Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Review Online's "The Corner" Is A Great Daily Wartime Read (Excerpt Included)
National Review Online ^ | 03/29/2003 | Misc, Including Johan Goldberg

Posted on 03/29/2003 6:11:18 PM PST by LincolnLover

NRO.com's "The Corner" feature is a running commentary among various NRO editors. Jonah Goldberg posts (anonymously, of course) interesting analysis he receives from his "guys"--people who seem to have real, in-depth know-how on certain topics, which Jonah in turn shares with his readers.

A sample is the latest from Jonah's "military guy". A real interesting read, IMO:

A QUESTION FOR MILITARY GUY [Jonah Goldberg]

A reader asked:

Jonah:

Saw an analysis today claiming the Iraqis are using the Soviet (surprise, surprise) strategy of "maskirovka": having us waste expensive ordnance on dummy targets, while they hide the real stuff; transmitting phony messages about troop movements, command-and-control status, etc.; not turning on radar to keep it hidden, not launching their missiles...yet.

I asked my military guy. His answer is very interesting:

"Absolutely possible, and unless they are complete idiots, probably true to an extent. That said, they can also be complete idiots. This is a perfect example of Clausewitzian 'friction' that makes the Clausewitz dictum true: In war, everything is simple. It also is very difficult."

Unless the Iraqi military and intelligence services were completely asleep at the switch, they went to school on what happened in Kosovo - where the Serbs were very successful in spoofing us regarding hard targets. The Serbs had an easier time of it, living as they do in a comparatively heavily populated, forested and hilly region.

I got involved in BDAA. Bomb Damage Assessment Assessment. In short, we took a look at what the BDA people were calling kills and looked really, really hard. The Serbs were doing things like using the same bomb-damaged tank and moving it around over and over again. Since we were on a pretty predictable schedule (and the press helped them here, unintentionally) they knew we'd fly over, take pictures, process pictures, build the ATO (Air Tasking Order) and bomb where we saw the tank.

The problem was, they knew the rhythm. After darkness, they'd move the tank, and put something else in there - like a tractor (so it would have an engine heat signature), stick a pipe on it (so the pilot would see (from very high, possibly through haze) a thing with a heat signature, and a long barrel looking thingy. Since that's pretty much what he expected to see where he expected to see it - he 'pickled' his bomb.

Still flying away, he's watching the target through his targeting pod, sees the explosion, sees secondaries (gas tank) and reports a kill. Then, the Serbs come in with an already blown up tank, clear some of the junk (not very well, that's how we finally figured it out) and left the burned out tank there for the post-strike recon.

So, Saddam can be doing the same thing - though he has less cover and concealment to do it. The other thing that militates against it being too successful is that we have been watching his stuff for months, literally. You should see some good classified imagery someday (after it's been declas, of course!). We've watched his tanks move from motor pool to laager site, to battle position. We know what his tanks look like, the markings, etc.

We know how much and what kind of transport he has. One difficult thing about moving around decoys is getting your tracks right. Real track marks, not a lot of tire marks, etc. He learned a long time ago not to turn a radar on if you want to keep your radar. Fire it up, and a HARM is riding the beam right back down to the emitter. Or a Maverick, if you are in the tactical zone.

There are some great camera videos of gunners suddenly realizing that the gunner's seat is about to become a very lethal place to sit, and they make Jesse Owens look slow.

From another perspective, for maskirovka to work, it is most effective when you are showing the enemy what he wants to believe, while you are doing something else. The problem here is in terms of force deployments, especially with JSTARS in the air, he doesn't have a lot of options - he pretty much has to do what we want him to do with his heavy forces - there isn't much more he can do other than concentrate them conveniently for us on nice flat open ground.

And everytime he tries to move them and the JSTARS picture doesn't match the commo intercepts, well, we look hard at what's going on.

Do I think he's doing things like that. Yep. Will they preserve his heavy combat power? Nope. His irregulars, however - that's a different story. And he HAS managed to launch a few FROGs and maybe SCUDs without getting all his launchers whacked. So it can be done.

Frankly, at this point, I'm more concerned about the nightmare proposed by Formal Military Planning Guy. Though, I think it will be Widows and Orphans day in Syria if Assad the Younger is dumb enough to move his tanks en masse towards our guys in the west.

His window of opportunity is going to be open until we can get something like the 4th ID and/or 1st Cav in the region. The problem there is, that's heavy metal sitting out there staring at Syria, not Saddam. And to get us to have to do something like that, all Assad the Younger has to do is move stuff closer. Not cross the border. Which GWB will remember, and Assad may then live the nightmare of unintended consequences and self-fulfilling prophecies.

Of course, it may be Tet all over again for us, too. Dammit."


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: goldberg; nationalreview; thecorner

1 posted on 03/29/2003 6:11:18 PM PST by LincolnLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Great post except for this:

Of course, it may be Tet all over again for us, too.

Tet was an unmitigated disaster for the communists despite what the American press said.

2 posted on 03/29/2003 6:16:01 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristcorecard/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Didn't we actually win Tet?
3 posted on 03/29/2003 6:19:23 PM PST by Timesink (If you use the word "embedded" in a conversation, you'd better be carrying an x-ray to show me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Tet was a win in our column, technically. However, it is remembered differently.
4 posted on 03/29/2003 6:22:38 PM PST by Pinetop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
I think that's his point. We'll win all the battles, but the press will successfully portray it as a defeat.

I don't think so, myself.

5 posted on 03/29/2003 6:23:00 PM PST by merrin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: merrin
Exactly. We crushed the NVA and Cong in Tet, but the media and liberals got a hold of it and well, we all know the rest..
6 posted on 03/29/2003 6:25:57 PM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
We won TET..actually we won the Vietnam War...we just picked up our ball and went home before the final whistle...and allowed the N to just waltz in and take the south..
It was Walter Crackpipe who said the War "was unwinnable" even while we were winning.
And middle class Americans trusted him..and he abused that trust with his grievous deception
7 posted on 03/29/2003 6:34:00 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Of course, it may be Tet all over again for us, too. Dammit."

I would like an Iraqi Tet offensive myself. Press reports aside, our troups slaughtered the VC and NVA during the Tet offensive. Either the NRO "military guy" isn't all he's cracked up to be, or he is too young and not well versed in military history.

8 posted on 03/29/2003 6:37:19 PM PST by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
A buddy who was a platoon leader in 'Nam told me they didn't realize they "lost" Tet until they got back to the states.
9 posted on 03/29/2003 6:46:33 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: merrin
You need to watch more CNN/ABC/NBC/BBC/CBS/ALJAZEERA/ETC. they will do *ANYTHING* that will protect Saddam and/or hurt the US.

the Left is playing full-court press with this war. the problem for them is...

so is GWB!


10 posted on 03/29/2003 6:52:08 PM PST by chilepepper (Gnocchi Seuton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Enlightiator
The current tricks of saddam *are* a kind of Tet offensive. militarily dumb, assymetric, and intended to impact the propaganda war.

At this rate, it's a calamity for his men.
11 posted on 03/29/2003 7:24:20 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
if you're going to the national review, make sure to read victor david hanson's columns. his book on the war on terro is a classic, imho.
12 posted on 03/29/2003 7:26:30 PM PST by jays911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Tet was a major win for the US. The Viet Cong nearly ceased to exist after that.
13 posted on 03/29/2003 7:27:58 PM PST by Burkeman1 (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Peter Braestrup, who for a while was married to a friend of mine, covered Vietnam for the New York Times but subsequently quit and wrote a book on the Tet offensive, giving the true picture. Unfortunately it didn't do any good; the usual suspects just ignored it and went about their business of undermining our country.
14 posted on 03/29/2003 7:31:52 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
In Viet Nam, we lost 47,369 soldiers in combat, with another 10,799 to other causes associated with the war. The war lasted from 1964 to 1975. During that same time period, the Viet Cong lost more than 2,000,000 soldiers to combat.

To put this in perspective, we lost 11 soldiers a day compared to 498.

During the conflict, we had over 8,700,000 enrolled military personal. Your chances of being KIA were 0.2%.

2,594,000 troops actually served within the borders. Meaning that you had a 1.8% chance of being KIA 1.8% if you actually set foot within the borders.

The Viet Cong lost almost as many KIA as we had posted on the ground during the entire war.

I'd say we prosecuited the war fairly effectively. We just simply did not have the leadership to win.
15 posted on 03/29/2003 9:40:06 PM PST by poundsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover

V

for later reading

16 posted on 03/29/2003 9:48:51 PM PST by cgk (the Mrs half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk
Bumping this thread with a gem of a story from earlier today (April 9):

"COLOR FROM THE FRONT" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An embed in the rough Najaf/Karbala area shares this with me:

"I was out looking at some soldiers and one of them was sharing some cookies he had just received in the mail. A photographer walked over to him and asked in a heavy French accent for a cookie. The soldier glanced up and told him no cookies for anyone from France.

The photographer claimed he was half Italian. Without missing a beat the soldier broke a cookie in half and handed it over."

17 posted on 04/09/2003 12:05:07 PM PDT by LincolnLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson