America's Stunning Victory-(Modern Day Blitzkrieg and the M1-Abrams)

It is now apparent that Iraq is on the verge of defeat. The threat to U.S. lines of communications has been countered. Any delays to America’s forward advance were therefore insignificant. At the same time, Iraqi forces were unable to launch an effective counterattack. As these words are written, Iraq’s best divisions are being shredded, the Iraqi people are turning against the regime of Saddam Hussein, and the prospect of a sudden Iraqi collapse is before us.

If Saddam’s army collapses or surrenders in the next two or three weeks the war will be nothing short of a blitzkrieg operation. The word “blitzkrieg” is German for lightning war. Instead of fighting for many months or years to defeat a country, lightning warfare collapses a country in a matter of weeks. This method of warfare is chiefly attributed to two British military theorists, J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart. In describing the application of the blitzkrieg technique against Poland in World War II, Fuller explained: “German armoured tactics were based on speed more so than on firepower, for their object was to accelerate confusion.” This passage helps us to understand why British and American troops were ordered to advance rapidly into the very heart of Iraq. The object was, as Fuller stated, “to accelerate confusion.” Fuller also noted that “points of resistance, fortified areas, anti-tank positions, woods and villages were normally avoided, and the lines of least resistance leading to the enemy’s rear were sought out.” This is exactly what U.S. and British forces have done in Iraq. And just as this technique worked in the Second World War, it works today.

The speed of the coalition advance, the massive bombing campaign and the direct strike at the dictator himself,

accelerated Iraqi confusion as allied forces bypassed fortifications and heavily defended urban areas. In 1939 the German forces collapsed Poland in 27 days. The coalition timetable in Iraq appears to be of similar length. What is astonishing is the small size of the invading forces in the Iraq operation. We are now seeing the effectiveness of real-time battle management. In the divisional engagements now taking place we see that Iraqi forces cannot react or coordinate their moves in a timely fashion. This is not only due to bombing, but is also due to rapid U.S. troop movements. Consequently, the Third Infantry and First Marine divisions are picking apart the Republican Guard divisions in front of Baghdad.

The American operational method differs from the German blitzkrieg in the incredible precision of America’s firepower. United States forces now combine firepower superiority with high maneuverability. Add to this the real-time management of friendly forces that gives U.S. troops a rare invulnerability. We are seeing this demonstrated before our eyes. The only way to cope with this kind of advantage is to use weapons of mass destruction, including electromagnetic (EMP) warheads, to disrupt America’s decisive command-and-control advantage and to counter America’s firepower advantage. It is safe to say that the Iraqi position has deteriorated to such an extent that a coalition victory can only be disrupted if Iraq uses biological, chemical or atomic weapons. Even in that event, it is probable that such attacks would be self-defeating for the Iraqi regime, both morally and militarily.

It was recently acknowledged that the Pentagon planned a 30 day operation against Saddam Hussein. Despite the disruption of this plan by Turkey’s refusal to allow the Fourth Infantry Division to pass through Turkish territory and attack from the north, the operation will probably be accomplished within the allotted 30 days. Those in the media who erroneously allege that U.S. officials promised victory in hours or days have been lying, and their ulterior motives deserve closer scrutiny. Such reports reveal a sour impulse to portray victories as defeats and rapid advances as “setbacks.” Politically distorted persons, some of them military professionals, have mischaracterized this campaign in a way that is unfair to the Bush administration and the Pentagon. Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark recently suggested that a quick coalition victory is “not going to happen.” Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter told a Lisbon radio interviewer on Tuesday, “The U.S. is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win.”

Those who oppose the war out of ideological hatred, who are eager to gloat over an American defeat, have dug a pit for themselves. When this war is over, who will want to be associated with the wrongheaded claims of those who secretly looked forward to America’s defeat? Evidence of Iraqi duplicity and the horror of Saddam’s terror regime will be proved. For those too lazy to read the documentary evidence before the war, there will be pictures and eyewitness testimonials broadcast on television in the aftermath. Of course, persons animated by anti-American ideology will cling to their bitter rhetoric; but these will be separated from sane opinion by a clear and ever-widening divide.

Through all of this, America’s real enemies have learned an important lesson: namely, that U.S. military power can only be effectively opposed by employing mass destruction weapons at the outset of a conflict. If U.S. power is to be overthrown in the world, that overthrow must rely upon nuclear, biological and chemical munitions. Only an attack that destroys U.S. conventional military advantages is workable, and this attack must be overwhelming. In order to work effectively a mass destruction attack must decapitate the U.S. leadership. It must cripple the U.S. economy and paralyze the American military. Anything short of this merely invites destruction in turn. The same lesson can be drawn from the terror attacks of Sept. 11. As destructive as the attacks were, the United States is a huge country with nearly 290 million people. Killing 3,000 persons and destroying two large buildings only served to stir the sleeping giant into action.

Ironically, those in Iraq and Afghanistan who celebrated Sept. 11 as a victory are now stewing in defeat. This is the fruit of Sept. 11. Instead of stimulating an Islamic holy war against the West, the United States will have effectively eliminated two hostile regimes. We may shortly learn that both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead. The lesson of these actions will not be missed in Tehran, Damascus, Pyongyang or Beijing. Dictatorships suffer from intrinsic weaknesses. They are economically brittle, technologically backward and administratively challenged. It cannot be repeated too often that the weapons of choice for such regimes must therefore be nuclear, chemical and biological. Only by leveling the playing field with such weapons do the inferior states of the totalitarian periphery stand a chance against American technological and administrative vitality.

The Soviet theorists of the 1960s were correct when they wrote: “Strategic missile troops will be the basic troops of modern massive armed forces. They are the decisive force at the disposal of supreme commands.” If you cannot win with conventional forces, if you are thoroughly outclassed on the battlefield, you must turn to the great equalizer. What the United States must do now, in the wake of its victory in Iraq, is anticipate the anti-American coalition’s intensification of WMD proliferation. This will be their response to America’s victory. Since this is a potentially effective strategy, the United States must solidify its defenses against such weapons.

The problem is that technology is going to continue to advance. Proliferation is going to continue. In fact, I predict that without external influence, rogue states will develop the capability to turn out WMD as easily as we turn out desktop computers today.

Thus while it may be possible for the US to stay ahead of the curve. We will have to be ever vigilant. And possibly excercise an ever increasing amount of control over such states.

I agree, the real solution is to replace the despots with economic/political systems based on personal property right, free markets and representative goverment, a tall order but necessary to win the war on terror.

The rela hope of Operation Iraqi Freedom is to spark a revolution in the Middle East and convince the Chinese to curb the PRNK or have to deal with a Neuclar Taiwan and Japan.

Where I really disagree with Carter is how to effect that change. He thinks a smile and a handshake and a handout will do it. He thinks friendship can be bought.

I'm not so naive. I think respect for human rights must be taught. And we need to focus on the areas of the world where respect is not practiced and where it is not taught. The palestinian schools for example, as well as the schooling of most of the middle east needs to be thoroughly reworked.

We are going to need to be increasingly premptive and not just when the threat is obvious as it was with Saddam. We need to build a world in which respect for human life is fostered, and that has checks and balances to keep a few from unfostering it like Saddam did.

And we should always awayts maintaing our military superiority.

"I agree, the real solution is to replace the despots with economic/political systems based on personal property right, free markets and representative goverment, a tall order but necessary to win the war on terror."

A "tall order" indeed. Take Iraq for example. The wealth of Iraq is in the oil below. No one has property rights on this land. It always has, and always will belong to the Iraq government. So, from the very onset, of any new Iraq government, no matter what the form, it will be Facists in nature, since the government will own most all the wealth producing property. The corruption will start immediately, with the criminals, opportunists, and power mongers rising to the top of any new government. Saddam came to power this way. The vicious cycle will start all over again.

How the hell do we ever teach these people the concept of property rights and free enterprise? I suggest we never will until all the oil is pumped dry, and they are left with no other choice but to go to work to make a living instead of fighting over their oil money.

"what are the wedge shaped markings on the tanks (see the picture in #25)? Is it a unit insignia or something?"

I'm more of a WWII armor buff but I believe some call it the "rotating chevron". It can point up, down, left or right and denotes what platoon or maybe company a vehicle belongs to.

In WWII the panzers generally used a three number code like "214". This denoted the fourth vehicle, in the first platoon belonging to the second company. A company commander's tank would be someting like 200 or 201.

Here's a question? Don't we use National Markings on our tanks anymore? What happened to the white or black stars painted on tanks?

As Leto says, the imperative is to create a world built upon our first principles of justice, liberty, and equality. Carter's submission, to which I know you don't subscribe, won't get there. In this world, where evil grows where good is not sewn, preemption means more than might. Carter's doctrine is faith without act, the greatest sin. Carter wants the one without the other. He is insipid and wrong.

That's the kind of thinking that led the Carter-ites to believe -- and they did -- in the supremacy of the Soviet economic model. Contempt is the least of my emotions for them.

The American seed won't grow without watering. We must always be strong.

The challenge of the 20th century was to defeat totalitarianism and communism with our political concept that was percieved by many, worldwide and domestically, as a failure. We have proved its supremacy. The 21st century challenge will be to make it happen worldwide.

Only in strength and steadfast resolve can it happen. This is a great start.

" In this world, where evil grows where good is not sewn, preemption means more than might. Carter's doctrine is faith without act, the greatest sin. Carter wants the one without the other. He is insipid and wrong. That's the kind of thinking that led the Carter-ites to believe -- and they did -- in the supremacy of the Soviet economic model. Contempt is the least of my emotions for them."

That's quote of the day material (at least, it gets my vote).

Perhaps they have something better up their sleves? ;-)

The goal of the future combat vehicle (or actually a system of complementary vehicles) is to be able to project force rapidly and lethally anywhere in the world. The only way the Army figured it could do this was to have something light enough to be carried on a C-130. Thus, the primary constraint on the future combat system are to be about 20 tons, instead of 70, and smaller dimensions as well.

This approach is completely different from past combat vehicle design approaches. which instead specified lethality and vulnerability requirements, and let the system grow to accomodate them.

As such, the new approach is viewed by some as high risk, in that it will need to rely on many advanced lethality and [anti-]vulnerability technologies to make a 20 ton vehicle just as survivable as the current 70 ton M1 platform.

I know the guys who designed the M1-Ax armor packages and you can be sure that they are busting hump to try to figure out ways to build a better mouse trap for less weight.

The true test is a battlefield where air superiority is not assured.

While that may be true in a strict test of "tank" capability, the tank is evolving into a network of interconnected and intercommunicating vehicles known as a "combat system," which should be truly integrated on the battlefield. So while it may, at some point, have to survive "on its own as a single platform," that is not the design vision, nor the system's intended strength. It is intended to be most lethal and survivable as an element of a larger network of interoperating platforms, which include airborne and land-based platforms of all types.

If you watch Star Trek, think "Borg."

If America is defeated, it will be by the leftists within, not the enemies without.

You really believe the leftists will win? You really believe they might win? Oh, hell, you probably believe they've already won.

I don't.

So don't give me that punk-ass, defeatist bull bile. You wanna give in to Chuckie Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and the Rockefeller Foundation, that's your problem. I ain't so gullible. The only people who fear defeat more than you are the Left. And you join them.

I'm tired, so tired, and so bored with the White Flag Brigade. I bet you bitch and laugh at the French, then you go haul their white flag at home. You wanna give in to Ted Kennedy, that's you're problem. I'll fight it out like the 3ID here at home.

Why do you say these things? Fight, brother, fight. Or, just pass on thru.

Whatever.

I don't think the Japanese had any real concept of private property and free enterprise after WW2, they were still a feudal society. It can happen but it won't be easy, we could fail to 'win the peace'. The risk/reward justifies the attempt.

Appeasment is always doomed to failure. Where American, bring unique value to the equation is our desire to help rather than exploit. This is an instinct that our enemies and most of the world for that matter doesn't understand.

We need to do the right thing here as wekk as in Afganistan and show the Muslim world that there is a better way.

America is the only country in the world that has the moral clarity and faith to make the attempt.

"It is intended to be most lethal and survivable as an element of a larger network of interoperating platforms, which include airborne and land-based platforms of all types. If you watch Star Trek, think "Borg."

One change, think "Borg" overall networking capability combined with full Captain Piccard/Kirk local command and control individualism.

Thus, what we are fielding today is a conceptual hybrid of *both* the Borg and Federation systems.

And frankly, it would just about take a futuristic starship to give our current military a run for its money. The rest of this planet lags *way* behind us.

...."these are my babies..."

ME TOO! Ah...a fellow D.A.T. !!

I went through the Armor Officers Advanced Course at Fort Knox in 1993 and the M1A1 Tank Commander's Course that same year as well. I dearly love the machine known as "Whispering Death." I was a branch transfer after spending ten years as an Infantry Officer. I'm a teacher now, but every time I see the M1A1 thunder across the desert, my heart rides with them. God knows I tried to get my commission back after 9-11. Thanks for the pics, I have sent the link to my fellow former tankers. Aric2000: You can explain what a D.A.T. is if you like...lol

One change, think "Borg" overall networking capability combined with full Captain Piccard/Kirk local command and control individualism.

True indeed. The vehicles will be Borg-like, but operated by creative servicemen who will be trained and prepared to take local initiative. I certainly didn't mean to malign the folk drivin' those platforms. They are our true strength.

Ah yes, concieved and named many years ago by Keith Laumer (a man of many talents)- you refer to the magnificent "Bolo".

We could certainly have used the indomitable Jame Retief as our Ambassador to the UN. This thing would have been over about the second day of the sanctions against Iraq.

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.