U.S. Special Operating Forces to advance on the city, fighting the biggest battle near Tarin Kowt, using precision munitions from allied aircraft, destroying more than thirty Taliban vehicles and killing about three hundred Taliban (Brown, Brigadier General John, American Military History, CMH, coordinating draft, 2003, Washington D.C., pp. 13–14).

Karzai and his troops got the Taliban to surrender the city and leave, and were advancing on Kandahar from the north by 6 December (Stewart, CMH, p. 22). Meanwhile another force under Gul Sharzai, and again working with U.S. Special Forces, advanced on the city from the south. Karzai later appointed Sharzai to his former post as governor of the city (Stewart, CMH, p. 25).

SPECIAL FORCES THOUGHTS

From their operation in Afghanistan and also later in Iraq come some timeless truths:

From that bold beginning, U.S. and other nations' Special Operations Forces combined with Northern Alliance forces to defeat Taliban forces during the next several months until an interim government was established under Hamid Karzai in December. Those Special Operations Forces, plus conventional infantry from the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan and Afghan Northern Alliance Forces, won those first battles of this new war.

OPERATION ANACONDA

But there was one more first battle in Afghanistan. Colonel John Mulholland, Commander of Task Force Dagger, a joint special operations task force, recommended to General Franks that conventional U.S. forces undertake the planning for destruction of Al Qaeda that his forces had located, thus showing the level of teamwork in the U.S. military reached in the 1990s between Special Operating Forces and conventional forces.

Franks turned to the overall combined land force commander, Lieutenant General (LTG) Paul T. Mikolashek, whose Combined Force Land Component Command (CFLCC) headquarters had been established in Kuwait in November 2001 (Stewart, CMH, p. 16). General Mikolashek verbally assigned the mission to the Afghanistan ground commander, Major General "Buster" Hagenbeck, Commanding General of 10th Mountain Division. Hagenbeck used his division headquarters to form Coalition Joint Task Force Mountain and named the operation Anaconda. Operation Anaconda showed just how far this interdependence of the Regional Combatant Commander, in this case General Tommy Franks, and the service department, in this case the Army, had come in the 1990s. Under Goldwater-Nichols, the Regional Combatant Commander commands assigned military forces directly under command of the Secretary of Defense and the President as Commander in Chief. Services provide forces to the Regional Commander. Service Chiefs are able to anticipate and make recommendations to regional commanders, the Secretary of Defense, and the President in their roles as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All through the 1990s these relationships matured in actual operational practice. They work well for the nation.

In this case Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki had been in discussions about providing a conventional force headquarters to the theater for follow up operations. Shinseki invited Major General Hagenbeck to accompany him on a Thanksgiving trip to the region to visit troops (Shinseki, Eric, General U.S. Army (ret.), notes, January 2004). Shinseki's forward thinking and service department, regional command teamwork provided Hagenbeck the opportunity to do a leader's reconnaissance, invaluable for a commander in visualizing an operation.

In addition, Anaconda showed how far the U.S. Army and the Joint team had come in being able to combine units rapidly from different organizations into an effective fighting team, and how interdependent the services had become in conducting operations. It also demonstrates the wide versatility of U.S. division headquarters, capable of fighting division formations, and, as in this case, of providing battle command for a joint task force and of rapidly pulling various units together into a coherent combat team. It also showed how rapidly U.S. forces could project power at strategic distances — a capability repeated in Iraq a year later.

Major General Hagenbeck's 10th Division headquarters assumed planning responsibility for the mission on 15 February 2002, and attacked on 2 March (Stewart, CMH, p. 33).

Hagenbeck had more than 1,400 U.S. and allied troops from a number of different organizations in Operation Anaconda. His combat elements included 3d Brigade of two battalions from the 101st Airborne Division, one battalion and elements of another brigade from 10th Mountain Division, some elements of Mulholland's Task Force Dagger, and additional coalition and joint SOF units, along with various logistics units including medical units and support from air forces. The task force also had CH-47 helicopters and support of AH-64 attack helicopters from the 101st Airborne Division, the latter a result of weekend deployment of those aircraft from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Afghanistan. Other air assets came from U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolts and U.S. Marine Cobra helicopters. Hagenbeck also had support of the U.S. Ambassador; his deputies Brigadier Generals Gary Harrell and Mike Jones, who coordinated a variety of special forces and other agencies in theater; and the CIA station chief (Gray, David, Colonel, U.S. Army, notes, 30 December 2003, and Hagenbeck, notes, 31 December 2003). Other forces available for Operation Anaconda included troops from Canada, SAS soldiers from Australia, and Afghan troops with Special Forces advisors.

The area of operations featured rocky terrain varying from 8,000 feet to 11,000 feet in elevation with sharp narrow crevices, deep ravines, no vegetation, and weather that ranged from a windchill of -20 degrees F to 60 degrees F. Enemy forces in the objective area were among the best Al Qaeda had, veteran fighters who ran the terrorist training camps. They were armed with modern equipment including automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs), and mortars. Hagenbeck told me they even reinforced their positions with more fighters during the first three days of fighting (Hagenbeck interview, 31 December 2003). Destroying them would seriously hurt Al Qaeda.

Colonel Frank Wiercinski, 3d brigade commander of the 101st Airborne, commanded U.S. conventional forces, called Task Force Rakassan. They were to be air assaulted into blocking positions on various hills and peaks in the mountainous terrain of the Shah-I-Kot Valley located about sixty miles south of Gardez (Armor Magazine, Captain Ryan Welch, "Operation Anaconda: The Battle for Shah-I-Kot Valley," November-December 2003, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky, p. 36). They would be the "anvil" force. Wiercinski told his troops they had two missions that night: to defeat the enemy, and to never leave a fallen soldier on the battlefield. He said they would be "good in combat… because of who you are," then spoke of the camaraderie of the soldiers, saying, "You will do it for each other." (Cooper, Richard T., "Fierce Fight in Afghan Valley Tests U.S. Soldiers and Strategy," Los Angeles Times, 24 March 2002, pp. 1–2).

The "hammer" for this anvil, called Task Force Hammer, the main attack force, consisted of friendly Afghan troops and their Special Forces advisors. They would move from Gardez south to the objective area by truck and assault the valley towns held by Al Qaeda. As they cleared the villages, Al Qaeda would be forced back into the mountains, where they would run into the anvil of Task Force (TF) Rakassan. Another outer ring of blocking positions around the valley consisted of other special forces and Afghan troops tasked to prevent Al Qaeda from escaping (Welch, Armor Magazine, op cit, p. 38).

On 2 March, TF Hammer began its move toward the objective area. After leaving the main roads they encountered difficulty on the muddy tracks with their loaded trucks. Then they came under heavy enemy fire and were also hit by mistake from circling AC-130 gunships. The combination of movement difficulty and enemy and accidental friendly fire proved deadly. According to one account, "TF Hammer received one additional CAS (close air support) mission and one Apache fire support mission throughout that long day…" (Stewart, CMH, p. 38). All of these factors caused the force to halt and withdraw by nightfall.

Meanwhile, as the anvil in the plan, U.S. forces began their air assaults into blocking positions in the mountains. Almost immediately they came under heavy enemy fire. Every landing zone was "hot," meaning the enemy was firing on troops and helicopters. Nonetheless, by noon U.S. forces had occupied six of the seven assigned blocking positions (Stewart, CMH, p. 38). The second lift of troops could not get into place due to bad weather, leaving U.S. units at half strength on these positions for most of the first day. Lieutenant Colonel Paul LaCamera's TF 1/8 7, the battalion from 10th Mountain Division, part of Wiercinski's TF Rakassan, came under heavy mortar, machine gun, RPG, and small arms fire as they tried to occupy their two blocking positions. Particularly hard hit was Company C commanded by Captain Nelson Kraft whose 1st Platoon had almost 50 percent casualties. Kraft consolidated his troops on one strongpoint and for 18 hours held off Al Qaeda attacks. Specialist Eddie Rivera, a medic in Company C, is credited with saving many lives of his fellow soldiers that day with his heroic actions (Sack, John, "War Stories, Anaconda," Esquire, August 2002, pp. 118–123). LaCamera set up his battalion command post with Company C and they too were hard hit. By the end of the day, 10th Mountain soldiers inflicted heavy casualties on Al Qaeda forces even as twenty-five U.S. soldiers were wounded. Fighting in close combat in Anaconda in tough mountainous terrain, American soldiers were able to fight and win right in the heart of the enemy. They did so again in close combat a year later in Iraq against Iraqi fedayeen in urban terrain.

The following morning Hagenbeck adapted his plan to the situation. This is a key decision for any major unit commander — to fight the enemy and not your plan. You must adapt quickly. Knowing when to make that decision is the tough judgment major unit commanders make in a fight like this. You learn how to do that through years of tough battle-focused training and from experience gained from other operational missions. Hagenbeck did not hesitate. He designated U.S. forces as the main attack and reinforced them with Apaches, Marine Cobra attack helicopters, and close air support. Fierce close-range battles were fought over the next ten days as U.S. forces and additional Afghan reinforcements courageously battled Al Qaeda in caves and fortified positions. Captain Bob Mahowald, who was a lieutenant in the battles, wrote in a letter about small unit leadership, "I will always remember witnessing two nineteen-year-old specialists who, as M 240 machine gunners, poured fire into enemy positions to cover their platoon-mates' advance. Their responsibility was tremendous, and they performed flawlessly" (Mahowald, Robert, Captain, U.S. Army, letter, March 2003). It was a clear indication of the toughness of U.S. forces, and their willingness and tactical ability to take the fight to Al Qaeda wherever they were.

The operation continued with some heavy fighting at close range and progressive clearing of Al Qaeda from caves. U.S. and allied forces cleared more than 129 caves and 40 buildings. They destroyed 22 heavy weapons emplacements and seized caches of weapons and intelligence. Al Qaeda had fought from well-placed positions and with modern equipment. They lost in some estimates perhaps as many as one thousand of their best troops (Stewart, CMH, pp. 42–45).

The 10th Mountain battle summary states that Operation Anaconda eliminated an Al Qaeda sanctuary, strained the Al Qaeda regional logistic system, and reduced the Al Qaeda threat by destroying hundreds of their most experienced fighters and trainers (Hagenbeck, notes, December 2003). It was a major victory in one of the first battles of this new war.

10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION REFLECTIONS

Many in the U.S. Army like to refer to T. R. Fehrenbach's book, This Kind of War, a richly detailed and candid account of the Korean War. The 10th Mountain leaders used Fehrenbach's book to call attention to the fact that you can attack land from the air, but if you want to control territory you have to put your own troops in there on the ground to do it. This operation clearly demonstrated the ability and will of the U.S. Army and military with our allies to do just that.

Those leaders also added,

IRAQI FREEDOM

Iraq was the second theater of war opened by the United States and our coalition partners in the ongoing war.

Because Iraq, too, is in its assigned area of operations, CENTCOM, under General Tommy Franks, also planned and conducted this campaign. As with its counterpart in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom was as swift as it was thoughtfully conceived. Simultaneous attacks from air, ground, and sea removed a brutal regime and its organized military forces in three weeks. It was swift but not easy, a phrase I used to describe our four-day destruction of Republican Guard forces in the VII Corps sector of attack in 1991. It is never easy for soldiers and Marines on the ground. The Iraqi Freedom three-week attack to Baghdad earns the title "brilliant" because of the heroic efforts of soldiers and Marines in that tough arena of land combat. Commanders get them to the right place at the right time in the right combinations, but in the end they made it happen and won decisive victory.

Following the capture of Baghdad, the campaign shifted its focus to winning against insurgents who still oppose a free Iraq as some oppose a free Afghanistan. Stabilization campaigns continue in both countries as of this writing.

EXECUTION

General Franks, along with his service component commanders in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, set a campaign framework that was different from the one in Afghanistan yet resembled it in some aspects. Each commander devised their own part of the plan in conjunction with their peers and within the theater commander's intent. It was truly joint interaction among the military services, proving again the wisdom of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation that mandated more joint education, training, and assignments, and revised the way the Joint Staff and Regional Combat Commands operate and report to the Secretary of Defense and President. This generation of leaders in all the services had the benefit of that education, training, and cultural change in ways not yet possible in 1991. Joint interoperability was vastly improved from 1991. Service integration and teamwork was masterful from senior commanders to noncommissioned officers and soldiers and Marines executing in the harsh conditions against an enemy who sometimes were in armored vehicles and sometimes not even in military uniforms, with engagement ranges often measured in feet.

As a retired Army professional, the first J-7 on the joint staff in 1987 responsible for interoperability after Goldwater-Nichols, I was in a position to see how far we had to go in joint operations after 1987. As a combat corps commander in 1991, I saw what was required for successful execution of joint operations in combat. I greatly admire, profoundly respect, and am inspired by what this generation of joint warfighting professionals did, from the battle commanders to the soldiers, Marines, and airmen.

MARCH 2003

From all that collaborative and iterative planning came an imaginative and bold campaign plan. General Franks designated Lieutenant General (LTG) David McKiernan to be the CFLCC. McKiernan had in his land force command U.S. Army V Corps under LTG William (Scott) Wallace, U.S. Marine I MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) under LTG James Conway that also included the British 1st Armored Division commanded by Major General (MG) Robin Brims. His ground reserve was the 82d Airborne Division commanded by MG Chuck Swannack. He also had Special Operating Forces available in his sector as well as air support from the Joint Forces Air Component Commander LTG T. Michael "Buzz" Mosley. Army Chief General Shinseki had considerably reinforced McKiernan's headquarters with senior and experienced general officers and other staff tailored for this mission as well as providing resources to upgrade it into a Force XXI capable operation. In addition, McKiernan had U.S. Marine Corps Major General Robert "Rusty" Blackman as CFLCC Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force Major General Dan Leaf for air coordination, and British Brigadier Albert Whitley (On Point, final draft, p. 71). Because of a sizeable Army investment, McKiernan's forces had the latest Force XXI battle command technology to permit interoperability and simultaneous situational awareness we did not have in 1991 and were only beginning to visualize in our warfighting experiments in the early 1990s. In 1991 we had paper maps with sticky markers to indicate enemy and friendly situations. Updating such a map required manual movement of these stickers done after voice transmission of new information, often hours after events. In this operation, each command echelon had simultaneously updated electronic displays for situational awareness. It was an enormous leap in battle command capability. Such a capability, combined with the tactical skill and courage of Soldiers and Marines, would make a huge difference in the tempo and precision and precision of the campaign and in the ability of land and air forces to dominate a given battlespace with fewer of their own forces.

McKiernan had the mission to attack straight toward Baghdad and collapse the regime. His was the main effort. Two supporting efforts were in place. One to the north combined Special Operating Forces, conventional forces, and Iraqi Kurdish forces to fix Iraqi forces there, attack south toward Tikrit, and to stabilize the Kurdish region. The other supporting effort was to the west where the CFACC (Coalition Forces Air Component Commander or overall theater air force commander) with special forces, was assigned the mission of preventing Iraqi SCUD missile attacks beyond the borders of Iraq (On Point, final draft, pp. 74–75).

Allied ground forces totaled about 200,000 troops, with about 1,600 aircraft in support (Brown, CMH, p. 28). Iraqi forces numbered about 280,000 to 300,000 regular army and Republican Guard with about 2,200 tanks and 4,000 artillery pieces. They also had many irregular forces, including the Sadaam Fedayeen, Al Quds, Ba'ath party militia, and intelligence services totaling close to 20,000 spread from Basra to An Najaf to Karbala, as well as An Nasiriyah, As Samawah, and elsewhere. It is more than 300 miles from the Kuwaiti border to Baghdad, with another 200 miles to the northern city of Mosul. Baghdad is a city of more than five million people split by the Tigris River. Between Kuwait and Baghdad are a number of cities along a resupply route. In the south and in the north there are Iraqi oil fields, which both Franks and McKiernan knew could be destroyed at any time by Saddam Hussein's regime just as they had destroyed Kuwaiti oil fields in 1991. Moreover, by early March, only the 3d Infantry Division commanded by Major General Buford "Buff " Blount and I MEF, which included British forces, were completely into theater (On Point, final draft pp. 122–132).

The 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), commanded by Major General Dave Petraeus, began deploying on 6 February 2003. Their 3d Brigade had just returned from Afghanistan in August 2002 and completed a training rotation at the Joint Readiness Training Center in Fort Polk in November. One CH-47 company was back at Fort Campbell only twenty-two days before deploying again to Kuwait. The division offloaded its first ship in Kuwait thirty days after receiving its deployment orders, half the time required in 1990, and a tribute to the deployment transformation that had gone on in the U.S. Army in the 1990s along with deployment savvy commanders, noncommissioned officers, soldiers, and civilian experts. Soldiers arrived mostly by air as equipment and vehicles moved by ship. The last soldiers arrived on 10 March. Even though assembling the division took place in record time, preparations for combat were still under way when the attack began on 19 March because the formal deployment order had come so late (On Point, final draft, pp. 104–105).

Meanwhile, after Turkey refused permission to land, the Fort Hood, Texas-based 4th Infantry Division, commanded by Major General Ray Odierno, moved from the eastern Mediterranean to Kuwait. To ensure Iraqi forces stayed fixed in the north, General Franks adjusted his plan and used the 173d Airborne Brigade with SOF units and a heavy tank-Bradley task force from Germany to operate there (On Point, final draft, pp. 105-06). This air transportable heavy-light contingency task force was a package developed in U.S. Army and U.S. Air Forces in Europe in the 1990s in anticipation of this type of contingency, another indicator of 1990s continuing transformation. McKiernan then moved the 4th Infantry through Kuwait, where they landed by sea and air, trained briefly, and then moved rapidly to relieve the U.S. Marines of Task Force Tripoli north of Baghdad and join V Corps. They later successfully captured Saddam Hussein on 14 December 2003. (Note: Task Force Tripoli was a U.S. Marine task force commanded by BG John Kelley. It consisted of three Marine infantry battalions, artillery, SEALs, engineers, and logistics support who had attacked north of Baghdad to Tikrit, seizing that area on 13 April, then turning it over to the 4th Division on 21 April (West, Bing, and Smith, Ray L., Major General USMC (ret.), The March Up, Bantam Books, New York, New York, 2003, pp. 247–252).

"The 82d Airborne Division… already had a BCT (brigade combat team) and part of the division headquarters deployed in Afghanistan… in early January the remaining 'All Americans' were alerted for deployment to Kuwait… By 17 March, the 82d was ready for war in Iraq" (On Point, final draft pp. 70–71).

U.S. Army forces were introduced into the theater from all over the world. This operational maneuver from strategic distances is a cultural transformation as well as a physical capability transformation, an added capability, and points the direction the Army is headed with its modular design work (On Point, final draft, p. 397ff).

ATTACK

On President Bush's order, after a forty-eight-hour ultimatum, CENTCOM launched simultaneous attacks throughout Iraq on 19 March (On Point, final draft, p. 115). Air and ground operations were synchronized to begin the most rapid air-ground attack in the history of the U.S. military. In three weeks Baghdad fell, Saddam was removed from power, and Iraq began its long and difficult rebuilding from thirty years under a brutal regime.

The outline of the CFLCC attack was as simple as it was thorough. V Corps with the 3d Infantry Division (3 ID) and 101st Airborne was CFLCC main attack. The 3rd ID leading U.S. V Corps would be corps main effort, crossing the berm between Kuwait and Iraq, then moving as fast as possible to Baghdad. Along the way there they would seize Tallil Air Base, making it available for Coalition air operations and logistics. They also would isolate the city of An Nasiriyah, seize crossing sites over the Euphrates, then hand those over to the I MEF (On Point, final draft, pp. 117–118). The I MEF consisted of the 1st Marine Division (MG Jim Mattis) Task Force Tarawa composed of a reinforced Marine regiment from the 2d Marine Division, the 3d Marine Air Wing (MG Jim Amos), and the British 1st Armored Division, which was tailored by the British with armor and infantry for this mission. After crossing the berm just to the north of V Corps, the Marines would seize the Iraqi oil fields at Rumaylah, while simultaneously attacking toward Basra and the ports in the Al Faw area. Following seizure of the oil field, the 1st Marine Division would continue the attack through An Nasiriyah across the Euphrates and up the east side toward Baghdad as the U.S. Army sped up the west side (On Point, final draft, p. 70ff).

I MEF seized the Rumaylah oil fields before the Iraqis could destroy them. Of the more than 1,000 Iraqi oil wells in the south, only nine were set afire, and they were all extinguished by the end of April (On Point, final draft, p. 127). It was a remarkable tactical feat with huge strategic implications for the future. As part of the I MEF, the British also seized Basra and the Iraqi ports in the Al Faw peninsula early in the fight.

Meanwhile, the 3d Infantry Division breached the berm in eleven different locations and attacked on two fronts. In the west, 3 ID was led by 3–7 Cavalry, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Terry Ferrell, and in the east by Third Brigade (3 BCT), commanded by Colonel Dan Allyn. The 3 BCT quickly seized Tallil Air Base and the crossing site over the Euphrates and isolated An Nasiriyah (Blount, notes, February 2004). Following the 3 ID, the 101st first Airborne (On Point, final draft, p. 145) began a series of operations on 20 March to build refuel and rearm points and extended V Corps' reach all the way to the outskirts of Baghdad with attack helicopters. Having a mechanized infantry division combined with an air assault division and the 82d Airborne division with its brigade of parachute infantry in CFLCC reserve gave McKiernan and Wallace great versatility to adapt schemes of maneuver as the face of the enemy changed. It was a wise choice in unit combination.

Isolating cities along the way would be a continuing method of advance. On 22 March the 3–7 Cavalry reached As Samawah to the north and isolated it. The divisions' 3d Brigade relieved them on 23 March as division momentum continued north (On Point, final draft, pp. 161–167). At both As Samawah and An Nasiriyah, it became apparent that combat power would be necessary to deal with Iraqi irregulars attacking U.S. forces directly and also attacking along LOCs (lines of communication).

Adapting their plan as enemy actions became more clear and other options opened, McKiernan released his CFLCC reserve, the 82d Airborne Division to V Corps on 26 March along with 1/41 Infantry, a tank-Bradley task force (On Point, final draft, pp. 265, 268). Wallace immediately sent them into action to take As Samawah and release 3 ID to continue north. That urban fight in As Samawah by Colonel Arnie Bray's 82d Airborne 325th Parachute Infantry Brigade Combat Team was at close ranges, intense, and replete with small unit initiative so characteristic of U.S. infantry.

A squadron from the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment deployed by air from their base at Fort Polk, LA, and later joined the 82d in this fight to secure LOCs on 8 April (On Point, final draft, p. 276).

Under heavy contact at An Najaf, the 3 ID attacked to isolate the city. Colonel Ben Hodges and his 1st Brigade Combat Team of 101st Airborne, reinforced by Company A, 2/70 Armor, a tank-Bradley task force, began to clear the city on 31 March in an operation with tough urban fighting, including a mini "Thunder Run" by a tank company they concluded five days later (On Point, final draft, pp. 326–332). Meanwhile the 3d Infantry Division continued north toward Baghdad and the U.S. Marines continued their advance to Baghdad on the east bank of the Euphrates River. On 28 March Colonel Greg Gass and his 101st Attack Aviation Brigade, conducted a successful two battalion (forty-eight Apaches) attack over one hundred kilometers against defending Republican Guard forces defending near Karbala and the approaches to Baghdad. And on 31 March, a daylight armed reconnaissance to protect the western flank (On Point, final draft, pp 248-49, 336).

While the sandstorm of 25–27 March was blowing, the Coalition forces pushed needed fuel, ammunition, and water forward while continuing local attacks. On 30 March LTG Wallace ordered five simultaneous attacks, three by the 101st, one by the 3ID, and one by the 82nd, which included those attacks described above and which apparently confused Iraqi forces into believing the main attack was coming from a different direction and causing them to begin repositioning forces. LTG Wallace said these were "key to the fight… maintaining offensive tempo and spirit…" (Wallace, William, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, notes, January 2004). During this Iraqi repositioning, and also during the sandstorm, Coalition air forces hit Iraqi formations with precision attacks. It was lethal teamwork of ground forces conducting maneuvers that caused the enemy to be more vulnerable to coalition air strikes (On Point, final draft, pp. 316-40).

NORTH AND WEST

In the west Special Operations Forces were joined by Team tank, in a precedent-setting combination of special operators and a tank company to continue their operations there. Beginning on 2 April, that company team of 10 M1A1 tanks was airlifted to an airfield in the west by Air Force C-17 aircraft to join special forces. (On Point, final draft, p. 311).

LOGISTICS

Major General Hank Stratman, CFLCC Deputy, and Major General Dave Kratzer, commander of 377 Reserve Theater Support Command, and their logisticians and commanders were able to open this theater of war, a formidable challenge by itself requiring anticipation and forward planning by the U.S. Army even as the Afghanistan operation was ongoing. Stratman, Kratzer, Major General Claude Christenson, CFLCC C-4, McKiernan's logistics commanders and logistics operators overcame many hurdles during the operation to sustain momentum of the attack. In 1991 VII Corps attacked 250 kilometers in 89 hours with each division consuming about 800,000 gallons of fuel daily. We certainly had our logistics challenges, most notably in fuel distribution, location of spare parts, and mail delivery documented earlier in this book. This attack would be over longer distances. These logistics challenges were met as in 1991 with teamwork, ingenuity, anticipation, skill, courage, and what I always liked to call "brute force logistics." Christenson would have high praise for the troops driving the trucks to get supplies forward (On Point, final draft, pp. 201-03). But logisticians and operators by necessity hold themselves to the highest standards.

Logistics is a difficult and complex area to transform and early indicators were that 1990s transformation in logistics to support offensive operations in what the Army calls "distributed battlespace" is a work in progress. Much was done in the 1990s to provide more "total asset visibility." Despite that and the extraordinary effort by soldiers and commanders, there were shortcomings as before. Moreover, the battle ambush and subsequent rescue of soldiers of the 507th Maintenance Company showed the asymmetry of the modern battlefield and other focus areas. In addition, "mobilization and deployment decisions slowed arrival of many logistic units or resulted in their elimination from the troop list altogether." (On Point, final draft, pp. 471–475). LTG Christensen, now Army G-11, and General Paul Kern, Commander of Army Material Command, have accelerated logistics transformation for the future.

Medical care with hospital surgical teams was pushed well forward to be immediately available to wounded troops. Evacuation care capabilities were put into action to ensure top care all the way to major hospitals such as Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where the best continuing treatment and rehabilitation care continues to be available. On the battlefield, medics risked their lives to aid fellow soldiers, as did Specialist Dwayne Turner of the 101st Airborne Division near the town of Al Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad. Although wounded by automatic weapons fire multiple times and weakened by loss of blood, Turner continued to risk his own life, saving the lives of at least three of his fellow soldiers (On Point, final draft, pp. 441).

BAGHDAD

Both U.S. Marine and U.S. Army forces were now speeding toward Baghdad. Battle commanders were all over the battlefield, up front with their troops talking directly with subordinate commanders. That face-to-face battle command method especially in a Force XXI electronic-networked system was key. V Corps commander LTG Wallace said he made "every attempt to see division commanders each day" (Wallace, notes, January 2004). 3d Infantry Division conducted a series of attacks to defeat and destroy Republican Guard units around the key choke point they referred to as the "Karbala Gap," a narrow piece of land between the town of Karbala and Bar al-Milh Lake (On Point, final draft, p. 304). All the way to Baghdad, more than 300 miles in two weeks, Major General Blount had maneuvered his 3d Infantry Division brigade combat teams and his cavalry squadron to sustain the momentum of the attack as the 82d Airborne and 101st teamed to free the division to maintain momentum. Simultaneously with the attack on As Najaf on 31 March, Colonel Joe Anderson and 2d Brigade Combat Team of the 101st conducted a successful feint into the town of Al Hillah, one of the five simultaneous attacks to confuse Iraquis about V Corps' main attack. For this operation they were reinforced by Company B, 2/70 Armor (On Point, final draft, pp. 332-36).

After crossing through the Karbala Gap, Blount ordered his 1st Brigade, commanded by Colonel Wil Grimsley, to secure the final crossing sites over the Euphrates and attack to seize Saddam International Airport, believed to be key to securing Baghdad. To close the gap in the north, Blount ordered Colonel Dan Allyn commander 3d Brigade to conduct an attack to secure that last spot in the noose around Baghdad (Blount, Buford, Major General, U.S. Army, notes, February 2004). That action by the Division's 3d Brigade was similar in audacity, professional skill, and courage as the attacks by the 2d Brigade a few days later into the center of Baghdad (On Point, final draft, pp. 374-81).

Blount was determined to see if the division could take Baghdad by shock, wanting to collapse it quickly, thus he and Wallace settled on a reconnaissance in force or what the troops call a "Thunder Run"(On Point, final draft, p. 397). There were two "Thunder Runs" into Baghdad. Thunder Run is a term from Vietnam, and refers to a rapid advance through a contested area or down a road without stopping even as small engagements popped up. The tactic uses shock and speed to surprise the enemy before they can react. The first of these actions by 1-64 Armor, a tank-heavy task force commanded by LTC Eric Schwartz took place on 5 April. At 0630 on 5 April, Schwartz and his leaders and soldiers carried out a "show of force," attacking up Highway 8 into central Baghdad, then back southwest to Baghdad International Airport. Greg Kelley of Fox News accompanied that attack on Colonel Dave Perkins's M113 (the 2d Brigade Commander who accompanied the raid to see for himself and provide Schwartz external communications so Schwartz could concentrate on commanding his own task force). The two-hour twenty-minute operation was intense from almost the time it was launched until completed. Courage and small unit initiative were shown everywhere as TF 1-64 completed its mission (On Point, final draft, pp. 402-07). The results showed that such tactics might indeed capture Baghdad. They also paid tribute to one of their own:

Two days later Perkins took his entire 2d Brigade Combat team into the heart of Baghdad. Their actions resembled those of TF 1-64 AR, which was also on this operation. Close combat ensued with Iraqi vehicles down side streets and charges by irregular troops at combat vehicles. During the operation their TOC (Tactical Operations Center) had significant casualties from a missile attack. They soon were back in operation despite losing three soldiers and two embedded reporters, and having seventeen wounded and twenty-two vehicles destroyed or damaged. Perkins, his commanders, and his soldiers would not be denied. They finished their attack and then stayed (On Point, final draft, pp. 409-22). This initiative to stay, supported by senior commanders, was one of those bold decisions in war, like capturing the Remagen Bridge in World War II, that has effects all the way to the strategic level.

The end of this phase of the war was on 9 April 2003.

NATION BUILDING

World War II concluded with unconditional surrender by both Germany and Japan. U.S. and allied forces in those two countries began occupation duties and set conditions for eventual peaceful and orderly transitions to new governments. The occupation of Germany officially concluded in 1955 after ten years. It concluded in Japan in 1952 after seven years.

Transition in Iraq would follow a different course. Combat formations rapidly transitioned to this new phase. The 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (Colonel Dave Teeples) and 1st Armored Division (MG Marty Dempsey) joined formations already there also rapidly and with great skill and courage adapting to a new mission. In addition, the U.S. Army deployed its new Stryker Brigade, the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team. This formation had gone from a concept in the Army's vision announced in the fall of 1999, to a combat-ready brigade in four years, an impressive feat of Army transformation. This phase would also include combat operations even as soldiers reached out to help Iraqis regain control of their country and to improve their way of life. U.S. and allied forces would adapt quickly with tactics of their own to counter resistance while also helping rebuild Iraq. The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority sought to rebuild infrastructure and worked to transfer national control to free Iraqis on 30 June 2004. It is an impressive operation both for the courage of U.S. Army and allied soldiers and for their selflessness and ingenuity in performing their mission. To provide security, to help set conditions for that transition, and to assist in nation building, Coalition Forces are conducting new missions, increasingly with our new partners, the Iraqis themselves, in an inspiring display of versatility and adaptability. MG Dave Petraeus, CG 101st Airborne, calls attention to four qualities in leaders and soldiers during the attack to Baghdad, and this phase of the operation: initiative, determination, innovation, and courage (Patraeus, MG, US Army, notes 02/04).

If you go on any given day to almost any sector in Iraq you find normalcy. You find schools open and children attending, you find teachers paid more than under Saddam's regime, and you find most of the propaganda removed from new textbooks and classrooms. You find health clinics and hospitals open, medical supplies available and doctors and medical personnel paid more than under Saddam's regime. You find freedom of expression on street corners, in town squares by demonstrators, in newspapers, and on television. You find local governments at work. You find local Iraqi police at work. You find the infrastructure of water, sewage, electricity, road repair, and public transportation at least as good as pre-war and perhaps better. You find Americans and allies, mostly soldiers and Marines, reaching out to Iraqis in ways that inspire us all with their ingenuity and compassion. You find Americans, who are there because they believe in what they are doing. And you also find Americans, who wonder when the Iraqis are going to get tired of the thugs, extremists, and former regime loyalists who disrupt their lives and who hold the country back, and make the effort to get rid of them.

This phase, as much as any part of this war, is a test of wills and of ideas.