Comments on: The Case for Transformation

By: hammer

hammer — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:11:25 +0000

I felt very proud of our troops using every tool in the box to take the fight to the insurgants. A mix of weapons and tactics with a good dose of tough US guts. As a former soldier I was again very proud of our troops and thier amazing skill and determination to get the job done.
All reporters are tools, I remember the one during the first gulf war during a scud attack who said he was sure he was safe because his M8 paper still had not turned orange. They are like kids not concerned about true dangers in the combat zone. Here she was in a blouse and slacks surrounded by heavily geared infantrymen. What a fool.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:23:29 +0000

Re: Rumsfeld’s RMA
I can not speak to RMA at the sharp end of the spear, but I can tell you all what RMA’s effect was on the bits that support it.
It was a ruthless hacking way at budgets and manpower with only the most esoteric attempts to reconcile mission requirements with resources. Moreover, on many occasions the mission requirements increased.
At the beginning of Rummie’s watch I and many of my peers felt that he’d put the rudder over and was steering a better course. We hoped to see a purge of deadweight and a clearer focus on roles and missions; a change from silly, superfluous peacetime “make work” roles to a lean, mean organization manned and equipped to carry out the Navy Security Force mission.
Like a butcher who can’t discern the difference between fat and lean muscle, Rummie’s folks just kept paring away until we were down to bone. Budgets were slashed, manpower was slashed, and the quality of training was diluted. On top of this we were then required to provide augmentees for OIF/OEF.
When the U.S. Navy is required to provide “Dirt Sailors” for convoy security you’ve cut way too much somewhere.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:38:46 +0000

Bob Aldridge : Yeah, and I know history. I wasn't slighting our technology, I was pointing out the FACT that when an enemy faces overwhelming technology they'll turn guerrilla. If they can't do well in a stand up fight, they won't engage in one. It's something to take into consideration when we plan on a lot of unmanned systems in a combat zone. No shit Sherlock, of course people are going to die it's a war after all. My point would be that technology isn't an answer to every military problem. Am I that wrong to think when someone gives a statement on how the F22 is going to help against IEDs they're full of it? Am I wrong to be suspiscious when certain generals refuse to acknowlege the two wars we're fighting right now to aproppiate funds for gee-whiz technology to fight the Chinese? I mean God forbid we get a new AC130 replacement and decent COIN gear to our troops. Let's face it, most of our procurement isn't about the gear, it's about who's congressional district is going to benefit.

By: Bob Aldridge

Bob Aldridge — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:38:19 +0000

Well, the biggest drawback to high technology is it forces guerrilla tactics. If you have no chance at all in a stand up fight, time to break out the car bombs and other dirty tricks. It would probably help if we had some leadership in the military that understands that while technology provides some really neat abilities, ignoring low tech solutions and the human factor is a fool’s errand.
Posted by: steve at October 13, 2008 11:03 AM
***********************************************
In other words, give the enemy a better chance to rack up American kills and they will stop all those desperate guerrilla tactics. That makes a lot of sense,Steve,unless you think about it.
Just for the record, based on personal participation in two wars and one revolution, men and sometimes women die in any type of combat, and both sides try to stay alive and kill those on the other. Both use whatever weapons are available to them, no matter what the other side is using. Direct battlefield confrontation is avoided by whichever side is weaker when possible. If you are not a pragmatist, war will make you one–or make you a statistic.

By: Friendly Fred

Friendly Fred — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:10:55 +0000

Very interesting piece, better war coverage than we’re used to IMHO.
Also i’d like to thank roy smith for the funny comments. LOL, Roy.

By: Z

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:13:26 +0000

we fought these guys in 04–05, brute force is all those guys understand. Technology to the illiterate means nothing.
I can tell you Sadr’s Militia doesn’t feel defeated.

By: tipover

tipover — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:22:03 +0000

The transformation and the technology is there, it is just not the “flash” that some are looking for. Without it many more would have been injured or died (on all sides). Our troops are using equipment and tactics that were not due for 10–15 years.
The biggest concern I see is that we will focus only on the last (this) insurgency war and ignore the future, possibly conventional, conflict.

By: TB

TB — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:01:28 +0000

This was not an example of Rumsfeld’s RMA. He wanted to scrap two divisions to pay for high tech weapons with the notion that bigger guns would negate the need for troops. He believed you could extract perfect intelligence from UAVs and radars rather than troops seeing with their own eyes or asking the locals for information.
The battle profiled in the 60 minutes story was fought by a reinforced infantry battalion with rifles and tanks — nothing revolutionary about that. The primary means of sealing off the insurgents was not expensive sensors, but slabs of concrete. The use of the UAVs is awesome — I’ll give you that — but they didn’t win the battle. Men with rifles and their bare hands did. Also notice towards the end that they get a crapload of intel on enemy movements and weapons caches from the locals.
As for the UAVs, the Air Force wants to control every high-flying UAV — which may include the ones seen in the news piece. The problem is the Army likes to fly its own birds because the response time is much faster if you’re using your own weapons in house.

By: slntax

slntax — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:09:00 +0000

THIS IS NOT RMA. RMA was more about creating light and fast units with little armor. in the video they show how tanks with reactive armor were used to survive ied’s. what this is a proper use of all military tools to accomplice the mission. walls, high tech drones, old school men with guns and old school men with tanks. to crush the insurgency.
RMA was taking air force idiocy for high tech everything and applying it to the army. which is stupid as the day is long.
i guess this also shoots down the idea that predators should only be used at division level like the air force wants.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:59:56 +0000

From how you describe Lesley Stahl,it also sounds like disrespect for local Iraqi culture & morality(just because they are Muslim.....). It sounds like total arrogance on her part against both the military & Iraqis. As far as PPE goes,she was "demonstrating" how "safe" the Surge has made Iraq,thus no need for PPE. The problem with "new technology" is that you don't really see an over abundance of such. I'm still waiting for the mass production of "terminator robot" UGVs with machine guns & other weapons attached. They profile "JUST ONE" on the news or in print,& one's all you're going to get anyway,& all of a sudden,you start have multitudes of people talking about these "energizer buddies" helping out on the battle field,& they haven't even made it past prototype concept & test phase phase yet. I think there there are people more delusional here than I'm accused of being. P.S. They'll NEVER find Bin Laden because he is either been LONG dead(for years),or he never existed(ever) in the first place.That means we need to ask who was REALLY behind 9/11.