TECHNOLOGY-ARMY-OPERATION CONNECTION IN THE WAR OF IRAQ

Burak ÇINAR
University of Hacettepe
Department of History

Beyond political and strategic discussions, USA and British armies' joint operation against Iraq between March 19- May 1, was unavoidable to conclude as expected, when analyzed from the point of war history. Iraq, as a third world country and her army was weakened by the mass war and after Gulf war embargo, also with the continuous attrition since 1990's, had been in a vital defense against the worlds super power USA and her most loyal supporter, a developed country England. There existed vast differences between the sides from the level of cultural development, ideology and administrative mechanisms, as well as arms technology. The visual end of the war can be easily forecasted before it started. Because, the difference of the war technologies of Iraq and the American and British armies was reminding the imbalance between the Europeans and the rebels in the colonies in 19th century. The war of Omdurman 1898, is may be the best example to show the similarities, in relation to the level of arms, successes, losses of the sides.

Equipped with guns, maxim guns, and rifles, British troops fought against Dervishes' Army, which was 2.5 times crowded, at the war of Omdurman. As known, Dervishes were mostly using older rifles and primitive arms like speer in the war, which happened in the Sudan at September 2, 1898. Only 15.000 of the dervishes were using rifles and they did not have guns and maxim guns. Defending them with "primitive attack" of mediaeval times against British "modern defense" understanding, led Dervishes to live a catastrophe same as the ones at the end of Medieval age, the crushing defeat of bravery and faith against fire arms. At the end of the war, the British army, total of 25.800 soldiers (17.600 of them are Egyptian), had 43 dead and 428 wounded, while Dervishes Army, total of 60.000 soldiers, had 9700 dead, 16.000 wounded and 5000 of taken were taken prisoner. The reason of Dervishes' %50 losses was mostly due to British army's modern defense understanding besides their 80 guns and 44 maxim guns. (1)

We see a similar picture, when we have a look at the results of 1990-91 Gulf War. According to the official data; USA's losses were 1792 dead and 467 wounded out of the total of 2439 (2) In the September 24-28, Desert Shield Operation, 665.000 of total coalition forces' loss is known as below 500, while Iraqi army's loss 60000 dead, 175.000 were taken as prisoner over the total of 350.000 soldiers and 4000 tank and 3.000 gun. Iraqi army's 3700 tank, 2600 gun and 2400 ZPT either destroyed or captured. At the end of the operation, Iraqi army's combat force, 42 divisions were destroyed. (4)

The main difference between the war of Omdurman and the Gulf War is the attack of technologically backward side at Omdurman, while Iraqi army's defense position at the Gulf War. The reason of it was the improvement of "modern attack" understanding. The reason of the greater number of USA's forces and coalition forces in comparison to Iraqi divisions at southern Iraq and at Kuwait, was mainly due to least service required at the back of fronts because of improved logistics, strategic air defense and C4 systems.

The situation is the same in the 2003 Iraqi War. Two forces having a deep gap between their military powers fought with each other and at the end it was the victory of the technological superiority. The gap at their technological levels was the determinant of the difference at their losses. 139 American soldiers were dead, at May 1, when it was announced that the General Operation is completed. (5) Besides that the number of wounded was 495. The number of British losses was announced as 33. The number of American soldiers died in hospitals was about 20-30 after the war. In addition, 87 American and 10 British soldiers died and at least 382 American soldiers wounded in occasional fights, traffic accidents and for other causes after May 1, when the completion of the operation announced. (6) Though Iraqi losses still has not been known yet; the process of the war and the fighting style of the elite troops following the counter attack, gives us the idea that only the number of death could find ten thousands. (7)

Military Technologies of USA and Iraq

When we compare the past and the present situation of the USA and Iraq, we can see the immense gap of their defense capabilities. While USA was the only super power of the world, Iraq was a third world country, which was subjected to a heavy embargo for more than ten years. Since the economic limits of USA and Iraq were so far away from each other, defense expenditures data exposes an imbalanced rate of 310 million dollars versus 5.5 billion dollars. (8) As a matter of fact, these numbers, which determine the defense capacities and capabilities today, also designates the result of wars.

But when taken into consideration the number of "The man who beat the monster" stories realized in the history of wars, some people were in a condition to expect surprises. Soviet's defeat in Finland at 1939 at the first attack; Vietnam War; Turkey's independence war, failure of Soviet Union in Afghanistan were some of these surprises. In order to make a surprise, the man has to know the weaknesses of the monster.

Finland, Vietnam and Turkey accomplished defense wars at their own lands at different times. (9) So, "The motivation of self defense"; "to be stranded"; "to defend what you own", "pride", "to fight in the best known region and environment" and like many social, psychological, and geographic advantages bring victory to a defendant country. It was seen so many times in the history, but the situation was rather different at Iraq. The social structure, system, and geography of Iraq gave many hints to USA. The mixed structure of the society, long-lived dicta regime were the clues of socio-psychological weaknesses as the signals of a rapid quit from Iraq's defense. But American army, experienced in desert war, has a structure to fight at such a geographical region with its equipment and arms. Since American soldiers gained new experiences to fight in hot climates in Somalia and Gulf Wars, the idea of only the Iraqi soldiers are used to present hot climates is incomplete. Besides that, it is very well known that American soldiers can have training at similar climatic environments. American arms are also generally convenient for desert wars and American soldiers can use C41 technologies (10) more accurately in such regions. The smooth surface of the desert and Iraqi land's generally low altitude, except its north, helps American army to utilize their superior ELINT (11) and SIGINT (12) technologies for communication, navigation and to detect enemy vehicles more easily and safely. In this heavy electronic war, the rate of accuracy of those arms reaches to maximum. If we give an example, Tomahawk missiles launched from south are more accurate in reaching their targets in comparison to Tomahawk or ACM's (13) launched from north.

In the second half of the 1990's, engine related problems aroused during the sale of M-1A2 Abrams tank to Spain, gave some negative signals of this tank's compatibility to Europe. In the Gulf War, M-1A1 model tank, manufactured with the 1980's technology, was used successfully under desert conditions. In Iraqi War, the improved M-1A1 model and M-1A2 model used together. M-1A1's, that were changed with the M-60 Patton tanks that used by American Marine Corps, are improved to have % 50 more shooting range, faster, and have better vision and shooting systems. (14) So the technical superiority of American tanks to the T-55, T-62 and T-72 Iraqi tanks, which is the main power of Iraqi army, is now more than before.

T-55, T-62 and T-72 were manufactured with 1950's, 1960's, and 1970' Soviet technologies respectively. In 1991 land operation, the sensitivity of land forces and power of the old tanks of Iraq were examined. While destruction of T-72's were limited with % 30, % 66 of T-62's were lost during the war with coalition army. (15) The lost of American tanks were limited with the total of 14 tanks and 7 of them were shot by allies. M-1A2 is much modern than all of the tanks in Iraq's inventory and superior then "T" series tanks that were produced with Soviet technology. Because, in tank technology, the priority of NATO countries was quality while it was mass production with limited quality as preferred by Soviet specialists. For this reason, in a probability of conflict, the loss of NATO versus Soviet tanks can be thought as 1/5. This quality difference, when connected with the continuous support of air superiority, prepared the end of Iraq's tank and mechanized infantry forces.

The sufficiency of Iraq's tanks in the year of 2000 was just on the papers. Besides its serious losses of armored divisions in the Gulf War, being subject to embargo for 13 years, in order to solve the spare parts problem, it is high probably that Iraq de-parted old tanks and used them as spares for the new ones. That might lead a considerable number of decreases of T-72's but also by that mean majority of T-72's could be saved. (16) Nevertheless, since those tanks could not be modernized in 10 years and supported by old parts, it could easily be forecasted their low level of efficiency. But still we can say that T-72, 125 mm guns are a hope for Iraq.

In 1991, American army's 155 mm guns could be prepared in 8 minutes and were effective in shooting one by one when six of them are in a row. Today this duration is reduced to 30 seconds and each gun can shoot in a separate place. (17) Artillery support of Iraq was also maintained by old Soviet arms. But it will not be wrong to think that it was prevented by Coalition's air forces in a short time.

Another advantage of the desert for USA is the maintenance of air superiority and the increase in land support engaged with it. That condition increases the vision of planes and helicopters, eases radar control and AWACS's functioning. (18) When control of SAM's (19) launching increases, the rate of air superiority also increases. Besides the inefficiency of Iraqi aircrafts in the Iraq war, with the effect of geographical elements, air superiority of the Coalition increased to the rate of % 95. That led the greater support of air forces to the land operations. This was a great advantage in the destruction of especially tank and infantry divisions of the Iraqi army.

Although it seems marginal when rated by the operation, the major loss of the Coalition's air forces was helicopters. The low speed and low altitude flights of helicopters, and flying close and parallel to the earth generally in land operations, and being a target since they carry infantry and the high probability of hot contact with the enemy infantry during their discharge make helicopters sensitive to missiles and anti aircraft rockets as well as the infantry arms. Especially portable anti aircraft rockets (SA-7 Grail (Strella,) IGLA-1/2 and Stinger, and like) cause great damage to helicopters in one and two kilometers magnitude of land. It is almost impossible for helicopters to save themselves from the shooting range of these arms. When and if Chaff or flare defense systems do not work, the result is generally negative for the helicopter. A helicopter flying with 250 km/h speed, if cannot maneuver, will meet with a rocket of 550 km/h speed, shot from 4 km.s, in 18-26 seconds in the air. (20) For this reason, 5 -10 helicopter loss of the Coalition should not be evaluated as very serious. Rapid and capable to maneuver, and better using their defense systems; aircrafts, have more probability to escape from middle and high altitude defense missiles than helicopters.

When we have a look at the American and British helicopters, some of their originals dates back to 1950-80 Cold War period. But they are modernized and improved and renewed with modern systems. UH-1 Huey, CH-46 Sea Knight, SH-3 Sea King and Wessex helicopters go back to 1950's; CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Stallion and AH-1 Cobra go back to 1960's. Prototypes of AH-64 Apache, UH-60 Blackhawk and Lynx helicopters were first manufactured in 1970.

The same is true for aircrafts. F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-18 Hornet, and like combat aircrafts are the arms dating back to 1960's and 1970's. But today modernized and new models are in use. The first models of Harrier and A-10 Thunderbolt II were produced in 1960's. B-52 Stratofortress first produced in 1950's. B-1 Lancer first produced in 1970's, F-117 and Stealth Fighters first produced in 1980's, and B-2 Stealth Bomber first flight in 1989 were all in bombing duty at Iraq War. Besides, U-2 spy aircraft, which has been in service since 1950's, was also utilized.

It is said that, targets shot during 1990-91 Desert Storm Operation, were more than the targets shot by American Air 8th during 1942-43. (21) In the Second World War, target shooting CEP of B-17 Flying Fortress combat aircraft was about 1000 meters. (22) This number decreased to 3 meters in 1990's by laser-guided missiles. (23) Bombing and combat aircrafts by using JDAM and guided GPS equipment (24), can make definite shots to targets under all meteorological conditions. (25) JDAM's can reach the target of at most 24 km.s after launched from the aircraft. More than 450 JDAMs were % 95 successful with 9.6 CEP in tests during 1997-99. (26) Pentagon, made its greatest budget increase by % 48,9 to JDAM stock, at the end of 2002, when making some adjustments at elite programs. With this decision JDAM at Navy inventory was increased from 43.292 to 74.166; and Air force inventory from 92.679 to 152.011. (27)

While F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft, developed at 1985, can destroy nine different targets in one sortie by using laser-guided missiles; B-2's can destroy 16 different targets. (28) With the development of stealth technology, the escort needs were reduced by those aircrafts using this technology. 41 aircraft participated to an air attack in the January of 1991 at Basra. Only 8 of them were combat aircraft while the rest escorts. (31) Though have minimum risk, B-2 type aircraft with stealth capability needs no escorts. During 1990's 21 of them manufactured, modernized two times, and with the development of present 30 configuration and improved radars, obtained the JDAM and JSOW (32) launching capability. (33) Drone (34) was also vastly used at Iraq war.

According to the 21st century American War Doctrine, air transportation carries great importance. Besides C-5 Galaxy giant transport aircraft dating back to 1968; in order to carry very big items, a larger aircraft concept was required and that led the manufacturing of C-17 Globalmaster cargo planes in 1980 that could even carry main war tanks. C-5 and C-17 aircrafts, by speeding up the transportation of aircraft, helicopter, gun, armored vehicles, and equipment and the troops, functioned much effective than the older and lighter C-130 Hercules and C-141 Starlifter transport planes.

One of the most important developments of the Iraq War was the use of Global Hawk and Predator UAV's. (35) By accomplishing long-range observations even in most dangerous zones, they secured continuous fresh information flow. (36) Global Hawk, an UAV with its 21.600 km.s range and 41 hours on-air capability, first flied in 1998. (37) Predator is valued 2-3 million dollars and can make 128-km.s/h speed and its value reaches 7 million dollars with the observation camera. (38) Predator can also use air-to-land missiles. It is not wrong to say that the military intelligentsia gained a new acceleration with this vehicle.

Gulf War and Iraqi War also helped USA to record developments in the communication area. The need of communicating the information to the troops immediately has ended with these improvements. In the Second World War, while only 60 words can be communicated in a minute, this number increased to hundreds in Vietnam War and to 200.000 in the Gulf War. According to the information that is given by the USA General Staff Commander Richard Myers, this number is 30 times bigger in the Iraq War. (39) With the considerable improvements in C4I information systems, as per an information related to an assassination attempt towards Iraqi leaders during the war, a B-1 flied from Saudi Arabia and bombed a restaurant in Baghdad, and it took only 38 minutes in between obtaining the information and completion of bombing. (40)

During the Anglo-American operation to Iraq, the most spectacular arms were the intelligent ammunition rather than the vehicles. While Precision-bombing was only the % 10 of the 1990-91 Gulf War, it was the % 90 of the air bombing at the Iraq War. By taking this into consideration that we may conclude that USA rapidly improved Precision-Guided Bombs in ten years and increased their production and largely used them in these operations. Though each of these ammunitions are valued thousands dollars, because they work very precisely, it becomes cheaper to use them minimum in quantity but maximum with the effect in comparison to classic bombing. The risk of shooting of civil targets also minimized with these ammunition. More than 18.000 intelligent bombs were used at Iraqi War. The former models of Tomahawk and ACM's had gained fame at the Gulf War as Intelligent Missiles. They were, more than 750, also used in this war. But some of them were shot by Iraqi anti-aircraft rockets since they are low in speed and fly parallel near to the surface. (41) Though smaller in number and number of sorties than Gulf War, aircrafts were much more effective with their intelligent immunities. (42)

Iraq's war systems, procured from different countries, before the Gulf War, created logistics problems in the wars. Having American, French and Russian arms, Iraq had to find spare parts and immunities for them from different countries. It is obvious that, Iraq could not use most of them after the embargo. Majority of these arms were old Soviet productions and spare parts for them could be founded even with secret means, and only some of those Soviet arms in the army's inventory were in functional condition. But considering the air superiority of the Coalition Forces and the difficulties of transporting required logistics to the fighting areas, it was not possible for Iraq to use its heavy arms optimally.

We can say that in such a condition Iraqi army has not much to do at the fronts. But it must be remembered from the war history that two elements, maneuvers and geography affects the process of war. An enemy, in the defense position, has to utilize the geographical conditions at most to equalize the power deficit and to turn the unfavorable conditions to favorable. Such a condition had been expected at the Iraq War. While in preparing for the war, Iraq army utilized from Tigris, Euphrates and Shattul-Arab rivers as the defense line and by emptying the excess water of some dams, created temporary marshes. Iraqi army was in the conscious of that geographical elements were not enough to win the war but just to delay it and their most important expectation was to drive the war to cities. Because technologic superiorities have their hardest times in cities and civil losses are great in such a war type. War history has two bloody pages of city wars; in Stalingrade at 1942-43 and in Berlin at 1945. Anglo-American operation, without having legal justification, and by destroying civil targets perforce, and with rising reactions of their national and also international public opinions, might put British and USA governments into spot.

The insufficiency of USA at the beginning of the war might be a trick that USA applied, in order to get rid of such a condition. Following slow action and movement of American and British troops by minimum losses, a counter attack was made to Iraqi forces of Republican Guards, who were under the command of South Commandership and expected to perform hot fights in Baghdad, Medina Armored Division, Adnan Mechanized Division and Nebulchadnazzar Infantry Division at the south of Baghdad, at the defense line between Tigris and Euphrates. Those forces destroyed by land-support, which was probably the product of the air superiority. Following that, Republican Guards under the command of North Commandership, El Nida armored division, Hammurabi armored division and Baghdad infantry division dispatched to Baghdad, south defense of which weakened considerably. Most probably these divisions were destroyed by air attacks on their way to Baghdad. Briefly saying, this trick of Americans caused the destruction of elite troops in the fighting area by air attacks though they were planned to be used in city wars. These divisions were equipped with the best arms and equipment of the Iraqi army like T-72. So majority of those heavy arms were also destroyed. Lost power and morale condition might lead the dissolving of other Iraqi troops before than expected.

We watched from TVs that a lot of American and British vehicles were also destroyed during the fights. Certainly, it could be easily estimated that this number is far below the Iraqi losses. But we may say that M-1 and Challenger-II tanks, M-2/3 Bradley, Warrior, AAVP (43) and LAV-24 Piranha and like armored vehicles still could not resist to the old technology under certain conditions. Besides the 125 mm. T-72's, also old Soviet ATGW's (44) had role in these losses. "AT" series anti-tank and "SA" series land-to-air missiles are relatively smaller than a tank or ZPT and they are hard to detect, and cheaper. So those arms are stored by all Middle Eastern countries in great amounts. If we consider a similar operation at Iran, under its geographical conditions, I think these arms may cause more serious harms to the superior technology.

Gulf War, Iraq War and World Arms Trade

1990 Gulf War and the present Iraqi War differ by the existing and future economic conclusions as related to the arms trade. Because, economically important Saudi Arabia and Kuwait included, in many of the Middle Eastern countries there were a considerable economic accumulation dating back to 1980's. Besides meeting the losses of war, this accumulation even was sufficient to the transfer of heavy arms technology. Saudi Arabia procured arms from USA for 1.3 billion dollars in 1990. When its security expenditures doubled, her total defense procurement exceeded 35 billion dollars between 1990-2000. Kuwait made a relatively small buy of 50 million dollars from the USA in 1990. But during the same period Kuwait spent 5.6 billion dollars on arms transfer from the USA. Egypt, which made yearly 650 million dollars arms buy from USA, doubled its defense expenditures and paid 11 billion dollars to USA for the same period for arms transfer. So the expected income of the USA increased from 20 billion dollars to 50 billion dollars with the war. Besides these, between the years of 1990-2000, arms transfer of 10 billions dollar by Turkey; 7 billion dollars by Israel, 1.5 billion dollar by UAE and 700 million dollars by the other Middle Eastern countries were made to the USA. In this period, USA gained about 70 billion dollars from the region only from the arms trade, as obvious. While armament expenditures falling to half in Europe, it is interesting to see the increase of arms disbursements and the USA as the most profitable country. For the same period USA's secret sales of 9 billion dollars might come from the Middle East region. One of the reasons of the economic revival of the USA during 1990's was the arms sales to Middle Eastern countries. France, Germany and Russia were the other countries that gained from arms trade after 1990. (45)

Another cause of USA's increasing arms sales was the verification of those arms at the war arena. Arms trade exploded in the Middle East by the transfer of F-15, F-16, C-130, AH-1, AH-64, CH-47, CH-53, UH-60, M-1, M-60, M-2, LAV-24, M-109 Paladin, MLRS, (46) ATACMS, (47) I-Hawk (48) and Patriot like arms and considerable amount of equipment, immunities, and systems and frigates by USA. Nevertheless, an explosion of regional arms trade should not be waited after Iraqi War by considering the specialties of the advanced arms experienced at the Iraqi War and the economic bottlenecks of the regional countries.

The Weaknesses of the American Army

The weaknesses of the USA's professional army, which was the leader of the war, have been emphasized for a long time. As we observed from the outside, these problems are mostly arousing from the structure of the country. If those weaknesses used by the enemies wisely, could they bring the USA government to the point of defeat? When we look at the applications to American army, except the officers' positions are very low in quality, which is mainly due to the fact that those applications are made by lower income and lower education people who want to increase their living standards and who sees the army as the only mean to reach this end, people who are living in the villages or in outskirts of towns that can generally be called low level people of the American society. In fact, those applications are not meeting the needs. For this reason, in the total 3 million population of the army, besides 1,455,778 soldiers, also 657.994 civil workers exist. So, there is a heavy specialization in the army. (49)

The level of patriotism that is obvious in Europe or in third world countries cannot be expected in the American army, soldiers of which applied to increase their living standards. This situation may cause an instinct to avoid losses during the war. In such a case, in heavy fights, greater number of losses of American soldiers; their increased problems when fighting against time, since land or air support is needed; and their use of more immunities than needed can be expected.

It can be said that the quality of the officers' level is in contrast with the soldiers. American officers are in a more educated level and they are motivated to attend military or civil universities. But the quantitative insufficiency of officers is continuously felt. (50) The reason may be the inattractiveness of the job besides the other job opportunities with high living standards.

The value of the army on the eyes of the public is limited. If we remember the facts that; half of the population does not vote to the presidential elections; voters are divided into two as Democrats and Republicans; Republicans give priority to army while Democrats give priority to the army as per the incidents, those reminds us that we can estimate only % 20-40 of the population supports the army. But having a realistic foreign policy, the administrators of the USA -whether Democrat or Republican - see the army as an important pressure item in the foreign policy. Especially their approach to underdeveloped countries, it is obvious that Americans are implementing power politics.

In the USA's history of military and politics relations; we see that the authorities of the military is limited in favor of the civil administrators. In contrary to this, in fact we observe the indirect influence of the military on politics. One of the examples of this happened in the year of 2000, at the last year of Clinton administration in an attempt to reduce defense budget like an important rate as % 25 (51). With the reactions of the army, and perhaps also with the influence of the army, that years accepted in the Congress with a slight increase. Though, in the backgrounds of the American Presidents -even in the 19th century - either compulsory or professional military career is found.

Maybe it is worthwhile to mention the weakness of American army's military culture in comparison to other countries of the world. When compared with the long-established states of Europe and Asia, having a history of 200 years but completing its structuring in the beginning of the 20th century in its real meaning, USA is a power with a new and complex culture. Established with the interaction of colonists, immigrants of various countries, slaves, and local people; this new country's military system -except American civil war- could not revive until the 1st World War and in the important wars participated, fought in the outside of its boundaries. In the history of USA, the army stayed insignificant until the 2nd World War. In the 20th century especially during the Cold War period, the modern army emerged, which has the experience to fight in the many places of the world, by participating in global conflicts and wars, in parallel to the interests of the country. This is an important factor that makes USA a super power.

American army has been in a search of a new doctrine since 2001 and in a change process of doctrine. Though a serious structural change has not been realized, all the items related to a war especially their vehicles and equipment have been reviewed. Light tanks and strategic air transport gained importance in this new style and it is seen that there is a need for a fast troop settlement. Actually in the August of 1990, when Coalition Forces, as leaded by USA, in the preparation of military buildup were attacked, the war might have a different end. Perhaps, American authorities are taking into consideration Iraq's inability of not attacking at that time and taking precautions for a similar situation. In order to avoid a surprise attack, though not feasible economically, might be the pre-settlement of troops in the subject region. Even, we may think that is the reason of American army's settlement in Iraq.

We can say that the superiority of the American military technology covers all these weaknesses. Besides, American army has a modern system and has its headquarter Pentagon, in which the system wholly integrates. Since the 2nd World War, American army has been culturally improved in operational, tactical and strategic levels through applied scientific approach. So, the army can use the existing military technology effectively.

The Probable Effects of the Mistakes Made at Iraq War

Before all else, as the legal justification, the USA's claim of Iraq's opposition to the United Nation's resolution 657 taken in 1991 by continuing to the production of mass destruction weapons and after that announcement of those weapons as the fifth priority of operation's targets is a serious contradiction. Having the idea of Iraq's use of those weapons in the war, the first four priority were listed as; the leadership of the regime, the command-control (C²) capability of the regime, security of the regime and integrated air defense. It was like good news that those weapons would be never found.

The most serious mistake made is the existence of British-Americans at Iraq as against to international law. We may think that its effects may come up to threat world security in the coming years. By invading Iraq against laws, would it be possible for USA to apply law, if China exerts similar activities against Taiwan. Such a probability, will cause the solving of United Nations system, which had a serious damage at Iraqi War, wholly, and returning to old "balance of power" system that causes a threat to international security and may bring world to the corner of a war. Such a war possibility adds new weaknesses to the American army's existing weaknesses, and exceeds its operational capabilities.

We might perceive the use of electronic intelligence more than intelligence based on human, as a weakness of American security system. Even we can think it as an important factor that initiated the September 11 process. (53) Electronic intelligence is widely used presently, but when not supported with the human element, it might be misleading and causing important mistakes. USA is heavily using this element and its weakness on human based intelligence is obvious. This can be questioned by including the dependability of regional resources as in the failure of handling Shii riots at the south of Iraq and killing of a Shii leader by Iraqi's when he turned to Iraq. Besides, the failure of special operations performed at the first night of the operation, which probably targeting the leader of the regime, also demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the intelligence. As a matter of fact, in the first studies related to war, the quality of the military intelligence related to the war has been emphasized. Insufficient troop settlement can also be evaluated as a mistake. It is questionable to use 70-80.000 soldiers against the 350.000 Iraqi army, out of 250.000 soldiers settled during the war and raising this number to 350.000 at the end of the war. Operation was eased by the division of Iraq army in the south front, which was having continuous support, and the probable North Front, even had the Turkey's opposition. Together with that, if we consider the slowness at the south as a trick, the load of the land forces greatly reduced by the support of air forces of the Coalition, which had sufficient number of aircraft.

Although another mistake is seen at that point as the pre-war strategic miscalculations. American administration could not consider the probability of Turkish public opinion's opposition to American interests, while accepted Turkey as a close partner following England. That high probably limited American projections to be accomplished at the region. Nevertheless, even the existence of the American soldiers at the south east of Turkey at the majority of war period, led Iraq army's I. and V. army corps and three divisions of Republican Guards to stay at the north and helped greatly to the success of the operation at the south. Besides Turkey, except Israel, all the Middle Eastern countries opposed this operation and they perceived American existence at Iraq as a threat.

In addition, in Iraq, which has not supported terrorism directly, opposition to America is rising and especially attacks targeting American soldiers exist within the country. Shortly after the war, number of the American soldiers killed, reached 2/3 of the number killed during the war which shows that American's could not foresee Iraqis fight for their freedom after Saddam's fall while expecting their support.

Conclusion

There are still untested American arms in the war. For example the first improved model of light tank concept M-8, which is planned to be manufactured instead of heavy tanks, still untested. F-22 Raptor and 22 Osprey air vehicles were not tested at Iraq. Actually, Iraq War could be a perfect test area for RAH-66 Comanche helicopters, which has tried to be developed for years. The existence of these new and untested arms may bring some questions to mind about the future war areas. I wonder is the war style at Iraq temporary or short range?

What is clear, the land operations based on superiority of the air operations, makes the same effect of technological superiority at Omdurman. When precise bombing based upon quality intelligent is increased, also the rate of target shots increases and the number of equipment used decreases. Naturally it means the required number of aircraft decreases in such operations and the same time since a heavy land support is secured, number of land vehicles also decreases. But the need for combat helicopters to prevent armored troops attacks and general-purpose helicopters to help troops to gain faster maneuver capability increase. The definite power of the USA, with the fighting power, rapid intelligent and the dynamic command-control that have been increased by technologic development, is expressed by General Myers as "New American War Style". (53) As a matter of fact, American war technology continued to improve in ten years without relieving to have the most advanced military technology of the times and prepared the base for USA to be the only super power. But George W. Bush's administration aggressive approach in its foreign policy by depending on this power causes worldwide reactions for the future. Though not that degree, but Russia, France, Germany, Japan and China also have advance military technologies. These super power candidates of the future, may cooperate on military technology in order to reach a technological balance even on paper, since their interests in the Middle East was jeopardized with the existence of USA in Iraq. This may lead the formation of different and temporary alliances in the coming ten years in which United Nations system is dissolving and NATO's future is open to discussion.

The important thing in here to be remembered is the military power of Russia. Russia, while trying to improve technology heritage of Soviets, also following a policy to support military technology research, which improved at Boris Yeltsin administration. Russia has all the prototypes or the equivalents of the arms and side systems that USA owns. If Russia attains economic welfare, there is no reason for Russia to catch USA in the long run.

Being right, many of the specialists are uniting at the idea of "USA's stay at Iraq will not be temporary". But this partly depends the future of local fights still continuing at Iraq. From the day of Mr. Bush announced the end of the war, May 1, up to now; death of 87 American soldier at fights or accidents, is the reason of the stay of 147.000 American and 13.000 other coalition soldiers and the cost of it 4 billion dollars a month, which is an economic burden for USA. (54) Despite these and recent incidents at Iraq, the reduction of American soldiers in time is continuing.

In the recent events of city guerilla type, as sadly remembered in Somalia, whatever the technology of America is, Kalashnikov, Kanas and RPG-7 make the fights like classical types. (55) If the war extends to the huge masses like in Vietnam, Iraq will become a dead-end street for Americans. In other words, "The Iraqi War" is ended" and technology won the war. But the war in Iraq is not finished yet. The change in the style of the war might proceed against USA. In other words USA still may loose. It will be helpful to remember an old Turkish proverb in that condition:

See your enemy like an elephant, even if it is an ant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Perrett, Bryan, The Battle Book, London, Arms and Armour, 1992, p.389 and Macdonald, John, Great Battlefields of the World, London, Marshall Editions, 1998, pp 110-117.
2) USA Ministry of Defense, Directorate of Information, Operation and Reports, Statistical Information and Analysis Division. (01/07/2003,) (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/GWSUM.pdf)
3) Armored Personnel Vehicle
4) Perrett, pp. 165-166. Losses during air attacks before the operation is included to the number of Iraqi losses.
5) USA Ministry of Defense, Directorate of Information, Operation and Reports, Statistical Information and Analysis Division. (01/07/2003,) (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF -thru-20030501.pdf)
6) These numbers are added to the officially announced numbers. Pls see: NBC's interview with Rumsfeld, (13/07/2003,) (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030713-secdef0383.html) For British losses, pls see: (http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/casualties.htm)
7) After war American losses are official. They are found through Pentagon Announcements.
8) Defense Budget f England is 35 billion dollars. These data belongs to the year of 2001 financial year. Pls. see: Military Technology World Defense Almanac 2000-01, Vol. XXV Issue 1-2001, pp. 24, 204, 234.
9) Finland, which made greatest effect on the war arenas, defeated in the second half of the war.
10) Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence.
11) Electronic Intelligence.
12) Signal Intelligence.
13) Advance Cruise Missile: ACM' are the air thrown models of Tomahawk's.
14) Richard B. Myers, "The New American Way of War," Military Technology, 6/2003, p.68.
15) "Savaş Nasıl Gelişecek," Globus Special edition, 2003, p.26.
16) 700 of 2200 tanks were T-72, forecasted to be owned by Iraq before the War. Pls see: IISS, The Military Balance 2001-2002, London, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 134-135.
17) Myers, p. 68.
18) Airborne Warning Control System.
19) Surface-to-Air Missiles
20) Here it is mentioned that old-fashioned Strela-2M had been used. Use of Stinger's decreases the time of shooting of helicopters to 5 seconds. In these calculations the angle between the helicopter and missile is approximately 180° and no maneuvers or any other factors are taken into consideration.
21) Gary L. Crowder, "Effects, Based Operations," Military Technology, 6/2003, p.16.
22) Circular Error Probable.
23) Crowder, p.16.
24) Global Positioning System.
25) Crowder, pp. 16-17.
26) (http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/JDAM.html)
27) Pentagon statement, (12/04/2003,) (www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/b04122003_bt232-03.html)
28) Myers, p.66.
29) Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
30) Electronic Warfare
31) Crowder, p.17.
32) Joint Stand-off Weapons
33) (07/12/2002,) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2-variants.htm)
34) Drone is a first generation, cheap and simple UAV. So many Drones were utilized in Iraq War to confuse and Iraq Air defense to direct to wrong targets.
35) Unmanned Air Vehicle
36) Myers, p.68.
37) "Global Hawk Makes Maiden Flight," Jane's International Defense Review, Vol. No.31, 4/1998, p.6.
38) Gerardo Gonzalez, (30/06/2003,) "Predator Team Prowls Iraq," (http://www.af.mil/stories/story.asp?storyID=123005180)
39) Myers, pp. 68-70.
40) Myers, p.70.
41) The information related to cruise missiles is derived from Pentagon announcements.
42) Pls. see: 2500 aircraft were participated in Gulf War, while this number decreased to 1900 in Iraq War. Pls. see: Michael Knights, ""Iraqi Freedom" Displays the Transformation of Air Power," Jane's Intelligence Review, Vol.15 No.5, May 2003, p.16. Total number of sorties during Iraq War is one third of Gulf War. This number is the half per daily. Pls. see: Knights, p.19.
43) Amphibious Assault Vehicle Personnel.
44) Anti-Tank Guided Weapon.
45) For statistical data, Pls. see: (14 July 2003,) (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/sales_db.htm)
46) Multiple-Launch Rocket System.
47) Army Tactical Missile System.
48) Improved Hawk.
49) (30 April 2003,) (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms0.pdf) and (29/05/2003,) (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/civillian/fy2003/april2003/April2003.pdf) According to year 2000 data, 864,600 reserves and National Guard troops are not included. Pls . see: Military Technology World Defense Almanac 2000-01, pp.23-24.
50) 30 April 2003 data shows that the rate of the officers in the army is %16. Pls.see: (30/04/2003,) (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms11.pdf)
51)Pls. see: (14 Sep. 2000,) "Report: Budget One-Quarter Low," (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_cboreport_trimble)
52) Pls. see: Clifford Beal, "Chronic Underfunding of US HUMINT Plays Role in Intelligence Failures," Jane's Defense Weekly, (11.09.2001,) (www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw010911_1_n.shtml)
53) Myers, p.70.
54) Pls see: NBC's interview with Rumsfeld, (13 July 2003,) (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030713-secdef0383.html) 19 countries supported USA by their soldiers.
55) Rocket-Propelled Granade

Sources
Bryan Perrett, The Battle Book, London, Arms and Armour,1992.
Enzo Angelucci, Rand McNally Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft, New York, Crescent, 1990.
Chris Foss, Jane's Modern Tanks, Glasgow, Harper Collins Publishers, 1995.
Edward Luttwak and Stuart L. Koehl, Dictionary of Modern War, New York, Gramercy Books, 1998.
Globus, Special Edition, 2003.
(http://www.mod.uk)
(http://www.af.mil)
(http://www.dior.whs.mil)
(http://www.dod.gov)
(http://www.fas.org)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org)
(http://www.janes.com)
(http://www.military.com)
IISS, The Military Balance 2001-2002, London, Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jane's Intelligence Review, Vol.15 No.5, May 2003.
Jane's International Defense Review, Vol. No.31, 4/1998.
John Macdonald, Great Battlefields of the World, London, Marshall Editions, 1998.
Military Technology World Defense Almanac 2000-01, Bonn, Mönsch, Vol.XXV Issue 1-2001.
Military Technology, Bonn, Mönsch, 6/2003.
Tim Ripley, Jane's Pocket Guide Modern Military HelicoptersSS, London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1998.
Tony Cullen and Christopfer F. Foss (eds.) Jane's Land-Based Air Defense 1992-93, Surrey, Jane's Information Group Inc., 1992.