Military strategies

The Washington Times ^ | April 20, 2006 | Robert H. Scales

[neverdem]

--snip--
    Budgets reflected this love affair with aerial killing. Since Gen. Huba's first exposition in the early 1990s, 70 percent of defense investments, more than $1.3 trillion, have gone into shock and awe, delivered by Air Force and Navy aircraft and missiles.

    The Army got 16 percent. Thus, we come today to an amazingly perverse strategic circumstance. We have more first-line fighter aircraft costing $50 million to $400 million per copy than we have Army and Marine infantry squads, costing less than $100,000 each.

    Since Gen. Huba's experiments began, we have achieved a "kill ratio" in aerial combat of 257 to one over enemy air...

--snip--

     So here we are trying to find a way to rid Iran of its nuclear weapons and the only warfighting tool in the tool box is shock and awe. Simply put, there is no ground option. We have too few soldiers to fight the wars we have, much less take on another enemy. Even if we had the ground forces, without an aerial maneuver option we could never hope to reach Iran's nuclear facilities by a ground invasion. So we'll blow them all up with bombs. Right.

     I'm quite sure that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prays daily for a dose of shock and awe. It would be a badge of honor to have survived a fruitless aerial killing campaign only to resume serious work on building a bomb with the full support of the morally aggrieved Iranian people.

     In time, of course, we could add an aerial maneuver tool to the toolbox, a capability that would give the president at least one option for the future other than aerial assault. But the plan now is to reduce, not increase, the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

[GSlob]

"no airplane or missile can ever take or hold ground. Only the Soldier (or Marine) with a rifle can do that."
But any piece of ground may be rendered unholdable [and uninhabitable for years to come] by the enemy. And an airplane or a missile could do it much more effectively than a Soldier or a Marine.

[Wristpin]

You can't defend the American people if you can't retain quality people in the military.


Right now you have the Dems, attempting to move right of the Republicans pretending to be "Security Democrats". Anybody who has spent a couple of decades in the military knows that when the Dems are in the Whitehouse, readiness and retention goes down crapper. Retention was far worse in the late 90's despite the back, to back, to back deployments these guys and their families are sustaining.

Some of that is from the massive pay raises Bush signed into law. My point is that is the American people should be aware of it and not just get fed the "victimization of the military" spin from the Rats.

[neverdem]

You still want to be in one of those bunkers?

I wouldn't want to be wrong end of a well aimed .22 short. It depends on how deep it is, the geology between the surface on the ground and the roof of the installation, if there is a roof - how is it built, above all - targeting co-ordinates.

[gogogodzilla]

According to the article, it would cost $100,000 to arm and equip an infantry squad.

[gogogodzilla]

Care to explain how you'd occupy Iraq and Afganistan... invade Iran, and fight North Korea without any more troops?

While still maintaining our troops in Bosnia and conducting the ever-so-popular 'humanitarian' missions like tsunami relief (that seem to pop up all the time).

Perhaps we should really consider reducing our troop levels instead?

[Doc91678]

When will the politicians in Washington learn to understand that no matter how much technology, no matter how many planes in the sky. The final arbiter of war is the men with boots on the ground. You may win the battle by air, but it takes boots on the ground to hold the territory.

[RGRX]

A basic squad of infantry consists of 11 men. 1 squad leader, 2 team leaders, and 8 riflemen.
Occasionally they will have a gun team attached of an extra 3 men.

[axes_of_weezles]

I call BS.

The Army's "Men with Boots" have not gotten out of Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, had armor and artillery that were real big winners in Panama, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, East Timor.

Face it the Cold War is over, you wont be doing rotations in Germany like the old days.

Westly Clark and Shinsecki couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

You dont get more money for your branch of service by whining about other services. You have to be able to think on your feet, improvise adapt overcome; realize what you need to fight todays problem and procure for your current and future needs. It means thinking ahead. That's something the Army has been deficient in.

The Army has had it's share of procurement and supply failures and they have no one to blame for Iraq. All the services have had since '91 to prepare for this one.
I would buy a mirror for these whining bunch of so-called leaders who retire and whine.

[Doc91678]

You can bomb the heck out of any country. You can hold it unless there are men on the ground. I am not proposing that we have a 5 million man Army. However, we must maintain the forces we have.
I'm all for technology and I'm all for using specialized aircraft and bombs. But in the last analysis men have to go in to hold the ground that was won by other means.
Prove me wrong.

[axes_of_weezles]

Regime change does not always mean an occupying force for perpetuity.

A determined sniper could take care of the issue with Iran.

Why would we want to "hold" Iran?

We want to "stop" Iran. Where is the value added in "holding" Iran?

[PzLdr]

In Desert Storm, after all the bombing, strafing, etc., etc.,it took the Army and the Marines to go in and take Kuwait; and to destroy the Republican Guard [which was within reach of Allied air power throughout the campaign]. The Iraqis didn't book until the ground forces went in.

In the 'shock and awe' phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, what exactly did air do, except make for some nice TV shots?

Is air power an important component? You betcha. Is it the key? Only in the Donald's dreams. The Luftwaffe had absolute air superiority over the Soviet Union in 1941. Didn't win. Same for us over Japan. They didn't throw in the towel 'til the mushrooms sprouted.Ground power wins wars. Can you win a campaign without air superiority? Check Rommel's 1942 campaign [and he failed in '41 with air superiority]. Can you win a war without air power? Yep. Check Viet Nam.

[Doc91678]

I did not mention holding Iran or Iraq. I'd be the first to say let's get out of Iraq when the job is done. It is not finished. As far as Iran is concerned. I'm sorry to say that I think that there will be nuclear war. They will use the bomb(s) first, but we will clear them out. It will still take men to go in and make sure that the guys responsible are taken out. Then because we are humanitarians we will help rebuild their country. The devastation that will be wrought in the U.S. will be absorbed by the nation. My only wish is that those who detracted us from the start should be caught in the blast(s). But no such luck.

[axes_of_weezles]

PZLdr:

What did the army do in the intervening 15 years to plan and prepare for Iraq?

Are your going to blast Rummy for the Army's slow supply chain, bad tactics, bad equipment, lack of personal protective equipment?

[axes_of_weezles]

Only the Air Component and SF are ready to go- right now.
When the decision is made.

You cant drive tanks and troops halfway around the world overnight.

We dont have the luxury of 15 years of planning for an invasion.

We dont need to "hold" Iran.

Regime change right now before they start putting their missiles on commercial boats and nuking NYC and DC.

[calex59]

In Desert Storm, after all the bombing, strafing, etc., etc.,it took the Army and the Marines to go in and take Kuwait; and to destroy the Republican Guard [which was within reach of Allied air power throughout the campaign]. The Iraqis didn't book until the ground forces went in.

Air power is the key. Try taking and holding something without it. As I said, Germany found out that without air power at the end of WWII their tanks and men were useless because air power destroyed them and kept them pinned down while our troops finished them off. Want more proof? The Germans were winning the battle of the bulge until the fog lifted and our air could come in and knock them silly and allow our ground troops to stop them and drive them back. Want to use Desert Storm and Gulf War 2? Ok, without the airpower we would have had a hell of a time holding what we won, which we won in large part do to air superiority. Air power is used every day in Iraq and vietnam and without it the jobs of the ground troops would be a lot harder if not impossible, because if we didn't have air superiority, the enemy would have and that would make our troops far less effective. Without air superiority ground troops are almost useless.

I am not asking you to believe this, just stating facts and if you don't want to see it that's your problem. I am just glad you aren't running procurement for our armed services!

[Patrick_k]

"We dont need to "hold" Iran"
That is the key word. Could not say it better.
Winning a war is imposing fully your will and driving the enemy into total submission, meaning extracting from his mind and soul the idea of continuing struggle in any other way.
It took more than bombing Germany to the stone age and more than the ride to Berlin to win WW2. It took also the full purge of nazi doctrine to complete the victory.
Could it be done in Iran? even in a more subtle and skilful way?
Now marking points, no matter how high, is a completely different ball game.

[balch3]

I never thought the Washington Times would resort to Rummy bashing, and that's what this article amounts to.

[JasonC]

You were talking about Bush getting credit. It was whining. It was silly, and I called you on it. Changing the subject doesn't change that. Being elected and re-elected president is all the credit the country can give, and nobody interested in their duty or the mission gives a flying embrace at a rolling breakfast pastry about who gets what degree of credit.

[Wristpin]

Changing the subject? Readiness and warfighting are the subject. If his PR machine doesn't get it in gear another Dem will be in the Whitehouse and the cycle will repeat itself.

I served under five different CIC's and saw it first hand so kiss my ass!

You are probably unaware that the VA Budget is up nearly 75 percent since he took office, yet the Dems get mileage out of screaming about cuts.

[thinking]

Yes, as long as there is fuel for the engines.....