Whether or not you support the war effort, I think this article will be pretty interesting to most of you. It was the origin of the Shock & Awe concept later adopted by the military.

Has it occurred to anyone else that ``shock and awe'' is a pretty good definition of terror?

Has it occurred to anyone else that ``shock and awe'' is a pretty good definition of terror?

Speaking strictly literally (which is your job around here, I guess) the phrases sound similar... But when placed in the connotations I think you're speaking of (terrorism versus the use of military power to intimidate the enemy during an armed conflict) there's absolutely no connection at all. To try to equate suicide bombers and airplane hijackers to the massive use of Tomahawks and bunker busters in a war is way off base.

If you weren't trying to make that extra connection, and just wanted to point out the similarity of those two phrases on their own, out of context, then casually disregard the above statements.

Well, the major difference is in whether the attack is against combatants or non-combatants.

It's really more interesting in that what they mean is terror (regardless of the connotations it comes with these days), but are avoiding that term.

Combatants or non-combatants is a MAJOR distinction. Additionally, the main point is that using these tactics is a way to AVOID killing thousands of soldiers whereas terrorism is used because you CAN'T kill thousands of people with the means at your disposal (but would still like to create a large effect).

If you read the paper I linked to, this tactic was created in response to terrorism (ie, no nation in the world can go head-to-head in a tank battle with the US). The link is quite interesting because they do make the point that the decision of whether or not this tactic "should" be used or would be accepted by the public is best left to a broader examination by an outside source.

On a TV screen near you now. Drudge Alert

On a TV screen near you now

Hmmm. Around 21:00 local time. Pink mushroom clouds.

Who got the nod for this, Michael Mann or Jerry Bruckheimer?

I'm missing something. Pink mushroom clouds?

I'm missing something. Pink mushroom clouds?

Oh, CNN was showing this trailer for a new movie? Called "Shock and Awe"? And there was this scene where it showed "Baghdad 9:00 PM" and they set off, like, 8 or 9 special effects in a row?

Well, these 8 or 9 mushroom clouds rise up and they are, like, *pink*. And I'm thinking "Whose idea is this?" and "Did they switch out the mercury-vapor street lights at the last minute?" And I'm thinking "Hey, I thought Jerry did the deal on this one!", but it really looks more like Michael's work.

Bitt, if you missed it, don't worry. I expect CNN will be running the trailer all evening, and S&A is expected to be numero uno at the box office this weekend.

U.S. Out Of North America!

U.S. Out Of North America!

Wow, a classic thong??? Scary! Combine (1) USOONA! Classic Thong with (1) Jim Hogan and you could sell the film rights to Wes Craven or John Carpenter.

USOONA! is just my favorite absurdist bumper sticker from the late 60s, narrowly inching out "A man without a woman is like a bicycle". At this point, though, I am pretty much decided on adopting it as the marching slogan/chant for my not-yet-formed-but-coming-any-minute-now political party, The Alienation Party (and I think I just may keep it as my sig until the Alienation Party brokers World Peace).

(Spotted last week on a Honda: "Re-elect Gore in 2004!")

Combine (1) USOONA! Classic Thong with (1) Jim Hogan

Please stop you're burning my eyes.

adopting it as the marching slogan/chant for my not-yet-formed-but-coming-any-minute-now political party, The Alienation Party (and I think I just may keep it as my sig until the Alienation Party brokers World Peace).

With the PROPER recruiters for your new party... properly attired even I would join. I would gladly be alienated for a lap dance.

White House Pretty Sure Uzbekistan Diplomat Stole A Bunch Of Soap

WASHINGTON, DC—Following a weekend visit by Otkir Halilov, Uzbekistan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, White House officials are "90 percent sure" that the visitor made off with a bunch of soap and other assorted sundries. "I don't want to start an international incident, but I'm pretty sure Otkir swiped four or five bars from one of the upstairs bathrooms," said White House chief of staff Andrew Card at a press conference Monday. "Either he wanted a souvenir or they just can't get that kind of stuff back home." Also missing were an embroidered towel, a box of Kleenex, and two miniature cans of Edge shaving gel.

It was the origin of the Shock & Awe concept later adopted by the military.

And how is this so different from what "Uncle Adolf" did to Poland in 1939? He called his version of it "Blitzkrieg".

tanstaafl.

And how is this so different from what "Uncle Adolf" did to Poland in 1939? He called his version of it "Blitzkrieg".

Great. Here come the U.S. = Hitler allusions. I thought we were above this...

Review: The emphasis with the "shock and awe" tactic is *avoiding* casualties on the other side. In WWII there were no precision-guided munitions, thus, a shock and awe offensive couldn't actually occur.

He might be your uncle but he isn't mine.

I'm assuming that many of you didn't read the link I provided. They went out of their way to point out that aside from the technical viability of the tactic, there were certain social issues that needed to be looked at. But how can one criticize a tactic that wants to reduce fighting?

Kinda makes me think of the people that hated the US for entering the Bosnia confict (which, by the way, we did NOT even bother seeking U.N. approval under Pres. Clinton) even though the genocide was happening. Or the people that said that we should use sanctions instead of bombs in the Gulf War but then turned around and complained when the Oil for Food procedes were not going to the Iraqi people.

But I admit, Iraq did at least seek UN approval when it overran Kuwait and assualted the Kurds. In all seriousness, the UN is great at international relief efforts but is entirely worthless when it comes to political (or even human rights) issues.

But, I posted this link for pure information purposes. This "shock and awe" term is being thrown around so much that I figured many of you would appreciate knowing the background and philosophy behind it. The concept was conceived over half a decade before this conflict - it has nothing to do with it. I just found it interesting from a technical and tactical perspective.

The 'shock' part is nothing new. The armor and artillery people have been using the term 'shock' for a long time to describe the psychological effects those systems have on the enemy.

Iraq was almost put in charge of the UN Disarmament Committee. What a joke.

And how is this so different from what "Uncle Adolf" did to Poland in 1939? He called his version of it "Blitzkrieg".

Great. Here come the U.S. = Hitler allusions. I thought we were above this...

Now, now. He's not the only one to make that parallel. It got to the point where Bumsfelt had to make a statement in a press conference about how this is different due to the unprecedented accuracy of these weapons keeping the civilian casualty count low, compared to the weapons of days gone by that caused such huge casualties.

The 'shock' part is nothing new.

I'm too lazy to read much about the concept but the emphasis seems to be directed toward the civilian Leadership instead of prior use of armor "shock" in a battlefield tactical sense. More strategic in nature than tactical.

Iraq was almost put in charge of the UN Disarmament Committee. What a joke.

They could have joined Libya on the human rights commission. Lybia was elected to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights by that Commission by a vote of 33 in favor, 3 opposed and 17 abstentions.

"Asked whether the outcome represented a defeat for the United States, Moley responded, "No, this was not a defeat for the United States. It was a defeat for the Human Rights Commission, a defeat for the system which allows countries with egregious abusive records on human rights to become members of the Commission.""

We have a maximum security prison outside the town I live in. The UN seems less like the inmates are running the prison than it does the perpetrators never even being arrested.

Great. Here come the U.S. = Hitler allusions. I thought we were above this...

Review: The emphasis with the "shock and awe" tactic is *avoiding* casualties on the other side. In WWII there were no precision-guided munitions, thus, a shock and awe offensive couldn't actually occur.

Well, since the war isn't over yet, I guess it is legit to pull this and other Iraq war threads back to the top of the stack...not sure precisely why I'm picking your post, but I think it is something about the "shock and awe offensive couldn't occur".

I had read the S&A piece a bit before Brad's initial post. No huge surprises -- pretty much a standard war college piece that tries to pull in recent trends/technologies. Some of it seemed awefully formulaic..."Hmmm, who can we get to write the section on info tech?"...bordering on filler.

In fairness, this thing was never intended to become the subject of briefings and CNN analyses. The main author was interviewed last week and bemoaned the dimensions of the "Shock and Awe" media exposure and simplistic hype.

Now the the invasion is well underway, one of the most interesting (sometimes distressing) things is to watch the media and their spin and terminology. Late last week, local news programs in Seattle led with lines like: "Shock and Awe. The attack on Iraq has begun..." To me (and this might just be jaded Jim), the unspoken implication of this repetitive "S&A" party line on the part of CNN and most US news outlets was that S&A was a completed fact -- that it was *obviously* working.

I don't have any solid predictions on how this is all going to go in strictly tactical terms. The invasion was not completed in 24 hours as some of the most naive, testosterone-laden Garry Owens had expected, but that does not mean that it will turn into the months or years-long quagmire that others expect.

While I think the US-led forces sure enjoy huge technical and logistical advantages, these may be progressively neutralized by the particular nature of the war and Iraqui tactical opportunities, some of which are generally held to be disagreeable or immoral (read: situate combatants in non-combatant areas).

After some of the less-than-uplifting news stories of the weekend -- casualties, prisoners, extended supply lines, and unexpected pockets of resistance -- I don't think I am hearing CNN, networks and the local news stations parrot "Shock and Awe" quite so much.

We face a bit of a fix: In shouting "Shock! and Awe!" the U.S. has really made a huge case about how much nicer and neater our version of war is -- just how many fewer civilians would die. The conflict seemed front-loaded with optimistic claims of American technical superiority the likes of which haven't been seen since the days of Robert S. McNamara. This isn't 1991. Attack helos and A-10s aren't firing on the hind quarters of Iraqui tanks as they flee across an open desert. We are approaching large cities. If Iraqui forces continue to adopt some of the tactics of "embedding" in communities, somehow fail to heed our calls to cave in, and delay the speedy conclusion of this war in a way that leads to a steady increase in US/UK casualties, I wonder how long it will be before Tommy Franks asks his people to tone it down on the whole S&A/smart bomb thing and we just start shelling the living crap out of various suburbs of Baghdad?

Oh, a dark view, I know, but I wonder just how long we'll keep talking about the US's "kinder-gentler" way of war if and when the casualty page on CNN.com needs a "Next Page" button.

Saturday eve, to cheer ourselves up, a friend and I went to see "The Pianist". At dinner afterways, she offered this unprompted observation:

"CNN. It's indistinguishable from XBox."

(edit: just read the following from this NYT article: "A particularly severe humanitarian crisis is already developing in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, whose largely Shiite population is hostile to the Hussein regime and was expected to welcome the invading troops. Iraqi forces there are offering resistance, and British and American troops have been unwilling to fight their way in at the risk of heavy civilian casualties. Now parts of the city have been without power or water for three days. It is hard to see how allied forces can mitigate the situation without fighting their way into the city.")

If Iraqui forces continue to adopt some of the tactics of "embedding" in communities, somehow fail to heed our calls to cave in, and delay the speedy conclusion of this war in a way that leads to a steady increase in US/UK casualties, I wonder how long it will be before Tommy Franks asks his people to tone it down on the whole S&A/smart bomb thing and we just start shelling the living crap out of various suburbs of Baghdad?

You make a good point in that, at some point, it's going to get really old if we keep losing our boys because we were trying to save a few Iraqi lives. As much as I want to reduce the amount of civilian casualties, it's becoming a lot harder to tell the reds from the whites, and at some point, we definitely are going to have to err on the side of protecting our troops, at the expense of increasing the risk to civilians. In reality, the Iraqis are the ones who aren't fighting this war according to well-understood rules of engagement, therefore any increase in civilian casualties would be their doing.

Or, to say it another more harsh way... I don't want Iraqi civilians to needlessly die, but given the way things have gone with these fake surrenders and non-uniformed combattants, I would gladly trade 100 innocent Iraqi lives to get back one of our combat fatalities. At some point, this effort to spare civilian lives is adding an extreme amount of risk to our own troops' lives.

On another note, they're saying on CNN right now that U.S. Intelligence has it that Republican Guard members have orders to use chemical weapons if the coalition makes it to Baghdad. There's a shock.

I would gladly trade 100 innocent Iraqi lives to get back one of our combat fatalities.

Tony, this seems like exceedingly bad math.

Tony, this seems like exceedingly bad math.

Okay, maybe 10. Maybe 5. Whatever. By "get back" I don't mean revive from the dead, of course. The point is that many of the "civilians" aren't civilians, and many of those surrendering aren't really surrendering. I'm not saying we should bomb Baghdad to the stone age and forget about our emphasis on reducing non-combattant fatalities, but on the sliding scale, I think we need to slide it a notch or two towards "caution towards our own."

Funny enough, on CNN right now, the medical correspondent just made a point along the lines of "while we're operating on wounded Iraqi POW's to save their lives, they're ambushing us and shooting our POW' in the head."

On another note, they're saying on CNN right now that U.S. Intelligence has it that Republican Guard members have orders to use chemical weapons if the coalition makes it to Baghdad. There's a shock.

Of course US intelligence says that. US intelligence says a lot of things that turn out to be bunk. If Saddam uses chem or bio, then he'll lose what little credibility he has in the eyes of the world. Right now he's "in the right", because he's been insisting that he doesn't have chem/bio weapons, and the inspectors haven't found any, so justification for the war is... murky. To use them after claiming he doesn't have them would be disastrous for his campaign in courting public opinion. Probably his greatest desire (aside from staying alive and in power) is to cause the US a *huge* amount of embarassment by not having it find what it keeps saying is there, and so also causing it to lose all credibility in the eyes of the world. I don't think his ego would allow him to use chem/bio, knowing that by doing so, the US would be proved correct and public opinion would turn against him.

Or, to say it another more harsh way... I don't want Iraqi civilians to needlessly die, but given the way things have gone with these fake surrenders and non-uniformed combattants, I would gladly trade 100 innocent Iraqi lives to get back one of our combat fatalities. At some point, this effort to spare civilian lives is adding an extreme amount of risk to our own troops' lives.

But, isn't this operation Iraqi Freedom, with the purpose of liberating those innocent Iraqis (presumably from their dictator, not their oil)?

The only way for Dubya's handlers to keep any resemblance of pretention that GWII is not a) oil grab, b) something to turn voter's attention from domestic problems and scandals, c) corporate wellfare for military industry and d) rehearsal for Wolfowitz&Co's empire building is keeping scrupulously to conservative rules of engagement, avoiding anything that looks like collateral damage and ramping up humanitarian aid quickly. And that will only work up to the point.

BTW, I was amused to see stocks tumbling on first sight of actual fighting and Coallition casualties on CNN. Did those people actually believe everything will be totally bloodless and finished over the weekend!?

c) corporate wellfare for military industry

I would love to know where that came from. The vast majority of defense contractors do not make any money out of a war. Most of them provide long lead time platforms, such as vehicles and aircraft. Just because a war is going on does not mean that suddenly, the military dumps a bunch of money on the contractors heads and say 'I want all those vehicles replaced now!'. It takes a lot of time. They have already been paid for what is being used, and depending on how many are lost, will probably never get a contract to replace the vehicles destroyed.

The few companies that do get decent contracts out of something like this would be those like ATK - the ammo manufacturers. Will Raytheon get a huge contract to replenish the spent Tomahawks? Probably, but it won't be signed tomorrow. Boeing already has a huge contract for JDAMs, so those probably won't be pumped up unless this conflict gets really drawn out.

Basically, I think the general public is really mistaken about how much a war or conflict helps the defense industry.

avoiding anything that looks like collateral damage and ramping up humanitarian aid quickly. And that will only work up to the point.

That's the plan, man. Unfortunately, the Iraqi regime is more interested in protecting their own positions of power, and less interested in feeding its people.

I would love to know where that came from...

Basically, I think the general public is really mistaken about how much a war or conflict helps the defense industry.

Hmm. Estimated cost of war $75B. GWB has asked for $2.5B of that to be humanitarian aid.

We're already paying the military personnel out the standing defence budget.

So where will that $72.5B go?

Yes, you have a valid point that most of the platforms are 'long lead time'. But I think you're missing the point - there's a limit to how many and what kind of field repairs can be made to vehicles before they get returned to the manufacturer for maintenance and an overhaul. There's also a limit on flight hours for aircraft. And we know that those aircraft are making a lot of sorties.
Manufacturers make a lot of money from maintenance contracts and spare parts. I daresay that Boeing are going to make some significant cash from that Apache raid yesterday. '3 dozen or so' Apaches, all returning with small arms or AAA damage (the one that didn't return will make Raytheon $1m or so too).

The fact is that military readiness and the ability to fight two wars simultaneously is, and has been for at least a decade, a kingpin of US Defence Policy.
If the Pentagon *doesn't* spend most of that $72.5B at the arms bazaar, I think that the US taxpayers will want to know;

a) How the military can complain about being underfunded when it obviously has enough stocks and supplies to fight 2 expensive wars simultaneously without affecting future military readiness.
b) Why the President increased Defence spending by $48B this year. To put that in perspective, Russia is the World's number 2 military spender, and they only spent $65B *total* last year. http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm
c) Where *did* they spend it???