Posted on 08/18/2005 6:06:22 PM PDT by Yasotay
I am a military history major graduate from the United States Military Academy. The intent of this post is to take another brief look at the current conduct of war, in August 2005, by using the “Principles of War”. I am not on active duty, nor do I have access to any classified information pertaining to this war. Violating some principles of war does not mean we will lose this war, but these violations are NOT helping America win this war.
The first principle discussed is “Offensive. The United States has been on the defensive for over two years. It is time to go back on the Offensive. We need to overthrow the government of the second ‘Axis of Evil’, Iran. If needed, we also need to overthrow the Syrian government. President Bush in a speech at Fort Bragg stated that we need to stay on the offense. I say we need to go back on the offensive.
The next Principle of War that I will now discuss is “Unity of Command”. This principle was being violated for the first 2 years of the War on Terror. I am sure having the Commander of CENTCOM being bypassed and using SOCOM, created many problems. Bremer and the CPA is another example. At least those two problems have been fixed.
The third Principle of War to be looked at is “Objective”. Every military operation should have a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military objective of war is the defeat of the enemy’s armed forces. I no longer believe that this is a War on Terror. This is the first war fought over the control, ownership and use of nuclear weapons. The primary threat to the US is a nuclear attack. We have already been attacked with biological agents. While it took the US only 3 ½ years to develop nuclear weapons, Iran and terrorists have been trying to buy, steal or develop nuclear weapons for over twenty years. We must expect that they will (or have) seceded. Therefore, one of our primary objectives has to be the continued denial or destruction of our enemies’ nuclear weapons.
The fourth is “Mass”. The main effort is where your combat power is concentrated at the critical point and time to achieve decisive results. I hope this becomes Iran.
The fifth is “Economy of Force”. Afghanistan has been a great EoF mission. There may not be a better example in all of history. I hope that Iraq also becomes an EOF mission rather then the ‘Main Effort’.
The sixth is “Simplicity”. With everyone saying that this is going to be a long and complex campaign, I wonder what has happened to the basic principle of “KISS”.
Number seven is “Surprise”. While the terrorists used strategic surprise on September 11th, the enemy has appeared to have gone into extended hiding. When they stand and confront us, they die. They clearly will continue to be able to gain tactical surprise. While US forces never had strategic surprise, we have always been blessed with being able to gain operational or tactical surprise. I hope we continue to do well in that arena. The first use of nuclear weapons clearly will be a surprise. I hope we are ready.
Eight is “Security”. It appears that our combat forces are continuing to take enough measures to protect our combat power from observation, sabotage, annoyance, surprise, the press and hopefully espionage. I do not want to write anything else that may compromise that principle.
Last, but not least is “Maneuver”. I would think battalion and brigade heavy task force(s) with special forces (not UofAs) based in Iraq and Afghanistan could support operations inside of Iran. Tom Clancy may have to write a new novel.
In conclusion, I hope that I am wrong in my observations about the principles of war that were being violated. Something that Americans have always been better at then any of our enemies is learning from our errors, correcting our mistakes and driving on to victory. Let hope THAT history repeats itself.
Actually we do have the force structure available to do this but only at leaving us with NO cards on the table for North Korea or China/Tiawan. We need a bigger military and/or a reduction of military commitments. Again, a political, not a military decision.
Well the news media can't seem to get it right. It might not be as bad as it sounds.
Excellent post. I am also a graduate of the Hudson Trade School for Wayward Boys (1972). I also think we need to take on Iran and Syria. For the former, we should provide air strike, recon, armor, specops, and logistics support to the Persian revolutionaries. For Syria, I suggest that we encourage Assad's officer corps to overthrow him or face American air and armor. I think we are achieving economy of force in Iraq by letting the Iraqis clean up the islamofascists themselves. They are 10X more ruthless and thus more effective. I am actually less worried about nukes than bio. There are a lot of morons with poor personal hygiene and substandard labs trying to cook up deadlier pathogens. The only justice is that the bugs will kill them off first.
From your lips to God's ears...
Well, you're a "military history major graduate from the United States Military Academy." You should know what war is. Your post indicated to me that you don't know. If you did know, then you'd post what war is.
Maybe, maybe not. I do agree it is worth exploring the options and developing the contacts. However it still doesn't address the problem of domestic political support. Here is the problem. The USA has a crappy reputation as a "cut and run" ally in most of the Middle East. Most of the forces we need to ally with are going to be highly suspicious that we will just run away again like we did on the Shah, or the Kurds repeatedly, or the Iraqis in 1991, or Nicaragua in 1979 etc. The other thing is not everyone we have to work with is going to be a pure hearted head in the sky Persian intellectual. This kind of work requires you to get your hands, and souls, dirty. So we would need domestic bipartisan political support otherwise this is going to blow up on us and be another "Church Commission" style fiasco. Given the treasonous behavior of the current leadership of the Democrat Party, there is NO way you can build that political consensus to support covert actions against Iran. I wish we could. Same with Syria. What we really need is for the Republicans to gain seats in 2006. IF we can keep thrashing the Moveon Democrats we might actually get some adults back in charge at the DNC. Right now, they are all Jane Fonda style Democrats, what we need some Scoop Jackson style Democrats.
What would be your definition of war?
LOL, 1985 E-2. Well, round 1 on bio has already happened. I'm glad I wasn't working in the postal room. I've got to disagree with you (respectfully). The defense against most biological agents are drugs ie Cipro ..... As for Chemical, it is filters and over pressure. The VP wasn't hiding in a cave because of Bio or Chem .....
The only way I would "Converse" with them is with my softball bat. I could use my shotgun but it would be over too quickly that way. So "conserving" with them would have to involve either my bat or my fists. Considering how much stone they carry between their ears, I think my bat is the best tool.
Thank you for your service to our country Sir.
Well, I would respectfully disagree.
As Sun Tzu wrote, “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
The ultimate military objective is not to destroy armies or sink navies but, rather, to achieve your strategic objective.
If that can be done with an economy of force without a battle of annihilation between armies or navies, so much the better.
Case in point: Rabaul.
Such a debate was waged within the Royal Navy at the turn of the 20th Century between those who championed the views of Mahan, who advocated the seeking out of decisive sea battles with enemy fleets, and the advocates of British military historian Sir Julian Corbett who argued that the purpose of a navy was to control the sea lanes and an enemy fleet bottled up in port was just as strategically useless to the enemy as one at the bottom of the ocean.
As Sir Corbett wrote:
”An admiral with no wider outlook than to regard the enemy’s fleet as his primary objective will miss the true relation to the other forces which are working for a successful issue of the war.”
Another principle that Sir Corbett learned from history is that no general or admiral ever had a free hand to formulate a “pure” strategy since domestic politics, economic constraint and diplomatic considerations always served to “deflect” military operations.
That principle is especially relevant to the U. S. Armed Forces in the 21st Century.
Why?
Because our nation is presently cursed with a liberal news media and a Democrat Party that serves the function that Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose served in World War II, namely, to do everything in their propaganda power to demoralize the American war effort.
The defeat by America of the armed might of what used to be the fourth largest army in the World in 1990, the Iraqi Army, with less than 2000 KIA is one of the greatest military achievements in military history. Yet, America’s enemies talk about America reaching the “tipping point” of admitting defeat because the American liberal news media portray casualties short of two thousand as a gargantuan sacrifice and make an antisemitic, vitriol-spewing woman-with-issues camped in Crawford, Texas a Nightly News icon.
We may fantasize about going after Iran and Iraq but America has a major Achilles Heel problem in the Democrat Party and the liberal news media that stands in the way of such a “pure” strategy.
So, what is the answer.
IMHO, the answer is to identify and attack the centers of gravity of terrorism which is not really the brain-washed foot soldiers or the armies but the teachers of such an ideology.
Britain may have talked about fighting terrorism but, up until this past month, Britain focused on fighting the terrorist foot soldiers while they freely allowed a radical Muslim cleric living in Britain to freely preach his treason within Britain itself and breed more terrorists just as a fly-covered dead carcass breeds maggots.
The radical mullahs, be they in Iran or Saudi Arabia or in Pakistan or in Britain or in America are the center of gravity in this war and the choice is to do whatever it takes to target them directly or be faced with fighting the millions of maggots they breed with their poisonous ideology.
Because of the Democrat Party and the liberal news media, America is ham-strung in this war and a “less-than-pure” strategy is all we have to work with.
We therefore need to focus our efforts, covert or military, on the center of gravity………..The radical mullahs.
In regards to the armies of the secular thug regimes, the way we treated Mouamar Khadafi is an example of the same doctrine: Target the snakes head. A bomb landing a 100 yards away from his bed did wonders to change his point of view and made fighting his armed forces unnecessary.
I posted this article on the Principles of War as taught at West Point. It is an academic tool to evaluate battles, operations and war. I used it to start a discussion on the subject here on FR. Tell me what war is?
Just curious, but are you trying to get this from Yasotay? What Clausewitz said. "War is the extension of politics by other means", I cannot remember the exact quote. Is that what you are looking for? Something Yasotay doesn't understand even though his HEART is certainly in the right place. :-}
There is an Iranian who post here every once in awhile. He brings up an interesting point. His claim is the Radial Mullahs actually personally could give a rats ass about religion. All they care about is the money which they want to control. He claims that Iran is ripe for revolution.
Boy I can't argue with the points you made on that post. I can only hope that when we read this Bush's lips that his backbone will be like Lincoln and not his father or Carter.
I was company E-1 back when all of the firsties in First Regiment were still flaming runts! I worry more about bio because a misplaced gene can turn a minor disease into the Andromeda Strain. Recently, a researcher in Australia changed ONE GENE on mousepox in an experiment to create a less-than-lethal bio control for mouse populations. The modified mousepox killed every mouse in the lab. If it had gotten loose, they said it might have killed every mouse on earth. Ponder this: horses evolved in South America and were common in North America during the Ice Age. Where did they go? Pathogens can totally wipe a species from the Earth. They are a little recognized evolutionary end for many species. One nuke means one downtown lost. Bio can be much worse. All that said, you're a better student of Clausewitz than I am.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.