by Patrick Lang (bio below)
Ground combat is not like sensitivity training where the idea is to insure that everyone’s self-image is preserved in an atmosphere of “consideration for others.” No, engagements in ground combat are supposed to be conducted in such a way that you and your comrades survive and the other side does not. This is definitely a “zero-sum game.”
In every well-run ground engagement, there are two parts to the friendly actions/plan:
- Fire (a hopefully withering barrage of bullets, artillery shells or aerial ordnance which either incapacitates the other side or forces him to take cover so that he can not shoot at you effectively. While that is going on –
- Maneuver takes place. In other words while one group does the cowboys and Indians thing of “Cover Me,” the other group “goes for” the enemy on the ground, hopefully not frontally. That’s how things work.
- Fire and Maneuver. Every soldier with any real knowledge knows that’s how it works. It doesn’t matter if the force engaged is a Rifle Squad (11 men) or an Army Corps (many, many men). That’s how it works.
If you try to do it some other way, for example, not have enough available fire support to “shut the enemy down,” then the enemy is going to be free to shoot the hell out of you and you can expect to loose a lot more people while trying to maneuver if you can maneuver at all.
Why am I going on about this? It is because I have finally grasped the fact that US ground troops in Iraq do not have anything like the fire support available to them that people of my “primitive” and backward generation were used to having.
Here is how things worked when I was young and spry. There would be a “meeting engagement.” (troops meeting) The friendly commander would immediately request fire support from supporting artillery through his Forward Observer or an Air Force liaison officer. The first “ranging” fire from the artillery would arrive quite quickly. The fall of the shot would be adjusted with a round or two more and then “fire for effect” would be requested followed by a lot of shells falling all over the target area, maybe with some smoke thrown in for good measure. While that was going on the enemy would stop shooting, and our side would get up and “go for them.” All of this would take place at a really low level of coordination with no seniors involved at all. This was routine AND the way to stay alive.
Apparently this is not the case in Iraq where “fire missions” seem to be approved at division level, far, far above the level of the action. From everything I can learn there is already a shortage of tube artillery in Iraq and as a result troops are often outside the “range fan” of friendly guns, a situation I was never comfortable with. Airplanes are nice but not all that reliable as to timing when you need them. They also often have a bad tendency to mistakenly drop their ordnance where it is not required.
To compound this problem, a desire to win “hearts and minds” and not to anger people by killing their relatives has made it a major issue as to whether troops engaged in a built up area should be given fire support that might (probably) would kill civilians. After all, the best text books on how to do counterinsurgency tell you that you can’t upset the civilians. Sounds good.
As you think this over, I will give you my opinion that to be honest (intellectually honest) you have to accept the fact that by not making as much fire support available as is needed up front (as opposed to in the rear at Hq.) you are making a decision to have more Americans killed and wounded. Its a trade off.
Out in western Anbar, the Marines don’t seem to be so sensitive since they shoot up towns as needed with artillery and their own dedicated air. They seem to have followed the same rules at Falluja as well. Primitives. (bless them)
Some Arab gentlemen with whom I was lunching today politely listened to this rant, and observed correctly that “no one in the Arab World would believe that we are holding back like this,” especially at the expense of our people. They are right. No one in the Arab World would believe that, but it seems to be true. If it is not, let me know.
I would estimate that our casualties in killed and wounded would have been lower if it were not for this. Of course Iraqi casualties would have been higher.
continued below …
Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism” for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room (interview), PBS’s Newshour, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” (interview), and more .
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib Posts
Novel: The Butcher’s Cleaver (download free by chapter, PDF format)
“Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. XI, Summer 2004, No. 2
But Col. Lang, “Major Combat Operations” where over two years ago, the enemy defeated, the insurgency in its last throes, you’re telling us they need to use artillery and airstrikes? Against what?
Just what is a tolerable quantity of “Liberated” Iraqi civillians slaughtered by US airpower and artillery before it becomes the crimes against humanity we have charged against Saddam? Screw humanity why don’t we just level the whole nation?
Are you so “thick” that you believe I am defending the administration’s decision to invade Iraq?
Do you have any thoughts other than political ones? PL
The problem is that you are describing the actual techniques by which the ground forces move over ground and take control of it when there is opposition. People who don’t have military experience simply do not understand the organized brutality that is infantry combat.
That was the fantasy of “They’ll greet us as liberators with flowers and kisses.” The people who most firmly believed this had images of the French in Paris welcoming the Allied Armies. Those pictures which we have all seen showed what happened when Allied forces relieved a city occupied by foreign troops, and the welcome was what followed a long period of extremely brutal fighting with no holds barred.
Civilians think that just sending troops in will automatically allow the situation to be calmed down as happened in Haiti, Bosnia-Herzigovina, and Kosovo. But each of those instances followed diplomatic agreements. There was no diplomatic agreement that took us into Iraq. That left us with the brutal necessity of ground warfare, much as we did in the Pacific Island hopping or D-Day in WW II. Enough troops to stabilize the nation and fact diplomacy might have changed that, but this administration considers diplomats as nothing more than PR people for the military, and the suits running the military have no respect for diplomacy.
As I understand it, Westmoreland’s strategy in Viet Nam was a war of attrition against the Viet Cong. [This is suggested in the book “We were soldiers; and young” and the post-climatic discussion in the Mel Gibson movie.] Covering South Viet Nam with fire bases is perfectly in line with a strategy of a war of attrition.
Apparently the Neo-Cons expected the introduction of American forces to overawe all the Iraqis and prevent real ground combat. Looks like the insurgents called our bluff, and we aren’t willing to commit to full brutal ground combat. We are left in the quandry of what happens if you pull a gun on someone but aren’t willing to shoot them. They call your bluff. Then what?
An invasion with ground troops is an either-or operation. Either you mean to go to ground combat, or you don’t. If you don’t, then if they call your bluff you have lost.
I’d say that our choices in Iraq are either to go into full ground combat mode against the mostly Sunni insurgents with no holds barred and simultaneously offer diplomacy, or pull out and admit stupidity. This wierd mid-ground of trying to get a Shiite-Kurd Army up and running to do it for us is weak at best. It is the second choice made by people who are indecisive and hoping for a miracle to save their reputations.
Thank you for explaining the essence of ground warfare to the civilians. They need to understand that it is harsh, nasty and brutal, and if you are going to win, you have to remember the old saying “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil because I am the meanest Mother in the valley.”
Rick and all — before I forget — I’ve been listing the HBO film directed by John Frankenheimer, “Path to War” in the Powell’s advertising section. No one has bought it even though it’s dirt cheap because the movie is 3-4 years old.
Rent it. Or buy it. It’ll f–king blow your mind. I watch it every single time it is repeated on HBO. I wish I had a VCR copy … I study it like a student. (And I’d love to know what Pat Lang thinks of the movie.)
With superb acting and fascinatingly written scenes, it shows how Lyndon Johnson, McNamara, Westmoreland — all the major players of the Vietnam era are in this movie — fought about and planned the Vietnam war. They regularly discuss troop strength and Vietcong strategies, as well as attrition … and they’re increasingly baffled by the Vietcong’s seeming infallibility.
Second: You are so right about us civilians having a hard time understanding “the organized brutality that is infantry combat,” as you put it so well. I can imagine it … but there is no way to imagine the actual reality.
Lastly, this is quite something, Rick:
Thank you for an intelligent, informed post.
Based on your recommendation, I just ordered “Path to War.” But have you seen “Downfall?”
It is the last ten days of Hitler’s life in the Bunker in Berlin. Superb movie. It is in German with subtitles, but after about ten minutes you forget that you are reading and not hearing the dialog.
From what I have read, it is an accurate rendition of the characters of the people who were with the Nazis to the end.
Oh, and the semi-biblical quote is one that I learned from a Marine I knew years ago. It is especially appropriate to high casualty strike forces like the Marines, Airborne or Rangers. Imagery is important to the military. I would be surprised if any combat arms people (armor, infantry, artillery) haven’t heard it. It isn’t something we often discuss with civilians.
Bought The Path to War from Powell’s. Ordered it Sunday night after reading your comment, and it arrived here today at 2:00PM.
That was standard shipping. Less than 48 hours from order to arrival. I am amazed.
for political or economic ends never for pure military ends. Therefore political thoughts are justified.
While that is true, wars are also fought by military and diplomatic methods. When you ignore diplomacy, then you are reduced to using military methods, and those are very harsh. Diplomacy allows some fine-tuning. It is always better than military methods.
But military men do not decide on war in our system. That is reserved to the civilians. It is a damned shame that the current crop of civilians deciding on war have fantasies out of Hollywood as to what war really is.
It isn’t special ops fantasies and it isn’t surgical air strikes that go down a chimney and take out the bad guys while leaving the new-born baby in the crib next door unhurt.
The key is to get control of the civilian decision positions and begin to deal with Iraq is a less brutal method. Which means diplomacy.
Quit complaining about the military doing what it is designed to do, and get control of the people misusing the military. The military applies force. It either applies force, or counters force. That’s all. It does not do well at achieving purely political goals.
It is also a major drain on the economy, and does nothing positive to improve the economy.
Col. Lange I am not so “thick” to believe you are defending the adinstration’s decision to invade, the preparation, planning or execution of the war in Iraq. Somedays, I even have thoughts other than the political. Something about your post set me off at the end of a long day, and for my tone I apologize.
I am in agreement with your tactical statements, operational level coordination and authority would most likely have saved many lives and limbs of US troops.
However, I don’t believe the tactical can be considered in a vacuum, nor do I believe you do either. From a strategic side, increased use of artillery and airstrikes would only exacerbate an already dire situation. To me, at this point we do not appear to be fighting a confrontational enemy. One that engages in sustained skirmishes. Instead our enemy chooses to just inflict doses of pain through the use of pre-planted bombs, mobile car bombs, and nusaince attacks primarily in and around population centers. In attacks such as these, where does the commander on the ground whose lead Humvee just exploded target his shells? On the nearby population? I believe, this would set back the effort to reduce the numbers of active participants in the insurgency and reduce the cooperation of non-participants even further. The enemies tactics seem to have negated the effect of much of the considerable firepower the US soldier should have at hand.
At this point, what is our mission in Iraq? What are the troops told? What are the objectives given to commanders? Are we attempting to pacify an occupied enemy? In that case, let the shells fly. Are we attempting to win “hearts and minds” and rebuild the nation of a opressed people? In that case, we are probably better off doling out the least amount of pain on non-insurgent population as possible, unfortunately that will lead to more casualties on our side at least in the short term. Are we muddling somewhere between the two extreme’s without much of a plan at all? Most likely.
That being said, the lack of the firepower resources is yet another grave mistake on the part of the planners of this war. Yet another “failure of imagination” on the part of the administration. As is the failure to set a timetable for withdrawl. That is one of the most idiotic mistakes I have ever seen.
Anyway, agian I apologize for my earlier remarks and look forward to your posts in the future.
btower you are spot on. We cannot take the damage necessary to win. Funny thing is even a cursory reading of the geneva conventions reveals that the occupation power must take casualties to protect the civilians. That is not part of our psyche. We see the value of our lives as more than those of foreign civilians. We always have done.
As you point out there is no justification for air strikes and artillery barrages now. Howver, we will still use them. The charges against saddam are bad but no worse than what should be leveled agaibst Bush at el.
Twenty years ago I listened to a speech General Westmoreland gave at a gathering for the Twentieth Anniversary of the 173rd Airborne Brigade deployment to Vietnam, May 1965. The month the USA lost the Vietnam war. The one fact I remember was how proud he was that every square inch of Vietnam was covered by artillery fire support. Fire support bases and LZ’s were spread throughout Vietnam. But, the USA couldn’t pacify the Vietnamese.
Young Republicans absorbed all the wrong right wing propaganda from the Vietnam War. “Liberals tied the hands of the military”. “The press turned Americans against the war”.
This time, Dick Cheney’s War would be conducted with all moral restraints gone. Torture, A Gulag. GOP agitprop.
The problem. Liberals and the free press didn’t lose the war in Vietnam. The day the USA decided to invade was the day the war was lost because the USA did not have the manpower, the money or the will to invade North Vietnam and China and risk a nuclear war. The Young Republicans have grown old believing their world view but they can’t see the reality that once again the USA is fighting a war on the cheap trying to pacify a people who will never surrender to a foreign occupier.
A war of occupation will not end until subjugation is the only alternative to genocide. No matter how belligerent in mind and speech, the USA has not quite undertaken genocide yet if for no other reasons that Sunni Arabs are a minority in Iraq but a billion Sunni Muslims stand behind their Iraqi brothers across all of North Africa.
If pacifying and rebuilding Iraq is the goal, only quarantine and strict supervision of the populace will work. Take away their weapons, and their means of getting new weapons. Take away their means of moving freely or conducting commerce without constant supervision, since some of that commerce would be in pursuit of more weapons.
Such a wholesale occupation of Iraq would amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide, in fact if not in stated policy. One million grunts could pull it off. Nothing less.
But no, we will never actually do that. We are not going to build a Wall, as Israel has done in the Palestinian territory. We are not going to put the civilians in hamlets, as we did in Vietnam. Lebensraum is not our goal, and not our policy.
We just want the oil. And we don’t want to be shut out of Saudi oil, Kuwaiti oil, Iranian oil, etc by not being militarily on the scene. We have to make Iraq into the local American police station.
Ludicrously, we cannot afford to do this. So we go to absurd lengths to do it on the sly, to get our oil corporations the signed long term extraction deals without having to show them to the Iraqi populace for approval.
We are trying to slip a puppet government into place just long enough to sign some long term contracts, and then withdraw our troops to our 19 permanent bases to keep guns trained on that government’s successors so they fulfill those contracts. Legal theft, which is what all colonial governments are for.
And this will never work.
You are still young and spry. It’s the other folks who are lacking in development, seasoning and finish.
I enjoy these posts, especially the way you educate us about the interplay of the tactical and the strategic. I miss Hack for this kind of thing.
Hack? He was my friend and teacher. I hope he would approve. pl
Col. Lang, as usual, your comments teach.
I’m curious if you have any comments on a remarkable statement I heard a few days ago. The great investigative reporter Seymour Hersh was on C-SPAN speaking on a panel honoring the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive. At one point, in response to a question, he said that one of the great untold stories of the Iraq war–untold because journalists have been suppressed so severely by BOTH sides–is the extent of the air war. Statistics, he said, were extremely hard to come by. Unlike previous conflicts, such as the 1991 war and the Balkan conflicts, where the U.S. military proudly gave daily accounts of sorties, units involved, and so forth, in Iraq the information flow is almost completely shut down.
He said that the New Yorker had managed to find one particularly interesting number, the total tonnage of ordnance dropped by “a Marine air wing” during a period of 15 months from late 2003 to late 2004 (I was listening on the radio while driving home carefully in a snow storm, so I don’t have the exact quotations).
He said this total came to over TWO MILLION 500-pound bombs. Amazing fact. That comes to 1000 planes dropping four bombs a day each and every day.
I just spent a solid hour googling and yahooing, and I can’t find an estimate on how many USMC planes are currently operating in Iraq.
Thanks again for your post. Any comments on this appreciated.
Arminius
i think there must be something wrong with this number. I will ask him. pl
Don’t forget that Rumsfeld was a naval aviator in the late 50’s. In those days it was an article of faith among tactical aviators that you could replace ground troops with tactical aviation.
I suspect that had a lot to do with his cancellation of the new Crusader 155mm – Self Propelled Howitzer and more recently with the disbanding of artillery units and converting them to infantry.
Self-propelled artillery and tanks are heavy weapons and not easy to fly rapidly to distant combat locations. Aviators don’t like transporting them and don’t see why tactical air can’t replace them.
I also suspect that this is part of what has been behind Rumsfeld’s push for lighter and more mobile (that means airmoble, by the way. Fewer vehicles on the ground means back to 2 1/2 miles per hour for marching ground infantry like before WW I.) ground troops. Rumsfeld is a very bright guy who is known for not listening to those who disagree with him. Particularly infantry people.
As a naval aviator he primarily provoded close air support to Marine Corps troops operating close to the beach. Those guys also had naval artillery supporting them. Army operating inland had to take heavier artillery with them, and under the arrangements that created the Air Force, got close air support from the Air Force. Air Force support was never as satisfactory as having your own air assets, which was a major reason the Army armed hellicopters in ‘Nam.
I think that figure of two million 500 lb bombs seems a bit high, but that isn’t a 1000 planes a day. That’s a thousand sorties a day. Planes flown from bases inside Iraq can probably fly four or more sorties a day, and a B 52 can carry 70,000 lbs of ordnance.
We do logistics real well. Supplying and delivering such high volumes of explosives is not as difficult as you might think.
ABOUT THESE TWO STATEMENTS.
“Out in western Anbar, the Marines don’t seem to be so sensitive since they shoot up towns as needed with artillery and their own dedicated air. They seem to have followed the same rules at Falluja as well. Primitives. (bless them)”
And
“I would estimate that our casualties in killed and wounded would have been lower if it were not for this. Of course Iraqi casualties would have been higher.”
Have I fallen through the looking glass?
Those Iraqi casualties that would have been higher?
Are they not primarily civilians?
When “we”…
“Shoot up towns as needed with artillery and [our] own dedicated air.”
Did they ask for this war?
These dead civilians?
Why are we there?
For oil and for military dominance in the region.
It is a blood for oil war.
Take a quart of oil and a quart of blood and consider them well. Really. Hold them in your hands and consider them. Say a quart of oil that you could use in your automobile and a quart of blood that could quite conceivably save the life of your child.
ANY child.
We simply MUST decide…and soon…which one is more valuable.
The hardness of the military mind is beyond belief.
And in MY mind…beyond forgiveness when consistently applied to wrong strategies.
Like blood for oil.
If we desire “not to anger people by killing their relatives”…and this is quite a good and even logical desire, especially since said people are rapidly arming with weapons of mass destruction all over the world in order to be able to be able to adequately defend themselves against the depredations of the United States and other economic imperialist powers…then perhaps we should simply STOP killing their relatives in an attempt to further our own aims.
Or is that just too fucking logical?
When reading and posting on this blog I am often reminded of that old anti-NYC joke.
A guy walks up to someone on the street and says “Could you tell me what time it is or should I just go fuck myself?”
The time is now, people. And “now” is getting mighty late in the game for this sort or militaristic foolishness. Sure, in a firefight the rule is to win. But when you are in the ABSOLUTELY wrong firefight? Then it is time to get OUT.
Or should I just go fuck myself?
Disgustedly…
AG
Gilroy
You again? Try to get your mind around the concept that my post is a technical explanation of how one fights if one does not wish to lose a lot of men. pl
Yes.
Me again, sir.
And YOU try to get YOUR mind around the concept that my post is a technical explanation of how one fights only battles worth fighting if one does not wish to lose a lot of men.
Risk losing a whole society.
I am sure that you are familiar with the difference between strategy and tactics, Colonel.
Ends and means, as it were.
It is my contention that in the long run even the BEST of tactics fail when applied to an untenable strategic position.
Now I could take the longest view and say something about morality being merely the collected wisdom of the wisest among us for thousands of years regarding the most effective tactics to use for a society to truly thrive and prosper…thrive and prosper being the desired end result, the ultimate strategy.
But I will not. I will merely once again point out that our current strategic course…economic imperialism supported by overt and covert military force…does not work once the people being dominated both outnumber you (As has been the case for thousands of years.) AND have sufficient weaponry and organization to seriously dissuade you from continuing on your course.
Which is the new joker in this particular deck.
And I do NOT necessarily mean weapons on the ground in Iraq.
Someday quite soon someone is liable to blow up some American city in a manner that makes 9/11 look like kiddy play if we continue on our present course. Nuclear, biological…some way. Bet on it.
And then we are going to be faced with the REAL decision.
Martial law and nuclear retaliation or real retreat.
There will be no other options. This society will literally fall apart if a truly major disaster occurs. Damned near fell apart after Katrina. Imagine the panic, fear and disorganization if someone took out half of Detriot.
And nuclear retaliation is a can of worms that none but the maddest of Strangeloves really wishes to see opened.
So why not just stop now? Retrench, tighten our belts and make the decision to change strategies?
Now I know what you are saying in your diary. You are a military man, and you are advocating efficient military action if there is going to be any at all.
But back to morality.
You and I are about the same age. I understood this moral idea in my own way during Vietnam, and refused to let them involve me in it. My father and mother…good Americans both of whom volunteered for the Royal Canadian Air Force several years before the U.S. entered W.W.II and both of whom were physically involved in the Battle of Britain (My father as a Spitfire pilot, my mother as a radar operator.) saw things the same way as I did. Basically that Vietnam was an immoral war…as opposed to the war against Hitler…that we were going to get our collective asses kicked on some level, and that NONE of their sons should go there if it was at all possible to avoid it.
And they were absolutely correct in their appraisal.
Well…fast forward to the present. This one is just as wrong.
And we are once again going to get our collective asses kicked no matter HOW efficient our military tactics may be.
Because we are flat out wrong.
The German troops during W.W.II were pretty damned efficient too. So the rumor goes. And they lost as well. Now after the fact historians blather on about mistaken this and overwhelming that. But the reality of the situation was that the Nazis were FLAT OUT WRONG.
And they got their asses collectively kicked.
Well, Colonel…to about 4/5ths of the world…we are the Nazis now.
And when I write something in disagreement to what you have written…do not condescendingly call me “Gilroy” and say “You again?” like I am some bothersome little insect uncomprehendingly buzzing around your weighty military mind.
I know JUST what I am saying.
And I know just what YOU are saying as well.
Peace.
By any means necessary.
And by any means that it can be achieved.
We only disagree on strategy.
After that…the tactics reveal themselves.
Peace.
AG
is to ensure low US military casualties. As a military man though you should realize that it will only end in defeat. We are in something we shouldnt be in, so I can understand that minimizing US caualties ends up getting prioritized over everything else. Keep the casualties low by slaughtering everything that comes near.
Been there before. Vietnam.
Sad. With this kind of thinking we are destined for more defeats along the Vietnam route.
I can understand the British criticisms of what they call force protection tactics as opposed to counter insurgency tactics. We are not trying to win.
The point the Col. is trying to make is that the infantry is a very blunt weapon. They aren’t police. They aren’t diplomats or social workers. When you sen the military in you have to remember what the goals of every commander are.
As a commander myself my goals are first to accomplish my mission and second to protect my men. If I have rules of engagement that conflict with these two priorities, then the RoE will be given priority after those two requirements. Also, it isn’t that American lives are more important than other lives. It’s that I have to keep my unit intact and capable of accomplishing other missions later on.
[OK. So I personally was an Ordnance Corps REMF, but I had the same socialization. And I was artillery as an Enlisted Man. Unfortunately in my last physical before being commissioned I was told that I was profile 3 for vision, not qualified for any combat branch. I really wanted to be an artillery forward observer in ‘Nam.]
A commander does not choose his missions. They are given to him. The responsibility for the mission is at a higher level. Does the phrase “Above my pay grade” sound familiar? If you want to stop the carnage in Iraq, then you need to focus on the political level in the U.S. The military is simply a tool of those people. The problem is not the tool. It is the people misusing the tool. But please read Col. Lang’s description of the characteristics of the tool. That will tell you when the tool is being misused and tell you what the political leaders need to be held accountable for.