The Iraq Questions

Setanta,

I agree that the popular notion that Rome fell because Roman's became soft and decadent is hogwash. The disintegration of Roman administration over a large part of Europe, North Africa and the Middle-east took a very long time and the reasons are extremely complex. I don't think Timber's brief comment was intended as a sweeping generality, but rather a counter to the very myth we both agree is false.

I think most of us old codgers are veterans and appreciate the gravity of combat. Some of us are more willing to engage the enemy, and let's not mistake that Saddam and Kim are anything other than our enemies, with military force. If there were any good chance that either of those two could be brought to abandon their aggressive intentions, then hurrah for diplomacy. Unfortunetly, both have demonstrated again and again that they only respect and respond to credible force.

The best way to avoid war in Iraq and Korea is to convince both dictators that if they do not begin acting like civilized nations, we will unleash upon them overwhelming military force. They must really believe that their personal survival depends upon compliance with international standards, or they won't budge.

Now as to Rumsfeld and Cheney, you apparently don't trust them and believe them venial. You seem think that they use shrub as a puppet to mask their own devious plots. Perhaps you are right, but I don't think so.

Shrub is an illiterate and spoiled rich boy. That doesn't mean that he would ever be willing to play the stooge for his subordinates. I expect that Rumsfeld, whose personal history isn't nearly so hawkish as some make out, and Cheney actually exercise some restaint on the shrubs more impulsive actions. Left to his own devices, I'm afraid that the boy Prez could easily get us much more serious trouble than we currently face. Powell has, and will continue to do his best for finding a diplomatic solution, but in the end if military action is necessary he will support it. Though I think shrub is a lightweight, so far he has done all right.

There are some who denigrate our military forces, and the officers who lead them. Anyone familiar with todays military would not make that mistake. This is the finest and most professional military force in the history of the world, and we should be very proud of them. There are still idiots in uniform, but probably not half so many as when we served as boys. After all, we are now out of the service. Right?

LOL, Asherman . . . yeah, they got rid of the dead wood, didn't they?

I would like to make it clear that i have a high regard for the standards of training and discipline in our armed forces.

Yes, i think Rumsfeld and Cheney are venal, and might make the same comment about Rice, if i knew more--i won't because if don't think i could support such a comment. As both c.i. and you have pointed out, they are not the only, and perhaps not the most important influences on the Shrub. One of the problems with being a "king-maker" is that the King in question may decide he likes the job, and that he is actually in charge--a rather scary thought in this situation.

Asherman

I do hope US forces are now "the most professional in history", because the last time we had a little sojourn in the desert, we lost more dead and injured to American not so friendly fire than we did to the enemy trying to kill us. (That must be something of a record for any war).

So this time round, some Brits are a little apprehensive about where the real danger lies. This from the Daily Telegraph (a conservative, pro-war paper)

"Friendly fire threat to Gulf troops
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/01/2003)

British troops should not be sent to fight in Iraq unless a system is in place to prevent accidental attacks by American aircraft, says a retired senior officer whose unit was bombed in a friendly fire incident during the 1991 Gulf war".

Steve, more in-theater US/Coalition personnel required medical attention during The Gulf War due to accident and normal illness than from any sort of weaponry. That Freindly Fire Incidents are so rare is what makes them news. They are not a new phenomona (an old military axiom is "Nothing is so accurate as Freindly Fire"), but they have become increasingly rare. As long as man makes and wields the gear, and forms the plans, there will be error and failure. All possible effort is made to reduce the occurrance of such, and rarely is the same mistake made the same way twice. Of course, there is plenty of variety available among possible mistakes.



timber

At the crossing of Turtle Creek in 1755, now known not by the name of any battle, but simply as "Braddock's Defeat," the foot fired repeatedly into one another's lines. When Virginia militia, with long experience of Indian fighting methods, moved out front to try to relieve the pressure on the jumbled lines of foot, they were fired on, and were withdrawn--they were taking almost no casualties from the French, Canadians and Indians, but were in very real danger from the English foot.

Turtle Creek is an obviously extreme example--but warfare always entails uncertainty and confusion. At Shiloh, General Hardee's troops fired on other regiments of their own army, and Hardee literally wrote the book on infantry tactics for that war--it is to be hoped, but not expected, that "friendly fire" incidents will not occur in any war.

Let me add just a bit to Timber's remarks re. friendly fire.

The imbalance between friendly and enemy casualties was almost unprecedented in the history of war. Two great armies met on one of the larges battlefields ever, and the skill and lethality of Coalition Forces was devastating. The enemy was unskilled at serving sophisticated weapons, virtually without logistical support, and poorly led. The enemy, with a few exceptions, failed to fight effectively when engaged by Coalition Forces. They surrendered in such large numbers that just dealing with the POWs became a factor reducing our fighting effectiveness. No one will probably ever be sure how many Iraqi boys Saddam was responsible for killing. We may have fired the bullet, but Saddam pulled the trigger when he misjudged our willingness to fight. The Gulf War will be studied for years by students of war, and is comparable to Hannibal's victory at Cannae in 216 BCE. That there were so few Allied casualties is remarkable given the scope and complexity of the battle.

Friendly Fire incidents have too long been swept under the rug. After the middle of the 19th century, Friendly Fire casualties have steadily risen. The Fog of War hides the enemy and friend alike. Soldiers fire where they believe the enemy is, and are often wrong. Young men in battle, no matter how well trained they are, are afraid and driven more by emotion than by quiet and rational thinking. Jump up unexpectedly in a firefight, and you are going to draw fire from all sides. People do strange things under stress, and there isn't much that can match the stress of having someone trying to kill you. Some studies have estimated Friendly Fire incidents during the wars of the 20th century as accounting for as much as 40% of all casualties. (That is a statistic drawn from memory of a study published by Parameters, a War College publication, that I read sometime in the last five years. I'll see if I can pin it down, but old periodicals don't hang around here long -- our library is already overflowing. I might have the percentage somewhat wrong, but it was never-the-less a shockingly high percentage.) The number of Friendly Fire incidents in the Gulf War actually represents a drastic improvement in our ability to keep such casualties to a minimum.

I expect Friendly Fire casualties in any military operation. Accidents do happen, even on the suburban streets of small American towns.

I'm not sure, how reliable these figures on that website are:

Friendly Fire Notebook

Thanks Walt. The more effective the enemy is at inflicting casualties, the lower the percentage of FF incidents will be to the total. Can I call off the hunt for the studies on the topic?

Seems to me that the more technically sophisticated the weaponry, the less professional the soldier. How can any commander go into battle accepting that 50% of his casualties will be caused by his own side? At what percentage is something amiss, 100%?

Steve, it looks to me that the point was made that we want high FF casualties because then our men aren't being killed by the enemy - which rates can run really, really high! Don't know of many highranking officers and his HHQ that died from FF.

deleted

This link presents some interesting figures on Gulf war 1 casualties:

http://www.cryan.com/war/death.htm

The breakdown is as follows:

1. killed in action.............................................148
2. killed in non-hostile action.............................121
3. wounded.....................................................458
4. female combat deaths....................................11

Other significant deaths same year 1991 in the USA

1. Motor vehicle................................................43,000
2. falls..............................................................12,200
3. drowning ......................................................5600
4. ingestion of food.............................................2900
5. firearms........................................................ 1400

Steve, why don't you just create a separate topic if you're going to post such things?

Steve, I see things a bit differently ... today's US Military is the most professional, skilled, best equipped, best prepared military the world has ever seen. That is precisely WHY The U.S. is the sole SuperPower on the planet. In the past couple of generations, US Military practice has dramaticly reduced the incidents of "Freindly Fire", to the point at which they are probably less common now than at anytime since warfare began being waged with projectile weapons instead of clubs. Likewise, the proportion of Own-to-Enemy casualties, regardless of cause, has improved exponentially. T

The point of combat is to inflict more casualties and damage on the enemy than your own forces incur. If your losses are substantially and disproportionately less consequential than are your enemies losses, regardless of cause, and your gains equally in your favor, you win. That's the way the match is, and always been, scored. Winning is the Military's prime function.

The military is a less "worker freindly" entity than is generally acceptable in any other enterprise. Great care is taken to avoid error, but there is risk. With 30 ton jets accellerating from 0 to airborn damn near instantaneously, 70 Ton pieces of Heavy Equipment carreening about at high speed over broken terrain, parachutes, extreme physical exertion, and frequent exposure to inclement weather, among other hazards, the military is not exactly OSHA compliant in some areas. Factor in live munitions, and a peacetime military is risky indeed. Peace or war, military or civilian, planes crash, trucks overturn, buildings burn, ships sink, things blow up unexpectedly; casualties result. Casualties are more a feature of military life at the best of times. Putting the military In Harm's Way increases the risk of casualties.

A competent commander will weigh reasonably-to-be-expected-losses against reasonably-to-be-expected advantage. Given orders, capability, and opportunity, that commander will attempt to do whatever provides the greatest advantage at lowest cost. A combat commander at war who did not sieze and immediately exploit an opportunity to inflict horrendous, crippling disadvantage on an enemy while assured of insignifigantly "different-than-normal-in-peacetime" operational cost would be a fool and a murderer.


timber

God, the list of "friendly fire" incidents in which the victims suffered more from their own fire than the enemies . . . it just goes on and on and on . . .

Talavera, 1809, Ruffy's night attack . . .
The Russians after dark at Kunersdorf . . . (1759?)
Forbes' expedition to Fort Dusquesne, 1756 . . .
The left wing of the British attack on Fort Carillon, 1756 . . .
The Russians after dark at Tannenburg, 1914 . . . (they don't seem to do too well in the dark . . . )
Jackson fatally wounded by his own men at Chancellorsville, 1863 . . .
Gustavus Adolphus may well have been killed by his own men at Lutzen, 1632 . . .
The 82nd Airborn's flight into Sicily, 1943, when every ship in the invasion fleet opened up on them . . .

The list just goes on and on and on . . .

It would be nice to think that this would never again happen; nice, but unlikely. After all, that's what the expression "harm's way" is all about. I'd like folks to consider something else, though. Prior to the mid-20th century, there was a military statistic known as "normal wastage." This was the number of men who would collapse and die from either heat stroke or hypothermia during a march; the number of men who would break down and die from prolonged overexertion; the number of men who would die from chronic malnutrition. Even in the 20th century, thousands of troops suffered and died from insufficient rations, overexertion and exposure. Our military has pretty well eliminated those conditions as factors in our campaigns. But the real grim reaper has been disease. On a proportional basis of deaths to troops in the combat zone, the most costly war in which the United States was ever involved was the Mexican War. Why? Disease. With something over 13,000 dead, more than 9,000 died of disease. The Ohio volunteers arrived on the Rio Grande, marched to the assembly camps, and promptly began to die of "the flux." The survivors, fewer than 10%, marched back to Ohio. Not a one of them heard a shot fired in anger. War is ugly, nasty, dirty--a hell on earth. We've done a damned good job of reducing the degree of the horror for our troops. Now, if we can only find a way for the noncombatants to escape what currently is the inevitability of their suffering.

Australian, American and British non-combatants won't suffer in the coming war.

That's not exactly a given, and some might argue there have already been non-combatant deaths among those groups.



timber

ok I will

Hey, Steve, would you post a link to that new thread on this one?
Thanks.



timber

sure timber, when I've created it!