GWOT Strategy [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

View Full Version : GWOT Strategy

high fly

05-29-2005, 11:24 PM

Recently I took time to go through my library of books on military strategy and tactics to try to get an understanding on how we are doing according to classic principles of warfare. I thumbed through Liddell-Hart's Strategy, Jomini, Clausewitz's On War, Sun Tzu, the current USMC Warfighting manual, and a few others, jotted down a few notes and came up with a list of questions (in no particular order). 1)Have we kept our forces concentrated and undistracted from the objective? 2) Have we cut the enemy's lines of communication to immobilize him? 3) Have we seized what the enemy values most? 4) Have we destroyed what the enemy can not afford to lose? 5) Have we dislocated the enemy's center of gravity? 6)Have we taken the element of surprise away from the enemy? 7) Have we disrupted or distracted the enemy from his strategic objectives? 8) Have we disrupted the enemy's channels of administration to prevent coordination of attacks? 9) Have we penetrated the enemy's security organization with spies? 10) Have we shattered the enemy's offensive spirit? 11) Are we reducing the size and lethality of the enemy? 12) Have we cut off the enemy's source of supplies? 13) Have we cut off the enemy's routes of retreat? 14) Have we maximized the friction dragging on the enemy? 15) Are we causing the enemy to blunder and suffer losses he can not afford? 16) Are we inside the decision cycle of the enemy? 17) Have we eliminated or control the intelligence-gathering efforts of the enemy? 18) Have we removed the sanctuaries and support among the people from the enemy?  Please tote-em up and give a score with your posts, to go along with your commentsexample: 9-No9-Yes       " and they ask me why I drink" <img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg" border="0" /> Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 5-30-05 @ 3:28 AM

PapaBear

05-29-2005, 11:42 PM

From what I can tell I rate it as follows:8-No1-Yes1-UnknownMy answers to the questions fall this way: 1)No 2)No 3)No 4)No 5)No 6)No 7)No 8)Yes (we've disrupted it, but haven't elliminated it) 9)UnKnown (if any of us knew we had spies, we wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it) 10)No 11)No 12)No 13)No 14)No 15)No 16)No 17)No 18)No

<center><img src="http://www.geocities.com/pauleight/pb_sig.gif"></center>
<center>For my next Miracle, I'll be turning water into... FUNK!!!</center><center>KARMA IS</center>
<center>Thanks Monsterone for the sig!</center>

high fly

05-30-2005, 01:19 AM

On #9, the spies question, check our history. While we have had the occasional walk-in, our record isn't too good.I haven't read anything but moaning about the impossibility of penetrating an organization like al Qaeda where they are not just in agreement ideologically, but have family and tribal ties quite often as well.Notice that no one is ratting out any of the top leaders, in spite of rewards up to $25 million.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

A.J.

05-31-2005, 02:00 AM

Are these questions applicable to the GWOT?  My point is that you cited sources that talk about warfighting goals in terms of defeating a nation or a nations' military, NOT a loosely affiliated group of terrorists who are located within multiple countries.  This is a new type of war and so maybe the book(s) need to be rewritten.That said, this is how I would answer: 1)Have we kept our forces concentrated and undistracted from the objective?In terms of military theater of operations, yes.  They are to seek out and destroy insurgent/terrorist leadership and membership.2) Have we cut the enemy's lines of communication to immobilize him?Oooh, can't talk about that here.3) Have we seized what the enemy values most?What does this insurgency want most?  To establish an Islamic Caliphate.  The closest they came to that was in Afghanistan and since the Taliban was routed they are trying to establish one in Iraq.  Answer:  yes.4) Have we destroyed what the enemy can not afford to lose?They can't afford to lose support or membership.  Since most of them are being killed and/or captured by our troops, or are blowing themselves up, I would tend to lean toward "yes".5) Have we dislocated the enemy's center of gravity?Terrorists/insurgents are transnational.  IS there a center of gravity?6)Have we taken the element of surprise away from the enemy?Terrorism is based on the element of surprise.  It can never be taken away.7) Have we disrupted or distracted the enemy from his strategic objectives?In terms of capturing or killing key terrorist/insurgent leaders and keeping others on the run, I would say "yes".  In terms of stopping insurgent acts of terror, I would say no for the reason I stated in number 7.8) Have we disrupted the enemy's channels of administration to prevent coordination of attacks?These cells act on their own and typically don't require authorization to conduct operations.  See also my replies to number 7 and 8.9) Have we penetrated the enemy's security organization with spies?Oooh, can't talk about that here.10) Have we shattered the enemy's offensive spirit?Not completely, no.11) Are we reducing the size and lethality of the enemy?By blowing themselves up, they're doing it on their own.12) Have we cut off the enemy's source of supplies?We'd have to impound all cars to stop them from making car bombs/IEDs13) Have we cut off the enemy's routes of retreat?Probably not.  There are too many safehouses.14) Have we maximized the friction dragging on the enemy??15) Are we causing the enemy to blunder and suffer losses he can not afford?Oooh, can't talk about that here.  But since attacks continue, I would have to say "no".16) Are we inside the decision cycle of the enemy?Since they are targeting all things American and supporters of America, then "yes".17) Have we eliminated or control the intelligence-gathering efforts of the enemy?Oooh, can't talk about that here.18) Have we removed the sanctuaries and support among the people from the enemy?Oooh, can't talk about that here.<img src="http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg" border="0" /> A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.Red Sox Nation

This message was edited by AJinDC on 5-31-05 @ 6:01 AM

high fly

05-31-2005, 03:21 PM

quote: Are these questions applicable to the GWOT?  My point is that you cited sources that talk about warfighting goals in terms of defeating a nation or a nations' military, NOT a loosely affiliated group of terrorists who are located within multiple countries.  This is a new type of war and so maybe the book(s) need to be rewritten. What I did was look in those sources for principals that would apply to the GWOT. Other sources were books like, Strange War, Strange Strategy,"by Gen. "Silent Lew" Walt, citations there and elsewhere from the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual, the first book by Robert Baer and Imperial Hubris. In each one I looked first in sections dealing with guerilla or partisan warfare, and not in sections about armored warfare in the desert, for example. If you believe any of these principals do not apply, please cite which one and we can discuss it. The idea that we can just throw out classic principals of warfare is rather novel to me.  The fact of the matter is, we have a bunch of civilians with no combat experience trying to experiment and guess and pretend they know what they are doing. After 3-1/2 years, the enemy is stronger than before, is conducting more attacks than before, and I see no reason to expect anything different in the future, without drastic changes.  So, AJ, which of the above do you think does not aply in the GWOT?      

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

LiquidCourage

05-31-2005, 03:56 PM

Fun fact:  They now have a GWOT ribbon for your uniform.  I have one now, so at least I don't look so plain in uniform.

high fly

05-31-2005, 04:57 PM

Funny how they tried to include the war in Iraq. Naw, not so funny after all.    And AJ, I'll try to get back to your points, though they seem a bit flippant.      

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

A.J.

05-31-2005, 09:51 PM

quote: quote: Are these questions applicable to the GWOT?  My point is that you cited sources that talk about warfighting goals in terms of defeating a nation or a nations' military, NOT a loosely affiliated group of terrorists who are located within multiple countries.  This is a new type of war and so maybe the book(s) need to be rewritten. What I did was look in those sources for principals that would apply to the GWOT. Other sources were books like, Strange War, Strange Strategy,"by Gen. "Silent Lew" Walt, citations there and elsewhere from the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual, the first book by Robert Baer and Imperial Hubris. In each one I looked first in sections dealing with guerilla or partisan warfare, and not in sections about armored warfare in the desert, for example. If you believe any of these principals do not apply, please cite which one and we can discuss it. The idea that we can just throw out classic principals of warfare is rather novel to me.  The fact of the matter is, we have a bunch of civilians with no combat experience trying to experiment and guess and pretend they know what they are doing. After 3-1/2 years, the enemy is stronger than before, is conducting more attacks than before, and I see no reason to expect anything different in the future, without drastic changes.  So, AJ, which of the above do you think does not aply in the GWOT?      " and they ask me why I drink" <img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg" border="0" /> Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig! High Fly, I was being rhetorical in my post.  Sorry if it didn't read that way.I absolutely do not think that classic principles of warfare should be thrown out.  But the GWOT is not necessarily warfare in the classic sense. It's a new and different kind of warfare.  That's why I suggested the rules need to be rewritten or at least re-evaluated.  And that's why I crafted my responses the way I did -- in a way that (forgive the cliche) "thinks outside the box".I hope that better clarifies why I responded the way I did.  Feel free to rebutt.PS -- And yeah, I WAS flippant with some of them.  I never claimed to be a master of spin. <img src="http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg" border="0" /> A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.Red Sox Nation

This message was edited by AJinDC on 6-1-05 @ 1:57 AM

HBox

05-31-2005, 10:09 PM

[color=navy]It took me all day just to figure out what GWOT
stood for. I don't think I should participate. Bye bye. 

<img border="0" src="http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg" />

This message was edited by HBox on 6-1-05 @ 2:09 AM

high fly

06-02-2005, 08:51 AM

AJ, as far as I can tell, the same principals that apply in unconventional warfare apply in the GWOT. I'll be back tonight, but I wanted to address your question on friction."Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war."----ClausewitzFriction is the result of often intangible factors which result in a military not proceeding as it should. Vehicles may break down, people may take wrong turns, confusing orders may be misinterpreted. In Saving Private Ryan, for example, fear acted as friction to keep men from getting off of the beach.Friction may come as a result of indecision, confusion, bureaucratic hindrances, failure to accurately understand what is going on in a fluid situation, unforseen geographic obstacles, failure of will at a critical moment by a commander or an unexpected move or accurate fires by the enemy. The idea is to maximize friction on the enemy, for by so doing, he may be fixed and destroyed more readily.   

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!