The US, The UN and Iraq

We have come bounding into the modern era of technological warfare and guess who has the advantage there. All this talk of sending thousands of our troops to their death no longer really applies -- our diplomacy is now based on how many of the "enemy" we dispose of and what world response will be to innocent citizens being killed, even possibly massacred. Our government has to decide if that would really bring people over to our side in today's politics. Bringing up thoughts of General George Patton is entertaining, but even he had pretty tight reins on him in and rightly so -- Eisenhower was very wise in that respect. It's all said with more brevity, "Give me liberty or give me death." All these suppostions I suppose are for our own entertainment as war games -- whether they would actually work I'll leave for the Pentagon to decide.

Asherman--
I greatly appreciate your knowledge on the subject of war, and your thoughtful, insightful sharing here.
Sometimes I think there are many who think Bush threw a dart at a world map and came up with his Axis of Evil speech.
Nobody but a fool wants war. There are just many of us who are more afraid of the consequences if we don't clean up the dangers in Iraq and NK.

After a little research, provoked by information from you, it does appear that NK has done this many times before, and may probably back down when they see they won't get what they want.

Do you think it will be war, or will Kim back down?

Thank you.

Asherman

You are very eloquent in defending your scenario and in justification for allowing many good men to die needlessly, while at the same time dismissing my scenario.

Would it make you any happier if I said, withdraw those men, and hold them for an invasion to the rear of their main offensive. That could be made another part of the plan and might be an added measure to insure success.

You like a lot of people somehow think it dishonorable if we don't lose a reasonable number of good men in victory-----I remember many voices from that direction when we reduced Yugoslavia to a waste land. Gee you guys didn't fight fair was their cry. Thank God, General Storman Norman didn't feel that way in the last Gulf War.

I have been most admiring of your eloquence during these last few days and you obviously are justified in thinking as you do. The reason we have lost so many good men in wars of the past is because of something I call "parity in weapons". When you have parity in weapons, both sides will lose a lot of good men. Thanks to our vastly superior technology and the foresight of those that wanted the best for our military---we no longer worry about "parity"
We have a tremendous superiority in weaponry----mostly in air power and with the Abrahams tank on the ground. When you no longer worry about parity----you can make new rules to utilize your superiority---that was what I was attempting to do with my scenario----I don't want to write one letter to the family of a warrior killed in battle and no one should have to with our great advantage.

Lash,

On balance, I think that the current situation will cool down without the resort to overt hostilities. The possibilities are:

We back down and let Kim further develop his nuclear capabilities.
The result would be a period of reduced tension on the Korean Penninsula, followed by increased DPRK demands and threats. Threat levels may not be overt, but implied. The ROK government may be further inclined to take a soft line with the North. Over time the DPRK arsenal will increase, and at some point we will again be at a decision point. The cost of war will increase as time goes by.

The DPRK voluntarily dumps its nuclear program, or is forced to dump it, or the program is "scrubbed" by an outside force. I believe that the DPRK would lick its wounds and return to the negotiating table. Symied for a time, they would shift to some other negotiable item and make everyone's lives miserable over that for awhile. Eventually, they would return to the nuclear program and try to achieve their aims again. The end goal for the DPRK is to isolate and weaken the ROK government, and that is best accomplished by driving a wedge between Korea and the United States. Sabotage in the South might increase, with U.S. Forces as the targets. Anti-American propadanda would be fostered. In other parts of the world, our enemies would be encouraged to keep pressure on the United States.

I believe that these are the two most likely scenarios, and both would result in a prolongation of the existing state of not-quite peace and not-quite war. The Korean War is fifty years old, I for one am sick of it and would like it to end. Though a miscalculation on the part of the DPRK could lead to reheating that old conflict, it would also probably resolve it for the foreseeable future.

perception, FYI, Asherman is eloquent in whatever forum he wishes to participate. I have challenged him on other issues, and he always answers with well thought out, well written, responses. He's a formidable opponent, but I enjoy clanging swords with him, because he is so articulate and wise. I hope he stays involved with A2K in the future, because I look forward to all his postings. c.i.

perception, your reference to "allowing many good men to die needlessly" troubles me. First, a death in the service of the defense of liberty and defeat of tyranny by definition cannot be needless. You also imply US disregard of casualties. Nothing could be further from the truth. US Doctrine first and formost seeks to minimize US casualties. From before the beginning of the last century, the US has fought nits battles mmore with money than with men. Scores of Millions died in WWII. Roughly 300,000 of them were Americans. In over 100 years, The US has suffered disproportionately fewer casualties than any of her opponents, indeed of any of her cocombatants period. The US also has borne the financial brunt of of all her recent conflicts.

Having seen war, I have no desire for war. Having seen war, I see the need to be prepared for war. I join Asherman in the appraisal that the best way to avoid war is to be prepared to win any war that may be forced on you.



timber

Perception,

Do you honestly think I want casualties? Au Contrare, mon frer. I don't want to lose, not one single life un-necessarily. However, war always costs lives and sometimes those lives are lost by mistake, or miscalculation, or just bad luck. That's the nature of war. No one feels a victory is invalid unless the casualty count is high, especially for ones own troops. The goal is to win without any losses, but that doesn't happen often.

Modern technology does give us a great edge, but all the wonder weapons in the world can not replace solid infantry on the ground. We have fallen under the spell of the mistaken notion that wars can be won without casualties if we just use enough smart munitions. That is false. Many targets just aren't worth the few millions it costs to produce and launch a smart weapon. Combat conditions greatly degrade the capability of some munitions, and some targets aren't easily destroyed by jet aircraft. Its better to have great technology than not, but its far more important to have well-trained, disciplined soldiers operating on the ground itself.

As to pulling back and letting the North overrun parts of South Korea, that would only increase the difficulty of defeating the enemy. Why? Because it gives him the initiative and choice of where and when to fight. Once the North is in motion they might be very much harder to stop than if we prevent their moving in the first place. I'm not willing to concede Seoul, a vital and strategically important objective to the North. I want to perserve and protect the civilian population as much as possible from the destruction that must inevitably follow the outbreak of overt hostilities. I prize Korean life as highly as yours.

C.I.

Yes I most certainly agree with you about Asherman and I agree with most of his views in general but as you can tell I strongly disaggree with his choice of tactics in warfare.

One thing we all agree on is his writing ability and I too look forward to his postings.

That also goes for Timber.

Thank you for the compliment, perception. I think perhaps Asherman and I state very similar positions, but that he says his piece more deftly than do I. I perceive him to be an individual given to incisiveness, and of strong conviction. In the matter at discussion in this thread, he is a valued ally, a congruent, if of other perspective, voice. In any matter of difference of opinion, I would consider him a formidable oponent.



timber

Asherman

Perhaps it is just the case of Korea that I am so adamant about not losing one good man in their defense----perhaps I want to punish them for their ungrateful anti-American stance---we lost 60,000 dead and many more wounded to save their country the first time. Since then we have pumped Billions of dollars into their economy and for what thanks. Therefore I still say, pull our troops out and bomb the.......... out of anything that moves when the hostilities start.

Your adamant stance on the absolute necessity for infantry on the ground is certainly valid in most cases but not in Korea just as it wasn't in Yugoslavia during the period trying to save Muslims in Kosovo. In Korea we don't want or need one sq inch of that miserable place and I am strongly opposed to allowing one American to die protecting it. I agree we need to win this war but more from an honor and prestige standpoint that from a strategic standpoint. I believe it an absolute necessity to maintain our position as the superpower of the world because if we don't every tin horn despot will try to take advantage of our benevolence. Of course most people who read this will consider it just another example of our arrogance---so be it.

Furthermore we need to save every soldier because we will certainly need infantry on the ground in Iraq---a totally different situation from Korea.

Asherman

I just want to add one more story to stress my absolute disgust for the manner in which we have waged some wars.

Lets take our civil war as an example: This country lost 600,000 good men in that terrible war---just imagine what a great country we could have become had we not lost those men. This war is also an example of the "parity of weapons" thing I mentioned. It was muzzle loading rifles against the same. There was a weapon available that would have changed all that and given the north a tremendous advantage but the Generals of the North turned it down.

The weapon I am talking about was a repeating rifle with a rim fire cartridge and it held seven shots which could all be fired much faster than the second shot from a muzzle loader after firing once.
It was called the Spencer repeating rifle and it was available in the second year of the war. Lincoln himself fired it behind the white house and said why don't we buy this? The Generals said no---we can't support it in the field. The war could have been shortened considerably and thousands of lives saved.

Then of course there were the stupid tactics employed----600,000 men lost----more than in all our other wars combined.

I will take technological superiority over boots on the ground every time---thank you

Perception,

I agree the recent expressions of anti American rhetoric in ROK media and surrounding their elections are infuriating and are not particularly condusive to firming our resolve for maintaining our ground forces in South Korea. However, please recognize we are facing the dual threats of a North Korea behaving as it always has, and a ROK that in many ways appears to be going wobbly in the face of North Korean bullying. The former is a constant and unvarying danger that has neither wavered nor diminished in forty years of stalemate. The latter may be a passing thing in a country that has been somewhat captivated by an enervating and unproductive "sunshine" policy. We must both stiffen ROK resolve and call the bluff of the bully in the North.

With respect to military matters I believe you place far too much confidence in modern weapons and airpower and ignore several salient and relevant historical lessons.

The economic cost of an exclusive use of the latest smart weapons and their equally smart delivery systems is frankly prohibitive. Further their use alone does not bring victory, which occurs only when the enemy has given up hope of success. Even in the first Gulf war we deployed and engage a ground army that alone was more than an equal for that which opposed it. Our airpower immobilized Iraq's major armies and severely limited their ability to counter the movements of our Army, which was the instrument that defeated them in the field.

Parity of weapons has indeed brought about high casualties in some wars. In other situations it has created wars of movement and stylized methods of combat which actually reduced casualties. The situation is more complex than you acknowledge. Even in the Civil war, by its third year the Union armies were equipped with cartridge rifles and had a much higher rate of fire than did the Confederates who still used ball and powder. It made relatively little difference. The war was not won in Gettysburg where Union firepower was a decisive factor. It was finally won in Fredricksburg in a ghastly battle of attrition.

Union General McClellan was famous for safeguarding his troops and the polished military machine he so lovingly created. However he accomplished nothing in his many campaigns and every Union life lost in the Peninsula at Malvern Hill, Cold Harbor and the Wilderness was lost for nothing because of his lack of resolve. General Grant on the other hand spared no regiment in his determined pursuit of victory, and he finally ended the war. Which general was the better steward of his soldiers' lives?

georgeob1, welcome to you and your well stated views. I agree Mc Clellan sat on his troops. It is fitting that for several generations following, US Horse-Mounted troops sat on saddles named for him.

I agree also that "Smart Weapons" are not in themselves, for any of a variety of reasons, "War Winners". I submit, however, that US Combined Arms Doctrine, thanks in no small part to the panoply of integrated weapons systems, "Smart" and otherwise, disposed by The US, writes a new chapter in The Textbook of War. And this time, The Sleeping Tiger of Yamamoto's prescient foreboding has both eyes open.



timber

timber,

I agree with you about the effects of our combined arms and about the revolution in information management, target identification, and weapons delivery that has occurred over the last 25 years.

I was directing my remarks at Perception's earlier posts concerning the strategies we may take in dealing with the hazards we now face in the world. The capabilities of military weapons and their application in an effective strategy to achieve a concrete objective are distinct things. It is a great error to assume that superior firepower can make up for fundamental flaws in the political, economic, and moral aspects of strategy. This was the central lesson of Vietnam. 'If you don't know exactly where you are going, you shouldn't be surprised if you don't get there'.

We need to make it clear to North Korea that we will do what it takes to remove the threats they impose on the world. No half measures or antiseptic campaigns of remotely launched (conventional) weapons. President Clinton launched virtually our whole inventory of cruise missiles at Iraq to no effect whatever: nothing in the way of political or moral force backed them up and nothing else was implied by their use. Such methods would be fatal in Korea.

In a similar vein serious wars are not won so much by the total force applied as by the speed and ferocity with which it is applied, and the built in implication of even greater action to follow. (The object is to deprive the enemy of hope.) Slowly and steadily escalating our force levels in Vietnam and carefully nuanced "messages" to our foes accomplished nothing even though the total force finally applied was truly enormous. It was clear enough we were neither committed to victory in a war of attrition nor willing to expand the theater of war to achieve a more favorable strategic situation. That alone was enough to keep Hanoi going, and rightly so. It should also have been enough for us to recognize an unwinnable situation, but sadly it was not.

We need to apply a strategy, complete in its political, economic, and military dimensions, and be willing to act decisively in support of it. Firmness and conviction have a way of shaping events in a favorable way. Tentative sending of highly nuanced "messages" in strategic matters merely invites sustained opposition. Military superiority will overcome many, but not all, unrelated strategic factors. Will and determination are significant elements of strategy.

Georgeob1

Another eloquent response ---- you seem to be a student of the civil war and as such you probably agree that it was the most stupidly fought war in the history of mankind and I give no general in that war credit for anything except killing 600,000 men.

Regarding the wobbly resolve of the ROK army---maybe that resolve will stiffen when they see us leave and then stare at the million man army facing them across the DMZ.

You obviously are an advocate of men on the ground and so am I in most cases but not in Korea. We can not kill them in current fortified positions so we must draw them out---what better way than to encourage them to attack what they perceive to be a far weaker enemy---as they rush head long across the DMZ the ROK will retreat and then the North forces will be vulnerable from the air. As the northern homeland is destroyed and his resupply routes cut off he will be much easier to defeat----I'm not saying it will be a cakewalk and lots of ROK will die but better them than our guys.

You mentioned parity in weapons creating wars of movement and stylized methods of combat which actually reduced casualties. Would you please be more specific about those wars ---I would certainly appreciate knowing about those methods. Could you present any survivors to confirm your theory.

I'm glad that you do give airpower credit for weakening Saddams forces just a little bit so they could be defeated by the Army. You forgot to mention that the Abrahams tanks were so technologically superior to the old Russian tanks used by Iraq that the enemy couldn't even see our tanks before they were blown up. We won that war quickly because all elements were well meshed together with the top notch leadership and planning. Technology played a huge part in that victory with excellent training and discipline to make everything work. When all of histories report cards are graded, that war will probably come as close to a perfectly fought war as is possible--sure mistakes were made---lessons learned and hopefully not repeated. Most of the high ranking people were veterans of the debacle in Vietnam and were detemined not to allow anything like that to happen again. Most of those good men have retired and we must hope those that follow will continue to use the principles learned in that war.

Air Power was decisive in Kosovo and we didn't lose one aircrew to enemy fire and only one aircraft I think---but I do concede that will not often be the case and certainly not in Iraq, where unfortunately due to our need to protect the oil fields we must send in ground troops during the first few minutes of the war and there will be many casualties because there will be no 6 week period for air power to work miracles.

For what it's worth, perception, on a personal and emotional level, I share your feelings on ROK. If you felt the same way regarding our departure over the terms of lease renewals on Clark AFB and the Navy's Subic Bay facilities, I shared those too. Still, we lost some of the most valuable bases in the Pacific. I do not think the Philippines realized any tangible gains either.

Georgeob1

I'm very glad you mentioned in your last sentence that "will and determination" are very important elements for any strategy. You did not make it clear that both those elements were lacking in our civilian leadership during the Vietnam"police action". You also didn't make it clear that the same "Will and determination" are in ample evidence with our civilian leadership of today there fore when that is combined with superior military capability our chances for victory are greatly enhanced.

BTW---you aren't a recent graduate of one of the war colleges are you?

You also mentioned President Clinton's order to launch our entire inventory of cruise missiles at UBL with no effect and with no further course of action indicated-----a very good example of not knowing our destination but what else could be expected of a president who was so openly contemptuous of the military and of his own CIA Director who couldn't even get an appointment with Clinton. By comparison the current CIA director briefs the President personally every morning.

Your points about global stretegy encompassing, political, economic and diplomatic factors are well taken except the fact remains ----when diplomacy fails the military must come in and do the "messy" work. This is when the crunch comes---the will and determination must be provided by the President but then he must get out of the way and let the military execute the plan and provide the moral and economic support. This president has already proven that he will do just that as during the Afghanistan compaign.

Roger

Oh yes I know the feeling well---but then as I have said several times---we as a country only have diplomatic encounters with potential enemies. Every country must consider it's national interests first and foremost and when they collide with ours..................

I have also speculated on Georgeob's background. He seems much larger than his a2k profile, doesn't he?

Thank you all for the honors you've bestowed. "T'warnt noth'n. I jes calls em as I sees em." If my word have power to move you, it is only because they strike some small bell of truth you already knew.

George, welcome to this this little exchange of views. I believe that you will agree often with Timber, and respect the historical learning of Setanta (who hasn't spoken here that I know of). It is very nice to have another member who appears to have military knowledge and skills. I hope to see more of you in the future.

Perception, Perception, Perception, where do I start? No, I don't think that the Civil War was the most mismanaged in history. Geez, the number of botched actions, battles, campaigns and wars is long enough to fill a large book, and several on the subject are readily available. The American Civil War was costly, but it was far from the stupidist on record. O.K., lets remember your tendancy to hyperbole. Grant, Lee, Sherman, Jackson, Meade, Longstreet, Crook and AP Hill; the list of competent to great commanders serving in the Civil War is very long indeed. Grant was called a butcher, and it was Lee who sent his men to slaughter at Malvern Hill. Grant was fond of drink and later one of the least effective Presidents in the nation's history, but he didn't glory in the loss of his men and he was despite all his personal faults probably the best commander in either Army. Lee could never bring himself to be unkind to subordinates who failed to meet the demands of leadership, he could become so passionate that he blundered, but never think that he didn't love his men and was an incompetant commander. Perception, you really need to study military history more throughly before you begin making grand pronouncements.

Your desire that we take no casualties would alone make you unfit for command. That's not a personal slam, very few can be trusted with leading men in desparate battle. Personal emotions and sentiments may qualify an individual for sainthood, but in war more often lead to large casualty counts and defeat. If you can not lead, then follow or step aside when the issue is to be decided on the field of battle. Your faith in airpower and technological superiority is misplaced, and should be evident to you if you were to study war just a little more carefully. Technological superiority is nice, its an important element, but only one element and hardly the decisive element in most conflicts.

In this particular case, I have only presented a plan designed to:

1. eliminate the current causus belli, the reduction of the DPRK nuclear threat,
2. The most probable means of achieving the primary goal without resort to open general warfare at this time on the Korean penninsula,
3. prepare battlefield to minimize loss and destruction if general warfare does breakout,
4. control and manage the conflict, if it comes, to resolve the war as quickly and with least expense, and
5. the highest probability for Allied victory that I can think of.

Lets just remember, we command nothing here, and are no more likely to be listened to than any other veteran of the GAR. I always thought that Col. Blimp was much more a tragic figure than a comic one.