Dominant Logistics
Commentary on Iraq War
The following is a running commentary on the actions and events
taking place in the war on Iraq. My intention is to provide some views and
perspectives on the conflict that current media are failing to provide. Some of this
commentary will be positive, some will be negative. Anyone wishing to contribute to
this effort can e-mail me at Lugnut4325@aol.com
4/15/03
Wrapping It Up
Well, since our forces appear to be wrapping things up over in Iraq, I'm going to be wrapping up this particular project as well as there isn't enough to comment on a regular basis. I will, however, be continuing with a new project on my website that will feature regular additions with thoughts and comments on ongoing military related events. The section will be called The Weekly Rant and will be linked to my homepage at Dominant Logistics.
Some final thoughts:
If nothing else, this military action has demonstrated the potential inherent in the concept of Dominant Manuever. A modest size force CAN defeat a larger force given the right tools, training, and techniques. It remains imperative, however, that we update our current logistics practices for this new doctrine.
We seriously need to evaluate why it is taking so long for us to get forces and materials into place before engaging in war. The first Gulf War took six months, this time we had a full year and still failed to have sufficient support materials, especially humanitarian aid, in place. There is simply no excuse for this.
Many have talked about assymetrical conflicts taking over the primary method of enemies waging war against the U.S. and this conflict tends to support that notion. Because of this, we need to serious reevaluate our unit structures to take this into account. Specific problems to address should include insufficient Military Police resources and insufficient medical and engineering assets.
While it isn't easy, it is possible to wage war without decimating the entire civilian populace. Many have complained about overuse of precision guided weapons but this should pay dividends in the long run as it will take less to rebuild Iraq.
The government and the media still cannot be trusted in time of war and most anti-war protestors really need to get lives.
And with that I thank all who have been reading my writings and hope you will continue following The Weekly Rant. Good day and God Bless!
Scott
4/13/03
Peace Through Strength
Many have criticized the foreign policy approach of the Bush adminstration as some sort of imperialist effort to take over the world. Others have questioned the legality of the concept of pre-emptive attacks advocated by those in the adminstration. Still more are talking about a Pax Americana and referring to civilians in the Pentagon as "neocons" - sounds more like a computer part than the derisive slam it is intended to be. So what's the deal here?
Apparently, there are many who have forgotten about what was arguably the most successful stretch of foreign policy in recent American history - the Reagan years. Reagan adopted a policy of peace through strength and while many questioned the actions at times, the policy was unquestionably successful. A speech Reagan once gave summed his policy up in two sentences - "They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong."
The day Reagan left office, America returned to the passive state it had previously been in. Some actions were in motion that simply could not be stopped, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, but even in war we returned to a very passive form of foreign policy. We went to war in Iraq but not until the UN gave us permission. We went to Somalia but ran when we discovered they didn't want to play nice. We cowered as China made nuclear threats and stole our military secrets. Our knees quaked at the peace table with Noth Korea where we caved to a two bit broke regime. We sat idle as the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, our military facilities were bombed in Saudi Arabia, a destroyer was bombed in Yemen, and our embassies were bombed in Africa. Attack after attack after attack and we did nothing to even attempt to defend ourselves.
What Bush has effectively done is said "No more." For the first time since 1988, we have a President who takes the security of the United States seriously and who has established a policy that we aren't going to just sit back and let the rest of the world push us around. And for his troubles, Bush gets attacked from all quarters; the liberals call him the second coming of Hitler bent on dominated the world while conservatives call him a "neocon" perpetuating an endless war machine bent on American imperialism. Meanwhile, most Americans are thanking the fact that the Constitution allows for a man to be elected President even if he DOESN'T win the majority of the popular vote.
If Bush & Co. are so hellbent on dominating the world, how come:
We're doing everything possible to let the other nations in the region resolve the situation with North Korea? Bush's policy here has been diplomacy with China, Japan, and South Korea to let them handle it how they see fit, as long as the North gets their nuke program back into monitoring. This remained the case, even with North Korea continuing to proliferate missile technologies.
We did nothing as Russia gassed it's own people to resolve a hostage situation involving Islamic extremists? We could've, and possibly should've, raised this issue as a human rights problem but we stayed out of it and let Russia handle things their own way.
We've stayed out of the unrest in Venezuela? This has historically been one of our primary sources for oil, one of our largest sources, and yet we sat back and let things run their course as the nation collapsed under a totalitarian regime and the oil industry virtually ceased altogether. Many fools believe that the Iraq war has driven up the price of oil - anyone who pays attention to reality can easily spot the real problem as being the cessation of Venezuelan oil flow.
We've stayed out of the mess in Brazil. An absolute nutbag managed to get elected President of Brazil and in some of his first speeches announced plans to develop nuclear weapons. He's a hardcore communist, a huge fan of Castro, and he's controlling a major player on the international stage in steel and natural resource markets, but we're staying out of the fray.
We've put extensive pressure on Israel to resolve their problems with the Palestinians including pushing for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state? Bush has pressure Sharon on numerous occasions to back off and has demanded Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, even though the Palestinians have no legitimate claims in the region and are utilizing terrorism, which we are supposedly at war against.
Bush has pushed for alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and concessions within the structure of the International Criminal Court? These are nothing more than absurd socialist schemes and yet Bush & Co. have gone out of their way to work with the other nations of the world on these issues, even though no nation can hold us to these schemes if we chose to walk away from them.
There are other examples but you should be getting the point. I vehemently disagree with Bush on nearly all of his domestic policies. The farm and education bills were atrocious, the Patriot Act a disgrace. Spending has surged out of control in every government sector and his tax policies are toothless. While he didn't casue our current economic problems, he's done almost nothing to correct them and has done much to aggravate them.
But we must also recognize that no President in more than a century was handed a bigger S**t sandwich than Bush. The economy was tanking, our foreign policies were in shambles, our military a mess, terrorism was spiraling out of control, our judicial system was a joke, our Congress was entirely out of control, and just to make things a little more fun, he got the pleasure of facing the most heinous opposition party in American history by most measures.
You can accuse Bush of a lot of things - trying to take over the
world isn't one of them. Even if we do roll into Syria - nobody forced Syria into
engaging in blatant acts of war against U.S. forces in Iraq including providing weapons
and other support to the Hussein regime. They've also flagrantly violated UN
sanctions for years by profiting from black market Iraqi oil. They're also the home
of choice for most of the terror organizations we are supposedly at war with currently.
They've made their own bed.
4/12/03
The REAL Reasons the World is Against Us
First the world throws a hissy fit because we insist on enforcing resolutions the U.N. refuses to enforce and now these same clowns feel the need to inflict themselves upon rebuilding Iraq. All appearances to the contrary, France, Germany, and Russia are not as stupid as they seem. Here's what's really going on.
All national governments, regardless of type and location, act in what they believe to be their best interests. This should not be confused with the best interests of their respective nations; I'm talking the best interests of the governments themselves. This tendency is present in virtually all bureaucratic organizations, its sort of like an organizational "Fight or Flight" response to protect itself. And these nations have much to protect themselves from.
While everyone talks about American addiction to Middle East oil, the reality is that Europe imports substantially more Middle East oil than the United States. By some measures, about 45% of all Middle East oil exports go to Europe. Japan is even more dependent on the Middle East with roughly 80% of its oil coming from the region. Weapons trade is another key factor in the equation. Here are the key points on the major players that the media has downplayed.
France - has long standing ties to the Hussein regime in virtually all areas. Where people talk of the US "arming Iraq" during the 80s, most of Iraq's high-tech gear from the era came from France including jet fighters, anti-aircraft systems, and nuclear technologies. It is known that France has continued arm exports to Iraq in violation of the UN embargo and France also has extensive oil contracts negotiated with the Hussein regime that won't be honored with Saddam gone.
Russia - the other primary source of arms for the Hussein regime, Iraq owes Russia billions for military purchases that will never be paid if the regime is removed. Russia has also been violating the arms embargo and as of late has overtaken France in the high-tech areas, particularly missile technologies. Russia is also wholly dependent on the price of oil being high because it is their only significant export - a return of Iraq to the world oil markets without limitations will likely cause a massive downturn in the Russian economy.
China - another high-tech source violating the UN embargo, specifically by supplying a massive fiber-optic network for linking the French and Russian air defense assets. China will benefit from the expansion of Iraqi oil industry which is probably why they haven't gone too far with their opposition to the U.S.
Saudi Arabia - holders of the largest reserves of oil in the world. Right now, Russia is exporting more oil but this is a temporary spike that can't be sustained. Iraq holds the world's second largest reserves and the sanctions against Iraq have left Saudi in the position of having virtually total control over the price of oil worldwide. Contrary to popular perceptions, Saudi Arabia is in debt and falling further in that direction. This is largely due to weapons purchases from the U.S. and government corruption. A decline in oil prices will push Saudi deeper in debt.
Syria - the biggest player in violating the sanctions against Iraq, Syria has engaged in massive black marketing with Iraq, particularly in the oil markets. They also have maintained extensive trade ties with the Hussein regime and most of this disappears along with the regime. Speculation is rampant that Syria will be giving shelter to those members of the regime that escape Iraq.
There are many other nations that have held vested interests in the Hussein regime as well. The bottom line is this - on the world stage, opposition to the war with Iraq has nothing to do with human rights or terrorism regardless of what these governments claim. They all have tens of billions of dollars at stack and this becomes even more problematic with Saddam gone.
With Saddam in charge, all of this activity has remained under the table for the most part. With Hussein gone, all of this comes above the table and the ramifications could be serious. Many have predicted a backlash against the United States over attacking Saddam. There is an even greater threat of backlash against all of these other nations for backing the repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam butchered thousands, if not millions, of Muslims purely for sport. His henchmen have committed atrocities on a scale not seen since World War II against the very people most terror organizations claim to be trying to help.
Already, there is disillusionment surfacing throughout the Arab
world over the lies spread by Al Jazeera on behalf of the Iraqi regime. Popular
opinion is that freeing Iraq will anger the Arabs. The more realistic view is that
this will hurt the Arab extremists because more and more people will refuse to support
their efforts having seen what their money is actually being used for. After all,
bin Laden himself is calling for his supporters to fight on behalf of a man who has spent
years butchering Muslims for sport.
4/11/03
The Gender Wars, Part Deux
A number of pundits are taking this occasion to rehash the classic question of whether or not women should be allowed in combat. This question gets my goat on a number of different levels but let me start by saying this - in combat, I'd rather be fighting next too short, weak, and intelligent over big, strong, and stupid any day of the week. Those who place physical stature at the top of the scales of what makes a soldier should be dismissed out of hand. The single most important ability is what one has between their ears, not their legs.
That having been said, the military needs to seriously evaluate its priorities when it comes to measures of military physical training. Everybody who raises a stink about women in the military specifies that the number one problem is lack of strength (can she pull someone out of a burning tank?). But if this is such an issue, why is there no single set standard of strength? After all, even for men, the standards change with age and if medical issues arise, the entire strength issue can be waivered altogether. If this is such a critical measure, why is not fixed for all males?
Until the military clearly defines a standard that is applicable to EVERYONE with no exceptions, then this argument is ridiculous. I understand that there are many women in the military who have no business being there. I've seen the horror stories, like a Private in Advanced Individual Training that took on 25 guys in one night, and I don't mean in arm wrestling. There are women who have no place in the force.
But there are also a helluva lot of men who have no business being there either. I worked with a lot of women during my eight years in service and can honestly say that the only soldiers I EVER had trouble with were all males. There were women I didn't like, but in far more cases there were men who were every bit as weak, a lot more stupid, and incredibly more incompetent.
Now What?
Okay, Iraq's butt has officially been kicked - now what? Everybody seems to be talking about this question but nobody seems to be coming up with any really good answers thus far. If the military doesn't get serious about the post-war situation soon, things are going to get very ugly.
They need to start by getting a handle on the looting and other violence going on in most of the cities where fighting has pretty much stopped. In many of these regions, the Iraqi people are causing more damage than the American war machine inflicted. While its all well and good to be tearing down the symbols of the past regime, doing so creates a vacuum that we need to be filling. Having never known freedom, the Iraqi people must be taught that the cornerstone of freedom is responsibility and self-control.
Unfortunately, this should have been an ongoing affair as the forces moved from city to city but instead we have a situation where virtually the entire nation is now in total chaos. As with the fighting, they need to start in the south and work their way to the north. Baghdad will be trashed by the time we get their but its too late to worry about that now. Within each city, we need to complete the following steps in order if we are to deal with this growing crisis:
We'll probably end up going about this an entirely different way but we'll make a lot of enemies in the process. There is already talk of establishing curfews and such and this will inevitably backfire. An even bigger mistake would be to get the UN or other organizations involved where they will do nothing but manipulate the whole process to their own benefit and stick us with the bill and the blame. This process should've been started two weeks ago. We need to file this one in the "lessons learned" to never forget because there is no reason whatsoever that we shouldn't have had these programs ready to go. We knew what the conditions were in Iraq and we knew there would be a total societal breakdown once we took out the regime. This should have been integral into the coalition's war plans - major blunder that it wasn't.
Kudos to Bush
A lot of folks go out of their way to bash on President Bush but there's some things he's done and continues to do that deserve some major kudos. Whether you are a supporter of Bush or not, consider a few things here when you think of the man.
One of the most difficult tasks a President has in times of war is serving as Commander-in-Chief without getting in the way. As examples, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were notorious for micromanaging military actions literally into the ground. In a column by military expert Charles Smith, there are examples of where the Clinton White House went so far as to actually specifiy targets and the weapons used to engage them, in many cases choosing weapons inappropriate for the job. By nearly all accounts, Bush has set forth what he expects of the military and has pretty much left the military to do its thing. This has allowed the military the flexibility necessary to fight this war effectively.
But even more importantly, Bush seems to take this matter very seriously. He has made extensive efforts to visit the wounded and the families of those killed in action - but he isn't doing it as a camera opportunity. Were it not for the occasional blurb in the news, Americans would be totally unaware that Bush has been visiting the families of the deceased in closed door meetings to thank them for their sacrifice. I don't care what you think of the man - that takes some serious cajones. Its also a prime opportunity for him to make serious political hay and yet he's keeping these events completely private as it should be done.
Whether you like him or not, you have to give the man credit for his
handling of this most difficult aspect of war.
4/09/03
Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory?
Contrary to popular belief, the war in Iraq is not over and in reality, the most difficult tasks of Operation Iraqi Freedom have yet to be performed. Specifically, Iraq must now be rebuilt and it is in this regard that our military appears to be well on its way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Here's the problem.
We have a saying in America - live free or die. The problem is that if we don't get our acts together and quickly, the new Iraqi motto will be live free AND die because they don't have enough food, water, and medicine to last until we remove our collective heads from our butts. This problem should've been addressed days ago and yet it still remains a problem.
Every neighboring nation and most other nations of the world have offered to provide aid to Iraq so availability isn't the issue - the problem is us. Its all well and good to win the conflict on the ground but at a minimum, our own ground forces should have had a substantial fleet of vehicles and personnel specifically for the purpose of getting aid throughout the country.
The Pentagon needs to make aid to the Iraqi people the number one priority on the ground over there. All combat actions must be stopped until this aid is flowing. If the food and water aren't getting to the people within a matter of the next couple of days, this whole thing is going to head south - and very fast.
The "Joint" Myth
The Pentagon brass have already begun patting themselves on the back for the great job they've done - nevermind all the civilians and friendlies killed due to Pentagon and CIA incompetence. But the most laughable of the platitudes is how "Joint" our military has become. For those not familiar with the term, it is referring to the effective cooperation between the branches of the military. But like I said, laughable at best.
This is just a sampling of what I personally noticed but there will
be one area of improved "jointness" - if the Army continues its ridiculous
program of buying Stryker vehicles, when the next war comes around the Army can get stuck
in the mud, just like the Marines! That's progress!?!?
4/08/03
Where is Saddam?
This is arguably the most asked and most useless question today in America today. But I have to say that the more I look at this situation, the more it seems to me that not only is Saddam probably not dead, he probably isn't even in Iraq.
Let's be honest here - how hard would it really be for Saddam to fake his own death? The man has billions of dollars and thousands of hard core supporters in Iraq, millions more abroad. And his counterpart in this act is the most incompetent intelligence service in the western world. These fools will look pure fact in the face and deny it while simultaneously falling for just about anything they are told - as long as it comes from the "right people."
If I were a betting man, I would look for this to play out something like this:
Why do I think this is the case? Because Iraq isn't seriously attempting to prove one way or the other that he's alive. They aren't even faking his absence well. It seems to me that they are trying to prepare for a transition so that he simply disappears. Odds are, he's already long gone. We've probably turned two of his body doubles into hamburger now but if he was still around, we'd have evidence as such.
The bottom line is that Saddam has nothing to gain by the silence except cover for a discrete exit. Releasing a definitive tape regarding his survival would've been easy and shored up his hand over the people of Iraq and with his supporters outside Iraq. Being a martyr would've strengenthed this hand even more - there would be no reason for the lies and cover-ups if these strikes were successful, in fact the dishonesty has greatly hurt their cause and support. But if Elvis wanted to leave the building, he would have a problem on his hands.
The only way that Saddam could get out of Iraq would be to hide behind a misdirection move. We've got all of their exit corridors monitored in one way or another. Most border nations are opposing him outright. For him to get out would require a disappearing act. And could a better one possibly have been staged? We start with the opening day strike followed by weeks of debate of whether or not we got him. And then the minute things fully die down from that, surprise surprise, another "target of opportunity" just magically pops out of the woodwork.
Hey, I may be completely wrong and for all I know, Saddam is now worm food - nothing would make me happier. But if I were putting money on this one, it'd be on exile in Russia. Its the only nation in the world that Israel and Britain cannot penetrate and the United States cannot buy.
Media Crying Foul
Apparently, someone forgot to tell the journalists in Baghdad that we didn't come to play football. They seem to be confused as to why no one is throwing a flag for a personal foul over an Abrams tank blowing a hole in their hotel and killing and injurying a number of people inside. Don't get me wrong, it is tragic that people are dying in this conflict but I have a difficult time garnering sympathy for media personnel in this conflict.
Journalists in this conflict are not innocent bystanders, nor are they disinterested third parties. Whether it is Fox News or Al Jazzera, virtually all of the media members in country are being controlled in some form by one side or the other. Outright propaganda has been broadcast worldwide by both sides and now some want to care about neutrality and wave the "we're just telling the story" flag. Nonsense.
Worldwide, the media have chosen profits over integrity and with this, they have given up any claim to innocence. When a media outlet makes the conscious choice to broadcast known propaganda, they are no longer a neutral party - they have chosen sides and are no less a combatant than the cameramen and historians of the military forces involved in the fight.
While I don't support the targeting of journalists, by no means are
they entitled to the same level of treatment as the innocent civilians who are the true
victims in this war. The media in Baghdad had many months to make a decision - they
chose to remain in a location where they knew beyond any shadow of a doubt they would be
in the crossfire. They did this in search of fame and fortune. They have what
they sought - but they lost far more in the process. This was their choice.
4/07/03
Irresponsible Media
Whatever happened to the good ole days, like when the media actually bothered to check facts before reporting a story? Of particular concern to me is the ongoing reports of chemical weapon discoveries in Iraq. Before you start falling for these stories hook, line, and sinker (like the media), here is what you need to know.
The equipment used for "preliminary testing" of chemical weapons is hideously inaccurate. All of our chemical testing gear, whether it be the chemical alarms or the little testing kits used in the field (used to be called the M256 kit), have a distinct tendency to produce false positives at a very high rate. This is because many industrial compounds use the same chemicals as many chemical weapons. Cyanide, Sarin, and Tabun all have legitimate chemical roles in a variety of uses. But what also needs to be understood is the fact that these industrial chemicals can be used as chemical weapons in and of themselves! Poison is poison folks, it really doesn't matter what name is attached to it, look under your kitchen sink and you'll probably find plenty of potential chemical weapons in your own home. This is one of the many problems with the international treaties against "chemical weapons" - these compounds have legitimate uses in the civilian world. Now then, this having been said, you don't generally load pesticides into a multiple launch rocket system with the intention of spraying the crops.
Given the fact that chemical weapons are the entire basis of the war in Iraq, shouldn't we have the right to expect the media to at least attempt to have a clue on the topic? Given the fact that we had over a full year to prepare for this war, and that media personnel completed training courses with the military, why can't the media get this critical topic right? Let's look at two examples in today's news to see what is really going on.
In one case, we have a unit that has located rockets with liquids loaded into them that preliminary tests have shown to be chemical weapons. Now, there's a decent chance of a false positive, but there is also a very good chance that this one is the real deal - it is, after all, a weapon! On the other hand, we have 55-gallon drums of liquids found in an agricultural warehouse that have tested positive for chemicals. Here, we have a very high chance of a false positive and realistically, we have no reason to believe there is weaponized chemicals here. There COULD be, but there is no reason to believe that there is without further testing - odds are, it's false.
But which instance is the one getting the most media play? Well, who cares about the facts for covering a story - the story isn't the deciding factor here. What matters is where the man with the heavy collar said the magic words, "Smoking Gun." Unfortunately, this genius is at the ag warehouse and not where the very real weapons are. The problem here is that now, the military comes off looking like a collective ass, desperate to prove something when in fact, the media is simply playing the ratings game regardless of the consequences. Facts don't matter to the media, just how many people watch their nonsense.
We need to reconsider what the definition of Freedom of the Press really is. I think it is pretty clear that the intentions of the framers were to ensure that the government would not be able to silence its critics and this is a noble venture. The problem is that we now have mega-corporations using it, not to protect themselves for quality critical reporting, but to protect themselves from the effects of their own lies and inaccuracies.
Ignoring the United Nations
As the war in Iraq is rapidly approaching the later stages of conflict, it cannot be overemphasized how critical it is that the U.N. be blocked from any significant role in post-war Iraq. Many European nations and others are insisting that the reconstruction be handled by the U.N. but this is a guaranteed disaster in the making if it becomes policy. We need look no further than every other attempt by the U.N. to handle this type of issue.
Whether it is Korea, Bosnia, Serbia, or anywhere else the U.N. plays a major role, all have a single common theme - the U.N. creates a never-ending presence to justify its existence while America gets stuck with the bill. The U.N. consistenly bends the locals over a barrel while we get blamed. We need to understand that the U.N. is an organization whose time has never come and never will. It is a body of member nations looking out for their own respective interests while attempting to govern others without any respect for the interests of those being governed.
Whether it is Kyoto or any of the other hackneyed schemes dreamed up by U.N. fools, this organization routinely attempts to force its will on anyone who refuses to stand up to them. Consider the case of Milosevic of Serbia, still on trial at the International Criminal Court four years running, for crimes there is no evidence he ever committed. The U.N. completely fabricated the need for a war in Serbia while completely ignoring the very real genocide in Rwanda. Is this who we really want rebuilding Iraq.
Twelve years ago, we made a huge mistake by allowing the U.N. to take over the role settling the Gulf War. That mistake has easily cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and has directly and indirectly killed millions of people in Iraq. It also directly led to yet another war.
The United Nations made the conscious choice to take a back seat in
settling the conflict in Iraq. For twelve years and seventeen resolutions, the U.N.
has done absolutely nothing of any value in Iraq. They need to remain in the
backseat until such time as we can fully address the topic of ending this useless
institution.
4/06/03
Keeping an Eye on the Prize
It has been said that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. As has been demonstrated in Iraq, we're still pretty damn good at these fundamentals, in spite of Bill Clinton's efforts to dismantle the force. But we can never lose sight of what it is REALLY all about - defending America and her citizens.
While we wage another war abroad in the name of "defense" there is another war happening right on our southern doorstep that entirely too many Americans have no knowledge of whatsoever. Fighting has been sporadic throughout our Southern border areas for many weeks, largely over smuggling and illegal immigration. Some reports have indicated that heavily armed Mexican forces have even crossed the border in support of these illegal activities.
The most recent incursions have come from vehicles traveling at high speeds northward in the southbound lanes. Instead of attempting to sneak through the checkpoints, they instead transit through head-on traffic at high speeds. According to reports in WorldNetDaily, the official position of the Border Patrol is that it isn't their job to go after these folks - that's a local law enforcement issue.
We need to ask ourselves a serious question here - what is the point in going after the terrorists in Iraq when anyone that desires can simply run through our borders unchecked and in many cases unpursued?
Understanding Salman Pak
Most viewers of the news are probably hearing about Salman Pak for the first time today - or they may not be hearing about it at all. Whether the military and the government choose to admit it or not, Salman Pak is arguably the single most important location in Iraq with regards to the ongoing war. While current reports mention the facility has been used to train foreign terrorists, entirely too few Americans know of the type of training performed at the site.
According to reports that have been widely available through Newsmax.com as well as British media, one of the many "courses" taught at Salman Pak was hijacking aircraft. Satellite photos have shown a Boeing 707 parked at the facility. According to Iraqi defectors, the training was in how small teams can take control of an aircraft using small knives or no weapons at all - the same tactics used by the 9/11 hijackers. The official claim of Iraq is that the facility is to train paramilitary forces in counterhijacking.
If you're one of the folks who "supports the troops but opposes the war", know that Salman Pak is the main reason that those of us who have ALWAYS supported this war have done so. But don't take my word as to why - peruse some of the following links to learn about what your government has been hiding from you and why.
A transcript from an Iraqi defector - http://www.sftt.org/iraqiterror.html
UK reports from Sept. 11th - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/09/wirq09.xml
Newsmax coverage of Salman Pak - http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?sort=Score&format=Long&config=&restrict=&exclude=&method=and&words=Salman+Pak
Information From Global Security - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
Questionable Relief
Colonel Joe W. Dowdy, commander of the 1st Marine Regiment has been relieved of his command. Relieving a commander is always a difficult move but this is especially the case in the middle of a major combat operation. Hopefully, the situation can be minimized by the fact his replacement is the division's operations officer, but this highlights a growing problem amongst the senior leadership of the U.S. military as a whole - the inability to separate politics from combat actions.
It was once said that war is politics by other means (or something on those lines). While this is entirely true, one of the great challenges for senior leaders is keeping the politics, or strategic aspects of the conflict, out of the combat side of the equation. While the actions are taking place in an effort to achieve what is a political goal, this doesn't justify inflicting politics on the combat force. But based on the reports of what has occured, this is exactly what Maj.Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division has done. According to reports, Col. Dowdy has been relieved, not for failure to do his job or protect his Marines, but for moving "Too Slow" on the battlefield.
If this is true, Mattis joins the ranks of Wallace in the Army as being in need of a permanent vacation from the military. There are many legitimate reasons to relieve a commander, but let's consider a few things here because this action looks much more like political branch rivalry than a reasonable decision. Where the Army's 3rd ID is being followed by the forces of the 101st ID for rear security operations, I have yet to hear of any such follow-ons operating in the Marine areas of the conflict. The Marines are also operating in vehicles that are much more vulnerable to small arms and RPG fires than the Army combat vehicles. Regardless of what the Marines claim, the LAV can be disabled and even destroyed by small arms. The Marines have also been tasked with a much more difficult route combat-wise. They have had to deal much more with bridges and other types of obstacles that can slow a force down considerably. All of this means that the Marines SHOULD be moving at a slower pace than the Army forces to the West. But apparently, this doesn't matter to Mattis.
If Mattis cannot come up with a legitmate reason for removing Dowdy from command, then he himself needs to be relieved. He's putting Marine lives at risk, not for legitimate combat concerns, but for reasons of personal and Corps vanity. It is stupid, it is childish, and there should be no place anywhere within the military for this sort of nonsense. Branch rivalry is one thing - taking that crap to the battlefield cannot be tolerated in a force that claims to be professional.
4/05/03
The Battle of Baghdad
Much has been said of the coming Battle of Baghdad, so since everyone else seems to feel qualified to talk about it (even when they aren't), I'll throw in my own two cents as well. My favorite "experts" are the ones that insist we should begin a siege, cutting the water and power and sealing off the city. This probably plays well with the pro-sanctions crowd and their whole "let's starve off all the women and children" approach but frankly, I've heard better ideas from drunks at "last call." Another "brilliant" idea is that of taking the city, house-by-house. Again, this falls into the category of why fight a war when you can roust all the kids and shoot up the neighborhood.
Ideally, we'll go with a ground version of a popular helicopter sport - gun runs. Gun runs are where you take a few of your less sane personnel and send them through a limited area as fast as they can, and if some bad guys pop up, you hit them if you can but you're mainly there as a decoy to draw fire (hence the less sane aspect). You may have a specific area that you blast on your way through but the idea is to get the enemy to jump up and try to engage you. Supporting forces, particularly air support then move in and hammer the areas where the bad guys jump up. Remember, what is left of the Iraqi forces is very limited in their armament aside from direct fire, unguided weapons. Hitting a moving target at significant range with small arms or an RPG is no easy task by any means.
In a perfect world, we could use this same technique to get various means of aid to different areas of the city as well. As the columns roll through, they may drop off water, food, or medical supplies in different parts of town. You can also establish a practice of leaving plenty of room in the vehicles so that if women and children come out seeking help, you can load them up and bring them out. These aspects will probably never occur but they would expedite the process of winning over the hearts and minds of the people.
In support of the running missions, we should clear out a limited number of isolated sections of the city so that the runs will be going between these sections. This is a much smaller version of the house-to-house scenario that would ideally be carried out in industrial or commercial areas of the city. Clear an area, dig in the force, and let the suicide bombers come to you - because it is absolutely certain that they will which is why you don't want to be in the residential sections. The Baghdad International Airport is a good example of one of these. You take the area and set up a defense and let the Iraqis come to you instead of trying to weed them out. Truth be told, it is this type of role that much of our military gear, particularly the Abrams and Bradley, was actually designed to do - not this pedal-to-the-metal cavalry stuff.
Now, most of the combat experienced crowd will respond with something on the lines of "You're friggen nuts! We'll never win the war with this!" and this is true as well as being by design. This approach is to provide a support system and cover for the special operations elements that are going to have to finish taking down the regime from within. It gives them bases and transportation within the city for operations while drawing the militias, regular forces, and suiciders to a hard target. It also provides a means of forcing humanitarian aid within the city until the regime collapses.
In this stage of the battle, it would be nice to have a number of different systems we currently lack that could make this operation more effective. As mentioned previously, a Tracked Support Vehicle would be useful as it is an armored combat vehicle designed for logistics operations. It could survive these runs through the city delivering aid or picking up people in need of help. In areas with sufficient space, pallets of aid and supplies could've been airdropped throughout the city to ensure the civilians had the necessities of survival without endangering personnel. It also would've been nice to have a Medium Tank based on the Bradley that would be capable of engaging targets in multiple areas simultaneously as well as firing at people in high locations. Another useful tool would've been a system to rapidly unload supplies from helicopters, air-assault style. It's too late to have these systems for this conflict, but this probably won't be the last war we ever fight.
I'm not making any predictions here - only stating how I would go about this effort if it were me calling the shots. Urban warfare tends to get pretty rough on the populace and these are simply examples of how military operations could be carried out within the city while limiting the damage to civilians. The sooner the people of Baghdad get behind this whole thing, the sooner our boys and girls get to come home because it'll be over. The greatest danger facing the force today is our own leaders forgeting about this and placing too high an emphasis on "getting Saddam." This isn't about a man; it's about a people and getting them a new government.
Chemical Update
An interesting report with the Marines and MSNBC. It seems that routine water testing of the Euphrates River has shown high concentrations of compounds consistent with Mustard agent and Cyanide. There are a couple of possibilites here, neither of which fall within the Marine Corps assumption that the Iraqis are trying to poison them (for those who don't understand, it is virtually impossible to poison a flowing water source as there is a constant inflow of water diluting the poison and a constant outflow carrying the poison away - unless you constantly force poison into the system you can't get a high concentration).
Possibility number one is that the tests were erroneous and this is pretty possible. Many industrial chemicals use compounds very similar to chemical weapons. Mixed with large quantities of water, it could easily be that what was detected was nothing more than industrial waste. Contrary to popular belief, most other nations do not have environmental restrictions anywhere near what the United States has.
But the most likely, and ominous, possibility is that the Iraqis engaged in the oldest trick in the book for hiding things they didn't want found - throw it in the nearest accesible body of water. This would entail taking a truck and getting it close to a body of water and throwing drums of banned chemicals as far in as they could. It should be noted that this is basically the same way ROWPU systems (our water purification equipment) operate - they drive a truck as close to the water as they can get and through in a hose to draw up the water. I rank this as the most likely possibility simply because of the high concentrations - to get a high concentration in flowing body of water means you are near the source of the contamination and unless they were sitting on a dump site, a high concentration would be nearly impossible.
Let's hope that this was a case of erroneous testing but if it
isn't, we need to be getting some hazmat equipment to that water site ASAP before the
smoking gun gets too washed away.
4/04/03
Friendly Fire Still Isn't
Is it just me or is it that in every war we seem to lose fewer men to enemy fire and more to friendly fire? This is probably an exaggeration but at some point here, the Congress needs to put its collective foot down and say enough is enough - not another defense procurement dollar until we see a viable plan to get a handle on the friendly fire incidents. This is absolutely critical because of a number of programs flying in under the proverbial radar, so to speak.
A variety of programs are in the works for the military incorporating weapons with autonomous attack capabilities. Some of these systems are ground-based while others are aerial systems. The way these systems operate is they have an array of sensors that constantly scan the battlefield and when a target is located it fires a weapon to take the target out. Even the latest version of the Tomahawk cruise missile includes an autonomous mode where the missile loiters over an area and engages "targets of opportunity."
Now let's look at this concept in the proper framework. In this war, we have already seen an F-16 blow up a Patriot radar because it was targeting the aircraft and now rumors are flying that a Patriot has knocked out on F/A-18. The Patriot is the single most advanced and capable targeting system currently available to our ground forces. And yet, without a single enemy aircraft taking flight in this entire conflict, the Patriot still has failed to properly discriminate between friend and foe. There is no foe, and yet the Patriot apparently cannot consistently recognize this.
Now then - if the biggest and baddest sensor that we have can't consistently identify friend or foe, how will these so-called "brilliant" munitions be able to get it done? We have pilots on trial in Canada for bombing their troops in Afghanistan, we have Marine units firing on each other in Iraq, we've had aircraft engaging friendly forces in Iraq as well and yet we are now to believe that these autonomous munitions will not make the same mistakes?
Too many are willing to excuse friendly fire casualties with the
classic "Fog of War" defense - an obscenity if there ever was. Accidents
happen and should be called such - but a Patriot system engaging friendly aircraft when
there are no enemy aircraft in use is no accident. This is Pentagon complacency
and contractor incompetence. All defense procurement dollars should be frozen by
Congress until the Pentagon can demonstrate how it intends to correct this problem.
In this day and age, there is simply no excuse.
4/03/03
Where are the Chemicals?
The forces are moving on and we still have yet to see the use of chemical weapons against coalition forces. A question that obviously comes up now is why not? Everyone insisted we would see chemicals used in the war, then they (including myself) said they wouldn't be used until we got to Baghdad, but here we are and still no WMDs being used. Now, I have no inside information of Centcom's intentions or motivations, but whether they are aware of it or not, they have pretty much written a new chapter in warfare with techniques used en route to Baghdad.
As mentioned in a previous writing, the actual methods being used by the ground forces largely fall within the concept of Dominant Manuever. This approach emphasizes tactical speed and manuever over survivability. Whether they intended to or not, coalition forces have largely used manuever as a means to limit the ability of the enemy to employ WMD and to a degree nearly eliminated their ability altogether. Here's how they did it.
In the early stages of the war, coalition forces used long range artillery systems to engage Iraqi artillery forces before the Iraqis could attack. This basically eliminated the ability of the Iraqis to use WMDs in the early phase of the war. But as was mentioned at the time, reaching Baghdad would end our range advantage giving the Iraqis the opportunity to nail us good. But the coalition commanders got bold.
Based on the reports I have seen, once they got to where they would essentially lose their range advantage, the ground forces rapidly drove all the way to Saddam International airport and the Baghdad suburban area. According to reports, this move left the force virtually running on empty fuel wise and it also placed the force in a congregated position - a huge tactical no-no. For this, we may end up taking some heavy casualties and paying a major price but the flipside is that the forces are now too close to Baghdad for the Iraqis to use WMDs without also hitting themselves as well as their friends and family in the area.
Chemical and biological weapons are munitions that disperse a toxic cloud that can kill those in a given area. The catch is that this cloud can also drift with the wind and is virtually uncontrollable. Because of this, these munitions have a typical maximum range like any other weapon but they also have a minimum range that is very critical - ignore it and you kill yourself instead of the enemy. One of the suggestions I've raised is to use C-17s modified with fire-fighting equipment to knock these chemical clouds down. But another option available by manuever is to close the gap between the maximum and minimum ranges so fast that the enemy doesn't get the opportunity to use the weapon. Whether it was Centcom's intention or not, this is effectively what they have done based on available reports.
Now we need to cash in the reality check - this was arguably the riskiest move of the war thus far. Without using a Logistics Net instead of the straight-line logistics model we currently use, we are in serious danger of having our support lines severed and this could have grave consequences. But arguably the risk was well worth it. At this stage, unless the Iraqis intend to gas themselves, their friends, and their families, we shouldn't see any major use of chemical weapons. Hopefully military historians are taking good notes.
Legitimate Criticisms of the Iraq War
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I feel the overwhelming majority of criticism being raised about the current war are complete and total nonsense. That having been said, there are a number of important issues that SHOULD have been raised by the "anti-war" crowd but were not. While it is a day late and a dollar short to address these issues for this conflict, we must look at these issues for future situations. While this war has past the point of no return, the war on terrorism is ongoing and these issues must be resolved.
It is high time to revisit the War Powers Act in light of future combat actions. While it is ridiculous to inflict upon any president the requirement to gain international approval for national security actions, we need to develop a more effective and consistent means for dealing with these matters within our own government. A formal declaration of war is a tricky thing, particularly in today's time-sensitive security matters. The president must have options available to meet the needs of time-critical security matters but this cannot be without input and control from the Congress. Undeclared wars have occured ever since the time of the founding fathers. We need a more effective means for dealing with the political ramifications of these wars to prevent presidents from exceeding the intended authority provided by the Congress.
We continue to rely upon the use of offense instead of the Constitutionally mandated defense. A VERY strong case can be made that had we invested the money expended in Iraq on true defensive capabilities, we could've adequately protected the American people from ALL foreign threats without going to war and only dealing with one. I personally feel that the case of Hussein involved special circumstances that justify the war, but we cannot continue to rely upon actions on foreign soil to protect us here at home. Many steps can be taken to improve the defense of the American homeland as outlined in my proposed Blueprint for Homeland Defense. Many also argue that we should be manning the borders to prevent illegal entry by potential terrorists. While it would not be prudent to build a Fortress America, there are many steps that CAN and SHOULD be taken.
We need to seriously evaluate our existing programs for dealing with foreign aid and other forms of non-war interventions abroad. Every year, we pour billions of dollars into accounts of other nations and this practice seems to be having more negative effects than positive. We apply economic sanctions to nations and yet they never seem to have any positive effects (North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, etc.). Even the billions given to "friendly" nations seem to be of little good to America. No nation in history has done more to help more people in more places than the United States and yet anti-American sentiments have never been stronger nor more widespread. Government aid to foreign nations is not working - an alternative needs to be developed. This alternative must include positive programs to help those in need as well as negative programs that can deal with nations in a way other than devastating sanctions.
Back in 1991, the American government made the conscious choice to turn control of the Iraqi conflict over to the United Nations. The value of doing this was specious at best but it is hard to argue that we are not now taking back the control of the conflict because we weren't happy with the United Nations actions. We need to either work within the UN or not work within the UN. Many nations routinely ignore the UN on all military and security matters, including Israel, China, France, and Russia so there is plenty of precedent for us to simply place a wall of separation, if you will, between security matters and our involvement in the UN. In matters of national security, we are not bound by any international law to work within the framework of the UN - it is a choice. We need to make a ppermanent choice and stick with it.
Another concern is the practice of targeting leadership in the name of "regime change." While personally, I am a big fan of this practice, it is of highly questionable legality and if this is going to be our policy, we need to address the legal side. Currently, it is illegal under American law to target foreign leaders for assassination. We need to either change the law or end the practice (Change the law! Change the law!).
Finally, we need to clearly establish some binding legal practices with regards to terrorists and those being held by our government as "enemy combatants." Existing laws make no provisions for dealing with the realities of modern conflict and these should be addressed as rapidly as possible. Included within this context must be a permanent American policy that would form the basis for a modern Geneva Convention. This needs to establish limits on the conduct of war but also outline the ramifications for those who fail to follow them. If other nations choose to adopt this convention, great. If they choose not to, that is fine too but this law should outline how we will deal with these practices whether other nations agree with it or not.
I'm sure many other issues will need to be addressed as well but I
think these are the priority matters than must be dealt with.
4/02/03
With a Heavy Hand and a Light Heart
When it comes to the art of war, few nations can equal the United States. Over the years, we have fine-tuned a definitive knack for killing people and breaking things. If it absolutely positively has to be destroyed overnight, we can do it, regardless of time, location, or conditions. The amount of firepower we can bring to bear against ANY enemy is nothing short of incredible. This having been said, it would behoove us to learn a few tricks in some of the other equally important areas of international relations.
When most nations send peacekeepers, they send personnel in trucks with some rifles and side arms, but not us. We tend to send in tanks, artillery, special forces, and usually attack helicopters and fighters for support. Is it really any wonder why many in the world are not particularly found of us? In all likelihood, this is a big part of why more Iraqi people are not coming out in favor of our efforts. Yes, many are scared of Saddam but anyone who has ever been in the vicinity of these bombs and tanks being used knows damn well that many of the Iraqis must be equally scared of us. A heavy hand is the best approach for defeating an opponent on the battlefield - it is no way to win over the hearts and minds of the people of the region.
Whether it is a group embedded within the military formations or an additional formation altogether, it is high time that we develop a military group specific to the roles of security and peacekeeping. This may be little more than a dramatic expansion of the Military Police units in exisiting formations or it may be something entirely different. Regardless of the design, there is a critical lesson we would be wise to pick up from the British forces currently operating in southern Iraq. This is the lesson of confidence.
At a given point, the Brits removed much of their protective gear and went to carrying out their business in berets instead of Kevlar helmets. This probably seems insignificant to many but it isn't - this act is about trust and confidence between the people and the intervening force. It tells the people that you have no intention of continuing to fight a war against them. It shows them that you are no longer prepared to engage them and instead are prepared to embrace them. This doesn't mean that the force is completely done; only that they are transitioning from a fighting mode to a security mode no different than what would be expected of a police force.
Instead of the heavy handed approach of permanent checkpoints stopping every vehicle on the road, the Brits are using mobile checkpoints by hopping around in helicopters. This approach gives the people greater freedom of movement while also keeping the troops out of harms way. Again, this is an approach modelled more on police work than military action.
These units should also include medical groups tailored to meeting the types of needs that are common to people being freed from military actions. They should be particularly equipped for dealing with exposure injuries, dehydration, malnutrition, and infections from untreated wounds. The formation also needs to be carrying with them a basic quantity of humanitarian aid of food, water, and blankets. This is one of those areas where a few trucks of goods can go a very long way.
We'd be seeing a lot more Iraqi smiles if they were seeing a few less guns and tanks, and a greater quantity of critically needed aid.
UN Sanctions Deadlier Than War?
One of the most criticized aspects of any war is its impact on the civilian population of the battle area and this war has been no exception. The complaints have gone both ways. Some feel we are placing too much emphasis on protecting civilian life at the expense of the safety of our own forces. Others mention that we are hardly protecting civilians when we are regularly dropping massive bombs inside urban areas against targets that are of limited value if of any.
The most staggering statistic that I have seen relating to this war is that fewer than 700 civilians have been killed in this war according to the Iraqis. When one considers a few of the following items, that number is absolutely mindboggling:
Civilian casualties of any kind are a true tragedy but given that even Iraq is only claiming less than 700 civilians killed in the fighting, our forces have thus far done an incredible job of limiting civilian deaths. Many civilians have been injured, Iraqi estimates on that are well into the thousands, but most wounds heal. That isn't meant to sound callous, it is only to recognize that life is better than death in most circumstances.
Given the level of success that the force has had in combat in Iraq thus far, they appear to have done an excellent job of balancing the need to accomplish the military goals while limiting the overall impact on the civilian populace. When you realize that this means roughly 50 to 60 civilians are being killed per day and compare this to the claims of some, that UN sanctions kill 500,000 Iraqis per year (or 1370 per day) it is hard to ignore that the possibility is quite real that UN sanctions are actually deadlier than war.
When people talk about diplomacy and humanitarian alternatives to
war, realize that there is nothing diplomatic or humanitarian about economic sanctions.
Sanctions deprive the civilian population of food, medicine, clean water, jobs, and
their general way of life by destroying the overall economy of the nation being
sanctioned. This inevitably leads to further empowerment of the leaders we are
supposedly trying to isolate and marginalize. As I've said elsewhere, war sucks, but
the alternative is no less deadly and at least this way, the bad guys actually get taken
out. By the estimates of the Iraqi regime themselves, sanctions are more
than 20 times deadlier to civilians than the war to liberate the Iraqi people.
That's a helluva concept
4/01/03
Understanding the Casualty Reports
Some within the media are criticizing the casualty reports coming from the Pentagon and more than one has flatly accused the U.S. of fudging the books on this issue. There are a number of issues at play here. For one, we need to recognize that the Pentagon doesn't report casualty numbers as official until they can confirm that the numbers are accurate. We often see numbers given in the media that are nothing more than guesses being made by observers and in many cases by personnel from the other side of the line. These guesses are never accurate and are often incredibly wrong. Because of this, there will often be a delay of one to two days before the Pentagon adjusts its figures - this isn't lying or underreporting, it is waiting until they know the number is correct.
Why then do the numbers appear to be heavily skewed, with the ratio of KIA to WIA being so wildly different than any conflict in modern times? A few factors are coming into play. First we need to understand that the fights we are hearing about are largely battles between mechanized forces with armor support and light infantry forces on the opposing side. In one early fight, a Bradley fighting vehicle was attacked by personnel carrying nothing more than rifles. In most cases, the opposing forces are relying upon manportable small arms to engage our forces and these lack the lethality necessary to effectively engage most of our forces.
Another point is that the Iraqi's are relying largely on direct fire weapons instead of indirect weapons. Our advantage in indirect weaponry is so great that it has largely rendered Iraqi indirect fires useless. Indirect fire weapons will usually produce a greater number of injuries and a smaller number of deaths as their use generally entails placing a significant explosive within a given distance of a target. These generate a lot of shrapnel injuries, even over significant distances from the point of impact. But the Iraqis cannot use these systems as they did in the first Gulf War.
Today, they are largely limited to smaller direct fire systems. These engage the target directly and are thus more likely to produce a kill as opposed to an injury. With most direct fire weapons, there is little to no shrapnel so you rarely get the level of injuries that are seen with indirect systems. While the numbers appear to be heavily skewed, and they may actually be, I have no psychic powers by any means, these differences are likely the result of this war being a very different type of conflict compared to what we are used to.
The "Other" War
With all of the fighting going on in Iraq, it would almost be easy to lose sight of the "Other" war we are fighting, and I don't mean the war on terrorism (of which the war in Iraq is actually a part). The "Other" war is the one between the current administration and the Pentagon. Specifically, this war is between Donald Rumsfeld and the senior brass of the services.
Over the past ten years or so, many have been pushing for a transformation of the existing U.S. military to a more useable and deployable force. These efforts have taken many forms including Col Douglas MacGregor's concepts outlined in his book Breaking the Phalanx, the concept of Air Mechanization, and the concept of Dominant Manuever that really ties all of these other concepts together. As we watch the events in Iraq unfold, it seems apparent that many of these revolutionary concepts have been incorporated in one degree or another into the battle plan of operations in Iraq.
In a nutshell, the basis of Dominant Manuever is to cripple the enemy with precision long-range strikes sufficiently to rapidly surround and engage the enemy in such a way that they are unable to effectively engage us. In theory, this will result in shorter wars that produce fewer casualties amongst all parties. Ironically, many who have pushed strongest for transformation in recent years are now openly complaining about the results of what they have been pushing for.
Dominant Manuever means using smaller forces that place greater emphasis on lethality than on survivability. It means emphasizing speed over security. It means emphasizing effectiveness over efficiency. The war plan being implemented by the military today embodies these ideas. And yet now the complaints are coming from all directions including within the military reform community. The force is too small. The supply lines aren't secure. We don't have enough heavy armor. We aren't using air power properly. We're wasting cruise missiles. We aren't hitting the right targets. Blah, blah, blah.
Look, transformation means doing things differently. Don't get me wrong, there have been mistakes with the ongoing war, particularly in the information/propaganda aspects of the war. There's also the fact that realistically, we aren't equipped to be fighting wars this way; that is the entire reason why I created the Dominant Logistics website, to address the shortcomings of our force to meet the needs of these new tactics. But we also need to recognize that the members of the current adminstration, and particularly Donald Rumsfeld, have gone way out on a limb here and many current members within and around the Pentagon are seizing this opportunity to knife them in the back.
One of the problems amongst current and former members of the military is that we often develop an all or nothing view of the world. We see things in a pure black-and-white fashion and this is a big part of why there are so many problems within the Pentagon today. Instead of accepting the incremental steps that are available to lead us in the proper direction over time, we demand the works and end up with nothing. Here are a few of the lessons being demonstrated that "reformers" are ignoring over their hatred of the current administration:
This doesn't mean that we should embrace the current administration wholeheartedly in every way, only that we should accept this demonstration that the things we have been fighting for are right. Reforms need to occur and this conflict demonstrates that it can happen with no delay and no degradation in our ability to meet defense needs. Moreover, it shows that transformation does not require the overly expensive and unproven systems we are currently wasting procurement dollars on like the Joint Strike Fighter, the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines, the V-22 Osprey, and the Commanche helicopter among a long and very undistinguished list.
By all means, criticize the administration for their mistakes, but
let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here. Regardless of what one thinks of this
war, it is demonstrating that reforms can and should be made throughout the U.S. military.
The first Gulf War largely demonstrated the validity of military acquisitions
during the Cold War - the current conflict is proving unequivocally that we can and should
move to something new.
3/31/03
Death by Secrecy
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the reasons and needs for operational security. For those who don't, operational security is the practice of withholding information on troops and actions in an effort to prevent the enemy from having this information and capitalizing on it. The problem is that we must recognize that there is a line at which operational security ceases to be a benefit to the force and actually can lead to greater casualties and other serious problems.
Human beings seek out knowledge as a matter of human nature; we like to be informed and aware of the things going on in the world around us. As a matter of military policy, we routinely withhold this knowledge in the name of "operational security." This leaves a vacuum where millions of people are seeking information and the necessary source of that information is deliberately choosing to not fill that void. Propaganda is the art of filling that vacuum.
We need to understand that when we intentionally withhold information, we are inviting the enemy to utilize propaganda to promote their cause. An example of this is the positioning of troops. We withhold this information from the general public - that's fine. But as we have witnessed in this conflict, the opposition is then free to turn around and claim that our troops are somewhere they aren't in an effort to gain support - in this case, claiming their own nation had not been invaded. Another example is refusing to divulge what brought down an Apache helicopter in early fighting - we refused to divulge what happened so the Iraqis jumped right in and insisted farmers had brought it down. Yet another is targeting information - we don't want to discuss targets and then stand around shocked when Iraq insists we are bombing civilian targets.
The problem here is that now there are literally thousands of "suicide bombers" heading to Iraq to assist in slaying the "Great Satan" because these morons actually think that they can defeat the coalition with these tactics. The only thing that will occur with these efforts is that many more people, mostly innocent civilians but also some of our own, will die and be horribly maimed because we buy into the ridiculous notion that, by not releasing to our own public where troops are located and what they are doing, the enemy will somehow be kept in the dark - apparently the Pentagon hasn't heard of this new thing called a cell phone.
The unfortunate reality of operational security is that the only people being kept in the dark about what is happening are the people outside of the conflict who need to know what is happening. Whether it is Americans that need to know what their government is doing or Saddam's sympathizers that need to know their cause is lost, we cannot continue withholding information on the basis of operational security. The only people being left in the dark are the only people who REALLY need to know.
Appropriate Protests
I have no problem with those who oppose the war in Iraq - there are many perfectly legitimate reasons to do so and there can be no doubt that there is clearly a first amendment right for the people of this nation to make their beliefs known. But we also need to recognize that there is a clear difference between educated, informed dissent and the blanket regurgitation of enemy propaganda. Unfortunately, there is virtually none of the former occuring in this nation and entirely too much of the latter.
All organizations, whether it be governments, private organizations, or corporations, are inclined to promote their cause in a way that is beneficial to them. There needs to be a level of distrust between people and groups of this nature. Contrary to the regular statements of Bill O'Reilly, the U.S. government is NOT entitled to the benefit of the doubt in ANYTHING that is does - but none of these other groups should be given such either whether it be the United Nations, the Iraqi government, or the anti-war groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. Dissent is an appropriate and healthy thing - blindly repeating the lies, distortions, and deliberate propaganda of an enemy regime is not dissent, it is backing of the enemy. Some of the most hypocritical issues brought forth by the anti-war crowd include but are certainly not limited to:
Complaining about the "killing of women and children" by our own military while conveniently ignoring the countless women and children who have died and continue to die at the hands of the Hussein regime and by the effects of UN sanctions.
Insisting that UN weapon inspections were working when Iraq has developed weapons that violate UN mandates while inspections were ongoing. No one had ever heard of the Al Samoud 2 missile until recent months because it was created only recently. It is physically impossible to design, develop, and build missiles that actually function without knowing how far they can fly, it's basic physics folks.
Insisting that the war violates international law while ignoring that we have been bombing Iraq for more than 12 years under the same laws that are in place today. In addition, there were about four major military actions against Iraq during this same time frame. If it was legal then (and nobody complained at the time) then it is legal now.
Whining that it's "all about oil." The quickest and most profitable route to Iraqi oil would've been the stroke of a Presidential pen because that was the only thing blocking Iraqi oil exports. Engaging in war virtually guarantees that America will not benefit in any way from Iraqi oil other than through indirect effects.
Anyone who desires has the right to oppose the war, but if all
someone is going to do is regurgitate nonsense like that which is mentioned here, then the
rest of us reserve an equal right to label that individual as an idiot and treat them
accordingly. Dissent is a healthy and necessary thing but this applies equally to
all groups involved in this conflict, not just the U.S. government and media. Hey,
war sucks, there can be no debate about that but there are occasions where it is the only
appropriate option available.
3/30/03
Frightening "Management"
One of the primary complaints of many within the military during the Clinton years was the overall transition of the higher ranking personnel in the military from a leadership concept to a management concept. What this means is that instead of emphasizing leadership characteristics amongst the brass, those who tended to be managers were promoted instead. The current poster child of this problem is one Lieutenant General William Wallace, commander of ground forces in the Iraq war.
On Thursday, Wallace made some comments in public that were quite staggering, comments that the media grabbed ahold of as an example that plans for this war were falling apart. To quote media reports,
"The enemy we're fighting against is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," he said, commenting on Saddam's unexpected decision to launch a guerrilla campaign against U.S. supply lines instead of hunkering down in Baghdad and waiting to be attacked.
Two things make this statement frightening. The first is that as commander of ground forces, the person most responsible for ensuring that the ground forces were properly trained and prepared to fight the enemy is... General Wallace himself. For all practical purposes, Wallace is complaining loudly and publicly that he, personally, is completely and totally incompetent. The second reason this event is frightening is that this man still has a job!
But this should hardly come as a surprise anymore. After all, This is the same system that produced one General Barry McCaffrey, architect and order giver of the infamous "Highway of Death" two days after the cease fire of the Gulf War. For those not familiar with this event, thousands of Iraqi vehicles, personnel, and many civilians as well were slaughtered along a five mile stretch of highway in what was described as a "turkey shoot" as they had no means to defend themselves. For what many have called a war crime, McCaffrey was made the youngest and most decorated four-star General in the U.S. Army and promoted to a higher command position.
The point here is that managers look at numbers. They are motivated by studies, body counts, and measures of effectiveness after the fact. Leaders are characterized by initiative and doing the right thing without someone else telling them how to do it. When three-star Generals are publicly displaying their own lack of leadership and the Pentagon and media sit by and do nothing about it, we should all be frightened at what the future holds for our military.
Is the Ground Force Too Small?
The debate is continuing to rage over whether the force deployed to take down Saddam is sufficient in size and firepower. While most current and former military officers with heavily weighted collars are crying that the force is too small, here are a few of the reasons they're wrong.
There are more reasons but these are the important ones. The key point here is that when you are dealing with an assymetrical force (ie terrorist type strikes) you are better off using a smaller and more mobile force so that you can adjust to needs more rapidly. Large combat formations are more suited to conventional warfare with fixed operational areas and fronts. Regardless of his motivations for doing so, Rumsfeld was right to insist on a smaller force.
Bogged Down in a Quagmire?
Many in the media are attempting to portray our military as being in serious trouble in Iraq. Before buying into this nonsense, consider the following:
All of this took place in a period of less than 10 days. I'm not going to jump on that "fastest advance in history" bandwagon, but by virtually any legitimate measure, our forces are kickin' butt and takin' names thus far. That having been said, we haven't faced the best forces Iraq has to offer yet, but these have been getting hammered with bombs and missiles for days. Not everything has gone the coalitions way, but they are winning FAR more battles than they are losing.
3/29/03
Understanding the "Pause"
Reports have been circulating about the ground forces taking a "pause" in order to straighten out supply issues in the conflict. Many in the media are taking this as evidence of mistakes made in the tactics implemented in the war or as evidence that Iraqi resistance has been stronger than expected and we are regrouping. Here's what is most likely ACTUALLY going on:
As I've mentioned elsewhere, war occurs in ebbs and flows. There was a flow as the forces were called up and sent to Iraq. Then we had an ebb of many months that allowed us to prepare for the opening of the war (ie, to address the same issues I've listed above). Then we had another flow as the war opened up and we went on the move. Now there will be another ebb to prepare for the next flow. It is easy for us to sit at home, turn on the television, and expect to watch as our troops engage the enemy 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is quite another matter to be those troops on the ground doing the fighting.
Where are the Amphibians?
Back in the WWII, we had a number of technologies to overcome problems that our forces are being plagued with today. Perhaps the best example is the "Duck" that was a cross between a boat and a medium truck. It could be loaded with supplies from ships out at sea, then it could transit to the shore, drive up onto the roads, and carry its cargo at highway speeds to wherever the materials were needed. Unfortunately, not only were these vehicles retired years ago, nothing was ever brought into the force to replace them.
Today, we're struggling to keep the deployed forces supplied and to meet humanitarian mission needs because there isn't enough port space available for all of the ships. If we had something similar to the Ducks of WWII, we wouldn't be waiting for port space to be opening up. For more information on how this problem should be corrected, visit my article on converting the existing HEMTT heavy truck into a modern "duck."
This problem should be viewed in the context of the early morning missile strike in Kuwait. Every indication is that the missile used was a Silkworm-based anti-ship missile. Most pundits are inaccurately claiming this missile strike failed but they apparently don't understand how these missiles work. Modern anti-ship missiles are designed to dive into the water and detonate underwater. The idea is to either blow a large hole in the vessel below the waterline (to sink the ship) or to displace enough water that the structure of the ship fails (to break the ship literally in half). What happened with the missile in Kuwait is exactly what would've happened with a properly functioning anti-ship cruise missile.
Now consider the ships bringing in humanitarian aid and additional supplies and forces. One of these missiles could take out any of these ships. Was the missile strike in Kuwait a failed attack or a successful reminder that we haven't won yet? If we had some modern "ducks" we could answer this question ourselves by keeping the support ships at a safe distance and offloading most of them at sea. Instead, our answer comes when the 4th ID and and its 30+ ships with billions in military hardware come within range of these missiles to offload the systems in dangerous ports.
3/27/03
More Geneva Nonsense
More whining about the Geneva Convention today, only now we see a twist. Having bombed the television facilities in Baghdad, it's the United States being accused of violating Geneva. And quite frankly, this is correct. This is the problem with "Crying Geneva" - it inevitably becomes a case of do as we say, not as we do. There are a few things that should be noted here.
As properly put by Jesse Ventura on MSNBC yesterday, no matter what you think of this war, we are invading another nation. The people of Iraq who don't want us there are going to do everything within their means and abilities to stop us from doing this. This is not the Gulf War, we are not coming to the aid of a party that has invited us - we are invading the nation of Iraq. While the Iraqi tactics are unnecessarily brutal and cruel, the brutality and cruelty of the current Iraqi regime is the entire reason we are going into Iraq to begin with.
To highlight the problem I am leading up to, consider a piece broadcast by embedded media the other day. An embedded journalist was talking to a soldier on guard duty and asked for his reaction to the Iraqi practice of faking surrender and opening fire. The soldier had heard nothing of this practice even though it was widely known throughout the world. Everybody knew what was going on except for the only people who NEEDED to know.
We are so insistent on the validity of the Geneva Convention that we
don't seem to be properly training and preparing the troops for the realities of war.
I have yet to hear of anything done by the Iraqis with regards to Geneva that did
not occur in the Vietnam War and in many cases the Gulf War. What is surprising is
not Iraqi violations of the Geneva accords - what is surprising is the lack of
preparedness for these inevitable events. The Geneva Convention is nothing more than
a piece of paper, and an old one at that. Someone should remind the Pentagon that we
aren't playing Rock, Paper, Scissors.
3/26/03
More Armchair Generals
You gotta love the armchair generals in this war. If there exists something that can be strenously "whined" about, they will find it, leaving no stone unturned. At this rate, we may experience a cheese shortage in America in the relatively near future. The current "whine de jour" is that we have insufficient combat power in the theater to carry out the objectives. Of course, there's a catch that none of the "experts" will bother telling.
In the first Gulf War, we had virtually unlimited access to arguably the finest maritime facilities in the world. No matter how much men and material we wanted to send to the Gulf, it was virtually impossible to exceed the capabilities of these ports to handle the load. The current war has no such luxury. We cannot use the excellent Saudi ports and instead are limited to the available facilities in Kuwait which are still quite good but lack the massive capacity of the Saudi ports.
Compounding this problem is that Iraq lives or dies off of supplies delivered by ships. They have only one major port and this facility handles the vast majority of food, medicine, materials, and other needs of the nation. With the outbreak of hostilities, this port was cut off, meaning that these needs had to be met through other means - in this case, the same limited Kuwaiti ports we are using to support the war. After all, let's not forget that sending forces abroad involves more than just getting the force to the fight. A single heavy division can use literally thousands of tons of materials in a single day of heavy fighting. This does not include the materials for other forces nor does it include the materials for the air assets operating in the region. All of these forces and needs must be met by the very limited port resources of Kuwait - unless we take Umm Qasar.
Without Saudi or Turkish support, there realistically was no way that the 4th ID, or any other combat division for that matter, could've been deployed and supported without first taking and securing the Iraqi port facilities - but this meant starting the war without our full combat force on the ground. Without more available options, like amphibious units in the Army or legitimate air-supportable mechanized forces, there really wasn't anything else that could've been done short of delaying the conflict for another six months to a year. Even if we HAD waited and squeezed in the 4th ID, it is highly unlikely that we would've had sufficient port resources to sustain this larger force and still meet the other needs of the conflict.
While I have no insider information with the Pentagon, odds are that the size of the force in theater was determined less by the desires of the planners than by the strategic reality of limited port facilities.
Embedded Journalists a Good Thing
A lot of criticism is being raised in some circles about the use of embedded journalists in the current war. While I think the approach is in need of some fine tuning and is certainly causing some challenges, overall this is a very good idea for a variety of reasons.
First off, we need to recognize that these journalists are not a real burden on the forces in the field. Some are saying that combat troops are being pulled from the line to "protect" the unarmed journalists but there is no reason that that should be happening. Every unit has sections that are not directly engaged in the fire fights we are witnessing on television. Troops engaged in command and control, supply, maintenance, communications, and chemical operations are often kept back in order that their services can be directed to locations where they are needed (however, in most fights many of these services are not required in the fight). If the journalists are kept back with these folks, then they pose no real distraction to the ongoing fights.
Embedded journalists can help to combat the historic problem of truth being the first casualty of war. By embedding the journalists in the force, a third party is on hand witnessing the occuring events. This will not always be a good thing, but there are many potential benefits. For example, reports are coming in of Iraqi paramilitary forces wearing U.S. uniforms and using human shields - with embedded journalists, it is highly likely we will catch these practices on tape for the entire world to witness first hand. There will also be occasions with accusations of atrocities and these journalists can provide the facts necessary to determine what actually went down, whether that is a good thing or a not so good thing.
Other advantages of embedded media include the fact that this provides alternative means for communications and intelligence collection in each unit with these media. Whether or not this is occuring is unknown to me personally but it SHOULD be happening if it isn't. Civilian media often have the finest communications gear available in the world - they have to in order to perform their jobs. Embedded journalists should make this gear available to the units in the field. This approach also will give the members of the media an understanding of military and security matters that is very absent from the bulk of the major media. If ignorance is bliss, it must be said that on military matters, we have a VERY blissful media. Embedded journalists can help to address this problem.
There are downsides to the embedding of media - most notably the
loss of perspective of the war. Small events can easily take on the air of major
setbacks and this can have serious consequences. But on the whole, the advantages of
embedded media seem to outweigh the disadvantages.
3/25/03
The Use of Special Forces
Finally, a military operation happens where the Special Forces are being put to their proper and appropriate use (at least according to reports). Too many leaders fail to grasp that Special Operations Units are not "the best of the best" when it comes to military operations - they are specially trained combat teams that are uniquely suited for missions that traditional military units cannot perform effectively. Examples of these types of missions include but are certainly not limited to:
These types of missions require very specialized training that traditional combat units really cannot incorporate into their units. It is these types of missions that caused the creation of the Special Forces back in the second world war, the OSS. In operations since then, Special Ops units have all too often been used in traditional infantry roles where normal units should have been used. It's good to see them excelling at what they were actually meant to do.
The New First Casualty of War - Perceptions
It has often been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. As media has become more and more endemic to life overall, we are witnessing a transition to where we now have a greater amount of truth available in war, but in return we are completely losing our perspective of what is happening. Today, perceptions of success and failure on the battlefield are based, not on the success or failure of the operation or the overall unit, but on the health or well-being of squads of soldiers.
In recent actions in Iraq, some events have occured that have not been favorable to the coalition forces. None of these events were even remotely close to being major setbacks - they were tragic, as most events of war are, but they were nothing more than the standard events that happen in every war. A squad-sized support element was ambushed when they took a wrong turn and strayed into a hostile area. A Marine squad was ambushed by enemy soldiers faking surrender. A single Apache helicopter was brought down by ground fires. None of these are anything more than the typical events of war.
But everywhere one looks in the media, the general public has somehow reached the conclusion that these minor events are the entire conflict. There is talk of U.S. forces being bogged down, bled out, and overstretched. Rallies in foreign countries are celebrating the inevitable defeat of America as it suffers these devastating blows. Even the stock market took a dive as the war "took a turn for the worse!" All of this over two squads and an Apache Longbow.
We are also being treated to the spectacle of the media proclaiming forward progress at record speeds (when our forces were merely driving through very lightly defended areas) followed by how we are now bogged down and losing momentum (we stopped to fight because we actually ran into some armed Iraqis). What is truely incredible is that feeding this ridiculous display is what seems to be a never-ending supply of "military experts," most of whom are retired military officers that we should all be thankful are no longer in uniform.
War has an ebb and flow. Some days, things happen very fast while other days, they go pretty slow. Some days people will die or be captured; others there won't be much in the way of fighting. We seem to be under the impression that we are watching a video game and forgetting the fact that these are people in those uniforms. They have to sleep and eat just like all the rest of us. They will have their good days and bad just as we do also. The biggest difference is that on their bad days, they die. Let's not forget that that is what this is really all about.
Armchair Generals
One of the things that really bothers me about the media reactions over the current conflict are the staggering number of Armchair Generals who suddenly have been given platforms from which to spout absolute nonsense about the war. While these people have the credentials necessary to properly address the topic, nowhere can we find honest and balanced debate of the events of this war from the "experts." Among the problems with media coverage:
Many "experts" are now insisting that we lack sufficient ground forces to face the enemy we are up against. In most cases, special forces, cruise missiles, and aircraft are not even included in the equation. There are perfectly legitimate reasons not to use more heavy forces in this conflict, such as the inability to support these forces over the distances we are operating, but no "expert" will ever bother to bring this up.
Many are criticizing the fact that we are so strenously avoiding collateral damage to the extent of avoiding targets. This should be common sense but apparently it isn't. In Vietnam, the euphemism was that we had to destroy villages in order to save them - it takes about two functioning brain cells to see how ridiculous this concept is. Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq - we are not there to take over the country. The Iraqi people must be alive if they are to take their country back from the Hussein regime. Failure to avoid collateral damage to the maximum extent possible will mean that the Iraqi people will not support us in our efforts - they may not support Saddam, but they won't support us either. Winning this war means winning the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq - you don't do that by blowing up their women and children. Will this mean higher U.S. casualties? Certainly, but the alternative would be no cakewalk and would inevitably fail in the end. You can't save a nation by destroying it.
I have yet to see any of the "experts" even factor the 4th ID into the overall equation of what our options are in the region. In less than one week, the 4th ID will be unloading another heavy division into the Iraqi theater. Given that we now have full control of Iraq's southern port, it will not take long at all for units of the 4th to form up and get to wherever they are needed. The first Gulf War took a month and a half simply to eject the Iraqi military from Kuwait when they were already trying to leave when the war began. Yet the "experts" insist that to take down this entire force will require only a matter of days. The arrogance and ignorance are breathtaking.
It's one thing for reporters to improperly identify military systems and capabilities but this is inexcusable from military "experts." Whether its identifying F-14 Tomcats as F-18 Hornets or referring to "laser-guided JDAMs", the current crop of experts leaves much to be desired.
Of all the "experts" I've seen in the media, only one has properly recognized the only conflict in U.S. history that can accurately be compared to the current war. Everyone seems to want to compare this action to the Gulf War but only Newt Gingrich has gotten it right (from what I have seen). If you're going to compare this war to the past, only the invasion of Panama was in any way similar to the current conflict. Every other war was either one of occupation or ending an occupation - an entirely different prospect than taking down a regime.
Regardless of where you get your information from, never forget that the only people who REALLY know what is going on and what we are planning to do are those who are doing the planning and giving the orders. Everybody else is doing nothing more than giving it their best SWAG (Scientific Wild-A** Guess).
Vindication for Reform Efforts
Unbeknowngst to most Americans, there are many current and former members of the U.S. military actively engaged in efforts to have the military reformed. The ongoing conflict presents some strong evidence to support the concepts of military reform. Some things to think about in the future include:
We need to seriously improve the equipment of support forces. Most reformers have suggested something along the lines of a Tracked Support Vehicle that would put support troops in a real armored vehicle and provide means for firepower protection. It would also include GPS navigation and communications to prevent events like those that led to the capture of the troops from the 507th Maintenance Company.
The need to replace the CH-46 is reaching a critical point. Maintenance concerns have been escalating but it is ironic that the first coalition casualties of the conflict appear to have been the result of mechanical failure in a CH-46. The V-22 was to have replaced the CH-46 but has failed thus far to even achieve airworthiness. The Marines need to seriously look at alternatives that are available today like modernized Blackhawks, Boeing CH-47s, or Sikorsky S-70s.
A design was proposed by Boeing many years ago to convert a quantity of 747 aircraft into cruise missile carriers. At current missile weights, an aircraft of this design could carry about 80 missiles compared to the current maximum payload of 20 on the B-52. As missile prices fall and their uses increase, we need to revisit this concept.
The Army is currently looking at fielding it's own version of the Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle (LAV). A concern raised by some is the danger of getting stuck from the use of wheeled vehicles. According to reports in the media, this concern has been validated with the ambush of a Marine squad attempting to free a stuck wheeled vehicle in central Iraq. The Army could save a lot of money and have a greater variety of combat options by using modernized surplus M113s instead of purchasing new Stryker LAVs that seem to have tactical mobility problems among other issues.
Serious evaluation of the Army Commanche program needs to happen immediately. This conflict is an ideal arena for helicopters to excell and yet the best attack helicopter we have, the Apache Longbow, does not appear to be performing well thus far. Stealth is useless against ground fires and if the Apache can't handle the fires out there today, with vastly superior armor and armament, there is no way the Commanche will survive in this type of environment.
These examples should not be construed as a critique of ongoing
events in Iraq. This is only a reminder that while we are fighting this war, we are
also spending billions of dollars every day to build our military of the future. We
don't have the luxury of setting these issues aside until the war is over. More
examples will be forthcoming.
3/24/03
Use of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
Some are criticizing the extensive use of Tomahawk missiles as being a waste of money. In reality, the use of Tomahawks in this conflict is probably the best use to which these missiles have ever been put. The newest Tomahawks cost about $600,000 per shot which is a lot of money but this has to be viewed in the proper perspective.
In previous actions, small quantities of Tomahawks were used in single target engagements and this really was a waste as in most of these actions, a single plane or a limited quantity of planes could've carried out these missions at lower cost and with greater effectiveness by the use of larger bombs. But in the current conflict, we are engaging very large numbers of targets over a large area in a very short time frame. To carry out this type of action with strike fighters would require hundreds of fighters as well as AWACS aircraft to coordinate flights and KC-135 tankers for refueling operations because most fighters lack the effective range of the Tomahawk. The missile approach also does not require SEAD or jamming aircraft for support. They also don't need expensive stealth technologies or millions of dollars in pilot training.
When all factors are included in the equation, the large-scale use of Tomahawks is a more combat and cost effective approach than using massive quantities of strike fighters for the types of missions we are engaging in in Iraq.
Crying "Geneva"
I want to specify here that I strongly support the fact that we are militarily engaging Iraq and also in the current U.S. doctrine of using overwhelming firepower to engage our enemies. That having been said, it is not appropriate for the U.S. government to be constantly whining and crying about the treatment of our soldiers when captured. My heart goes out to the POWs and their families, but can we really claim the moral high ground in this case?
How is it "humane" to fire dozens of cruise missiles and multiple 2000lb bombs against a handful of enemy personnel but it is somehow "inhumane" to put a single bullet in someone's head? We also unloaded something like a dozen tubes of artillery on a single Iraqi gun that had no means to defend itself. Cluster munitions were banned by most nations but not us, land mines were banned by most nations but not us, we hold one of the largest arsenals of WMDs in the world, and now we're crying foul based on the Geneva Convention? I have no problem with the heavy handedness we employ against our enemies but to turn around and whine about some dead soldiers seems like brass trying to soothe their consciences for their own failures in not properly preparing and equipping the troops.
In war, people die - this is an unfortunate but unavoidable reality. All troops need to be trained and equipped to deal with all the contingencies that go on during war. We have chosen to make it impossible for any other force to effectively engage us in conventional war. We do not believe in a fair fight - we DEMAND a fight in which we hold an overwhelming advantage. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year, far more than any other nation in the world, to ensure this dominance. We have no right to then turn around and cry when our enemies choose to use assymetrical methods against us. WE have left them no other option by which to fight us. This is our choice - the effects are ours to live with. We need to accept this and ensure our forces are properly trained and properly equipped to avoid these situations where troops are getting captured.
The Use of Chemical Weapons
A lot of talk has ensued over the potential use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis. In general, the ineptitude of the military consultants hired by major media on this question is staggering. For those who want the REAL reason chemicals haven't been used as of yet, here is why.
Chemical weapons have to be deployed using stand-off weapons like missiles and field artillery. You have to put a considerable distance between yourself and these weapons or you risk killing yourself with your own munitions. Now, let's look at how things have played out in the tactical realities of Iraq. We originally positioned our forces near populated areas in a different nation and defended these areas using Patriot missile batteries. To be blunt, enemy missiles are not getting through; they are being intercepted at high altitudes where a chemical cloud would likely drift away with little harm or effect. On the artillery side of the equation, our artillery has greater range than the Iraqi artillery. This is the case with standard tube artillery but we also have significant range with the Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS). Iraqi artillery positions in the early phases are located in open areas where we can fire indiscriminately to destroy the enemy artillery long before it ever gets within range to fire chemical weapons. Simply put, the Iraqi's couldn't use chemicals against us even if they wanted to in the early phases of the war.
As we reach Baghdad, this situation reverses dramatically. Enemy artillery will be operating amongst populated areas eliminating our ability to use MLRS with its unguided submunitions. We also become limited in our ability to heavily use conventional artillery because of the risk of collateral damage. On the other hand, we will be located in open, unpopulated areas where the Iraqi's can use chemical projectiles at will and we will have little to no ability to counter their use.
Some are holding the pipe dream that Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons and that this is why they aren't being used. The reality is many sources have verified that captured Iraqi troops are found to be equipped with new gas masks. It is unrealistic to assume that this is simply some ploy on the part of Hussein - they don't have the sort of money to waste on unneeded gas masks. The Iraqi's wouldn't have equipped their personnel with fresh masks unless they felt a need existed for their troops to have them. This doesn't mean that chemicals will automatically be used, but we must realize that the potential is there, but not until we get to Baghdad.
Why We Don't "Turn Off" Iraqi Television
Much debate is ongoing over the issue of whether Iraqi television
should or should not be knocked offline. There are pros and cons to both sides of
this argument but I think one particular point must be the deciding factor on this issue.
The Iraqi government is very adept at using propaganda in a variety of ways. They
are so good at this that it is often difficult to ascertain truth from fiction in their
media broadcasts. For example, consider the released tapes of Saddam - it is easy to
question their veracity but we really cannot prove anything based on the tapes.
The only effective weapon against propaganda is the truth. In the case of Iraq, the
general population has access to the facts on the ground - they are currently living the
truth of what is going on. When the Iraqi government makes broadcasts counter to these
facts on the ground, the people will begin to see their government in the ways that we
currently see them.
Whether we like it or not, our own media cannot be trusted to be honest either - consider
their coverage of typical political topics such as abortion where lies greatly outnumber
facts. People know not to trust the American media. But they also know that they can trust
their own eyes. As the Iraqi government complains of heavy civilian casualties, the Iraqi
people can see for their own eyes that this is a lie. As their government claims we are
targeting civilians, the people can see first hand that this is a lie.
Defectors have estimated that Saddam has around eight to ten million civilian supporters
in the Iraqi population. We need to leave the television system operational to let the
Iraqi's turn these people away with their own propaganda. They are not going to believe
us, but they can believe their own eyes.