#149492 - 25/03/2003 10:05
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
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.
Spares yes, but almost all repairs are done by the military. The contractors do have people on site (field reps) that act as liasons between the contractors and the military people doing the repairs. If the repairs are too great for the field, they send them to a depot - also military. Small arms fire isn't enough to pull the aircraft out of service usually. When McDonell Douglas (now Boeing) started stripping Apaches to remanufacture them into D-models, there were stories about how many bullets they found *still in the aircraft frame*. I think you are over estimating the amount of repair work contractors do.
How is Raytheon going to make money off the Apache that didn't return yesterday? I can't even begin to imagine that connection.
Yes, the military does form the POM off of the need to support two MTWs at the same time. That is used to determine the size of the force they need, then they break that down into further what weapons are necessary.
A lot of that money is spent on supplies that most people don't consider. Stuff like fuel (last figure I saw said the M1 got something like 5 gallons / mile - we have a lot of vehicles burning a LOT of fuel), food, hazard pay, medical supplies, water.
You know where most of that money is going to go? Services. Everything from lawyers to porta-potties. The military contracts people to come in and set stuff up, even for tent cities. It isn't for weapons. Its for support. Do general contractors count as military industry in this instance? When I hear the terms military industry or defense contractors, I (and I'm willing to bet most people) think of the Lockheed Martins, Northrop Grummans and Boeings.
That $75B is a SWAG - it is based on a 6 month conflict. Nobody knows for sure how much it is going to cost.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149493 - 25/03/2003 10:18
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: Tim]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
We should take $75 billion worth of oil to cover our expenses.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149494 - 25/03/2003 10:42
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: Tim]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
How is Raytheon going to make money off the Apache that didn't return yesterday? I can't even begin to imagine that connection.
Didn't you hear? Centcom sent in a guided munition to destroy it.
But I hope that you're right. I hope they used a $30k JDAM rather than a $2.5M Tomahawk. My taxpayer dollars are at stake too.
A lot of that money is spent on supplies that most people don't consider. Stuff like fuel (last figure I saw said the M1 got something like 5 gallons / mile - we have a lot of vehicles burning a LOT of fuel), food, hazard pay, medical supplies, water.
You know where most of that money is going to go? Services. Everything from lawyers to porta-potties. The military contracts people to come in and set stuff up, even for tent cities. It isn't for weapons. Its for support. Do general contractors count as military industry in this instance? When I hear the terms military industry or defense contractors, I (and I'm willing to bet most people) think of the Lockheed Martins, Northrop Grummans and Boeings.
True, much of that sum will go on 'stuff' other than weapons or munitions. But my take on it is simply this. In order to maintain MTW readiness, weapons and munitions available at the start of a war need to be available as soon as possible after the end of the war. Otherwise, there was either an oversupply to begin with, or MTW readiness has been affected. I find it hard to believe that after a decade of post-cold-war defence spending cuts that there was a huge oversupply of munitions such that this war could be fought from surplus. How many tomahawks have been fired so far?
I'd also hazard a guess that by appropriating a 'cost-of-war' budget from Congress it is much easier for the Pentagon to procure replacement munitions and weapons, than it would be if they didn't make the appropriation and then tried to replace them through next years discretionary spending budget. The Pentagon would be crazy *not* to do that. I think it's fair to expect that Boeing (as the largest military contractor, ~20%, IIRC) will see a nice chunk of money from this $72.5B coming their way over the next few years.
As an aside, I watched an interesting news clip the other day. I can't remember which network, but they were discussing MREs and in the process went to one of the factories the produces them. The manager they interviewed couldn't quite keep the sparkle out of his eyes when discussing the current war.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149495 - 25/03/2003 11:01
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
But I hope that you're right. I hope they used a $30k JDAM rather than a $2.5M Tomahawk. Just to be accurate, Block III and Block IV Tomahawks (the current generation) are "only" $1.4M a piece. Your point still stands, though.
Incidentally, the next generation of Tomahawks, Tactical Tomahawks, are allegedly going to be available at the "bargain basement" price of $600,000. I don't work on this stuff anymore, but the rumor was the Tactical Tomahawk project was going to be finished early this year. So in theory, we would be able to replace $1.4M Block III's with more effective Tactical's at $600k a pop. Kinda lessens the sting a little bit.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149496 - 25/03/2003 11:15
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
but on the sliding scale, I think we need to slide it a notch or two towards "caution towards our own."
I guess I am still stuck in this place that, since I could not agree with the rationale for the invasion, whether it lasts 7 days or 134 days won't really change my mind on that point. So, the loss of innocents, whether in the ratio of 100, 10 or 5-to-,1 all seems like a pretty sad, avoidable downside to me.
This is not to say that there aren't cruel, mean Saddamistas roaming Baghdad ready to fire their AKs into the river if in fact there really *was* a downed pilot bobbing around out there (and some POWs were certainly treated cruelly in 1991).
What I'm really feeling, though, is that the poor, shoeless, malnourished, uneducated 8-year-old girl who we are getting ready to maim or decapitate on a 100, or 10, or 5-to-1 basis doesn't matter nearly as much as the Marine second lieutenant who was the star quarterback on his high school football team in West Virginia.
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."
I'd be closing my eyes if I didn't acknowledge that we (the US) devote a significant portion of our efforts and various $75 billion allotments to things like medical care and humane management of POWs -- and that the people that we bomb or shoot (or folks from the "other side" who have been bombed or shot by the other side) can benefit from that and receive treatment in our care that they could not expect if the tables were turned.
I will stand skeptical on this CNN reporter's statement overall, though, ("they're ambushing us and shooting our POWs in the head"). On the first point, I have been remarking to myself that the term "ambush" seems to have come into a new, liberal usage that smacks of propaganda. On the second, I will wait for more information; the reporter's clear implication is that they were executed -- taken prisoner and then executed. I would say that the 5 poor bastards who could speak to that are not feeling the liberty to do so at this moment. CNN must have an inside source.
Still, with our sophisticated medical/surgical systems to care for both the maimed friend and foe and our well-trained MPs to manage POWs, we can certainly say how much more humane we are prepared to be. We don't routinely execute prisoners or our own wounded and episodes like the psychotic My Lais and the trigger-happy AC-130 massacres are the unfortunate exceptions, not the rules.
Doug took some grief for raising "blitzkrieg" and, while I think the parallels aren't supportable, I'm not sure that our intentions, our optimism, our faith in our PGMs, and our sense of righteousness are going to make much difference to those 5, 10, or 100 innocents if events and Saddam "force our hand" and compel us to act more aggressively to protect that second lieutentant. I think it'll pretty much be all one, big blitzkrieg to them.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149497 - 25/03/2003 11:32
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
Just a couple of things...
I would guess that a Tomahawk would be overkill for that mission, but I don't make the choices either.
Here's a quick explanation on 'surplus'...
It turns out that the two MTW requirement went away about a year ago, so the next POM cycle will use a different method. Go figure, I understood that way...
The way it use to work is like this... every theater has a basic load. That load is what a full scale war will use in x-number of days (say 30). By full-scale war, that means that the computer models fire the weapons off the platforms as fast as they can. That is an amazing amount of ammo. So much ammo, that it is unrealistic, as you run out of targets long before you run out of ammo. Think of how fast something like a MLRS can fire its load... it could empty all its ammo in less than five minutes easily. Think of how fast you see them shoot on the news. Not even close to as fast as they can. They run out of targets (a telephone pole going downrange carries a lot of submunitions and takes out a lot of things at once). That is the baseline. Once you hit 90% of that (ie, spent a LOT of ammo), you request resupply. That resupply can either come from in theater stocks (yes, they have excess ammo stashed in case of emergency), another theater, or the CONUS stocks. From what I can gather, we have a stupid amount of ammo stockpiled CONUS.
The reason we have so much stockpiled is because of minimum production rates. Any production facility needs to keep the lines moving. If you stop the lines, the price per unit skyrockets. To keep that from happening with really important stuff (like ammo), the government has a minimum that they have the ATKs produce per month. This builds up, because even if they have surplus, the government charges the services to fire those weapons. During the late 90s we didn't exactly go through a lot of tank rounds, or other ground vehicles (like MLRS or Bradleys).
That means it is a surplus. Know what is funny (since it is your tax dollars at work)? It is cheaper to have this surplus than to stop the lines and start them again.
Boeing is the second largest defense contractor - Lockheed Martin is the largest. If the Northrop Grumman / TRW deal ever goes through, they will become number one.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149498 - 25/03/2003 11:37
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
What I'm really feeling, though, is that the poor, shoeless, malnourished, uneducated 8-year-old girl who we are getting ready to maim or decapitate on a 100, or 10, or 5-to-1 basis doesn't matter nearly as much as the Marine second lieutenant who was the star quarterback on his high school football team in West Virginia. When you take it to those two extremes, you make an interesting counterpoint. When you look at the average Iraqi citizen and the average soldier, I think there's a different contrast. The life that your average Iraqi citizen lives under Saddam is terrible, and for a country with such a bountiful source of wealth, that's ridiculous. Now, I know America's track record with "building democracies" is rather suspect, but if you at least agree with their intentions, at some point, the average Iraqi citizen will have a more proportionate amount of Iraq's wealth than they currently have. At the very least, humanitarian aid will go to the right people instead of being gobbled up by the Ba'ath party thugs.
So, the idea is that the poor, shoeless, malnourished, uneducated 8-year-old girl will be taken care of. The way the current administration has chosen to attack this problem is by getting rid of Saddam's regime, and, love the plan or hate it, it's a plan. To execute that plan, we've been choosing to be extremely careful to avoid civilian deaths, and, in so doing, may be putting our own troops at a greater risk. Whereas the main reason civilians are at risk is because Iraqi leadership is *placing* them at risk, artificially.
So the crux of my point is that the ultimate responsibility for any civilian casualties lies on those who put the casualties in the line of fire. Yes, it would be our forces who pulled the trigger, but it's the Iraqis that are bringing this war into the cities, placing military targets in civilian areas, and using human shields. We just want to make our way to Baghdad and take out Saddam.
I will stand skeptical on this CNN reporter's statement overall, though "they're ambushing us and shooting our POWs in the head". On the first point, I have been remarking to myself that the term "ambush" seems to have come into a new, liberal usage that smacks of propaganda. On the second, I will wait for more information; the reporter's clear implication is that they were executed -- taken prisoner and then executed. I would say that the 5 poor bastards who could speak to that are not feeling the liberty to do so at this moment. CNN must have an inside source. Okay, I have to be clear here, in that I was paraphrasing the statements on CNN. I probably was liberal in my paraphrasing. The point being made was that we're trying to save their prisoners' lives, and as evidenced on the tape, they're doing quite the opposite.
Looking at the facts, ambush does smack of propaganda, but in this case, it's not a bad assessment. Faking a surrender is simply unacceptable, and if it continues, our stance on surrender is going to have to change. Right now, our forces have to wait until a weapon is seen and actually POINTED at them before attacking a non-uniformed Iraqi, or a surrendering Iraqi soldier. These are good guidelines IF they're actually surrendering, and IF soldiers are in uniform. But what if someone in civilian clothing "surrenders" and has a bunch of plastic explosive strapped to his chest? This *will* happen at some point, as they become more and more desperate.
Doug took some grief for raising "blitzkrieg" and, while I think the parallels aren't supportable, I'm not sure that our intentions, our optimism, our faith in our PGMs, and our sense of righteousness are going to make much difference to those 5, 10, or 100 innocents if events and Saddam "force our hand" and compel us to act more aggressively to protect that second lieutentant. I think it'll pretty much be all one, big blitzkrieg to them. Yeah, but after it's over, I think the vast majority who aren't unlucky enough to lose their life will be very comforted in the fact that they can put food on the table. The idea is that after it's over, on average, Iraqis will be better off than they are now. There's a lot of slip between the cup and the lip, but right now, the idea itself isn't all that far-fetched.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149499 - 25/03/2003 11:37
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Unfortunately, the Iraqi regime is more interested in protecting their own positions of power, and less interested in feeding its people.
True, of course. That doesn't make situation any simpler, but we knew that in advance, didn't we?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149500 - 25/03/2003 11:39
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: Tim]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Boeing is the second largest defense contractor - Lockheed Martin is the largest. If the Northrop Grumman / TRW deal ever goes through, they will become number one. Thanks. I worked for Lockheed Martin a while back, and was going to correct this error, but I wasn't sure if Boeing had somehow passed Lockheed in the 5 years since then. Though since Lockheed got the JSF contract, that would be rather surprising.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149501 - 25/03/2003 11:43
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: Tim]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
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.
So they will be getting their welfare over longer period...
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149502 - 25/03/2003 12:06
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
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!?
Yes. The Dow speaks for itself, doesn't it?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149503 - 25/03/2003 12:31
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Boeing is the second largest defense contractor - Lockheed Martin is the largest. If the Northrop Grumman / TRW deal ever goes through, they will become number one.
Thanks. I worked for Lockheed Martin a while back, and was going to correct this error, but I wasn't sure if Boeing had somehow passed Lockheed in the 5 years since then. Though since Lockheed got the JSF contract, that would be rather surprising.
Oops. My bad, I added Lockheed and Boeings' numbers, not Boeing and Raytheons'.
Even so, according to FY2000 figures, Boeing and Raytheon combined are at 13.7% of the total DOD contract budget, versus Lockheed Martin at 11.3%.
What's changed since then? JSF?
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149504 - 25/03/2003 12:45
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Now, I know America's track record with "building democracies" is rather suspect, but if you at least agree with their intentions, at some point, the average Iraqi citizen will have a more proportionate amount of Iraq's wealth than they currently have. At the very least, humanitarian aid will go to the right people instead of being gobbled up by the Ba'ath party thugs.
Your first admission tends to take a lot of the steam out of the rest of this paragraph. Even in the face of the limitations of the ability to "build democracies", our campaign still seems suffused with optimism on this point. A year after our attack on the Taliban and OBL, even allowing for support from other countries in peacekeeping, how much of Afghanistan does the new, democratic government control? (the answer, I believe, is: Kabul). Iraq is not strictly Afghanistan on a warlord-by-warlord basis, but I am amazed at how optimistic we are as to what/who we have to work with (people like INC and SCIRI) in our bid to plunk down democracy.
So, the idea is that the poor, shoeless, malnourished, uneducated 8-year-old girl will be taken care of.
I'm not so optimistic. When the armed squabbling begins, when SCIRI demands that we leave, when the CNN viewing audience grows weary....how long will we stay? who will help us?
The way the current administration has chosen to attack this problem is by getting rid of Saddam's regime, and, love the plan or hate it, it's a plan. To execute that plan, we've been choosing to be extremely careful to avoid civilian deaths, and, in so doing, may be putting our own troops at a greater risk. Whereas the main reason civilians are at risk is because Iraqi leadership is *placing* them at risk, artificially.
That's an argument. Like someone said, though, we knew this.
The point being made was that we're trying to save their prisoners' lives, and as evidenced on the tape, they're doing quite the opposite.
The last thing I want to do is paint a rosy picture on past and (potential future) Iraqui military behavior, but I haven't seen anything *yet* on the Deutsch/AlJazeera footage that I was able to find so far that says "they are doing the opposite" WRT POWs. I don't get as incensed as Rumsfeld about interviewing POWs on camera (nor do I have his forlorn hope of keeping that footage from the public).
Looking at the facts, ambush does smack of propaganda, but in this case, it's not a bad assessment. Faking a surrender is simply unacceptable
Actually, this last case (assuming the accounts are correct) really does seems like it deserves the "ambush" description (beyond ambush), at least from the standpoint of hiding/falsifying intentions. My suspicions have been, though, that it has been used many more times (as in the case of the poor maintenance folks) where available facts didn't support the use of the term, as in this definition:
"Ambush - The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise. A sudden attack made from a concealed position. Those hiding in order to attack by surprise. The hiding place used for this, or A hidden peril or trap. "
The implication I draw from the liberal use of the term is one of sneakiness. As if *we* wouldn't/won't ambush lots of Iraquis if and when given the chance.
Oh, I guess that if the poor, but armed, folks from that maintenance outfit mistakenly drove up to an Iraqui defensive position, it could be that the only way this could *not* be considered an ambush would be if the Iraqui position was well exposed and clearly marked.
Oh, I am being cynical again. Not trusting the media these days.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149505 - 25/03/2003 13:03
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
What's changed since then? JSF?
A bunch. JSF is the biggest. FCS is probably the second biggest. Stryker isn't small moneywise. F-15Ks going to Korea. F-16s going to Poland. After that, there are roughly a bazillion smaller contracts out there. Crusader being cancelled.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149506 - 25/03/2003 13:06
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
What's changed since then? JSF? Yeah. A $200B mega-contract tends to swing the balance a little bit in your favor.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149507 - 25/03/2003 14:44
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Just think...that price would have bought every person in the US an empeg at fire sale prices. Probably every adult at original prices...
I don't have any strong interest in keeping current on this stuff - I vaguely remember that contract being awarded, but wouldn't have known the $ figure.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149508 - 25/03/2003 14:52
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Or, more soberingly, given every poverty-stricken family in the US about $30,000.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149509 - 25/03/2003 14:55
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Ah, that's peanuts, a meager $200bn. How about $700+bn tax cut, mostly for corporations and upper income brackets?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149510 - 25/03/2003 17:02
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
How about $700+bn tax cut, mostly for corporations and upper income brackets? But the senate just cut it in half. Still, way too much to be giving the Enrons and Worldcoms of the world.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149511 - 25/03/2003 19:11
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Doug took some grief for raising "blitzkrieg" and, while I think the parallels aren't supportable...
I'll probably take some more grief for this, but go ahead, I'll just pout for awhile, then go to bed and turn my electric blanket up to "9". 
Perhaps I have a basic misunderstanding about the nature of Blitzkrieg. Isn't the literal translation of Blitzkrieg "Lightning War"? To me, it means extremely rapid military advance, crushing all opposition with overwhelming technical superiority. (Think of Panzers blowing through horseback-mounted Polish cavalry.) Isn't this what we are attempting to do in Iraq?
I do not associate Blitzkrieg with indiscriminate slaughter. The Nazis didn't waste time destroying things that were not militarily significant. Their intent was to attain their objectives as quickly as possible with the least expenditure of materials.
I imagine that a lot of people in Poland, Belgium, France, etc. were pretty much in "Shock and Awe" when Germany's Blitzkrieg rolled across their borders.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149512 - 25/03/2003 20:21
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Me: Doug took some grief for raising "blitzkrieg" and, while I think the parallels aren't supportable...
Well, if I were more honest (about the issue that I probably skirted), I guess I'd say that you took some grief for drawing a US=Hitler parallel (I think that was the real issue)...but you didn't directly draw that parallel, yn0t_ did, so perhaps I should be taking him more to task. Let me think about that...
I'll probably take some more grief for this, but go ahead, I'll just pout for awhile, then go to bed and turn my electric blanket up to "9".
I will tell you my electric blanket story sometime.... Nine.... Mmmmmmm.
Perhaps I have a basic misunderstanding about the nature of Blitzkrieg. Isn't the literal translation of Blitzkrieg "Lightning War"? To me, it means extremely rapid military advance, crushing all opposition with overwhelming technical superiority. (Think of Panzers blowing through horseback-mounted Polish cavalry.) Isn't this what we are attempting to do in Iraq?
I think this is mostly correct, save for the elements of precision and very selective targeting ('decapitation strikes'). At this point, I don't think I have to tell you how skeptical I am of the actual distinctions (as I said, I don't think our high McNamara-esque opinion of our precise, humane bombing capabilities will matter one whit to that little girl when the bomb drops on her), but I am going to guess that Guderian's blitzkrieg philosophy didn't so much as pay lip service to avoidance of civilian casualties (while Tommy Franks and Co certainly do more than that) and the precision of Stukas and massed artillery/armor circa 1939 didn't allow nearly the degree of distinction/precision ... (He says, archly) in principle.
I do not associate Blitzkrieg with indiscriminate slaughter. The Nazis didn't waste time destroying things that were not militarily significant. Their intent was to attain their objectives as quickly as possible with the least expenditure of materials.
Yes, I think that is correct, but I can't separate "Blitzkrieg" from its context -- "How handy that we didn't kill all the civilians! We get to turn them into slave laborers!"
I imagine that a lot of people in Poland, Belgium, France, etc. were pretty much in "Shock and Awe" when Germany's Blitzkrieg rolled across their borders.
Absolutely. But... (and I'm waffling here....) I have a hard time thinking of our actions in the same breath as (capital B) "Blitzkrieg", but like I've said, I think the distinctions between evil fascist blitzkrieg and kinder, gentler, democratic Shock and Awe will be lost on that little girl.
So, Tony, what do you think?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149513 - 25/03/2003 21:04
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
but you didn't directly draw that parallel, yn0t_ did, so perhaps I should be taking him more to task. Let me think about that... Umm...
1. Doug: "And how is this so different from what "Uncle Adolf" did to Poland in 1939?"
2. Uncle Adolf = Adolf Hitler
3. The statement in #1 is a comparison between what the U.S. is doing ("shock and awe") and what Hitler did (Blitzkrieg.)
4. QED.
I will tell you my electric blanket story sometime.... Nine.... Mmmmmmm. I think we need one that goes up to 11.
Shock and Awe will be lost on that little girl. True only because she's dead. To the country at large, I think the focus on hitting only military targets (within the limits of what precision-guided munitions can deliver) will be very much appreciated by those who survive. If I'm a guy who lives across the street from a military depot, and the depot gets taken out without me losing my life, I'm pretty darn happy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149514 - 25/03/2003 21:27
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
3. The statement in #1 is a comparison between what the U.S. is doing ("shock and awe") and what Hitler did (Blitzkrieg.)
4. QED.
OK, QED. As if I haven't portrayed what I see to be the difference, I should perhaps just shut up and let Doug address that himself if he so cares. I just think maybe I appreciate what he was saying from a "functional" perspective.
I think we need one that goes up to 11.
The one time I turned Nancy up to 11, she started to smoke.
Me:Shock and Awe will be lost on that little girl.
True only because she's dead.
Well, we can take comfort that Sarab simply died, but her little sister Yasimina lost one arm, a foot, and part of her lower jaw. Not so simple. Also not so simple the poor lance corporal who lost both legs this past weekend to a land mine.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149516 - 25/03/2003 21:48
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I just think maybe I appreciate what he was saying from a "functional" perspective. Fair enough. I just wanted to indicate that I didn't throw that statement out willy-nilly.. My opinions might not always be right, but I do try to use sound logic in illustrating and/or defending them.
Well, we can take comfort that Sarab simply died, but her little sister Yasimina lost one arm, a foot, and part of her lower jaw. Not so simple. Also not so simple the poor lance corporal who lost both legs this past weekend to a land mine. I don't think it's about taking comfort, because war, no matter what, isn't comfortable. This military strategy is about doing what's best for the largest amount of people. My original statement (and, I think, the origin of this particular tangent) adds the caveat that, on some level, I believe American military lives are more precious than lives of civilians, especially if those civilians aren't doing everything they can to get out of the way. In the long run, any threat to a small number of civilians is a consequence of the effort to benefit all the people in Iraq, not just those of the Ba'ath party and those who support them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149517 - 25/03/2003 21:50
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Aw, I was gonna say that. You're losing your touch, Tony.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149519 - 25/03/2003 23:00
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
(I feel a minor bout of sarcasm in my future....This note is for the benefit of those who might be less likely to recognize it than you....)
I don't think it's about taking comfort, because war, no matter what, isn't comfortable.
You have probably (correctly) concluded that Yasimina is fictional. I felt a need to invent *some* young innocent Iraqi, though, as I am afraid that none of them are likely to make it to CNN.com with their picture, hometown, etc.
This military strategy is about doing what's best for the largest amount of people.
Ah, so finding WMD and frustrating terrorism have been placed on the back burner, have they?
My original statement (and, I think, the origin of this particular tangent) adds the caveat that, on some level, I believe American military lives are more precious than lives of civilians,
If you can't tell, this "sliding scale" of relative worth that you have put forward still disturbs me. I mean, once we have put any of our reservations aside about the justifications for this invasion and are fully committed to "Support Our Troops!", who gets to decide what the ratio is? Is it 1-to-5? 1-to-100? or maybe 1-to-200?
especially if those civilians aren't doing everything they can to get out of the way.
Like Yasimina was going to hop in the Mercedes with her mom and zip across the desert for a brief vacation in Lebanon?
In the long run, any threat to a small number of civilians is a consequence of the effort to benefit all the people in Iraq, not just those of the Ba'ath party and those who support them.
Hmmm. Again, I thought this was all about WMD.
I have to ask: What would have been the negative consequences if we had delayed this 6 months -- had a little more parlay with the countries whose support we *said* we wanted? How about 12 months?
Some people (conspiracy theorists, no doubt) suggest that the US was happy to turn the screws on the UN -- either get the rubber stamp we demanded or weaken the UN -- a win either way.
Interesting snippet from an article in this week's New Yorker (Nicholas Lehmann "How it Came to War") that quotes an interview with Richard Haass of the State Department: "There was a moment...[in] the first week of July [2002] when I had a meeting with Condi [Rice]...and I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that the decision's been made, don't waste your breath."
July 2002. Take what you like from this. For me, it just confirms the feeling that the decision to invade was a done deal long ago and that all of the dancing around about WMD, terrorism links, UN resolutions, and weapons inspections were immaterial as regards the outcome.
Also in that issue, Seymour Hersch's recap on how the administration falsified* "proof" of Iraqui nuclear capability (and did a laughably bad job of it at that....What, you say that 98 percent of Rush listeners still consider this fabrication to be the gospel truth? I'm shocked!)
(edit: *saying "the adminsitration falsified" the Niger uranium documents is going beyond what Hersch, or the evidence, can firmly prove. What is not in dispute is that they used falsified documents as a lynchpin to leverage congressional acquiesence on an Iraq war.)
Edited by jimhogan (25/03/2003 23:26)
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149520 - 25/03/2003 23:36
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
This military strategy is about doing what's best for the largest amount of people.
Ah, so finding WMD and frustrating terrorism have been placed on the back burner, have they? Certainly not. Doing what's best for the largest amount of people includes getting rid of any chemical/biological weapons, and getting rid of a regime that funds terrorism.
If you can't tell, this "sliding scale" of relative worth that you have put forward still disturbs me. I mean, once we have put any of our reservations aside about the justifications for this invasion and are fully committed to "Support Our Troops!", who gets to decide what the ratio is? Is it 1-to-5? 1-to-100? or maybe 1-to-200? I don't know about the math. I am terrible at math. But the fact is, Iraq's strategy is to turn this into a war of urban combat, and that increases the number of civilian casualties to begin with. That's on them. If we are then reluctant to pull the trigger because there *might* be non-combatants in the area of the blast radius, we're risking our troops' lives and endangering the overall mission.
Like Yasimina was going to hop in the Mercedes with her mom and zip across the desert for a brief vacation in Lebanon?
Iraq's a big country. There's lots of places in Iraq that we're not going after. It's not like she has to travel across the country, but if there's a lot of Republican Guard folks coming in and out of the "library" next door, maybe Yasimina and her family needs to think about relocating until the war is over.
Hmmm. Again, I thought this was all about WMD.
If you're trying to get me to bite on the notion that "this is about WMD and terrorism, and not a regime change," that's not going to happen. I'm also not going to debate the connection between getting rid the regime and taking care of terrorism and the use/development of WMD. You think getting rid of WMD in Iraq (which have been used on Iraqis) doesn't benefit Iraqis?
I have to ask: What would have been the negative consequences if we had delayed this 6 months -- had a little more parlay with the countries whose support we *said* we wanted? How about 12 months? Well... I am *furious* that we didn't try to stick with diplomacy a little while longer, and try to get more nations on board with a more proper enforcement resolution. I found the 30-day resolution that was briefly on the table to be fair. I was against going to war when we did and under the circumstances that we did, but I also think that the chances of getting a REAL weapons inspection process going forward were very slim.
Turning the question around, why did it have to take 6-12 months for Saddam to fulfill his obligations under 1441?
July 2002. Take what you like from this. For me, it just confirms the feeling that the decision to invade was a done deal long ago and that all of the dancing around about WMD, terrorism links, UN resolutions, and weapons inspections were immaterial as regards the outcome. I don't follow your logic. It seems to assume that the White House had no idea about WMD, terrorism in July 2002. What's so questionable about the timing?
Also in that issue, Seymour Hersch's recap on how the administration falsified "proof" of Iraqui nuclear capability (and did a laughably bad job of it at that....What, you say that 98 percent of Rush listeners still consider this fabrication to be the gospel truth? I'm shocked!) It certainly wouldn't be shocking to me if the Government was engaged in falsifying some documents. My understanding of was that the falsifications in the report that Powell provided came from their intelligence sources, not Gov't officials themselves. But I'm not so naive as to think that there aren't lies and half-truths told by the U.S. (or any other) Government, and it's conceivable to me that those who oversaw the document were looking for any evidence to substantiate their chosen conclusion.
Incidentally, I think it's important to point out that, though I seem to be taking a position here where I'm defending the rationale behind the war, and giving parts of our Government the benefit of the doubt, I think Bush and many elements of his administration are complete idiots. I just think that there are far too many voices buying into whatever conspiracy happens to get printed, without thinking that maybe, just maybe, there's a good end to these questionable means.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149521 - 26/03/2003 02:39
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Iraq's a big country. There's lots of places in Iraq that we're not going after. It's not like she has to travel across the country, but if there's a lot of Republican Guard folks coming in and out of the "library" next door, maybe Yasimina and her family needs to think about relocating until the war is over
Hmmm
A few points:
- she probably doesn't have the benefit of watching CNN to find out which bits of Iraq are "safe"
- she probably doesn't have any transport to move any distance quickly
- if she has the Republican Guard living next door then she might well not have the freedom of movement she would like
Don't forget there are stories coming out of Basra (which may or may not be true) of people being shot because they tried to leave the city.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index