The President's speech
I thought the President gave a good speech. Emphasising the failure of the enemy to achieve his objectives is a good start on proving that we are not losing in Iraq. In fact from the day the liberation began, the enemy in Iraq has never won an engagement with US forces. Never.
That is one reason why the enemy avoids engaging US forces in direct combat, and will only fight when cornered. Recent action in the desert west of Iraq points to another weakness of the enemy. A group of around 40 enemy were blocking a road. They were dispatched with bombs from a US plane called in by the Marines. Results 40 KIAs with no friendly casualties. The military significance of this battle is that the enemy can not mass its forces to achieve an objective, without being threatened with destruction. If the enemy cannot mass it forces it can never take and hold an objective. It other words, it cannot win.
Why doen't Chuck Hagel know this? Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi know this? As the Belmont Club has pointed out recently, the enemy in Iraq is a minority of a minority. It is incapable of making a militarily significant attack.
Remember the group of 40 that were wiped out in Western Iraq? That was one of the largest groups of enemy fighters acting as a unit. There may have been other occassions where enemy groups numbering as many as 200 have unsuccessfully attacked. For all the people who want to put Iraq in the Vietnam template, they should consider, the book and movie, We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, which describes one of the first major combat operations by US forces in Vietnam. A batallion of US troops found itself in a battle with a division of communist troops. In other words the enemy was able to attack with numerically superior forces from day one in Vietnam. During the Tet offensive the communist were able to surround a Marine Regiment at Khe Sanh with several divisions.
For those not familiar with military units, the smallest unit is called a fire team and consist of three riflement and one man with an automatic rifle. The next level is the squad, which would usually consist of three fire teams and a squad leader. The next unit is the platoon, which consist of three squads, plus a platoon leader, and platoon sergeant. The company is the next level, which generally has three platoons of infantry plus a weapons platoon that contains machine gunners, mortars, etc, plus ammo humpers. You then have batallions, regiments and then divisions as you go up the organization charts. These larger units will also have combat engineers, and recon elements, as well as, artillery, logistic, communications, and transport. When you consider that the enemy cannot mass in platoon size units without facing destruction, you see quickly how wrong the Vietnam analogy is.
It also tells you how weak the insurgents are. Where the public and some politicians are being misled is they are attributing military significance to militarily insignificant attacks by the enemy. To be militarily significant, an attack must effect the ability of the attacked unit to operate in its military function. Using this measure, the enemy in Iraq has had no, as in zero, militarily significant attacks. In contrast, as the 40 guys in the desert found out, virtually any engagement, can result in militarily significant casualties against enemy forces. Again, this is because it is clear that the enemy cannot operate in large units without significant risk of destruction.
If the media understood this, the car bombing stories would be pushed to page A 19 where they belong instead of the front page.
Update: Welcome to readers from Captain's Quarters and Small Wars Journal.
I thought the President gave a good speech. Emphasising the failure of the enemy to achieve his objectives is a good start on proving that we are not losing in Iraq. In fact from the day the liberation began, the enemy in Iraq has never won an engagement with US forces. Never.
That is one reason why the enemy avoids engaging US forces in direct combat, and will only fight when cornered. Recent action in the desert west of Iraq points to another weakness of the enemy. A group of around 40 enemy were blocking a road. They were dispatched with bombs from a US plane called in by the Marines. Results 40 KIAs with no friendly casualties. The military significance of this battle is that the enemy can not mass its forces to achieve an objective, without being threatened with destruction. If the enemy cannot mass it forces it can never take and hold an objective. It other words, it cannot win.
Why doen't Chuck Hagel know this? Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi know this? As the Belmont Club has pointed out recently, the enemy in Iraq is a minority of a minority. It is incapable of making a militarily significant attack.
Remember the group of 40 that were wiped out in Western Iraq? That was one of the largest groups of enemy fighters acting as a unit. There may have been other occassions where enemy groups numbering as many as 200 have unsuccessfully attacked. For all the people who want to put Iraq in the Vietnam template, they should consider, the book and movie, We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, which describes one of the first major combat operations by US forces in Vietnam. A batallion of US troops found itself in a battle with a division of communist troops. In other words the enemy was able to attack with numerically superior forces from day one in Vietnam. During the Tet offensive the communist were able to surround a Marine Regiment at Khe Sanh with several divisions.
For those not familiar with military units, the smallest unit is called a fire team and consist of three riflement and one man with an automatic rifle. The next level is the squad, which would usually consist of three fire teams and a squad leader. The next unit is the platoon, which consist of three squads, plus a platoon leader, and platoon sergeant. The company is the next level, which generally has three platoons of infantry plus a weapons platoon that contains machine gunners, mortars, etc, plus ammo humpers. You then have batallions, regiments and then divisions as you go up the organization charts. These larger units will also have combat engineers, and recon elements, as well as, artillery, logistic, communications, and transport. When you consider that the enemy cannot mass in platoon size units without facing destruction, you see quickly how wrong the Vietnam analogy is.
It also tells you how weak the insurgents are. Where the public and some politicians are being misled is they are attributing military significance to militarily insignificant attacks by the enemy. To be militarily significant, an attack must effect the ability of the attacked unit to operate in its military function. Using this measure, the enemy in Iraq has had no, as in zero, militarily significant attacks. In contrast, as the 40 guys in the desert found out, virtually any engagement, can result in militarily significant casualties against enemy forces. Again, this is because it is clear that the enemy cannot operate in large units without significant risk of destruction.
If the media understood this, the car bombing stories would be pushed to page A 19 where they belong instead of the front page.
Update: Welcome to readers from Captain's Quarters and Small Wars Journal.
Comments
Post a Comment