Posted on 02/20/2003 5:01:56 PM PST by 11th_VA
Huh? Powell doctine? Massive and overwhelming force has been the approach for at least 60 years. I don't think Powell had anything to do with it. Weird thing to say.
See for instance abcnews.com - Fighting Words - April 9, 2001:
The so-called "Powell Doctrine," most famously applied when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, advocates using American forces according to three criteria:
- A vital national interest is at stake.
- A clear strategy and objectives have been set.
- Massive, overwhelming power is used, as it was in Panama and the Gulf War.
Taking his lessons from Vietnam, the retired general has written that he would not have U.S. soldiers engaged again in "half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons."
Can't we have operations with different names, like "Operation Martin Sheen", "Operation Gephardt"? Just to p*ss the libs off.
I think we deviated from this in Vietnam. Powell started his career in a theater where it seemed that we were never quite willing to commit the resources necessary to decisively win the conflict. Too much piecemeal execution, which I believe make a big impression on Powell ... either you commit a force large enough to win or you don't get involved.
That said, "massive force" today does not necessarily mean what it did a few years ago. History is filled with a lot of examples where the military prepared to fight the last war, and failed to fully appreciate the implications of new technologies and techniques. (Billy Mitchell is a classic example of someone who had a vision of what was possible in the future yet paid a major price for thinking "outside the box".)
I think we have some leaders in place now that have truly thought about new ways to convincingly win. We are going to deploy massive force -- just a new definition of massive force.
Thanks. I understand now the context that this article was using it in. I, personally, still see it as wrong to associate a concept that has been around so long to Powell. But I applaud the guy for supporting it.
I think Rumsfield is a pretty cool guy. I love watching him on TV. I am concerned, however that he may have the wrong definition of victory (if I may be so humble :) ).
R is seeing victory as the capture of Iraq and the replacement of its government. Valid and resonable.
But I think the definition of victory should take into account the reaction of islamic forces. I don't think they are going to look at a really cool war plan and say "wow. those Americans really do cool war planning." Rather if we went in with good old fashioned massive force and blew the cr*p out of everything it would put the fear of (the real) God in them and they would respect us more.
Terrifying the enemy should be the definition of victory.
I'm concerned that a cool/nifty/out-of-the-box approach to this may win the battle but not advance the war.
I got stuck on the word always. It's such a broad incautious statement, and I don't believe very cautious Powell said it like that. It was probably more like ...created the idea that the US should use massive and overwhelming force in any war when and where we can.
Compare that to less than 500 or so precision munitions used during the entire first Gulf War.
Also, nearly 80% of the munitions planned for use this time around are some form of 'smart' weapon compared with 20% in 1991.
Add to that all of the new 'toys' the folks in military R and D have been putting the finishing touches on for the last decade or so and this Nation has an incredible amount of punch to deliver in the first few days of the coming War.
"Shock And Awe" isn't going to apply solely to the poor bastards in the Iraqi military once GWB decides to pull the trigger (assuming he does). It's going to shock and awe a whole bunch of petty tin pot dictators both in the Middle East and around the world. At least that's what I hope.
That doesn't mean that getting the job done in Iraq isn't going to come down to soldiers with mud on their boots and blood on their uniforms. That's the only way to effect what is called these days 'regime change'. Always has been, always will be.
God willing, the politicos don't think they can pull this thing off from 50,000 feet and they have a plan to massively take and hold ground.
Regards,
L
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.