Plowshares into swords
Over at the Fourth Rail, Grim has an interesting post about weapons and grand strategy.
The article also links to Michael Yon's terrific post, which I linked to on Wednesday, and also to another insightful post at the Belmont Club.
Grim looks at the kinds of weapons and tactics that might be employed, on both sides, in the war against terrorists.
In his post, Wretchard says IEDs are "symbols of asymmetrical warfare", and compares them to bombers and submarines, other fearsome weapons that might have instilled a psychological fear in the enemy, above and beyond the actual physical threat they posed.
As I said in the comments for that post, though, I think the analogy between weapons like bombers and subs, and IEDs breaks down a bit in this sense.
Large-scale military weapons such as bombers and subs tend to be used by military personnel in uniform. They tend to operate out of bases separate from civilian populations. The terrorists employing IEDs tend to be contained within Iraqi civilian populations. If they are foreign, they do stick out to native Iraqis, but they look concealed to us, and the Iraqis are not motivated to help us find them if they are cowed and terrorized, believing they are in danger if they help US forces.
IEDs are not an effective strategic weapon. They will not have an effect on the US military campaign. But, they can still affect Iraqi attitudes, they can still foment civil war, and neutralizing them will take different tactics than those needed to neutralize the latest and greatest bombers and subs.
In planning how to counteract bombers and subs, you generally assume you are dealing with something you and see and touch. (With your eyes, or a radar screen, etc...) You contemplate attacking in an environment far removed from civilian populations. For instance, you would attack a sub with a torpedo in the remote depths of the ocean, not in the middle of Manhattan.
With the terrorists and IEDs, it is difficult to "see" your target. The terrorist hides amongst the civilians, the IEDs are concealed, though the US has developed some amazing technology to deal with them.
Also, by "strategic weapon" I meant in the large-scale, military sense. Clearly IEDs are dangerous, clearly they have an effect at the tactical level. Clearly the terrorists have a "strategy" in using them.
However, the terrorists will not achieve a military victory across the theater (at the "strategic" level) simply by killing US soldiers a few at a time with IEDs. IEDs will not push the US military out.
If the US does retreat because of the effect of IEDs, it will be a political decision, not a military one.
Michelle Malkin has some related thoughts here.
The article also links to Michael Yon's terrific post, which I linked to on Wednesday, and also to another insightful post at the Belmont Club.
Grim looks at the kinds of weapons and tactics that might be employed, on both sides, in the war against terrorists.
In his post, Wretchard says IEDs are "symbols of asymmetrical warfare", and compares them to bombers and submarines, other fearsome weapons that might have instilled a psychological fear in the enemy, above and beyond the actual physical threat they posed.
As I said in the comments for that post, though, I think the analogy between weapons like bombers and subs, and IEDs breaks down a bit in this sense.
Large-scale military weapons such as bombers and subs tend to be used by military personnel in uniform. They tend to operate out of bases separate from civilian populations. The terrorists employing IEDs tend to be contained within Iraqi civilian populations. If they are foreign, they do stick out to native Iraqis, but they look concealed to us, and the Iraqis are not motivated to help us find them if they are cowed and terrorized, believing they are in danger if they help US forces.
IEDs are not an effective strategic weapon. They will not have an effect on the US military campaign. But, they can still affect Iraqi attitudes, they can still foment civil war, and neutralizing them will take different tactics than those needed to neutralize the latest and greatest bombers and subs.
In planning how to counteract bombers and subs, you generally assume you are dealing with something you and see and touch. (With your eyes, or a radar screen, etc...) You contemplate attacking in an environment far removed from civilian populations. For instance, you would attack a sub with a torpedo in the remote depths of the ocean, not in the middle of Manhattan.
With the terrorists and IEDs, it is difficult to "see" your target. The terrorist hides amongst the civilians, the IEDs are concealed, though the US has developed some amazing technology to deal with them.
Also, by "strategic weapon" I meant in the large-scale, military sense. Clearly IEDs are dangerous, clearly they have an effect at the tactical level. Clearly the terrorists have a "strategy" in using them.
However, the terrorists will not achieve a military victory across the theater (at the "strategic" level) simply by killing US soldiers a few at a time with IEDs. IEDs will not push the US military out.
If the US does retreat because of the effect of IEDs, it will be a political decision, not a military one.
Michelle Malkin has some related thoughts here.
3 Comments:
At Sat Aug 20, 08:44:00 AM, johngrif said…
Jeff,
I am not sure how good Michael Yon's writing is. In its subject matter, there's really nothing to compare it to. It's easily as good as the better political/military fiction I prefer.
That is hard to believe. (Clancy et al have months and months in which to construct their publication.)
See the latest post. (Proximity fuse)
I think Michael, too, is frustrated with the ideological war being waged with the MSM.
For those who are interested in military affairs, it's breathtaking reading, made all the more real by the physical courage of the writer.
At Sat Aug 20, 09:16:00 AM, Jeff said…
Yes, I'm on Yon's mailing list, which mentioned the new post, so I immediately read it. Sad to hear LTC Kurilla has been wounded. The article didn't give a clear sense of how badly. After reading all of his posts, we feel like we know LTC Kurilla, and have come to cheer for all of the Deuce Four. So, to hear about this, it's like hearing about a good friend. We hope and pray he'll recover.
In a previous post, Yon said he thought it was a miracle Kurilla was still alive after a year of doing this tough work. Indeed, and now, the fighting apparently caught up with him.
At Sat Aug 20, 05:18:00 PM, Jeff said…
Was going to say, too, I think Yon's writing is top notch. He is a tremendous writer. I think his first piece I came across was Empty Jars, and I was hooked immediately. His use of metaphor was powerful, and I think metaphors are something that makes writing come alive. They are an example of patterns, something I wrote about here.
Post a Comment
<< Home