Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: WAPO Op-ed on airpower

  1. #21
    Council Member qp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dirkadirkastan
    Posts
    16

    Default

    I'll grab this same quote to illustrate the view from the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    My point, perhaps hers also, is that we are excessively dependent on 'support' and are unwilling to trust most of our units to operate without massive backup -- which will almost certainly not be available at all times. Nor should it be. We are doing ourselves and many units a significant disservice and are using hardware to compensate for poor training and education.
    Throughout this and a few other threads I've been reading about the risk aversion in operations, particularly in OEF and OIF, but having developed over the last several decades (there was at least one reference to Desert Storm).

    I pose these questions as response. Why not back off and call for "support"? If "support" is available, be it ISR, CAS, AA, or IDFs, why not use it? Isn't the guy on the ground using his best judgement and determination on whether he is losing the initiative by waiting up to "90 minutes" for some AH-1s (or whatever)? In "COIN" or even HIC in 2010 isn't using aviation nearly the same as calling immediate suppression in wars past?
    Few are the problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of concentrated firepower.

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The people mostly live in valleys and flat ground, not on mountains. The mountains make good photos, but the maps and satellite imagery is quite devoid of houses or even settlements on mountains.

    Besides; I know people who would prefer IFVs even in such terrains (not my opinion).
    It all depends. Generalizing about Afghanistan is something to be avoided.

    In some places (Nuristan in particular) villages are on the mountains, literally. Even where villages are in the valleys, they may not be accessible by road and even where roads exist the heavy vehicles have problems. And even where heavy vehicles are can pass, there's often only 1 way which makes mining, IED's and ambushes much easier. There are a lot of places that are only practically accessible by foot traffic, pack animal or helicopter.

    The south is much more vehicle friendly, but there are problems there too, particularly in the agricultural areas.

  3. #23
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The key words were and are 'excessively dependent.'

    Quote Originally Posted by qp4 View Post
    Throughout this and a few other threads I've been reading about the risk aversion in operations, particularly in OEF and OIF, but having developed over the last several decades (there was at least one reference to Desert Storm).
    The bad thing is the excessive. That excessive dependence is mostly due to the risk aversion factor, a little less to a lack of trust. A lot of that risk aversion is due to the mistaken idea that the American public will not accept casualties in combat. I have not seen that; they aren't stupid and they know that combat means casualties. I believe they will accept casualties as long as some progress is being made. Little progress will get them upset but the Army has --and far more importantly the Politicians have -- this idea that the people do not want any casualties. So they pin units to support to minimize casualties.That stupidity started in Viet Nam when an edict that no US unit could operate outside the supporting fan of US artillery was promulgated.
    I pose these questions as response. Why not back off and call for "support"? If "support" is available, be it ISR, CAS, AA, or IDFs, why not use it? Isn't the guy on the ground using his best judgement and determination on whether he is losing the initiative by waiting up to "90 minutes" for some AH-1s (or whatever)? In "COIN" or even HIC in 2010 isn't using aviation nearly the same as calling immediate suppression in wars past?
    The answers IMO are:

    (1) Agreed, why not -- provided that support is needed and not an excuse to do nothing (that happens...) or because the guy on the ground doesn't know what else to do next and wants the time to think and plan (that also happens).

    (2) No reason not to use it provided METT-TC, the infamous 'situation,' calls for it. OTOH, it is not wise to use it as a crutch or due to inability to decide on another course of action, due to fear (risk avoidance...) or because it is directed from above (risk avoidance) or expected at ANY contact (risk avoidance) or if as happens all too often that guy on the ground is not trusted by his Boss or that Bosses staff (risk avoidance) or where it is just inappropriate.

    (3) Generally yes and the system should defer to that guy on the ground; not to some Staff type who's concerned with 'protecting' his boss (who may not need or want that kind of protection...).

    (4) If it is, it should not be. That due to the fact that it's a bad habit to get into and air can be weathered out, diverted to a higher priority mission or out of weapons or fuel; IOW it is not reliable enough to use in lieu of immediate suppression (which rarely works well against good opponents anyway...).

    Bold aggressive action should be the norm; waiting for fires should be avoided. Yet, it is not avoided, it is encouraged. That's excessive dependence. That's also the result of poor training.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The bad thing is the excessive. That excessive dependence is mostly due to the risk aversion factor, a little less to a lack of trust.
    I think that is only half the explanation (and no more than half). The other half is the availability of assets that can be called in for support. If there were a shortage, then we would just make do and get along without it. But if the assets can be launched and made available, and if the guy on the ground doesn't use them, and then something bad happens, then you can expect people to be outraged that the "necessary" asset or equipment was not made available. That's why we can't let troops patrol without body armor. If they get shot without wearing it, few people will be saying "sh*t happens." Instead, many will be screaming bloody murder and railing against our attempts to fight "too humanely" or some other nonsense. The American public may not be stupid, but the people with the loudest voices and most influence sure seem to be.

  5. #25
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Unhappy Sadly correct

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    ...but the people with the loudest voices and most influence sure seem to be.
    Many of those are politicians who listen to those other loudmouths who are not politicians...

  6. #26
    Council Member qp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dirkadirkastan
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    The other half is the availability of assets that can be called in for support. If there were a shortage, then we would just make do and get along without it. But if the assets can be launched and made available, and if the guy on the ground doesn't use them, and then something bad happens, then you can expect people to be outraged that the "necessary" asset or equipment was not made available.
    That's another part that I just left out. It seems ridiculous to push through without utilising those assets just to be "hooah" or "because that's how infantry/armor/branch rolls." I don't think it's because any commander (at the PLT or CO level at least) is thinking that someone will be outraged that we didn't use asset for role, rather, I contend it's about self preservation. If I think that freshly turned pile of earth over there is holding some HME, I'd much rather EOD come take a look at it instead of myself or PFC Snuffy.

    That said, I personally witnessed units from three different manuever brigades shooting p-IEDs in 2005. The assets simply weren't available in a timely manner, and so those units were taking the necessary steps to accomplish their mission.

    That's why we can't let troops patrol without body armor. If they get shot without wearing it, few people will be saying "sh*t happens." Instead, many will be screaming bloody murder and railing against our attempts to fight "too humanely" or some other nonsense. The American public may not be stupid, but the people with the loudest voices and most influence sure seem to be.
    Actually I think this is a completely different topic. Or several of them, because there is a case for not having armor in some situations (all abiding METT-TC dependent of coruse). But I'd also say that by and large the American public long ago quit caring about casaulties beyond a bit of lip service and flag waving patriotism. Don't mistake the really loud voices as being the majority.
    Few are the problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of concentrated firepower.

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qp4 View Post
    I don't think it's because any commander (at the PLT or CO level at least) is thinking that someone will be outraged that we didn't use asset for role, rather, I contend it's about self preservation.
    I don't think a CO at that level will be outraged, either. But I do think maybe a BN and certainly a BDE commander would be. Pre 9/11, I had a BN commander who would literally pull aside PL a have him do PT during the PLT AAR of our Platoon LFX if he failed to call in mortars immediately upon making contact - the BN CDR didn't care what the rationale was. After seeing my peers treated that way, when it was my platoon's turn, I called for fire. In Iraq, when every WIA or KIA resulted in a 15-6, it was understood that the 15-6 had better include, in the first few lines of findings, what the unit SOP was for PPE (not that the incredibly detailed BDE SOP left much wiggle room), whether it was complied with (and why, if not), followed by what assets were available, which ones were actually employed, and why others were not. It was a giant cover your ass exercise that inevitably seeped into every facet of our operations. Just as I called for fire as a PL, regardless of METT-TC (in training), our companies adjusted their operations so that they could avoid the non-thinking punishment of the BDE CO.

    ... there is a case for not having armor in some situations (all abiding METT-TC dependent of coruse).
    And it will not happen anytime soon unless there is a solid chain of command to support it that is not worried about CYA. See above.

    But I'd also say that by and large the American public long ago quit caring about casaulties beyond a bit of lip service and flag waving patriotism. Don't mistake the really loud voices as being the majority.
    I don't mistake them for the majority. I just observe that they're the loudest.

  8. #28
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    This might be considered to be relevant:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...-betrayal.html

  9. #29
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Hmm, here's no-one from the "peace!" faction, so let me fill this role.

    Civilians should be treated as humans, not different from your own fellow citizens.

    There's no need for dedicated COIN doctrine or strategic insights to find the right path in this case. Simply don't treat foreign civilians as sub-humans and you'll avoid stupid mistakes.

    I guess I will never learn to predict the extent of reactions that my writings provoke.
    Sometimes I get fierce reactions to secondary remarks and at times I get none about stuff like this quote.
    There's always a reaction to no reaction; I begin to think about whether I merely wrote something that was a hidden consensus or maybe nobody wanted to touch that topic or maybe...?

  10. #30
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default In this case, I suspect it is because most

    agree with what you wrote. Ignoring the unnecessary "peace" faction bit, of course...

Similar Threads

  1. The Never Ending Airpower Versus Groundpower Debate
    By Tom Odom in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 200
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 04:00 PM
  2. Understanding Airpower: Bonfire of the Fallacies
    By Cavguy in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 09:15 PM
  3. A new Air Control policy?
    By LawVol in forum Catch-All, OIF
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-11-2007, 01:39 PM
  4. Book Review: Airpower in Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 06:14 PM

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
  •