Bear Flag Republic Radio WeblogLiving out on the left coast |
| Last modified: |
|
8/5/04; 9:56:57 PM |
| Feeds: |
|
LIVE webcam Cumbres & Toltec rail yard in Chama, New Mexico.
Current BlogRoll.
[Macro error: The server, api.google.com, returned a SOAP-ENV:Server fault: Exception from service object: Invalid authorization key:]
|
|
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
One of the worst problems with the US military is that it doesn't have a brain trust. We rely on outsiders to think for us. We promote line officers to the senior ranks (a line officer is a person that is great at leading men to take the next hill) to execute on the plans of the civilian brain trust comes up with (in this case led by Rumsfeld). The only exception to this rule in modern times is Schwarzkopf, with his 170 IQ, and his ability to deal in strategy at its deepest level. I would really like to see the US develop a general staff system (I would have signed up for that career path in a second). [John Robb's Radio Weblog]comments < 9:36:41 PM 
>The emerging second Superpower. I have heard this a couple of times over the last week (I bet the Chinese would disagree ;->). Very intersting how new memes spread so quickly. [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:36:15 PM
>Just a note on the US war plan. It's clear that the war plan is a very flexible document -- potentially even modular in construction (very much like a huge outline of a decision tree). It isn't a serial scenario. In contrast, it is complex, multi-faceted, and clearly a testiment to how computer technology has impacted the planning process since the last Gulf War. Given this flexibility, it is likely that there isn't a sequence of events that would fall outside the plan (from suicide bombers to nuclear detonation). Therefore, the answer we hear from Rumsfeld and Franks: "we on plan" becomes a hollow phrase. Perhaps we should refine the language to: "we have deviated from the optimal course (measured in terms of the length of the war, projected military casualties, projected civilian casualties, etc.)." [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:35:51 PM
>Given the expected extended pause in ground operations, the greatest danger to the war effort isn't terrorism or geurilla attacks. Rather, it is the potential that our withering air campaign against the Republican Guard will cause Saddam to withdraw them to the safety of Baghdad. If that happens, the recrimination and consternation regarding this operation will be robustly intense (and make the last couple of days of media frenzy regarding troop allocations look sallow in comparison). The next major objective of this war was to destroy the Republican Guard in the open (a secondary objective is to widen the security perimiter of the supply train and the clear the flanks of the forces arrayed against Baghdad). If the RG retreats after weeks of air bombardment before we have the ground forces in place to engage them, that opportunity will be lost. Nothing holds so much hope, given the current status of the administration's war plan, of toppling the regime without bloody fighting in the streets of Baghdad, than seeing 100,000 elite troops (the Praetorian Guard of the regime) utterly destroyed on the outskirts of Baghdad. [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:35:17 PM
>There have been reports (including the BBC this morning) that indicate that the ground assault on the Republican Guard (ringed around Baghdad) will be delayed by up to 40 days (as anticipated by this weblog). We are waiting for more troops to arrive. Given the s**t storm surrounding Rumsfeld and Franks right now in the press, everyone should expect to see a rapid retreat from the "shock and awe" doctrine to the "Powell" doctrine. [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:34:51 PM
>Newsday. The internally conflicted US policy on Iraq continues to do damage. On the one hand we need local support (particularly from the Shiites in the south and central Iraqi cities), yet we aren't willing to talk, negotiate, or work with the person that that could make this happen (and the person who will likely be a major political player in a post-Saddam Iraq): Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim. Our inability to work with this spiritual and political leader of Iraqi Shiites has resulted in the following:
This has not stopped the Kurds from working with al-Hakim's forces, the Iranian-housed Iraqi Shiite Badr Brigade:
It's disheartening to think that the US military and political leadership assumed that there would be popular support for US military action in Iraq without working hand in glove with extremely popular opposition leaders. Granted, these meetings are starting to occur, but they are in many ways too little, too late. In my view, a face-to-face meeting between Bush, Barzani, Talabani, Chalabi, and al-Hakim should have been a prerequisite for any military action in Iraq. Also, without the support of the men listed above, we will likely see the arrival of real terrorists as opposed to Saddam's manufactured ones (see below). [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:34:09 PM
>One thing I hope people understand re: the recent reckless attacks (including the recent suicide bomber and Toyota "technical" type assaults that routinely effictively result in suicide) by Iraqis on American positions: these attacks don't closely fit the model we routinely see in the suicide attacks on Israel or the assault we experienced in 9/11. These suicide attacks aren't derived from a well-spring of patriotism or religious fervor. They are driven by Saddam's Stalinist tactics. Saddam, like Stalin before him, understands how to use mind-numbing terror to compel people to throw their lives away in support of his goals. To quote Mao: "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Who wouldn't drive a car laden with explosives if his/her family was inches away from the barrel of a Fedayeen rifle? [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:33:47 PM
>Plan B. I took some time tonight to reread Liddell Hart's (one of my favorite military thinkers) analysis of the campaigns of Belisarius (a Byzantine general that fought some of the most brilliant and bloodless campaigns in history). It is great for out of the box thinking. My question: what would Belisarius do in the place of Rumsfeld and Franks? He would first identify the threat and then devise an economical means to eliminate it (economical in that there is as little fighting as possible). If the threat is that Iraq is able to fund terrorism and fund the development of weapons of mass destruction, then the common basis for the threats is his ability to fund. How does he fund these threats? Obviously, oil revenues. He cheats on the UN oil for food program. So, what would Belisarius do if he was leading US forces? He would take the oil. A quick and limited military strike could have done that. The oil would then be put under a joint US/UN control and the funds would be strictly controlled. Payments to Turkey and Kuwait would be made for their inconvenience. Funds for food and medicine would be made and these goods would be shipped to Iraqi authorities. A slight modification of the plan would enable the creation of autonomous zones for Kurds (including Kirkuk and Iraq's northern oil field) and Shiites (including Basra and Iraq's southern oil field). This would require a small amount of fighting to clear these cities. These zones in turn would get access to unrestricted funds. The rest of a penniless Iraq would be left to Saddam. In order for Iraq to get the oil back, they would be forced to disarm and undergo social changes that would provide freedoms for Iraqis (effectively, that would require the removal of Saddam). The first phase would last three years and be renewed annually until the requirements were met. Of course, we could still do this. It would be even easier to generate change if we did it after we smashed the Republican Guard. Without the Republican Guard, Saddam wouldn't have any sufficient force to fend off an aggressive guerilla movement or a coup. Of course, given this strategy, this fight isn't even necessary if a truly bloodless victory is the top requirement. Remember Liddell's words, [John Robb's Radio Weblog] comments < 9:33:12 PM
>Dax Kelson: Red Hat Linux 9 Technical Changes. [Hack the Planet] comments < 9:30:35 PM
>Report: Most Users Do Not Trust Microsoft [Windows Informant] comments < 9:09:09 PM
> |
| Archive: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|