Iran Reduces EFP Attacks in Iraq
December 15, 2008 by Steven OHern · Leave a Comment
Attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq using explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) have reduced substantially according to LtGen Thomas Metz, past commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq and currently the leader of the military’s effort to defend against roadside bombs. According to a Los Angeles Times article, attacks dropped only because of a decision by Iranian backed groups that were employing EFPs:
“In the past three months, they have gone way down,” Metz said. “Someone has made a decision on the Shia side in connection with Iran . . . to bring them down.”
Armor-piercing bombs now being found are less-sophisticated versions built in Iraq, not smuggled in from Iran, he said.
The devices never accounted for more than about 5% of all roadside bombs but have caused about 35% of the casualties, Metz said.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh was also quoted in the LA Times article stating that Iran had taken a more “positive stance” in recent months.
Analysis: EFPs are devastatingly effective even against the improved armor on Humvees and against other armored vehicles. A Royal Air Force C-130 was so disabled by an EFP attack in Maysan that it had to be destroyed in place. Why Iran has elected to reduce EFP attacks in Iraq is debatable. Perhaps Iran does not want to upset the planned U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that will leave an Iraqi government amenable to Iran’s bidding. Such a result has been Iran’s goal since the 2003 invasion. Regardless, the EFP remains a formidable weapon that Iran will continue to deploy in irregular wars fought by its proxies.
Irregular War Debate in Wall Street Journal
October 30, 2008 by Steve · Leave a Comment
A Wall Street Journal article reports that the new administration will be forced to pick between building irregular war capability or building up conventional war capability. According to the article, the U.S. government’s current financial condition will not allow both.
The WSJ does a good job explaining to the public an issue that has been debated in defense circles for several years. One excerpt –
The two competing schools of thought each warn that making the wrong decisions now could imperil U.S. national security down the road. The military officials who favor buying advanced weapons believe that failing to invest in those systems today could leave U.S. forces ill-equipped to fight a modernized Russian or Chinese military in the future. Conversely, advocates of expanding the size of the ground forces argue that the military will be unable to meet the troop demands of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of conflicts elsewhere in the world, unless the Army and Marines recruit tens of thousands of additional troops.
The final decision will ultimately fall to the next administration, which will have to prioritize how to divvy up what may be a significantly smaller defense budget. Neither the Obama nor the McCain campaign has tipped its hand on whether to focus on asymmetric conflicts like Iraq or possible large-scale conventional wars.
Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations, has declared the U.S. government can’t afford the 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would like to add by 2012.
Analysis:The services need a large infusion of money to replace and upgrade equipment. The Air Force is operating a fleet of aircraft that may be the oldest since World War II. Army and Marine Corps armor, vehicles, and other equipment have been depleted and fatigued by operations in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003. Current defense spending is approximately 4% of gross domestic product; under Jimmy Carter – no defense hawk – defense spending was approximately 4.7%. The United States must maintain the capability to fight both a conventional nation-state foe (Russia, China, Iran) and irregular or fourth-generation war against non-state actors (al-Qaeda and its progeny) and countries using proxies against American interests (Iran’s IRGC and Lebanese Hezbollah). Unfortunately, much of the fight for funding for assets needed for conventional (F-22 fighter, satellites, and the Army’s $160 billion Future Combat System) and irregular foes (troops and facilities to train and house them, transport aircraft, ground vehicles) will be based on politicians advancing the causes of various defense contractors who seek to supply those items.
