Sunday - March 30, 2003
Conduct of the War to Date
The war in Iraq has been going for a couple weeks
now and it appears that despite the confusion which inevitably results from war,
things are going somewhat well. We have yet to suffer a tactical defeat and it
appears to the armchair warrior that I am that Iraq's military is being
pulverized.
Some things bother me
though. I've read numerous statements from officers in Iraq that they are
surprised by the paramilitary forces. This is an incredible statement to make.
First, they told us that is exactly what they would do. Second, any sane general
would do the same thing. We are an invading army with overwhelming military
superiority and this is the only way the Iraqis can slow us down. So why does
that surprise anyone? It's very worrisome that these statements are being
made.
More importantly, I'm concerned about the
apparent slowdown in the offensive to protect lines of supply. Perhaps this is
necessary, I'm not there and I can't see what's happening directly. It seems to
me that we made great success when everyone thought Saddam Hussein was dead, his
military power almost evaporated. We only met resistance when he stuck his ugly
head back out of the ground and convinced the Iraqis that he was alive. The
original plan to surround and attack Baghdad is still crucial, and speed is
still very important.
An important
concept in military operations, or at least one I like, is the OODA loop. OODA
stands for "Observe, Orient, Decide, Act." The side that can execute this loop
faster has the advantage. The term comes from military aviation, and so having a
shorter OODA loop cycle is called "turning inside" their OODA loop. The goal is
simple: Act to new situations faster than the other guy, and make him
continuously react to your actions, rather than strike out with new plans of his
own.
We had the Iraqi military reeling
and now we're slowing or maybe even pausing. The Iraqis are turning inside our
OODA loop. This may be necessary in order to consolidate our logistics lines,
but so far it appears that the biggest effect is that the Iraqis are able to
organize their efforts better. Why are we in Nasariya and Najaf? Those cities
aren't Baghdad, they are not the source of Hussein's power. These are of
secondary importance and can only sap us of our
power.
Of course, I'm not there and I
don't have all the information that the generals have, so I want to emphasize
that my comments are only wild
guesses.
In World War I, the Great War,
the Germans had a military superiority over the French (not too hard to imagine,
especially after the Dreyfuss Affair) and they had a brilliant plan to conquer
France. The plan was made by the German General Staff, headed by Moltke, and was
called the Schlieffen plan. The plan arranged for the Germans to attack on a
broad front from the Low Countries to the Ardennes. The French were stronger in
the North, so Moltke's plan was to hold in the north and swing the southern part
of the line up and to the coast. The key was to not get bogged down in the
north. It was said that when Moltke died shortly before the war, his last words
were along the lines of "don't re-inforce the north." Of course, the history
turned out that the German generals lost their nerve and pulled divisions from
the south to re-inforce the north, which stalled the southern advance and
allowed the incompetent French to hold control of most of their country. Most
historians agree that if the Schlieffen Plan were executed properly, the Germans
would have won the war, or at least that part of
it.
It's my opinion that so far we are
at the same point in Iraq. Baghdad is the source of all power in Iraq. Many,
many times our leaders have mentioned cutting off the head of the snake. The
snake's head is not in Najaf.
Another
military fallacy that never seems to die despite being proven wrong time and
time again, is the Mitchellian and Douhetian idea of strategic bombing being the
decisive power in winning wars. The "shock and awe" campaign made for good
press. That's it. Bombing is a SUPPORT action, and cannot and never will be the
action that will win a war. As much as I admire Rumsfeld and Cheney for their
ideas on geopolitics, they have proven far too often that they are terrible
generals. Cheney eviscerated the navy as Secretary of Defense by canceling every
carrier aircraft procurement program, and Rumsfeld is eviscerating the army by
insisting on small forces, not upgrading artillery, etc. These guys are very
smart but their ideas on transforming the military are not grounded sufficiently
in reality. Their ideas have merit, but there is no substitute in war for
mass.
From my armchair I of course can
only speculate on the real situation in Iraq, but from here it looks like we're
getting distracted by inconsequential cities. Basra and Um Qasr are important as
ports and must be controlled, but all other cities can only slow us down in
taking Baghdad. We should use air power as our supply line, and take the capital
quickly. If we could resupply Berlin, a city of millions, for months with
ancient C-47's fifty years ago, we can resupply an army of 100,000 with C-141's
and C-5's . We should use air power and small ground forces to isolate the other
cities. Let the snake wrap around our body as much as he wants, pulling at the
snake's body only delays our chances to cut off its head and win.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
