DoD Taps Industry Know-How in Ongoing Counter-IED Efforts

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2006 – Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England called on what he called some of the best minds in the country today to help come up with new solutions to the threat improvised explosive devices pose to U.S. troops. Speaking to some 600 leaders from industry, academia, the national laboratories and all branches of the military at a two-day industry conference focused on the IED threat, England challenged participants to find better ways to counter what has become terrorists' weapon of choice in Iraq and, more recently, Afghanistan.

IEDs are the leading cause of U.S. combat deaths and injuries in Iraq, the deputy said. Every IED attack represents an attack, not just against the troops, but also against the will of the American people, he said.

The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization and the National Defense Industrial Association are cosponsoring the two-day IED conference at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center to exchange information and explore solutions. In addition to briefing industry leaders about current and evolving challenges, defense and military leaders at the forum are encouraging participants to help come up with new ways to confront IEDs.

But technical solutions alone won't resolve the IED problem, England told the group. Defeating IEDs requires new technology, new tactics, new techniques and new training methods, he said. Because the enemy is so adaptable in using these devices, the technologies, tactics, techniques and training designed to counter them have to be adaptable, too, England said.

The IED industry forum comes days after DoD gave permanent status to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Task Force and represents another step in the ongoing counter-IED effort. England signed a memo Jan. 18 that elevates the task force former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz established in mid-2004 to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

The status change is designed to help the group operate more effectively as it carries out what defense officials acknowledge has come to be viewed as a long-term mission that continues to expand to better meet the threat.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed a retired four-star general to lead the organization and bring what he called "a senior commander's operational perspective to the overall IED effort." Retired Army Gen. Montgomery Meigs, former commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe and NATO's peacekeeping force in Bosnia, took control of the IED task force in early December.

Under Meigs' leadership, the newly named Joint IED Defeat Organization will continue to expand the scope of its efforts. That includes the establishment of a new IED center of excellence at Fort Irwin, Calif., to take lessons learned in Iraq and develop strategies to defeat IEDs, England said in his Jan. 18 memo. The center will also provide a venue for integrating, training, experimenting and testing new IED defeat equipment and concepts, he wrote.

Satellite centers will be housed at each of the services' major training installations, officials said. The center will be crucial in linking U.S. training centers with troops in theater, to share lessons learned, strategies and concepts, a senior military official told reporters on background in early December.

"This is meant to be a defeat of the entire IED system," the official said. "We want to make sure that we continue and do even a better job of sharing the best practices amongst all of our troops, our forces that are deployed, and also on the training end of this."

These latest developments are part of DoD's ongoing efforts to address the challenges IEDs pose, officials said. Since October 2003, the department's IED initiative has evolved from an Army organization of about 12 people to a joint task force to a permanent joint organization with $3 billion committed to the effort. The Joint IED Defeat Organization is made up of representatives from all services as well as retirees, all dedicated full-time to defeating the IED threat. "We are reaching out to get the very, very best people that we can, get them involved in this and then keep them involved in this so that we ... preserve continuity of the effort," the senior official said.

IEDs are not the new threat that many perceive them to be and actually have been used all over the world for decades. One of the first coordinated, large-scale uses of the devices was during World War II, when Belarusian guerillas used them against the Nazis to derail thousands of Nazi trains.

Remember, when you were a kid, on the school playground at recess and a couple of "tough" kids grabbed your hat (it was wintertime) and played keep-away? Or, maybe they took your baseball glove and you wanted to solve the problem. Or, maybe in High School, some wimpy guy who was full of himself would go up behind guys in the hall between classes and dump their books? Well, the solution to every one of these efforts to intimidate and harass is and was to forget the hat, forget the glove, don't pick up the books, just beat the ever living crap out of the perpetrator in an instant with a punch straight to the nose. When done right, nothing hurts more, and better, it should bring both tears and blood.

The solution to IEDs, although very messy, is to announce that for every IED that kills Americans or Iraq security forces, villages will be shelled and then bulldozed, just like what was done in WWII, and it worked. After a few villages or neighborhoods, the bombers get very little respect from those who want to remain among the living.

Maybe they should be checking out the hobby field for some ideas. For the fraction of the cost of a Predator or Global Hawk - they can have a swarm of these loitering to give round-the-clock surveillance of key roadways and jihad hotspots, using a variety of sensors.

These can be coupled with a fleet of these to provide close-in surveillance of suspicious activity

And if they need immediate action - they can call in some of these:

Just as a matter of comparison with the current DOD UAV program - here are some cost figures:

Global Hawk is the most expensive UAV currently available. As of mid-2002 the estimated unit costs had tripled over the original estimate of $15 million apiece. The aircraft costs about $48 million with a full sensor quite, or about $70 million each if development costs are included. By contrast, the smaller Predator costs about $4.5 million.

Source

I'd imagine if the DOD approached a gaggle of guys at your average RC club, they'd be doing backflips to help out building what it takes.

The key is proliferation of these units. With the current price tags of the Predator and Hawk, and the full tasking load of these scarce assets, constant widespread surveillance is impossible. These far simpler, cheaper and more limited-space-maneuverable RC craft make it a possibility.

"The solution to IEDs, although very messy, is to announce that for every IED that kills Americans or Iraq security forces, villages will be shelled and then bulldozed, just like what was done in WWII, and it worked. After a few villages or neighborhoods, the bombers get very little respect from those who want to remain among the living."

Yes, it would work. But be realistic. Look at the Abu Ghab thing. Politically, we are 1 million miles from being able to do as you say.

To put the matter in brutal but true terms, Americans for the most part still live soft, easy, safe-seeming lives. We do not, as a nation, see Iraq as a struggle for our own survival. Most Americans do not even know what such a struggle would be like.

In a sense, we are talking about why we will likely lose in Iraq.

Many people think that WWII ended in Europe with VE day and in Japan with VJ day but for about two years after VE day Americans, Brits, French, on western side, and Russia on the east side of the demarcation lost many soldiers rooting out Nazi resistance (just like what is going on in Iraq). Although I did not learn of this in school I did learn this over the years and in the past several years I viewed some footage of the action on the History Channel.

Americans did not "torture" suspected Nazi sympathizers, they shot them in the public square, in front of the town's people. This was after they shelled the village where suspects were discovered, and then they offered to bulldoze what remained. Through the Marshall plan, Germans were able to borrow to rebuild the destruction.

Russians supposedly lost between 100K and 200K men in the aftermath. I do not know what the western allies lost.

"Many people think that WWII ended in Europe with VE day and in Japan with VJ day but for about two years after VE day Americans, Brits, French, on western side, and Russia on the east side of the demarcation lost many soldiers rooting out Nazi resistance (just like what is going on in Iraq)."

There is an important difference. No one was refurbishing & resupplying the Nazis or replacing their manpower losses. In addition, you have not addressed the problem that this would be politically impossible today, partly because our own media is now controlled by the enemy.

Its a different time, different war.

First, I don't agree with the premise that this kind of action would be politically impossible, after all, the President can direct the Air Force to bomb targets, as Clinton did, to keep the blue dress off of the front page. Are you saying that taking measures that will be controversial is forbidden? Or, are you saying that because an election is coming up that the President doesn't have the onions to do what is required? Are you also saying that an American soldier is less important than some Iraqi civilian? Are you giving up because you believe that the media is controlled by the MSM?

So, you have weighed in on this but have yet to offer a solution. So, in all of your brilliance in determining what is wrong with what has worked in the past, what would you do? How would it be done? What are your solutions? Or, are you going to negotiate? And finally, do you have what it takes to be a survivor and a victor, or, are you a loser?

"First, I don't agree with the premise that this kind of action would be politically impossible, after all, the President can direct the Air Force to bomb targets, as Clinton did, to keep the blue dress off of the front page."

Are you saying that Bush could order other targets bombed to distract our attention from this sort of action (bombing out whole villages from whence terrorist actions originate?) This point is really pretty unclear to me (I catch the Monica Lewinski reference but don't see where you are going with it.)

"Are you saying that taking measures that will be controversial is forbidden?"

To an extent, yes.

"Or, are you saying that because an election is coming up that the President doesn't have the onions to do what is required?"

No, I'm not faulting the President here.

"Are you also saying that an American soldier is less important than some Iraqi civilian? "

No, but on a certain level, being engaged in Iraq at this time implies a willingness to sacrifice at least some US soldiers to achieve an objective in Iraq and that is political in nature. We cannot achieve a political objective inside Iraq without consideration for Iraqi civilians. If we have no political objective inside Iraq, we should simply leave immediately.

"Are you giving up because you believe that the media is controlled by the MSM?"

I believe you have not phrased this question exactly like you wanted to. Did you mean to say "Are you giving up because the MSM is controlled by the Left?" In either case, my answer to the question is no, but I am curious to know if you doubt that the MSM is controlled by the Left. I certainly do believe so, but this belief does not make me want to give up.

"So, you have weighed in on this but have yet to offer a solution. So, in all of your brilliance in determining what is wrong with what has worked in the past, what would you do? How would it be done? What are your solutions? Or, are you going to negotiate?"

I have offered my solutions in various places and times within FR posts and on Strategy Page. Initially, I thought we should have increased the number of troops in the country after the conquest. Failing that, I would have still devoted a fairly large amount of troops to sealing the border initially and keeping it sealed.

I also stated some time ago that the US should provide the Iraqi government with all the equipment and personnel needed to provide biometric ID driver's licenses for every driver, registrations for every car, a tamper-resistant are RF-ID for every car (minitored by a cell-phone-like network covering each major city, connected to supercomputers) , camcorder/transmitters installed in all Iraqi police stations, and airborne rapid response teams (US soldiers) to instantly respond to any attack on an Iraqi police station. I have also suggested that vehicles in US convoys be driven by remote control to eliminate casualties of US drivers.

"And finally, do you have what it takes to be a survivor and a victor, or, are you a loser?"

I don't know the answer to that question...yet.

Thanks for the answers. Seldom do members on these threads take the effort to actually have a gentile conversation and it is refreshing when one occurs.

You are correct in that I did not pose the question about the liberal media properly. I seldom reread my replies except for basic word insertion (as spelling is a computer function) and grammar.

In reality, the way to solve the IED problem with American soldiers is to order that they no longer patrol city streets, in uncontrolled areas, or, leave the country entirely. Neither of these can or will be done however and I don't recommend it either.

I think we will find out what the ultimate solution is is several months to a year or so. When Hamas again gets back in the business of killing Jewish women and children and when Iran is ready to test a nuclear weapon, solving the IED problem will be the least of the Islamic peoples problems. The thought of shelling a few neighborhoods or villages will be pale compared to what will be done to secure the survival of the West and the Jewish state.

Glad to see we are still "OK" with each other.

"In reality, the way to solve the IED problem with American soldiers is to order that they no longer patrol city streets, in uncontrolled areas, or, leave the country entirely. Neither of these can or will be done however and I don't recommend it either."

Reminds me of one of my old solutions I forgot to mention. Instead of pointing to withdrawing US troops from Iraq, as we seem to be headed toward, I wanted to gradually "withdraw to the periphery." While training the Iraqis, and arming them with tanks, artillery, helicopters, and A-10s (but not jet fighters), I would move US troops to an outer shell on the Iraqi border (which would include 2 or 3 airbases). As more US troops took up these positions, the border would be completely sealed to unauthorized penetration. Hence, the terrorists would not be restocked or reinforced. At the same time, tensions would ease as US troop contacts with Iraqis would cease and US casualties would cease. At the same time, the Iraqis could kick out the media.

"I think we will find out what the ultimate solution is is several months to a year or so. When Hamas again gets back in the business of killing Jewish women and children and when Iran is ready to test a nuclear weapon, solving the IED problem will be the least of the Islamic peoples problems. The thought of shelling a few neighborhoods or villages will be pale compared to what will be done to secure the survival of the West and the Jewish state."

I agree with the gist of your point. The equilibrium is changing and no one can really predict what will happen next, but change is coming.

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.