Efficacy of punitive strikes?

[CPT Holzbach]

I have been curious about this lately. What does the noble Small Wars Council think of the idea of using punitive missions in the future, in place of "regime change" and "nation building"? How about we replace "regime change" with simple "regime removal", meaning get rid of the bad guy, and let the people sort it out.

Many who contribute to this board understand the 4GW concepts of lose-lose situations that the US is forced into by getting involved in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. If we lose, we lose. If we win, we lose, because we're bullies, beating up on the little guy, and no one likes a bully. So why not conduct Operation Iraqi Freedom I, and then leave? Is it our moral responsibility to clean up the mess we make? I would say no. I would say it's the responsibility of the people of a nation to get rid of leaders who get their country into unwinnable wars, like conventional fights against the US. Does the democracy we've installed in Iraq and Afghanistan ensure our safety? Obviously not. They can vote in hostile regimes, as some other countries have (Venezuela). I also dont buy the idea that people like Hussein were so brutal that the people couldnt beat him. The Americans couldnt beat the British Empire during our revolution either. I know there are a host of differences, but you get my basic idea.

We could spend 100 years in Iraq and maybe accomplish nothing. We could leave, and the people could turn right around and elect a hard-line Islamic government that openly supports terrorism. And I would completely support the process that put them in place. But we would be right back at square one: a hostile regime that is employing violence against Americans. And if they did that, it would be a clear message: "We, the Iraqi people, violently oppose the USA, and want to see it's downfall." Or something to that effect. And there's nothing wrong with that. If thats what they want, I only ask that they make it happen democratically. Either way, such choices come with a price. Is it wrong for us to pummel them for that choice, and then leave them to try again? I say it isnt. People have to choose for themselves. Does such an approach still make us a bully? Probably. But life's tough. Id like to beat up Chuck Norris, but we all know that's not gonna happen because he can make water boil just by looking at it. It would be a waste of time to try to change that fact. Are we just wasting our time in Iraq?

So, I propose an end to nation building and regime change. In it's place, I put forward the idea of regime removal and punitive attacks. And not a couple cruise missiles. I mean ground invasion. But once the battle is won and the regime is smashed, leave. And let the people of that nation fix what they perhaps should have fixed in the first place. Will they put the same government back in power? Maybe. But they'll think twice about violently opposing the US.

1...2...3...discuss!

[Tom Odom]

Thanks for an interesting post!

Direct strikes--whether limited or large scale--have their own cosequence sets. In many ways, Desert Storm was just that; set objective matched with containment afterward. Some have termed that a strategiic defeat, an argument I do not buy as the set end state was achieved and the spill over was contained.

Other examples are less clear in their results. Punitive expeditions are historically common; one can almost hear Kitchner assembling the Camel corps to march on Sudan. Take a look at Dan Reiter's paper "Preventative War and its alternatives: the Lessons of History.: It is avaliable on the SSI page for download athttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute....cfm?PubID=651

On the issue of nation-buidling: I believe nation-building is doable if there is a "nation" (people that see themselves as a nation). But nation building in the absence of such a nation is a risk.

Another interesting article today on this subject was by Ed Luttwak. see number 51 on the early bird "Will Civil War Bring Lasting Peace To Iraq?" His point is quite simple: sometimes the people have to fight it out among themselves to set the conditions for peace. Here is an extract:

CIVIL WARS can be especially atrocious as neighbors kill each other at close range, but they also have a purpose. They can bring lasting peace by destroying the will to fight and by removing the motives and opportunities for further violence.

England's civil war in the mid-17th century ensured the subsequent centuries of political stability under Parliament and a limited monarchy. But first there had to be a war with pitched battles and killing, including the decapitation of King Charles I, who had claimed absolute power by divine right.

The United States had its civil war two centuries later, which established the rule that states cannot leave the union — and abolished slavery in the process. The destruction was vast and the casualties immense as compared with all subsequent American wars, given the size of the population. But without the decisive victory of the Union, two separate and quarrelsome republics might still endure, periodically at war with each other.

Even Switzerland had a civil war — in 1847 — out of which came the limited but sturdy unity of its confederation. Close proximity, overlapping languages and centuries of common history were not enough to resolve differences between the cantons. They had to fight briefly, with 86 killed, to strike a balance of strength between them.

And so it must be with Iraq, the most haphazard of states, hurriedly created by the British after World War I with scant regard for its rival nationalities and sects. The sectarian hatred — erupting during the Saddam Hussein era and at full boil since his ouster — is now inflicting a heavy toll in casualties.

The key element that I find lacking in Luttwak's piece is that he does not account for the reality of the 21st Century Information Age. Like it or not, instant world wide media coverage is an element of modern war. How it plays depends on who is involved and where it is happening.

Finally I would say that regardless of current or future events, the word 'never" never works, whether one is swearing off regime changes or nation building or large scale armored warfare.

Best
Tom

[Merv Benson]

Blackjack Pershing's Punitive Expedition into Mexico was hardly a ringing success, especially if you thinking capturing and/or killing Pancho villia was its primary purpose, since we never found him. What we basically proved is that if Mexican bandits raid New Mexico, US troops can raid Mexico.

One little side note on the expedition, was Patton's "mechanized" attack on a ranch house, i.e. he got there is an automobile, where they got some of the bad guys. He later leveraged this action into a leadership position in the new tank corps in World War I.

The problem with decapitation without regime change is that you leave a vacumn to be filled by the strongest war lord. In Afghanistan that turned out to be the Taliban who later hosted al Qaeda.

[Stu-6]

I think punitive strikes can be effective in some circumstances; for instances raiding a terrorist camp where it would be impractical to occupy the area or similar action against the military of a state protector. However there are limitations for instance situations like Iraq where we have broken the existing state, there the options for attack and leave are somewhat limited not for moral reason but rather for practical ones. Leaving failed a failed state creates all kinds of problems (of course staying in one creates its own difficulties).

[slapout9]

Capt. Holzbach, you may be on to something. One of the first books I read was called The Lessons of Terror by Caleb Carr. In the book he talks about such and operation. His model was Sherman's march to sea You want war, you want terror, we will give to you in spades. In the end we will make you hate war and terror. You also point out some weaknesses of elected officials, we may end up with somebody worse, all nice and legal. Your theory would also have the support of the american people quick, sharp and with a moral reason to do it. And then go home. Also as President Reagan said about Quidaffi(cain't spell)"We are prepared to do it again". I have doubts about this build em a new country and we will pay for it so they will like us theory. Respect first aid second. I am ranting and raving now. I meant to ask can you expand on your theory?

[zenpundit]

Punitive expeditions make sense if there is an entity which can be held accountable for the behavior of its troops, agents, citizens or whatever. The idea is to communicate that the costs of state irresponsibility are higher than the internal political benefits of winking and nodding at difficult to control elements.

Launching a punitive expedition where there is no one who can effect changes desired may or may not make strategic or tactical sense.

[CPT Holzbach]

Launching a punitive expedition where there is no one who can effect changes desired may or may not make strategic or tactical sense.

Good point. Yes, I was thinking more along the lines of nations. You cant exactly do this against Al Qaeda. What you CAN do this hammer any nation that harbors them, a la Afghanistan.

I meant to ask can you expand on your theory?

This isnt a very well developed theory, more of an idea. An idea based on the fact that I have never heard a rational argument for nation building. I assume such an argument would change from situation to situation, but every lame attempt at one Ive heard couldnt be called rational. Most were emotion based pleas for justice and responsibility and helping the hardworking, indigenous peoples of...where ever. There may be good reasons for it sometimes, but I dont think we're honest with ourselves or the rest of the world about why we do it. Are we rebuilding Iraq in our image in the hope of cheap oil? Or because we "owe it to them"? The only thing our government "owes" anyone is to spend American tax dollars for the benefit of Americans. Crushing another country and rebuilding it differently JUST to get cheap oil probably isnt morally right. But neither is spending American lives and money to make non-Americans' lives better. If Im going to lose my life in a war, it had better be to make American's lives better. Dying to help Iraqis is dramatic, and touching, and noble, and makes for a nice sound bite at my memorial service. But I want us to win there because I already spent a year of my life and lost a soldier there. And maybe, just maybe, it'll make my gas cheaper. Wow, if there's one thing I DONT care about, it's Iraqi's quality of life. Am I wrong?

Americans are dying in Iraq. What are we going to get for it? We need to be coldly rational when it comes to war. It's fashionable to say war must be a last resort, etc etc, and it should be. But when it serves American interests, we shouldnt even blink in using it. There is a considerable gray area here. We've all been brought up to believe that "might is right" is not the way to go through life. Still, Ive never heard a rational argument against it. It doesnt feel right to me either, but "feelings" arent the best thing to base decisions to go to war on. So, Ive been chewing on the idea of punitive expeditions as a way of securing America's interests without ultimatly defeating ourselves with casualty producing, pussyfooted attempts at nation building.

A related article:http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060206.html

A riskier proposition is to employ American ground troops to change the political situation — that is, to flip a hostile government on the theory the people are desirous of freedom and would welcome liberation...And once America enters such a risky landscape, the clock ticks. The question of victory or quagmire is decided by whether we can defeat the insurgents and set up a local government before the enemy can erode U.S. public opinion — either by killing enough Americans on the evening news to make us doubt the cost is worth the gambit, or by suggesting that the vaunted values of Western bourgeois society have become sullied in the conflict at places like My Lai or Abu Ghraib.

He is skipping over my point. He seems to be assuming that you must stay and rebuild. At other points he only equates punitive attacks with bombing.

[slapout9]

Capt. Holzbach, very well said. Memorial day has just past and we owe it to all service members to make sure they are fighting and risking death for the protection of America or American interest.

Al Qaeda (all terrorist groups) are often given the status of being 10 feet tall and bullet proof. We forget the fact that they are human and they live,eat,sleep on terrain that belongs to a country that directly or indirectly supports them. These countries must understand that they do so at their own peril.

Punitive strikes are one valid option for doing this. It is our moral right to do this. If the supporting country does not take action to solve this problem on their own then they are part of the problem and need to pay a price. The moral responsibility to rebuild THEIR country is THEIR problem not ours if they choose to let their country become a base from which terrorist can attack us.

[Jones_RE]

In the short term, punitive strikes will generate fantastic results. Those regimes we target will fall - and whether or not new governments arise in their place won't matter much. The US is protected from many of the more, interesting, effects of its foreign policy by physical separation from most of the world. Hence, the chaos and violence that follow a tumbling government won't be much of an issue. Yeah, a lot of the pissed off survivors will band together and try to harm US interests, but they've got a lot of ocean to get through to pull that off. Even those governments we don't target will walk a lot more softly - after we take out Tehran, you can bet the North Koreans will suddenly decide that nuclear power isn't the answer after all.

Long term, however, is that a policy of punitive strikes will result in a number of negative consequences for the United States.

1) International terrorism. There are about a billion Muslims in the world - our punitive strikes are bound to be unpopular with a very large fraction of them. If even one tenth of one tenth of one percent of that billion decide to violently target US interests that's one hundred thousand terrorists. Not good odds. There are thousands of Americans living, working and vacationing abroad. This kind of action puts Americans at risk everywhere in the South Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the former Soviet Union.

2) Domestic terrorism. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, through some combination of professionalism and good fortune, just intercepted a terrorist plot involving 17 of their citizens with no connections to any other group. Rumor suggests that intercepted phone calls and email records tipped off the authorities. There are millions of Muslims living in the United States. Our surveillance and counterterrorism methods are no more advanced than the Canadians' and are likely hampered by greater bureaucratic hurdles even under the Patriot act. Worse, much of American infrastructure is essentially undefended.

3) Nuclear/Chemical/Biological weapons. Nations under threat from the US may well decide that having a viable nuclear deterrent is their only option. The ability to vaporize an aircraft carrier battlegroup with one bomb would like pretty attractive in this environment. Nations wouldn't necessarily have to do this alone. Israel developed its nuclear program with French help, for example. There are plenty of nuclear states who would like to have oil rich client states. The Chinese government seems to be limiting its energy security programs to long term natural gas contracts with Iran. Think about the deal they'd get at the pump if they tossed a couple warheads into the deal. Note that we're not attacking the People's Republic pretty much whatever happens. They're not worth the piece of our hide they'd tear off.

4) NBC terrorism. With more strategic weapons floating around, the chance of a mushroom cloud over an American city increases dramatically. Especially if other countries are currently in too big of a diplomatic tizzy to cooperate with us.

5) International relations. Believe it or not, but we in the USA are the principle beneficiaries of the international system and the UN. Most foreigners view international law, the UN, the Security Council and so forth as puppets of the US - not as shackles that hold us down. You might recall that we wrote these rules ourselves - and that the convention organizing the UN was held in San Francisco, an American city. We rely on cooperation in endless forms in order to pursue terrorist suspects abroad, for example. Should the Europeans decide to stop cooperating, our odds of getting hurt increase dramatically.

6) More international relations. Right now, we effectively subsidize the militaries of every European country. They benefit from our weapons designs and our prodigious logistics efforts. American dollars spent developing high tech body armor will save the lives of European soldiers. In an environment where we no longer supply communications, logistics, transportation, air support, electronic intelligence and countless other things to European militaries (because those sissified European governments keep complaining about our kickass way of war) the Europeans will damn sure develop their own capabilities. They'll become military peers, with every chance of becoming military competitors. If they're spending the money to develop new missiles and radars, the temptation will be awfully fierce to defray those costs by supplying them to third party consumers (who may well be our enemies).

Frankly, the current system with all its nation building, international consensus and other liberal crap has delivered a situation that totally favors the United States of America. Only a handful of regimes dare to openly challenge us, even in purely verbal terms. Virtually none of them are willing to actively sponsor attacks against American interests. Our biggest complaints right now are governments developing weapons that one day might be used against us and governments who say they're on our side but aren't fighting our enemies hard enough. The United States has a virtual monopoly on air power, sea power and high tech military equipment that no one else seems particularly motivated to challenge. The vast majority of people in the world don't want to fight us at all, even from countries whose ideologies virulently oppose us. Why the hell would you want to change that?

[Xenophon]

You're definitly on to something, Captain, and I've been chewing on the idea myself specifically in regards to Iran. I would think that a concept like this would work particularly well in a region where the culture respects force over just about everything else. No nation in the world can come close to projecting the amount of death and destruction that we can, but trying to win a popularity contest isn't playing to that strength.

In regards to Iran: We obviously don't have the numbers to invade and occupy like we did Iraq and Afghanistan. But a punitive expedition there would send a message to the rest of the world that we are by no means defenseless because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, both occupations would look like Utopia compared to the chaos ensuing in Iran. We go in, kill off any military or government opposition, break the the infrastructure capable of producing nukes, then leave. As mentioned above, there is that required sense of "nation" present in Iran along with opposition groups ready to sieze the oppurtunity.

[Jones_RE]

Suppose we launch a punitive expedition to Iran. Put yourself in the shoes of their senior military planning staff: what would you do? What steps would you take to prevent a US invasion from toppling your regime?

[slapout9]

Based upon what has happened to Iran's neighbors, I would surrender and tell the Americans everything they wanted to know and collect a multi-million dollar reward for it.

[CPT Holzbach]

No nation in the world can come close to projecting the amount of death and destruction that we can, but trying to win a popularity contest isn't playing to that strength.

This is part of my reasoning. Playing to our strengths, rather than those of the enemy. I could probably break out my Sun-Tzu or my binder full of 4th gen warfare articles to support this idea (and make it fashionable and buzzword cool). Actually, it's a 3rd gen warfare holdover, I think. The idea of pitting your strength against your enemy's weakness. The USA's strength is conventional, 3rd gen warfare. The 4th generation just isnt our bag, baby. Not yet anyway. We CAN do counter-insurgency and win, but it SUCKS. We're not very good at it yet. But our enemies usually are. But what they cant do, not on our level, is kick ass with tanks and planes, etc etc. Hence the idea of punitive expeditions. They pit our strength against our enemies' weakness.

Suppose we launch a punitive expedition to Iran. Put yourself in the shoes of their senior military planning staff: what would you do? What steps would you take to prevent a US invasion from toppling your regime?

I'd nuke the hell outa the Great Satan, and resort immedietly to guerilla warfare.

[Jones_RE]

I'd nuke the hell outa the Great Satan, and resort immedietly to guerilla warfare.

All right. How many nukes would you deliver? With what delivery system? A speedboat to the US fleet offshore? Or a tugboat full of "refugees?"

And in what way do you resort to guerilla warfare? How do you prepare your nation and your government for a guerilla struggle? What military techniques, tactics and procedures do you lay down for the troops to follow?

[Xenophon]

resort immedietly to guerilla warfare

Exactly what they're planning to do, and have been for decades. The only way to meet our goals (regime change, lack of nuclear capability) without playing directly to their strength is a punitive expedition.

[slapout9]

Mr. Jones it was widely reported that Iraqi genrals were recruited to either act on our behalf(allow troops to surrender) or agree to do nothing(don't destroy oilwells). Why cain't we do it in Iran? Anybody answer that would like.

[Jedburgh]

The administration is having an extremely difficult time politically even maintaining current ground strength in Iraq, and is only able to increase strength by a tiny margin in Afghanistan because it is generally off the radar. So, given that regime change in Iran can't be forced without a ground component - where are they going to come from and how is it to be presented to the public?

Unless a major terrorist incident targeting Americans occurs and can be directly linked to Iran, it ain't gonna happen. A short, sharp, sustained air campaign targeting Iran's nuke facilities would probably be supported by the US public - if collateral casualties are absolutely minimized. But in today's political environment, commitment of ground troops to another target of regime change is not feasible.

Anyway, if somehow we foment the fall of the Mullahcracy - there is no government-in-exile or clear leader-in-waiting ready to take charge. The most likely outcome is factional fighting, with stronger elements perhaps being able to take control of Tehran and key central parts of the country, with the outlying regions falling under control of armed ethnic factions. Think for a moment upon the potential impact this could have upon our own ops in the bordering states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the effects upon our fragile alliance with Turkey, as we take the blame when the PKK suddenly becomes better able to exploit that particular border area, widening their potential AO....

[CPT Holzbach]

All right. How many nukes would you deliver? With what delivery system? A speedboat to the US fleet offshore? Or a tugboat full of "refugees?"

And in what way do you resort to guerilla warfare? How do you prepare your nation and your government for a guerilla struggle? What military techniques, tactics and procedures do you lay down for the troops to follow?

Not sure where you're going with this.

Unless a major terrorist incident targeting Americans occurs and can be directly linked to Iran, it ain't gonna happen. A short, sharp, sustained air campaign targeting Iran's nuke facilities would probably be supported by the US public - if collateral casualties are absolutely minimized. But in today's political environment, commitment of ground troops to another target of regime change is not feasible.

Your're probably right. Which is sad. I suppose it'll take a mushroom cloud over an American city before the people will support doing something about Iranian nukes.

Think for a moment upon the potential impact this could have upon our own ops in the bordering states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the effects upon our fragile alliance with Turkey, as we take the blame when the PKK suddenly becomes better able to exploit that particular border area, widening their potential AO....

Good point about the negative impact on Iraqi operations. But maybe it would inspire us to head out to the Iranian border and get out of the Iraqi cities. Would that be a bad thing? As far as Turkey, I dont see what we owe them. They wouldnt let us in for the invasion of Iraq. And I wonder who would be a better ally, Turkey, or Kurdistan? But the internation intrigue really isnt my strong suit...

[slapout9]

To my understanding the original objectives of OIF were no sadam,no WMD,Democratic framework installed. That has been done!! Why don't we seize and control the Oil facilities until they figure out THEIR politics. Cordon and protect the oil and get a share of the profits to pay america back!! I think if there is some positvie economic benefit to america from OIF support for a long term mission could be established or at least accepted. Every american understands oil prices and oil supplies, tie us military missions to this and maybe we have a chance. Yes /No/Maybe anybody respond.

[Jedburgh]

To my understanding the original objectives of OIF were no sadam,no WMD,Democratic framework installed. That has been done!! Why don't we seize and control the Oil facilities until they figure out THEIR politics. Cordon and protect the oil and get a share of the profits to pay america back!! I think if there is some positvie economic benefit to america from OIF support for a long term mission could be established or at least accepted. Every american understands oil prices and oil supplies, tie us military missions to this and maybe we have a chance. Yes /No/Maybe anybody respond.

If you recall, among the civilian planners of OIF, there were repeated statements that Iraq's oil profits would pay for rebuilding the country. Yet another example of blinkered ignorance ignoring existing intel. Iraq's oil not only is unable to pay for the costs of the rebuilding (let alone the occupation), to date it has yet to be able to even completely fund the cost of restoring and modernizing Iraq's oil facilities to full operating capacity. Of course, a part of this is the bad guy's regular targeting of oil infrastructure...