Posted on 03/11/2007 8:11:33 AM PDT by Valin
The current debate in Israel, over military strategy used against Hizbollah last year, brought out an old, and ongoing, debate between armies and air forces. For thousands of years, it was the army that called the shots when it came to military strategy. Even nations with large navies, let the generals have the final say. There have been a few exceptions, mainly powerful island nations like Great Britain. But for the vast majority of nations, it was generals, not admirals, who had the last say.
When air forces appeared 90 years ago, they were seen as a support service for the army and navy. But air force commanders soon developed other ideas, especially the one that "wars could be won from the air". World War II was supposed to be a test of this theory, but the results were inconclusive. At least that's what the careful examination of the effects of strategic bombing revealed. These studies, especially the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), were embarrassing to the air force generals. But the arrival of the atomic bomb in the last weeks of the war seemed to give the air force a power that could not be denied. That was not the case, especially when the nukes were delivered by ballistic missiles, against which there was no defense. Nuclear weapons were so powerful and intimidating that they brought an unprecedented period of peace between the major powers. There were still wars, but not really, really big ones. These little wars were non-nuclear.
So, about two decades into the nuclear age, the air force get interested in conventional warfare again. This time, the air force thought it had a decisive weapon in the form of smart bombs. These were actually developed and used, with success, at the end of World War II. But now the U.S. Air Force had laser guided bombs. Very accurate, but very expensive. By the end of the century the price had come way down, and the air force believed it was now the dominant service. This is the attitude that got the Israelis in trouble last Summer. That all began when, for the first time, an air force general became Chief of Staff (head of the Israeli armed forces.) He went along with air force plans to crush Hizbollah from the air. But here the Israeli air force fell into the same trap that had gotten the U.S. Air Force into so much trouble over the years. Despite the best efforts of Israeli intelligence, Hizbollahs efforts to secretly build bunkers in southern Lebanon were largely successful. The Israelis knew Hizbollah was fortifying the areas along the Israeli border, which Israel abandoned in 2000 (in an effort to bring peace to the area). Israel knew something was going on, but depended largely on aerial reconnaissance (jets, UAVs and some spy satellites) to identify what Hizbollah was doing. Based on this intelligence, the Israelis worked out plans for they would deal with Hizbollah, via air and artillery attacks, if war came. War did come last July, and it was quickly discovered that Israeli intel had missed many of the bunker complexes. These were then discovered, with some difficulty, by Israeli ground troops.
Blame it all on BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment). This is the business of figuring out what to bomb, and what the impact on the enemy is after you bomb. The problem, of the guys in the air getting fooled by the guys on the ground, began during World War II. This was when air forces used large scale aerial bombing for the first time. Right after that conflict, the U.S. did a thorough survey, of the impact of strategic bombing on Germany and Japan. It was discovered that the impact was far different from what BDA during the war had indicated. The air force vowed to do better next time. But as experience in Korea (1950-3), Vietnam (1965-72), Kuwait (1991) and Kosovo (1999), Iraq (2003) and Lebanon (2006) demonstrated, the enemy on the ground continued to have an edge when it came to deceiving the most energetic BDA efforts. The only proven technique for beating the BDA problem was to have people on the ground, up close, checking up on targets, while the fighting was going on. The Israelis did not want to do this, because of the risk of some of their commandos getting killed or captured, and because the intel and air force people were sure that they knew what Hizbollah was up to down there.
But there's another problem. The army and air force have a different outlook on planning and risk. The air force sees warfare as a much tidier, and predictable, affair than does the army. In this respect, the air force and navy are closely aligned. Both are technical services, who are used to exercising more control over their forces than do army generals. The army sees warfare as more unpredictable, and has adapted to that unpredictability. The Israeli army generals were skeptical of the air forces ability to take down Hizbollah from the air, and the army guys proved to be right.
The same debate has been going on in the United States for some time. At the moment, the air force is laying low. There's a war on, and the army is doing most of the work. Moreover, the relationship between the army and air force has been fundamentally changed by the introduction of micro (under ten pounds) UAVs, and GPS smart bombs. The army has thousands of micro-UAVs in action, giving every infantry commander his own air force, at least as far as air reconnaissance goes. The smart bombs have restored faith in close air support, but there still has to be an air force officer, in the form of a ground controller, around to call it in. And the troops have noted the pilots and their bombers are way up there, out of gunfire range. Down below, the army is running the war, just calling on pilots to push a button (and release a smart bomb) from time to time.
An Israeli army general has taken over the Chief of Staff job again, and the Israeli air force is rethinking its "victory from above" doctrine. The airmen and sailors still believe that warfare is more predictable, than do their army brethren. But, for the moment, the army is running the show, and it's the army reality that everyone has to follow.
.
NEVER FORGET
The Words
http://www.Freerepublic.com/~ALOHARONNIE
The Pictures
http://www.RickRescorla.com/The%20Statue.htm
The Heroism
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48215
NEVER FORGET
I would simply insert "warriors on the ground" in replace of "army" and I'm in full agreement here.
Good read.
Let us not forget the tunnels of Cu Chi. Planes don't win wars, boots on the ground do.
Shameless Plug
On the Record with IDF Intelligence
Michaeltotten.com/ ^ | 3/7/07 | Michael Totten / David
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1799024/posts
Posted on 03/11/2007 8:53:20 AM CST by Valin
I spoke recently with an Israeli Defense Forces intelligence officer about last summer’s war between Israel and Hezbollah in South Lebanon. He still serves in the IDF and therefore must remain anonymous. I’ll call him David, which isn’t his name.
(snip)
/Shameless Plug
I believe that this article points to the fundamental disagreements between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army. Rumsfeld was firmly in the camp of: Plan the mission, execute the mission, conduct the BDA. All very precise, all very predictible, all favorable to the application of technology.
The Army believes that planning sets the conditions for success, but delivering results requires something else entirely: prevailing in the chaos of combat. This explains why the Army is always skeptical of BDA while the Air Force cannot accept that it might be wrong even in the face of clear evidence. Different mental processes.
This also explains why the Army always plans for the worst case and wants more force than necessary. Rumsfeld believed that he could calculate down to the exact number of water purification teams and forklifts required to achieve success and therefore commit only that number and no more. The history of warfare doesn't provide much support for the success of that kind of approach.
Actually on a per target destroyed basis LGBs are cheaper, because it takes many fewer bombs, and rarely more than a single sortie, to destroy a given target. GPS guided bombs, are, IIRC, somewhat cheaper than LGBs, but aren't quite as accurate and obviously are only useful against stationary targets.
GPS and Laser Guidance have been extended to Army systems as well, including mortars, tube artillery and rocket artillery.
BDA is only the "after", the "before" is informally called targeteering, and is a joint function of operations and intelligence types.
The smart bombs have restored faith in close air support, but there still has to be an air force officer, in the form of a ground controller, around to call it in.
It's preferred, but not absolutely necessary for their to be an Air Force ground control party to call in the air support. Why? Well the Air Force types know better the capabilities of the aircraft and their weapons. They also can assess the situation on the ground better, and are thus able to give the pilots in the aircraft additional information, such as approach routes, altitudes, and so forth, to help ensure both the success of the mission and the survival of the aircraft.
You could be on to something.
How about planes, or more correctly soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, do? They are mutually supporting.
The degree and importance of each service's contribution is highly situation dependent. If you've got enemy tanks coming at you, a few A-10s look really good. F-22s would look really good if you had hostile aircraft overhead. If the bad guys are dropping mortars on your airfield, the "boots" who go clean them out are very welcome.
If you are trying to force entry on a hostile shore, far from your own land based air, the flying squids will be there to keep the bad guys heads down.
All this inter service stuff has got to end if we are to win in any war on Terrorism. I dont understand why they all have this infighting.
The Army needs the USAF the USAF needs the Army...the USMC Needs the USN like the USN needs the USMC....
Put all this bickering in the locker and win the damn war already...
It really depends. Within the next decade if the US engages in another war it is most likely to be with N Korea, Iran, or China. China would be a structured war, fitting those perameters that you laid out, all services working together. But with Iran and N Korea, I'm leaning more towards insurgent type warfare. Why? Because they have crappy militaries that will be overrun quickly, and insurgent tactics work well. And the only real way to combat insurgent tactics is with soldiers and marines.
Warfare is unpredictable. The air force guys would do well to study Chaos. Any endeavor that seeks to predict with accuracy the outcome of events that have so many variables as the climate or warfare is doomed from the beginning. The better approach is accepting unpredictability as a basic assumption and rely on adaptability to steer the outcome towards a result one can accept.
We do, trust me. This article presents a highly oversimplified view of how the Air Force does business. We are working closely with the Army in Iraq.
The Army now has a GPS guided Multiple Launch Rocket System missile that the soldiers call their 70km sniper. Works extremely well. They like it a lot since they can order a strike without consulting the Air Force.
"the flying squids will be there to keep the bad guys heads down."
Don't forget the Flying Leathernecks!
This comes from having a naval and aviation background. Those are technical battles. Destroy the flying or floating machines of the enemy, and their battle is over. On the ground, every street corner or rooftop can be a war because you have to kill the enemy, not just break his toys.
Hmmm. Shock and Awe and all that? Push the right pressure points at the right time and we win. It sounded really neat on paper and the pictures of coordinated explosions in Baghdad were really nice. Does the Air Force have a philosophy for winning in Iraq?
bttt
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Air power can win most conflicts if it is used aggressively and timely.
put more than 3 weapons on each target using modern targeting technology
and use them frequently and widely
with BIG booms! BIG booms!!
We only need Sailors to row the boat
The initial bombing campaign along with the ground invasion of Iraq worked quite well. The country's military command structure, air defenses, and ground forces were rendered useless. Iraq's ability to wage war was destroyed in a very short period. The insurgency that we are dealing with now is an entirely different creature from the Iraqi state headed by Saddam.
As I said in my previous post, the Air Force is working with the Army, and all other ground forces for that matter. The Air Force has been in Iraq since the initial bombing campaign ended. IIRC, the article mentioned needing the Air Force only to "push a button and drop a smart bomb from time to time". There's really a whole lot more than that going on, and that statement from the article is ridiculous.
Does the Air Force have a philosophy for winning in Iraq?
No offense intended, but this question doesn't make a lot of sense to me. All of our service branches are supporting the same strategy in Iraq. Even though Iraq isn't an air war doesn't mean that the Air Force isn't there, or doesn't have an important part to play. No one service is trying to "go it alone".
and without weapons, the USAF is only a really expensive flying club.
Hey, I'm just poking at you man. The Air Force is great. But as a former ground pounder I like to poke fun at you guys. I ate in an Air Force mess hall once. It was amazing. Bite sized lettuce and little signs that said 'Gone for Seconds' so somebody wouldn't take your seat while you were at the salad bar for more.
their planes are pretty cool...
A Marine gets out of the Corps and begins to enjoy the American dream. However, when 9/11 happens, he goes down to the recruiting station and tells the recruiter, "I want in. I want to fight."
The recruiter, however, declines the offer of service, saying, "I'm sorry, Gunny, but you're just too darn old."
"Fine," the guy replies. "If that's your attitude, I'll go straight to the Pentagon. I have a friend there, and he'll see I'm let in."
So he goes to the Pentagon and tells his friend, "I want in. I want to fight."
Once again, however, the response is the same, and his friend tells him, "Sorry, Gunny, but you're just too darn old."
"Fine," the guy says once more. "In that case, I'll buy a boat and row to the fight."
So he goes out and buys himself a rowboat and starts rowing in the general direction of Afghanistan, chanting, "Semper Fi, Do or Die, OO-Rah, OO-Rah!" over and over again.
St. Peter sees all this and reports to his Boss, saying, "What should I do to stop this hard-charging Marine?"
"Peter," comes the answer, "you should take his brain; it's the source of all his thoughts."
So St. Peter takes the guy's brain, but it doesn't faze him. On and on he rows, chanting, "Semper Fi, Do or Die, OO-Rah, OO-Rah!"
"Now what!" exclaims St. Peter.
"Peter," comes the answer, "why don't you take his heart? It's the seat of all his emotions."
So St. Peter takes the guy's heart, but it doesn't faze him. On and on he rows, chanting, "Semper Fi, Do or Die, OO-Rah, OO-Rah!"
"Now what!" blurts St. Peter.
"Peter," comes the answer, "take his gonads."
So St. Peter lops off the guy's gonads.
Immediately the guy stops rowing, looks around himself in confusion, begins to row his boat in circles, and commences chanting, "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
(Hey, I just repeat 'em, I don't necessarily endorse 'em...)
No worries. BTW, we still have the little "Gone for Seconds" signs in AF chow halls. :-)
It would help greatly if all the reporters were ejected from the combat area (preferably into outer space) and then the Generals said, "OK Men, the handcuffs are off now. Go in there and clean them out."
Wierd you should mention that. I had a conversation earlier with my old man on how the ROE were seriously hampering our ability to combat insurgent operations.
For example: Your platoon walks into a mosque and finds 25 Ak-47's, several magizines of ammo, and some body armor. You are only allowed to take the body armor, as the Ak's must be left for "defensive purposes". Despite the fact the tunnels have been found connecting mosques to other buildings. Despite the fact the those Ak's will probably be used against us later.
If I had my way, first order of business would be to outlaw all the weapons. I see you have one, I'm shooting your ass. You haven't demonstrated you can act responsibly, so maybe after peace comes and we can create a good system of giving them out, you can have your weapons back. But not now, you've been shooting at Americans. Bad Iraqi, bad
Here's one AF vet who thought the "Shock and Awe" thing was lame and idiotic.
It sounded like something made up by some 2nd Lieutenant pointy-head butt-kisser, deep in the bowels of the Pentagon.
"Hey, Colonel, how's this? Shock and Awe! How does that sound? Yeah! Yeah!."
You don't run your mouth about it, you just go out and DO it.
Does a pitcher call a press conference before the game, and brag that he's going to pitch a shutout and strike out 12 batters?
No, he doesn't, because he knows better than to incite his opponents. You don't give them the edge.
We need hard-nosed, quiet and angry Leaders who are willing to POUND on them until they QUIT. That's how we win wars.
I called it (even way back then) Blah and Jaw. It was just a bunch of USAF propaganda about how they could win a war from the air. It didn't happen! and has never happened, despite them saying they could win the next war, all they way back to the 1930's with Bomber Harris. We army guys are a little sick of all this propaganda, because we resent guys like Rumsfeld telling our senior officers (Army C/S Eric Shinseki) they don't know how to fight a campaign. And then we are left to pick up the pieces and do the fighting, after the USAF is forced to admit, well gee whiz, we thought we could win, but you see our bombs were wrongly targeted or some such crap. The US Army thanks God that Rumsfelf got replaced.
Just one minute, OldCorps. I wouldn't call it strictly USAF propaganda. It was DoD-wide, ignorant, arrogant propaganda.
IMO, we need to just STFU and POUND on them. Bloviating means nothing.
I would only say the basic principle is correct..
It is blitzkrieg, modernized..
The problem was, (is) PC policies..
Too much concern over collateral damage, or avoiding response on targets such as mosques.
If a mosque is being used as a defensive position or an offensive coordination center, etc., it should be removed..
No apology needed.
Sorry if your hospital or school got some shrapnel, there were bad guys outside..
Just saying that Shock & Awe would probably work a lot better if politicians and lawyers stayed out of the war game, and let the military do their jobs..
Destroy all opposition..
Nothing personal against you FlyVet. Lets go to the tape. Rumsfeld appoints CJCS, Gen Myers, an AF toady who tells Rumsfeld blah blah blah, the army wants to send too many divisions to invade Iraq and secure the country post invasion. Myers tells Rumsfeld, we can do it cheaply by Airpower. There are two problems here.
1. Rumsfeld picked a toady who only told him what he wanted to hear...look at any videotape of Rumsfeld and Gen Myers and tell me you can't see it. Rumsfeld then picked USMC Gen Pace for Myers replacement, who surprise!, is another toady that would only tell Rumsfeld what he wanted to hear. This leads one to conclude that Rumsfeld was a failure as SecDef because he didn't want to listen to ideas that went against his preconceived notions. Never in my over twenty five years associated with the US military have I ever seen a SecDef get his butt kissed by the CJCS is such a flagrant manner. Frankly, I am embarrased for our uniform senionr officers who feel they have to be so obsequious in order to get ahead. Watch any press conference Rumsfeld ever held: Oh, he is so witty and erudite! Meanwhile, soldiers are getting killed in Iraq but he loves his limelight in the Washington media.
2. You can't win a war by airpower. Sure, the USAF says they can, and have been doing so since the 1930's. But after all the great gun camera video (this really sells the program after all), it is still the US Army (with our brothers the USMC) who have to go in and fight up close, take the ground, secure the country and establish a new government. Yes, we army guys are cautious and maybe risk averse because we know from history which we study at the Command and General Staff College, and the War College, that an invasion force that is too light runs the risk of catastrophe. I assure you that the Army told Rumsfeld the invasion force should be larger, and planning should be made for post victory government. He did not listen and that is why he was moved aside.
Did you watch Fox news during the time Myers was CJCS? They had a retired USAF LTG named MacErninny (sorry bout the spelling) who spewed so much crap about Blah and Jaw ...(the old USAF mantra that airpower alone can win wars) that I am surprised an army guy didn't go on the set and, ahem, set him straight! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that MacErininny came highly recommended to Fox from CJCS Gen Myers. Notice how he doesn't show up any more? Even Fox news, must have questioned his credibility when shock and awe turned out in reality to be, well, just Blah and Jaw.
I don't think anyone was going to sway Rummy from the small footprint idea whether or not Pace and Myers were "toadies" as you say. Remember, Powell warned before the war that they'd better use overwhelming force as they did during the first Gulf war. And "you break it, you own it." Nobody listened to him. As much as he is now disliked around here, I think he turned out to be right on that one.
I also thought it was odd that Wolfowitz left early on, as he had been one of the chief architects, and had been pushing for the invasion for years.
Well, they are "just" a branch of the flying squids anyway.
Ducking and donning body armor. :)
We are a Deptartment of the Navy, the Men's Department.
Rumsfeld was a damn idiot.
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.