Taleban Ambush in the Mountrains: a video analysis

Maybe it is because I did my basic training in the mountains, or maybe its because I just love them; the fact is that I have always been fascinated by how mountains totally change the face of presumably 'modern' warfare. In the mountains, a horse if much better than an APC, helicopters are sometimes very useful and at times utterly useless, a platoon can stop a regiment, air strikes are often impossible to execute and triangulating a radio transmitter position becomes a nightmare. Nothing wears down engines as well as mountain operations.

Mountains are truly the ultimate defensive terrain.

In the mountains the weather can change in less than one hour from balmy hot to a hellish blizzard. Roads which appeared reliable only yesterday can simply disappear overnight. Soldiers need much more food and water just to survive while the supply lines are always compromised. Logistics become a nightmare and even cooking can be a challenge for an untrained person.

I have just come across this short video of a Taleban ambush against what appears to be a small resupply convoy. It seems to be lead by a truck which is a rather bizarre concept, (unless there is a guide in it or some locally hired people are used as 'mine clearing personnel'). The video is of poor quality and I cannot really tell. What is really interesting here though, is how well this video shows the degree to which mountains restrict movement and thus give a huge advantage to any ambushing force. The vehicles in this video are totally stuck and cannot move anywhere, even well into the attack.

The ambushing force seems to be composed of only one machine gun operator, one RPG operator, at least one spotter (you can hear the radio traffic), a couple of AK shooters (you can hear but not see them) and the camera operator. Just imagine what a platoon sized force could have done to the convoy (identified on the LiveLeak website where I found the video as "4th Platoon D Company getting ambushed on the KOP Road. Korengal Valley 1-32 Inf 10th Mountain").

Speaking of the radio traffic. One of the most effective way to protect any force in such terrain is to place radio intercept positions on mountain tops. Such positions are usually easy to protect, to resupply and, if needed, to evacuate. They are also ideal to intercept enemy radio traffic between the spotter and the ambushing force. As I mentioned before, triangulating the exact position of the radio signal is hard because such signals tend to bounce off the mountain sides, but it is possible to isolate a general area. Here is how a radio intercept force would protect the convoy:

Anywhere between 3 to 5 radio intercept positions would be placed in carefully selected mountain tops each manned by by a small number or electronic warfare pioneers and a small covering force. 10-12 men in total are plenty. They would be in radio contact (ideally via encrypted and frequency hopping communications) with a electronic warfare HQ (typically a EW company HQ). A datalink would be even better. Any radio traffic would be reported to the HQ, ideally recorded and possibly translated by a language specialist, and plotted on a map. The intelligence officer would then match than up with the planned troop movements for the day and if a spike in traffic was detected in the area of movement of a convoy an alarm could be triggered and a covering force sent: either attack helicopters or transport helicopters dropping off a protecting force (one or more platoon-size units) on the high ground above the threatened convoy. At least one vehicle in the convoy should be able to act as a FAC. In most cases the ambushing force will detect the arrival of the protection force and call off the attack.

Another highly effective tactic is counter-ambushing in which a special operations unit is covertly dropped several days in advance in a likely ambush location and waits for the insurgent force to take up position and to attack before destroying it (they are most detectable at the time when they bury the mine or IED which is supposed to hit the first vehicle).

In this case it appears that the US forces are not making full use of such capabilities. They should have learned from the experience of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan which used such tactics with great success (with rather basic hardware, I would add).

Anyway - take a look for yourself and see for yourself what a mountain ambush looks like. Notice that the RPGs are being fired at a distance which is bigger than their ideal one (about 100-150 yards only for poorly trained operators) and that the first IED/mine does not explode under the truck, but under the first Humvee. Typically, that the entire attack takes less than a couple of minutes.

The Kurds have a saying that "the Kurds have no friends but the mountain". I would only add that this is also the best friend to have.

Pentagon plans against Iran according to Scott Ritter (and the Saker)

I know, bragging is not good, but I simply cannot miss the opportunity, in particular that it turns out that I "beat" Scott Ritter by 32 week in predicting how the Pentagon plans the war on Iran. Listen to the interview that Charles Goyette made with Scott Ritter for Antiwar Radio and compare Scott's analysis with the one I published on the Debianhelp political forum (another version of the same post can be found elsewhere in the vineyard): Scott and I both deny the myth that the Empire can be deterred by the threat of any Iranian attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz and we think that the Marines have been sent to the region to prevent this from happening.

The Strait of Hormuz is indeed narrow, and Iran does have mines and missiles capable of striking tankers in the strait. Iran also has very good Kilo-class Russian submarines which, in many ways, are better suited to coastal and "green water" operations than American SSNs. The problem is targeting: in terms of weapons reach, the Strait of Hormuz is tiny, in terms of targeting it is huge.

To deploy mines Iran can use either small craft or submarines. The US Navy is, however, more than capable of finding and destroying such mine-laying craft. Missiles need to be fed targeting data, you cannot just shoot them down the strait and hope to hit a tanker, and this is exactly where the US Navy will lay down a huge electronic warfare blanket on the entire waterway combining both electronic countermeasures (such as jamming) and strikes (with anti-radiation missiles). Lastly, the Iranians could use coastal artillery (anything from MRL to dug-in artillery positions). This is were the 17000 Marines (correction: this should read 17'000 Navy personnel, not Marines) currently sitting off the Persian coast come in: by physically taking over key sections of the Iranian coast and a number of islands in the strait the US Navy hopes to make it much harder for the Iranians to close down the traffic. Once the strait is declared "safe", the Empire could then take its time to beat the Iranian "regime" (in US parlance all the governments not controlled by the White House are "regimes") into surrender or, as the Neocons always hope, to trigger a popular revolt against the "Mullahs" (again, US parlance for anybody inside the Iranian government).

Of course, cooler heads will say that the real risk of Iranian retaliation is not the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, but a Shia uprising against Imperial forces in Iraq and Lebanon (to this I would even add that an Iranian attack across the Iraqi-Iranian border is not something unthinkable, at least not in Teheran who has already fought a war over this land). One could also raise such minor issues as the sustainability (in terms of logistics) of US "boots" on the Iranian coast or the fact that in any such operation time would be on the Iranian side (how long would the US be capable of sustaining such an operation?).

But considering the Neocon "crazies" currently running the Empire, I do not think that such arguments will prevail.

I agree with Scott Ritter: the war is probably inevitable, and barring a miracle, it will happen this summer.

How they might do it

Here below is a rather typical article warning of the risks of a war with Iran:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse/

However, I guess is that the Pengaton is looking at a rather different option: a two-phase war.

The first phase would begin by 2-3 days of combined cruise missile and air strikes. The aim would be to degrade as much as can be Iranian C3I capabilities and, even more importantly, to isolate the Iranian coastal areas from the main command centers and resupply routes. Then, as soon as Iranian air defence capabilities are sufficiently degraded I would see very intense bombardments and strikes all along the Iranian coast and the straight of Hormuz combined with a strong effort to destroy all Iranian Kilo-class advanced diesel attack submarines. I personally expect "boots on the ground" *before* this phase is completed: Marines forces with Navy and Air Force Forward Air Controllers would land on key positions along the coast and surround pockets of resistance. Once beacheads are secured, US Army troops would land heavy equipment and establish forward bases. The end goal of this first phase would be to control (but not necessarily occupy) most (but not necessarily all) of the Iranian coast with the hope to remove the Persian-Arabian Sea lines of communications from a threat of Iranian attack or blockade. This goal would need to be reached within 4-6 weeks to achieve the desired effect.

Once enough counter-battery capabilities are concentrated along the coast (and to a depth of about 10-20km depending on terrain) and once Iranian active/passive detection capabilities are sufficiently degraded, the USA could announce that the sea lanes are safe, open and protected from any further strikes.

The second phase would include strikes at the "national infrastructure" (read: terrorising the civilian population into submission and, hopefully, into revolt against their leaders) and proactive support for various anti-government forces (Kurds, etc.) and an air/land/sea blockade against the remaining part of Iran. This second phase could be sustained for a very long time.

This was would be a US/Israeli war in which I do not expect the Brits to participate directly. Most of NATO will be busy preparing (or actually executing) an extraction under fire of UNIFIL forces from Lebanon. Obviously - all this would be done without any UNSC resolution authorizing this. Lastly, this scenario would *not* requiere the use of nuclear weapons by either the US or Israel.

The official justification for the actions will be "preventing Iran form aquiering a nuclear weapon" while the real goal of the war will be to economically ruin and politicall weaken Iran.

Does this sound plausible? How about the nuclear option?

There are two options here:

a) the US attacks Iran.

b) Israel nukes Iran.

The second one has some very real advantages. First, it does not involve an over support from the USA (covertly, such a strike would not be possible without proactive US support). Second, since Israel is already the most hated nation on earth - even more than the USA - it will not create much more problems, except possibly in the USA but these can easily be taken care of by mantric repetitions of the word "Holocaust". Besides, even if the public opinion in the USA will be appalled by an Israeli nuclear strike - who cares? All they have to chose from is the Republican Zionists or the Democratic Zionists (I like to think of it as the choice between kosher Pepsi and kosher Cola). Second, such a strike would not involve the already hopelessly over-extended US military, not a bad thing at a time when Dubya is calling for MORE forces to be sent to Iraq. Thirdly, such as strike would - presumably - scare the wits of the "AYE-rabs" and other "ragheads" and convince them that while the Israeli got their "elite" butts kicked by a very small Hezbollah force in the war this summer, the Israelis are still the big bully of the neighborhood. Not to mention that this would also feel good for the "patriotic" crowd in Israel. So this option does appear to have some real advantages. However, it fails to achieve the real main goal: to "bomb Iran into the pre-industrialized era".

I sincerely believe that the boggyman of the "nuclear armed Ayatollah" is not at all the reason why Washington and Tel Aviv are after Iran. First, there is a really nasty and terrorist supporing government out there already armed with nukes: Pakistan. For anyone knowing anything about ISI, there is the real threat of nuclear terrorism. Iran's government, for all its rhetoric, has consistently behaved in a super-reponsable way, even when provoked (as it has been many times by the USA and by the Talibans). No, the REAL goal here is to punish the Iranian population for its support of "the mullahs" (as the expression goes in the USA) via the ballot box. This is exactly the same logic which brought the Israelis to cover all of Lebanon with bombs, missiles and mines, the same one which made them kill over 500 people in Gaza, the same logic which made the US bomb all over Serbia and Montenegro and the same logic which explains the bizarre embargo of Cuba. The message here is: you support the bad guys, you pay for it.

An Israeli nuclear strike on Iran would most definitely not achieve this kind of result. At best, it might provoke Iran into some kind of retaliation, but I personally doubt this very much. The Iranian response will be a mix of very covert reprisals (a la PanAm 103 over Lockerbie - Iran was behind that one) and economic and political hell to pay (think the oil barril at over 100 bucks and Shia insurrection in Iraq). They just ain't going to behave like Saddam Hussein would have and uselessly launch missiles at Israel.

This strike would have to be a one-time, limited strike on one, maybe two, facilities. It would not hurt the Iranians in any significant way. A nuclear strike campagain is just not feasible for political and, even more so, technical reasons.

So my guess is that the first option - an American bombing campaign with a possible limited coastal invasion is still the preferred option in Washington and Tel Aviv. The only question is whether the US military will go along such a lunacy. I personally do not doubt that the vast majority of the US military command is opposed to that kind of crap. However, the civilian leadership might just force them to do this anyway. This is where this thing will be decided (and not in the pathetic Congress).

But if common sense prevails in the USA, yes, Israel might go ahead and just do it.

It is also important to keep in mind that both Dubya and Olmert have really nothing to loose. Both have proven their idiotic incompetence beyond anyone's doubt. Unless they can deliver some kind of feel-good "victory" to their supporters they are going to loose power. Bush has the option of a new 911, but Olmert does not (the Israeli society is FAR more pluralistic, more inquisitive and more restless to allow their politicians to use this kind of tactics). Besides, after the stomping Olmert got in Lebanon - who needs a 911 in Israel?

So my personal bet is as follows: I think the USA will attack Iran, if they don't - Israel will. Either way, we should all begin planning for an oil barrel at over 100$ and more "homeland security" to silence the opposition.

(written sometimes in February 2007)