Shock & Awe

Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Shock & Awe - 20/03/2003 18:35

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.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 20/03/2003 20:34

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

Re: Shock & Awe - 20/03/2003 20:46

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.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 20/03/2003 20:56

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.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Shock & Awe - 20/03/2003 22:33

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.
Posted by: blitz

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 10:29

On a TV screen near you now. Drudge Alert
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 11:05

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?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 11:38

I'm missing something. Pink mushroom clouds?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 11:56

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.
Posted by: blitz

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 12:03

U.S. Out Of North America!
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 12:13

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!")
Posted by: blitz

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 12:47

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.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 16:02

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.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 21:02

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.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 21:33

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.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 23:03

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.
Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 21/03/2003 23:07

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.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shock & Awe - 22/03/2003 00:30

Iraq was almost put in charge of the UN Disarmament Committee. What a joke.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Shock & Awe - 22/03/2003 01:45

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.
Posted by: blitz

Re: Shock & Awe - 22/03/2003 08:15

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.
Posted by: blitz

Re: Shock & Awe - 22/03/2003 08:28

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.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 24/03/2003 20:13

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.")
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 24/03/2003 22:30

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.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 24/03/2003 22:38

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

Tony, this seems like exceedingly bad math.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 24/03/2003 22:44

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."
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 02:34

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.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 03:24

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!?
Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 07:19

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.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 07:43

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.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 09:02

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???



Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 10:05

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.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 10:18

We should take $75 billion worth of oil to cover our expenses.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 10:42

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.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:01

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.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:15

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.
Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:32

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.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:37

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.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:37

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?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:39

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.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 11:43

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...
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 12:06

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?
Posted by: genixia

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 12:31



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?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 12:45

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.
Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 13:03

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.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 13:06

What's changed since then? JSF?
Yeah. A $200B mega-contract tends to swing the balance a little bit in your favor.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 14:44

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.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 14:52

Or, more soberingly, given every poverty-stricken family in the US about $30,000.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 14:55

Ah, that's peanuts, a meager $200bn. How about $700+bn tax cut, mostly for corporations and upper income brackets?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 17:02

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.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 19:11

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.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 20:21

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?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 21:04

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.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 21:27

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.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 21:29

I think we need one that goes up to 11.
Aw, I was gonna say that.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 21:48

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.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 21:50

Aw, I was gonna say that.
You're losing your touch, Tony.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 22:10

Aw, I was gonna say that.

You're losing your touch, Tony.

It wasn't in the FAQ.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 23:00

(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.)
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 25/03/2003 23:36

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.
Posted by: andy

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 02:39

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.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 08:11

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.
You've got some valid points. But again, because it's the Iraqi's that are putting their civilians in the line of fire, it's *they* who are ultimately responsible for collateral damage caused by civilians being too close to the fighting. If the Republican Guard isn't letting them leave so they can use them as human shields, then it's the Republican Guard that's increasing their risk of being killed. Ultimately, the best strategy is to try to avoid any civilian areas, but when we go into them, we can't let the Iraqis take any combat options away from us.

Look I'm not saying that I want to see more innocents dead. But I do think that the Iraqi army is trying to use our sensitivities against us by putting these human shields in our way, pretending to surrender, etc. In times of war, we need to suspend those sensitivities until the job is done, lest the Iraqi army have an advantage, draw the war out longer, and, yes, lead to more deaths on both sides.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 08:53

it's *they* who are ultimately responsible for collateral damage caused by civilians being too close to the fighting.
You say that you're opposed to this war, but you don't seem to take that into account here. If we weren't there fighting a war that most of the world is opposed to, then US soldiers wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians.

It's pointless to lay blame. Noncombatants have been being killed ever since wars stopped being personal fights amongst aristocracy. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 09:10

But again, because it's the Iraqi's that are putting their civilians in the line of fire, it's *they* who are ultimately responsible for collateral damage caused by civilians being too close to the fighting.

The Apaches that took all the small arms fire, came under fire from houses. They didn't want to return fire for fear of causing civilian casualties. They waited until they saw fire coming for a particular house, then hit that one. They are risking a lot trying to not hit civilians, and the Iraqis are purposely putting civilians at risk.

The same goes for Basra. The attacks from there were staged from a hospital. Obviously those are not exactly at the top of a target list. Any civilians in that hospital were put at risk because of the Iraqis purposely using them as a shield.

The US has a reputation of trying to minimize civilian casualties. In Mogadeshu(sp?) the fighters had unarmed civilians surrounding them, and in some cases laying on top of them to act as shields.

The civilians aren't just too close to the fighting, they are in the fighting, by design (and not the coalition's either).
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 09:38

You say that you're opposed to this war
No. I said I was opposed to going in when we did and under the circumstances we did. I am not opposed to the goal of this war, which is to get rid of the Iraqi regime. I just think we needed more support, and could have done more on the diplomatic front. I don't think I ever made a blanket statement that I'm opposed to the war.
but you don't seem to take that into account here. If we weren't there fighting a war that most of the world is opposed to, then US soldiers wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians.
And if the Iraqi regime had followed the ultimatum, then we also wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians. They had a choice, they chose not to leave. Given that the regime kills its own civilians (any who don't support the regime, interestingly enough) I think the net effect is positive. At each step of this, Saddam and his party have had the option to do things in a way that would ensure no casualties, military or otherwise.
It's pointless to lay blame. Noncombatants have been being killed ever since wars stopped being personal fights amongst aristocracy. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.
Sure there is, we *could* be a lot more careful, and, in so doing, be that much less effective at killing the real enemies. My point with the "sliding scale" thing is that, right now, we need to focus on getting the bad guys, instead of focusing so much on the collateral damage aspect.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 09:40

The same goes for Basra. The attacks from there were staged from a hospital. Obviously those are not exactly at the top of a target list. Any civilians in that hospital were put at risk because of the Iraqis purposely using them as a shield.
Exactly. And, in my book, that hospital has now become a legitimate target. The ideal situation is to avoid the hospital and try to get outside the range of any attacks that come from it. If that's not possible, then the hospital has to go, and it's the combatants who went into the hospital who should assume the blame for the civilian casualties.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 10:08

And if we hadn't put Saddam in power in the first place, and if many Iraqis didn't have Communist leanings, and if we hadn't had absurd notions about opposing all communists, and if Stalin hadn't been so evil, and if Lenin hadn't started the revolution, and if the Russian empire had been more receptive to their commoners, and ...
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 10:11

So you're saying what, exactly?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 10:13

I'm saying that you can trace these problems pretty far back. I suppose that there's no point at which it makes a lot of sense to either pass the buck or stop it.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 10:39

I'm saying that you can trace these problems pretty far back. I suppose that there's no point at which it makes a lot of sense to either pass the buck or stop it.
Yeah, and one can argue that we're putting and end to the buck-passing. Instead of saying "well, the situation in Iraq is what it is, we can't do anything about it, and it's someone else's fault," the coalition is going in and doing something to try to solve it. A lot of chips are on the table. Even if you blame the US for "putting Saddam in power" (an overstatement, we supported his party, but that's about it) it's encouraging that we're not afraid to correct our mistakes, and take whatever criticism might come with that. Back then, it was a good idea. Now, it's not. Times change. I would love for all of our decisions to be good now and good in 15 years, but that's just not feasible.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 11:53

Yeah. The CIA in no way helped the Baath takeover in the late 60s or their Communist executions and assassinations before and after that. Sure.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 12:58

Yeah. The CIA in no way helped the Baath takeover in the late 60s or their Communist executions and assassinations before and after that. Sure.
<crickets>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 13:19

<owl hooting in the distance>
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 13:49

Well, for good or for ill, it looks like the U.S. administration is starting to publicly agree with my feelings on this issue...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32299-2003Mar26.html

"The Pentagon acknowledged striking targets in a residential Baghdad neighborhood that may have caused civilian damage or deaths Wednesday and blamed Iraqi forces for placing military equipment there."
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 13:59

I'm not saying that it's not their fault, really. Obviously, they've had a long-standing tactic towards using civilians as shields, and it's wrong (unless those civilians volunteered, which seems unlikely).

I just think that we need to make sure that we do everything that we can to avoid hurting anyone who is not trying to hurt us. And I think that we have largely done that. I just don't think that it's wrong to also point out that it is in fact the US military that is ultimately killing these people and we need to make sure to keep that in mind. Eyes on the prize and all.

I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life, especially when that Iraqi isn't a combatant.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:10

In reply to:

I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqui life, especially when that Iraqui life isn't a combatant.




Gosh I hate my own thread! It has gotten a bit heated in here so I've skipped past most of the posts (sorry), but I did want to say that I agree with Bitt on this one and I think that most military personel would agree too. "Part of the job" of being in the military is assuming a certain risk.

The only exception being a situation like in "Blackhawk Down" when the human sheilds were all smiles about knowing the US soldiers wouldn't shoot them (I've never seen the film, but from personel I know that were close to this event, I'm glad to say they treated those people as combatants since they clearly were volunteering to get involved.)
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:14

I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqui life, especially when that Iraqui life isn't a combatant.
First off, it's Iraqi... I've seen a couple others use Iraqui, but when the Grammar Cop is doing it, I need to speak up.

Second, though I did say I'd trade Iraqi civilian lives for one American soldier's life, I'm not saying that American lives are more valuable. What I'm saying is that if the American forces accomplish their objective, many more Iraqis are likely to have a good life, and not die of malnutrition, or die because a Republican Guard soldier decided they didn't like the way someone saluted Saddam's picture.

So if Americans can just focus on the mission a little more, and not be so frightened of a civilian casualty, the chances of getting this done sooner are greater, and the chances of Iraqi's needlessly dying later on are much less.

Take the situation in Basra, for instance. Right now the U.N. is saying there's a humanitarian crisis brewing there. Why? Because we can't get aid to them. Why? Because Iraqi soldiers are hiding in the city. Until we get rid of that cancer, it's difficult or impossible to save lives with much needed food, water, and medicine. Can we take out these soldiers/militia-men without civilian death? Not if they're hiding in hospitals and killing anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Plus, if we can get to Baghdad and take out the senior leadership, maybe thousands of these Iraqi militia "cannon fodder" types won't need to die.

In essence, by altering our strategy such that we're slightly less worried about civilians, I think the numbers work out better overall for less deaths, American or Iraqi, combatant or civlian. This is pure conjecture, but it seems logical to me.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:24

I've seen a couple others use Iraqui, but when the Grammar Cop is doing it, I need to speak up.
Typo(s). I already fixed it. (You know how your fingers want to type certain sequences? Maybe it's just me.)
if the American forces accomplish their objective, many more Iraqis are likely to have a good life
You're probably right, but that's certainly not the way you presented it before. I'm not saying that you're changing your story, but it didn't read that way.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:35

I freely admit that my story is slowly evolving. Throughout this thread I've been gradually backing off of my earlier comment that "American military lives are more precious than lives of civilians" because that's probably not the case. A life is a life. But if it's me with the M-16 in my hand in the middle of Basra and it's my life that's on the line, you better believe my life is more precious than someone else's... And if I'm told I have to wait until I see a weapon POINTED AT ME before I'm allowed to classify someone as a combatant (that's the orders that were given initially) I have to say I'm calling bullshit. This isn't Hogan's Alley. It's real life and death.

However, my recent trend towards pointing out that moving the "sliding scale" a little bit will probably equal less death long-term, even if it might cause a few more civilian deaths in the short term, is not part of my efforts to back away from my original point. It's just a conclusion that I've come to whilst debating the issue. It's hard to argue against, especially when the Iraqis are killing civilians themselves, on purpose.
Posted by: blitz

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:40

First off, it's Iraqi... I've seen a couple others use Iraqui

Since you are the grammar police, I know it is spelled Iraq, but why? I was watching some spanish channel the other night and it is spelled Irak in spanish.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:49

Most people would say Iraqi civilian lives and American lives are equal, but if you had to choose one Iraqi civilian or one American soldier to die, who would you pick? If you had to choose between your own mother dying or someone else's mother dying, who would you choose? You would probably base your decision on which life is more 'precious' to you.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Shock & Awe - 26/03/2003 14:51

I don't know the specific rules in regards to Arabic, but someone sometime defined specific rules about how foreign languages, especially, with non-latinate alphabets are to be transliterated to English. These rules were set up so that when I write Iraq, you know what I'm talking about, and not everyone is transliterating it in their own way (which would otherwise be perfectly legitimate, since the sounds used in Arabic simply don't exist in English).

Why exactly whoever it was chose the `q', I don't precisely know. I am pretty sure that the sound used at the end of that word does not precisely match any sound we use in English. It lies somewhere between `k' and `g', which, if you think about it, is kinda where `q' would be if we ever pronounced it without the following `w' sound indicated by the `u'. Then again, not so much.

To make a long story short (too late), arbitrary rules.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Shock & Awe - 27/03/2003 12:55

Most people would say Iraqi civilian lives and American lives are equal, but if you had to choose one Iraqi civilian or one American soldier to die, who would you pick? If you had to choose between your own mother dying or someone else's mother dying, who would you choose? You would probably base your decision on which life is more 'precious' to you.

Generally, the soldier. Harshly speaking, it is their job to die. But, of course, individual decisions are based on who or what is more 'precious', and one cannot expect anybody to value a stranger's life more than their own. Still, firefighters, police officers, paramedics often do; perhaps soldiers should, too.

Incidentaly, I read some time ago (time for reread) an excellent short story collection, 'Artificial Things' by Karen Joy Fowler. One of the stories (I think the one that gives the title to the book) is about a woman whose man died in Vietnam; even her memories of him were haunted by a child he killed: the child was approaching him holding something behind its back, which might or might not be a bomb; I don't remember whether he found out, but that doesn't matter. Highly recommended.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Shock & Awe - 30/03/2003 23:54

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.)


I probably expressed myself poorly here, and for that I apolgize.

I did not mean to suggest that the U.S.'s motives were Hitlerian in intent, but rather that the procedures used (rapid advance through overwhelming military superiority) had been done before, most recently by the Nazis.

I certainly do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with this tactic. I think that in the past it has proven to be quite effective.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: genixia

Re: Shock & Awe - 31/03/2003 07:47

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.


News just in....

The Navy has said that it has fired more than 1/3 of it's stocks of Tomahawk Cruise missiles, and is repositioning launch platforms in order to fire more. It is also going to ask for money from the supplemental budget in order to increase production.

Posted by: Tim

Re: Shock & Awe - 31/03/2003 23:23

News just in....

News thats been available since 2001 (much earlier if you were in the right circles)...

The military has been insanely low on conventional tipped cruise missile since before Kosovo (the Air Force ran out of CALCMs during Kosovo). The Tomahawk production line wasn't running (and still isn't as far as I'm aware).

Yes, they do need more Tomahawks, they've needed more for quite a while. They've been waiting for Tactical Tomahawk, because restarting the line (by one estimate) would take two and a half years to produce the first usable missile at over $40M cost.

Edit: Made Block V, Tactical Tomahawk - Block V is just a proposal.