Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 318

Thread: The Warden Collection (merged thread)

  1. #281
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Sorry, slap...that's just Warden trying to make his preferred solution relevant even when it isn't. ISIS is still a relatively irregular foe, and according to Colin Gray's informative (if overly-wordy) study "Airpower for Strategic Effect" (commissioned by the Air University and Air Force Research Institute) one of the things airpower does poorly is "Apply heavy and potentially decisive pressure for conclusive strategic effect in (largely) irregular conflicts." (Gray, p. 281).
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  2. #282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    A well presented set of options.

    This I liked:

    Western political leaders are paralyzed by three “conventional wisdom” worries:

    1. Nothing can be done short of a full-scale repeat occupation of Iraq.
    2. Nothing we do can fundamentally change the situation, but simply postpone the inevitable collapse, and
    3. Nothing we can do will create a stable, new situation sustainable over time.

    Col. Warden insists that none of these assumptions are true.
    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Link to article and interview of Retired USAF Colonel John Warden, author of "The Enemy Is A System" and Winning Strategist from Gulf War One on how to handle Iraq crisis by using Strategy and Airpower.

    http://americanthinker.com/2014/06/i...hn_warden.html

  3. #283
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Thumbs down

    First, ISSIS is an extraordinarily vulnerable position from the perspective of a system. Warden analyzes that ISIS is especially susceptible to techniques similar to those used in the 100-hour Desert Storm miracle.

    Second, the ISIS army has expanded rapidly across a huge territory. That looks impressive on a map. But it means ISIS is not well-established, dug-in, or supplied. As your author interprets it, ISIS is a mile wide but an inch deep. That makes them especially vulnerable with poor supply lines, communications, connections, and preparation.

    Third, ISIS have put themselves into a position which is quite vulnerable, in that they stretch across rocky, barren country and desert. This leaves their forces and military equipment far more exposed than over normal terrain.
    This demonstrates a complete misunderstnding of ISIS and their relationship with the large Sunni insurgency and the Sunni population.

    He has no actual experience in these matters. In Desert Storm there was no attempt to hold territory or to deal long term with the population or Iraq.

    I did not see anything helpful in the article.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  4. #284
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    There are some valuable parts to Warden's stuff, but his biggest shortcoming is that he sees airpower as capable of doing EVERYTHING on its own and being applicable in every situation...even when it's not. Airpower is his hammer, and every situation is a nail...
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  5. #285
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Hilarious.

    Might work if everything collapses and we can get ISIS into a stadium to celebrate victory...then JDAM the snot out of it.

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    There are some valuable parts to Warden's stuff, but his biggest shortcoming is that he sees airpower as capable of doing EVERYTHING on its own and being applicable in every situation...even when it's not. Airpower is his hammer, and every situation is a nail...
    In the context of the self imposed limitation of 'no boots on the ground' airpower is all that is available.

    In the context of that airpower is indeed everything - being the only option available.

    That said, feel free to offer a few ideas for other options you see as being available.

  7. #287
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    There are some valuable parts to Warden's stuff, but his biggest shortcoming is that he sees airpower as capable of doing EVERYTHING on its own and being applicable in every situation...even when it's not. Airpower is his hammer, and every situation is a nail...
    Steve,
    I have know idea where this idea about Airpower being everything came from but it is NOT TRUE! He has never said that or written that to my knowledge. What he has said and does believe is that many times because of Political Policy in the USA and the advanced technology we have that Airpower will be the "KEY" force in the exact same sense that the Marine Corps believe in designating a "MAIN EFFORT". Take a look at the PPT he delivered in February this year 2014 down under in a place called Canberra.

    Please take a look, is this not an excellent approach to WINNING instead of being a mind slave to some older/foreign/loosing doctrine.


    http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Uplo...esentation.pdf

  8. #288
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    This demonstrates a complete misunderstnding of ISIS and their relationship with the large Sunni insurgency and the Sunni population.

    He has no actual experience in these matters. In Desert Storm there was no attempt to hold territory or to deal long term with the population or Iraq.

    I did not see anything helpful in the article.
    Curmudgy,
    Your kidding right!!

    No he doesn't know much about insurgencies and he is not interested in holding somebody else's terrain for which they will fight to the death for.......What he does know alot about is WINNING which is what this country needs to start doing instead of holding territory.

  9. #289
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Warden apparently thinks,

    Warden championed and perfected the concept of approaching “the enemy as a system.” Rather than throwing armies against armies and air forces against air forces, Warden’s strategies involve analyzing an enemy’s military forces as parts of a much larger whole. In the Persian Gulf Air Campaign, Warden dismantled the enemy’s ability to function. You can incapacitate the functioning of your opponent from a system standpoint
    .

    We have tried this for decades and not once was it successful. It sure as hell didn't defeat Iraq during DESERT STORM, but relentless targeting of their fielded forces, along with a decisive ground assault did. Targeting the C2 and other systems were supporting efforts, and the overall impact of that that targeting is not possible to assess. The results of the highway of death, the ground campaign, all combined with a PSYOP effort resulted in mass capitulation.

    That was a conventional fight, and even then a systems approach had questionable effect. The insurgency is not a systems of systems that conforms to linear thinking, it is composed of a think and adapting adversary who has dealt with our air power previously. This approach is simply an attempt to script write, much like the flawed EBO concept, where if we do X, then Y will happen.

    On the other hand, can airpower disrupt, maybe even halt ISIS in their tracks? It certainty can if we have the intelligence to effectively direct it. Ultimately if the Iraqi government wants to win they certainly need to take and hold their sovereign territory, that isn't conventional, it is simply common sense. They are a legitimate state if they can't control their territory, and if ISIS is controlling it then they're winning. I think ISIS could handle getting pushed back a little by a combination of air and ground forces. Unless they're stupid they'll adapt a Fabian strategy and avoid a decisive battles and wage a war of attrition, I think we been down this road before. If we expect too much from air power, like winning, we'll once again be very disappointed. On the other hand, we should use our air power to the extent possible to disrupt and degrade ISIS. A win by ISIS is not in our interest.

  10. #290
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    There is a different solution appearing after the ISIS drove back the massive Iraqi attack on Tikrit to a point 25 kms from Tikrit----even the Samarra relief column is not moving much from the sheer weight of IED strikes on the convoys.


    In Der Spiegel from today there is an interview with the senior Chief of Staff for the Iraqi ISIS Response Staff who basically states all three ethnic groups must have their own regions and openly critiques the marginalization of the Sunni's by Malalki and he is a Shia.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-978172.html

  11. #291
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Better Link To Warden Interview

    Here is a much better Youtube link to the radio interview of Colonel Warden that goes along with the above listed article. if you listen closely and are familiar with real systems thinking you will find that what people say Warden says as opposed to what he actually says and means is a alot different.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DjyF...ature=youtu.be

  12. #292
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Steve,
    I have know idea where this idea about Airpower being everything came from but it is NOT TRUE! He has never said that or written that to my knowledge. What he has said and does believe is that many times because of Political Policy in the USA and the advanced technology we have that Airpower will be the "KEY" force in the exact same sense that the Marine Corps believe in designating a "MAIN EFFORT". Take a look at the PPT he delivered in February this year 2014 down under in a place called Canberra.

    Please take a look, is this not an excellent approach to WINNING instead of being a mind slave to some older/foreign/loosing doctrine.


    http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Uplo...esentation.pdf
    Slap...most of Warden's doctrinal ideas can be traced directly to the Luftwaffe's doctrine of 1936. He also ignores the fact that airpower cannot control terrain, secure a population, or do any number of other things that may be required for actual winning. Can it buy you space? Sure. Can it be extremely effective if you have proper intelligence (which we often do not)? Again, sure. But Warden seems to feel that kinetic airpower is the solution in any and all places. You really might want to read Colin Gray's "Airpower for Strategic Effect" for a wider context on this.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  13. #293
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Curmudgy,
    Your kidding right!!

    No he doesn't know much about insurgencies and he is not interested in holding somebody else's terrain for which they will fight to the death for.......What he does know alot about is WINNING which is what this country needs to start doing instead of holding territory.
    No Slap, not kidding. There is a vast difference between interstate combined arms war and instrastate insurgencies. "Winning" in one forum has little or nothing to do with winning in the other.. Only someone who had not been involved in the fight in Iraq or Afgahanistan over the last decade could think otherwise.

    You forget that we made short work of the Iraqi Army in 2003-4, yet could not win in the long run. It is the long fight that matters, not the opening palys of the first quarter, as the Colonel likes to think
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 06-30-2014 at 05:37 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  14. #294
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    An interesting thought from Col Warden.

    What he should have added is do a 'Sri Lanka' and all will be Quiet on the Iraq Front.

    Devastate the whole place so that they are left picking up the pieces for the rest of their lives and never in a position to trouble anyone.

    Of course, the UN is in the pocket and Human Rights Pollyannas are under control, right?!

    Hakuna Mata!
    Last edited by Ray; 06-30-2014 at 06:47 PM.

  15. #295
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Ray, Sri Lanka has one advantage that makes it unique ... it is an island. There is no border sanctuary. Not so with Iraq.

    Although, turning the area into a wasteland does have its advantages ...
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  16. #296
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Slap...most of Warden's doctrinal ideas can be traced directly to the Luftwaffe's doctrine of 1936. He also ignores the fact that airpower cannot control terrain, secure a population, or do any number of other things that may be required for actual winning. Can it buy you space? Sure. Can it be extremely effective if you have proper intelligence (which we often do not)? Again, sure. But Warden seems to feel that kinetic airpower is the solution in any and all places. You really might want to read Colin Gray's "Airpower for Strategic Effect" for a wider context on this.
    Steve,
    I have read it and if you remember I was the person that found Gray's report and posted the link to the PDF download when it first came out.

    1-So from memory Gray also points out that America HAS TO BE A HIGH TECHNOLOGY POWER as it relates to our primary warfare method....does he not point that out in the publication?

    2-He also points out that one of the things that Airpower has to do in the future is generate the desired Political effect on the ground by using Airpower.....does he not say that somewhere in the document? That is nothing but restating what Warden has said for years.

    3-If you look at the PDF I posted from his (Warden's) presentation in Canberra he states as he has done so for years. First you start with the Peace plan you want, then you develop the War plan you need to accomplish those Political objectives and then and only then do you decide if Airpower can accomplish those desired objectives. He does not say nor has he ever said that Airpower is the only solution.

  17. #297
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default You Just Made My Point!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    No Slap, not kidding. There is a vast difference between interstate combined arms war and instrastate insurgencies. "Winning" in one forum has little or nothing to do with winning in the other.. Only someone who had not been involved in the fight in Iraq or Afgahanistan over the last decade could think otherwise.

    You forget that we made short work of the Iraqi Army in 2003-4, yet could not win in the long run. It is the long fight that matters, not the opening palys of the first quarter, as the Colonel likes to think
    Curmudgy,
    I don't think you had joined this discussion group at the time so you are probably not familiar with some of Warden's earlier comments that I posted from years ago when this Fiasco first started.

    1- when we first went into Iraq he warned that we should be careful about being jubilant to soon because "All we have is a beachhead in the middle of 1 billion undefeated Muslims" turned out to be pretty accurate.

    2-I posted a copy of a letter to the editor that wrote warning of the dire consequence that would happen when we decided to disband the Iraqi Army which would leave the entire country in an unstable situation. Again turned our to be pretty accurate.

    3-But I agree he probably doesn't think much about the way we are thinking of insurgencies because it is not working! Whether we like it or not the " Enemy Is Still A System" and he is smart enough to know that we are not going to turn the Sunni into Democrats nor the Shia into Republicans and have a nice democracy in the Middle East. What is possible is to use American Airpower to support local Arab Armies to achieve our true interest in the region.

  18. #298
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    1. I don't think the statistical evidence supports the theory that "airpower alone" is a practical strategy; now if we're looking at producing specific political outcomes then I suppose that, in theory, under some conditions airpower alone could be successful. I'm not aware of any examples of this, however.

    2. Is ISIS a 'system' or a 'network'? Does the distinction matter? In a system, you destroy a component or sub-component in order to produce failure in the system as a whole. In a network, if you destroy a component or sub-component, the rest of the network still operates. And there is an argument to be made that any organic organization is not a system, but a network.

    3. The problem with ISIS is that it represents a fundemental contradiction in American foreign policy in the Middle East and the difficulty is in deciding which component of our policy should be discarded.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  19. #299
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Curmudgy,
    I don't think you had joined this discussion group at the time so you are probably not familiar with some of Warden's earlier comments that I posted from years ago when this Fiasco first started.

    1- when we first went into Iraq he warned that we should be careful about being jubilant to soon because "All we have is a beachhead in the middle of 1 billion undefeated Muslims" turned out to be pretty accurate.

    2-I posted a copy of a letter to the editor that wrote warning of the dire consequence that would happen when we decided to disband the Iraqi Army which would leave the entire country in an unstable situation. Again turned our to be pretty accurate.

    3-But I agree he probably doesn't think much about the way we are thinking of insurgencies because it is not working! Whether we like it or not the " Enemy Is Still A System" and he is smart enough to know that we are not going to turn the Sunni into Democrats nor the Shia into Republicans and have a nice democracy in the Middle East. What is possible is to use American Airpower to support local Arab Armies to achieve our true interest in the region.
    You are correct that I am not familiar with his earlier works. They may sway my opinion, but I doubt it.

    The reason we are not "Winning" is because we are incapable of achieving the political objective. See http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/dem...obayashi-maru/. You cannot kill or bomb your way out of an insurgency. It is a political beast from start to finish. Military types don't like to think that all problems cannot be solved with high explosives, so they deride this fact, but they cannot change it.

    The prescription he offers is not going to "Win" anything but a longer war. That is the reality. Too many people want simple explanations to complex problems. That has been our problem since 2001. I am sorry, but reality is knocking on the door. It is not a pretty reality. It is not one that can be solved by air power. It is just a dark, ugly reality that humans are the way they are.

    The good Colonel seems to forget Clausewitz' maxim that war is merely political policy conducted by other means. Bombing is not going to achieve the political policy objective of a democratic Iraq secure within its traditional borders. We screwed the pooch on that in 2003-4.

    There are two ways this plays out. Either 1) we replace the dictator we overthrew with a dictator who is capable of viciously suppressing sectarian differences, or 2) the state of Iraq ceases to be. That is the political reality that we have been fighting against for over ten years. Better targeting or thinking of the enemy as a system are merely better tactics. Tactics alone cannot achieve strategic objectives. They certainly cannot achieve the desired political objectives
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 06-30-2014 at 11:38 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  20. #300
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TC
    Either 1) we replace the dictator we overthrew with a dictator who is capable of viciously suppressing sectarian differences
    I respectfully disagree on this point. Saddam Hussein ruthlessly suppressed everyone and his government included a large number of high ranking Shias. The absence of sectarian conflict is what enabled the Hussein government to function. This false narrative is part of the current problem in formulating an effective response and it's part of the cause of Iraq's instability in the first place since the US administration actively institutionalized sectarian differences in the post-Hussein political system. Sustainable democratic governance is not created through active division of the population.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

Similar Threads

  1. Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 08-04-2019, 09:54 AM
  2. OSINT: "Brown Moses" & Bellingcat (merged thread)
    By davidbfpo in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-29-2019, 09:11 AM
  3. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  4. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM
  5. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-23-2012, 11:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •