Or: What do the terrorists, the Japanese in WWII, cell phones, CAP actions in Vietnam and recent Army recruiting woes have in common…

Point of Pondering #1.

As I sat in traffic today, a few things came to mind that may be the reason we are seeing some shifts in the attack patterns of al-Qaeda this past few months.

I guess the thinking on the topic began with this post over on Chapomatic’s blog. It was a one-liner, which ends with:

“That much effort indicates to me that these guys don’t currently have usable WMD.”

That struck me as not necessarily correct under the circumstances, so I left this comment:

“or…alternatively, they still think they may not be ready to be completely exterminated, after being hunted down like rabid dogs. They may see this “level of violence” can still get them a pass from those who keep saying it’s all illegal. I’d bet even the nay sayers, well, maybe half of them, would come around to GWB’s view and measures as acceptable if a dirty bomb, or bio/chem agents are released…which would put the polls at about 75% saying “kill the bums!” Kind of hard to say there isn’t a “mandate” when your polls are that high…the gloves would come off at that point, and I suspect they know they cannot stand a full court press.

A real, no kidding WMD, complete with destruction of “Biblical proportions,” would most likely shift the World’s opinions completely against them.

(I’m no intel guy, but) The exact opposite of this briefing may not be discounted…. “

These terrible, yet small scale attacks, we have been seeing are noteworthy in that they hits the media like the tsunami last Dec 26th, and get the attention up, yet the outward sentiment of the world still stays latched on the “Bush Lied, People Died” and “Where are the WMDEEEEEEEEESSSSSS???????” themes.

As I noted above, I think the use of a WMD, of any degree, would suddenly cause a reaction they know they can’t afford.

Point of pondering #2:

Until the comment today about how the London bombs appeared to have all been triggered by cell phones, I hadn’t really stopped to think about the fact that this is a common tactic of the terrorists in Iraq right now. The news reports of the military finding a bomb or IED making lab, usually in a house somewhere, contains cell phones in the listing of materials found. One picture I saw a few months back was a soldier’s hand holding a cell phone with the annotation “1 Missed Call” on the phone’s LCD. The phone had wires hanging out of it that weren’t for better reception. They use this triggering tactic regularly.

Why the interest in the cell phones? Well, simple. If you see the masses, or the attendees at the videoed beheadings, there is usually plenty of indication they are willing to die for Allah. We have repeatedly heard, and can find it supported in the Koran, that to die in a declared holy war for Allah will get you admitted to paradise. If that’s the case, we know jihad has been declared in about 4 hundred and eleven different ways against “The Crusaders” (which would literally include England, and never did include the United States of America, as were just hadn’t found the place yet), so why are they not lining up and saying: “Mohammed, put me in! Come on, put me in, just this time, you know I can do it for the team!”

Simple: The use of the cell phones allows them to keep the trained fighters for another day.

It’s all about resource management, which is mostly what a commander in the field does. It’s nice to have a plan, and then gather the logistical support for the execution, but if the bad guys don’t follow your plan, you may come up a little short. In this case, I think there are two dynamics at play here.

Point of pondering #2A.

The first condition is I think the terrorists have seen the opinion tide shifting in their favor. I won’t belabor the world media’s love affair here, but they, as does anyone, gather strength to endure by seeing they and their cause being praised. The problem is, there aren’t enough “resources” (read people willing to blow themselves up to head for paradise), coupled with the fact that the media hasn’t caused the US and it’s collation countries to capitulate. They have to hang on. It’s sort of like the point in many war movies, when the platoon/company is surrounded and the enemy is chomping at the bit to overrun them, and some cigar chomping master sergeant or company commander yells for everyone to conserve ammo and only shoot what you know you can hit. In this case the ammo is a humanized version of the smart bomb (smartness may be debatable, but let’s leave that to another post). I think they are running low. Using cell phones improves the possibility of having more seasoned fighters around for the final push.

Point of pondering 2B.

So, what’s up with that? Well, let’s take a short trip to the near past, like two months ago. What was the almost daily screeching from the papers and HBM about? Yep, you got it: “Army Not meeting Recruiting Goals.” War is a tough business and it’s not just some of the youth of America that sometimes balk at the call. Where are the demanding headlines in the world press, demanding to know what the actual numbers targeted (sorry, but we use that word about our recruiting plans) to get signed up and how many actually did. I want to know if their recruiters are treated to an un-video taped beheading if they fail on a monthly goal. I bet there’s a massive cover-up on this issue amongst the jihadis…

The “recruiting numbers” may be lower (assuming my analysis that they are missing their numbers is correct) based on another reason. In “Our Own Worst Enemy” by William Lederer, the author tells the story of a Marine unit that gets assigned to work security for a Vietnamese village. They model their interaction with the villagers from the guidance of the “Small Wars Manual” the Marines figured out after having served in Central America in the early 1900s. Anyhow, the Marines not only provided protection, they showed the villagers how to farm and grow livestock more effectively, then there is surplus over the families needs, so they form a little co-op and take the surplus to market and then they had extra hard cash to use to then do more and make more. Great story.

This links in with this discussion because, as we have also seen in Iraq, over time, the villagers start “ratting out” the VC, telling the Marines when the attacks are coming. The village bonded with their Marine protectors and mentors. The best part of the story is what I think applies here. The Viet Cong locals would slip back into the village at night. Their friends would tell them all the things the Marines had helped them to learn, and how they actually were improving their farms and making some money. The VC had been promising this type of thing for a long time, but it was the young men of the USMC that delivered on the promise.

As we see Iraq rebuilding itself, with commerce developing, and people being able to speak and interact freely, I’m sure some of the “recruits” are having second thoughts. When we hear stories of al-Qaeda recruiters killing off family members in order to get people to come and join the jihad, I’d say they are pretty well beat. The VC ended up doing that, and that sort of recruiting has an exceptionally low “1st Term Retention” number associated with it…like about 0% in any one’s armed force.

Point of pondering #3.

Maybe the jihadis took some time to look into the whole suicide bomber deal by reading up on another recent example in world history. I am assuming they did some course work in the “Divine Wind” work of the Japanese in WWII. If they studied this well, they would see a few interesting things, not the least of which was JAPAN LOST! (that’s a no cost clue). Another real issue in Japan was that some senior and middle grade officers strongly (well, as strongly as they could) lobbied against the concept, the dissenting side largely being the pilots. Their argument was, if you took enough time to train them to fly (and it was kind of like the 2001 bombers, very little, just enough to get you to the target), then you should use them as a “reusable resource.” Using them once was only going to help so long, then the Chop (supply officer) is saying “sorry, no got!” That’s what happened to the Japanese Navy. By the Battle Off Samar, the Japanese aircraft carriers had pretty much been relegated to being just large targets for the Navy bombers, as they had no pilots to fly from them. They were the decoy to get Bull Halsey to leave the area, while Admiral Kurita went with his surface battleships, cruisers and destroyers to try and spoil MacArthur’s landing at Leyte Gulf.

I think the jihadis have come to understand this lesson: Manage your resources conservatively from the Japanese example.

Summary: I think the boys are on the ropes, but still have the fight in them. I think they are good students of the technical aspects of killing, with some mastery of phsychology and public relations. I think they are very weak historians, as they someone how seem to be repeating many of the mistakes of the past.

Got all that? Clear as mud? Comments?

Thanks to Mudville Gazette for the Open Posts!

Update 11:50PM EDT:

If you’d like a detailed analysis of the London Bombing itself, get your coffee and then click on this link…good stuff from Kung fu Kat…

p>The correlation between the interaction of man with a disease and the US and it’s coalition with the Iraqi “insurgency” have something in common.

Laurie Garrett published her lengthy work, “The Coming Plague” in 1994. While the book is not about malaria, that is one case study she presents to show how we made some poor decisions, which allowed the disease to carry on, even today. In the reading of her well researched book, there are many other parallels between man’s interaction with man that tracks remarkably close to how we have interacted with creatures of far fewer cells and complexity over history. When I read the book years ago, her comments on malaria stuck with me, despite it being a relatively minor portion of the discussion.

In Chapter 2, she discusses how the 1951 World Health Organization “was so optimistic that it declared that Asian malaria could soon reach a stage through careful local management wherein ‘malaria is no longer a problem of major importance.’ The discovery of DDT and other organochlorines, all of which possessed remarkable capacity to kill mosquitoes and other pests on contact…” The insurgency can be looked at in a similar way, that by the application of effective methods and means, the terrorists could be reduced to being “no longer a problem of major importance.” DDT certainly had it’s downside from a public health standpoint, but it did get us out of the starting blocks in the eradication of malaria and killed many mosquitoes.

In 1967, the Surgeon General reported to the President and a gathering of health officials that it was time to close the books on infectious diseases in the US and take on chronic diseases. This then, obviously, would shift the focus away from the eradication of malaria, but it didn’t end the efforts towards that planned move to make it no longer a major problem.

Malaria has plagued the US Military, and of other countries before ours, since the Revolutionary times. In 1947, Congress budgeted $47M to take on the problem of malaria in the 48 continental states. Five years later, funding was stopped, as there hadn’t been any cases of malaria found within the US borders. Other countries around the world still had the problem…Come 1956, a malariologist named Paul Russell of Harvard’s School of Public Health began lobbying for a program to eradicate malaria on a worldwide basis. In a report to Congress, Russell had these words to indicate the degree of commitment required:

”This is a unique moment in the history of man’s attack on one of his oldest and most powerful disease enemies. Failure to proceed energetically might postpone malaria eradication completely.”

With minor changes, this sounds much like the speeches of President Bush, but when he speaks of the terrorist threat. The comparisons in this story are quite striking. Enemies that are not alike. Someone with a vision to know what is not good for society. Lobbying to get the support, and there are many more I’m sure you’re picked up on by now. “Having won World War II, Americans were of a mind to ‘fix things up’: it just seemed fitting and proper in those days that American should use their seemingly unique skills and common sense to mend all the ailments of the planet.”

Funding from Congress came in 1958, but with stipulations of and end to funding by 1963. Why the time frame? Paul Russell’s report indicated that four years of spraying, followed by four years of sure that three consecutive years of no infections were noted. Like all plans, whether for war fighting, or building, or fighting diseases, the “program manager” makes projections based on generally ideal conditions. In the case of the worldwide eradication of malaria, as with dispensing with the threat of terrorism, the campaign must pretty much proceed in parallel everywhere simultaneously, or you’re likely to have the enemy merely slip away to somewhere safe. This does, however, require a high degree of commitment to the plan, as well as a high expense to keep the attack going everywhere. This, of course is much of the discussion today.

As far as ideal planning, the general desire if to get moving as soon as funding flows, but sometimes you have to begin in a piecemeal fashion, which, as with combating malaria and terrorists, can not be very effective. Top that off with a bunch of, for the most part, lawyers who don’t always grasp the technical detail of the plan, and therefore take the Reader’s Digest version and also apply simplistic measures to the plan. In this case, handing out money, then demanding it be done in a few years.

As life and much of history dictates, things change. Along comes a bright graduate student, Andy Speilman, who figured out DDT wasn’t the final answer. What he observed was the Anopheles mosquitoes were dying, but some were resistant to DDT, and still reproducing. A wrench in the gearbox of the plan had just been discovered. Speilman met Rachel Carson, a marine biologist at Woods Hole, and she explained that evolution would get in the middle of the eradication plan.

By 1963, malaria was certainly beat back tremendously, an example being India going from 1 million cases a year in 1955 to 18 by 1963. Congress, checking their notes, realized it was the terminal date of the plan and therefore, committed no more funding to the project. “As far as Congress was concerned, failure to reach eradication by 1963 simply meant it couldn’t be done, in any time frame. And virtually all spare cash was American; without steady infusions of U.S. dollars, the effort died abruptly” says Garrett.

The story continues from there and is fascinating reading, but look at the connections to the current debate about how to handle the GWoT. Once more today, I heard a caller on a talk show bring up the President’s “major hostilities are over” speech on the aircraft carrier. Anyone with any military experience would agree that when artilleymen and tankers are doing foot patrols in the crowded streets of another country, major hostilities are over, otherwise, they’d be rocking the bad guys with the really cool hardware they were trained to use with deadly efficiency. Also, when B-52s no longer fill the skies over the battlefield, it’s a big hint that major operations are concluded. The President was correct. He didn’t say “the war is over and we are victorious.” Had that been the case, it would have been proper to remove a major portion of the deployed military. And, despite that proclamation by the President, as was the case in 1963, the enemy is still around; diminished, but still there.

What lessons are to be extracted from a historical account of how the American leadership took on malaria and the GWoT?

– It’s difficult to judge the exact end of a major plan, regardless of the discipline involved.
– Arbitrary constraints linked to Congressional budget cycles can actually delude you into thinking it’s easy to see the day things will change/end. Oh, if it could just be so simple. On the other hand, the person championing the cause needs to be forthright in indicating the expected “variation” in the timeline. I feel President Bush has been honest about saying this war will be a long and complex one, and he said that early on.
– If you really want to make something “no longer a major problem,” don’t make artificial end dates, instead make milestones with evaluation criteria. At those junctures, see what the state of the plan is and modify your responses accordingly. Make sure the checkbook holders understand this clearly, and get the will of the people to line up with that understanding.
– A form of tactical evolution has happened on the battlefield. We have most likely gotten to the point where we have killed off the weakest of the terrorists, and not are locked in a war with the ones that are resistant to the military tactics applied to date.
– Most times, the weapons you begin the fight with aren’t the ones that will win the conflict Congress is a big group of “bean counters.” I have had life experiences with such people, on a smaller scale, and it was always interesting to see “them” grasping the pennies and not seeing the bigger picture. Sometimes spending a few dollars more today will guarantee you spend far less a few months of years from now. If they can’t let go of the funding to get that done, then you’re pretty much locked in to dealing with it longer.

Regardless of how rosy an initial plan looks, it’s best to evaluate it realistically along the way. Adapt and survive. Don’t declare victory when that’s not the case. Stay the course when your life depends on it.

We have a chance to end the story of the GWoT differently than the one about our war against malaria, which is still with us.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

We invaded Iraq, and it was difficult, yet we managed to militarily subdue a nation is a very short time. The troops fought well gainst some dedicated opposition.

We had seen the amount of conflict reduce as time went on. In reading blogs from those on the front lines, I noticed fewer entries about VBIEDs going off, and more posts that were substantive reports on getting to know the local population, helping out injured Iraqis, doing community projects…

The in recent weeks, the number of attacks by the terrorists ramped up, and we began losing increased numbers of service members.

As a result, members of our Congress began calling for a a timeline to pull out of Iraq, and began pronouncing the entire effort as the now well worn out word “quagmire.”

What’s happening? The opposition is taking some shots at us.

Where have we seen this before?

In the center of Europe in late 1944, the was a little shoot-em-up recorded in history as “The Battle of the Bulge.”

“The Battle of the Bulge which lasted from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945 was the largest land battle of World War II in which the United States participated. More than a million men fought in this battle including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British. The German military force consisted of two Armies with ten corps(equal to 29 divisions). While the American military force consisted of a total of three armies with six corps(equal to 31 divisions). At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were as follows: 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured.

In late 1944 Germany was clearly losing the war….”

We had breached Fortress Europe on the beaches of Normandy, fought across France and entered Belgium, enroute the invasion of Germany.

I’m sure if you had been with the troops surrounded at Bastonge, you certainly wouldn’t conceive that the Germans were, as the last line of the except above properly presents being characterized as “clearly losing the war.” It was a last gasp for Hitler, hoping he’d make a big enough dent in the pending invasion to regain the offensive. Since we are so lucky to know the end of the story, we know his gambit failed. The Third Reich was crushed within the next 7 months.

I think we are in this circumstance once again. The terrorists, like Hitler sense the end is near and need to score some big points and hope we’ll go defensive and possibly have the will of the people broken.

At the Battle of the Bulge, the situation for our troops was far more desperate, and there was a reasonable probability of them being overrun. How did the on scene commander respond? When asked by the German Commander to surrender, Gen McAulffie responded with a one word, famous answer: “Nuts!”

A commander surrounded, using cooks and clerks and anyone else with a uniform, to hold off the Wermacht troops, stood his ground. Patton’s Army did a “left face” and sped north to relieve the troops at Bastonge, no small feat for an entire Army.

The outcome? Stunning defeat for the enemy.

I once heard courage defined as hanging on for 10 seconds more than anyone else. I think that definition tends to fit will into this discussion of a battle 61 years ago. I think it’s a thought we need to hold onto for today.

My take is, like sharks, who can sense 2 parts per million of blood in the water, the terrorists have heard the cries from our own Congress, and are making an all out effort to make a splash. They want us to perceive they have been resurrected, and this spate of attacks is a foreshadowing of what is to come. It defies logic to believe an enemy, who has no “home court” at all, is composed of various competing groups, loosely held together by a hatred for the allied forces, with no effective means of secure communications, facing a well equipped and well trained military, armed with technological marvels to augment boots on the ground cannot have gathered the resources to mount a sustained offensive capable of dislodging our forces.

On the other hand, having learned the lesson of both Vietnam and Mogadishu, know if they can spill some US soldier’s blood and get Congress to begin howling for a pull out, there is a chance we will leave, only to later find out they were on a tactical “sprint,” designed to appear as a strategic offensive. We also need to hold to these lessons.

They are on the ropes, the country of Iraq is coming along well, we need to steel ourselves hang on for “10 more seconds.”

We have been here before, facing much worse at the Alamo, Gettysburg, at the Chosin Reservoir, in the Pusan Perimeter, and during the Tet Offensive. In each case, the US military stood up to the task with incredible dedication to a cause greater than themselves, and, while men were lost, the long term battles were won.

To pull back now is to admit defeat and go home, not only dishonoring the sacrifice of the 1700+ service members lost in this war, but the loses of all before them on the battlefields here and abroad where we have fought to defend freedom.
at’s happening? The opposition is taking some shots at us.

Where have we seen this before?

In the center of Europe in late 1944, the was a little shoot-em-up recorded in history as “The Battle of the Bulge.”

“The Battle of the Bulge which lasted from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945 was the largest land battle of World War II in which the United States participated. More than a million men fought in this battle including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British. The German military force consisted of two Armies with ten corps(equal to 29 divisions). While the American military force consisted of a total of three armies with six corps(equal to 31 divisions). At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were as follows: 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured.

In late 1944 Germany was clearly losing the war….”

We had breached Fortress Europe on the beaches of Normandy, fought across France and entered Belgium, enroute the invasion of Germany.

I’m sure if you had been with the troops surrounded at Bastonge, you certainly wouldn’t conceive that the Germans were, as the last line of the except above properly presents being characterized as “clearly losing the war.” It was a last gasp for Hitler, hoping he’d make a big enough dent in the pending invasion to regain the offensive. Since we are so lucky to know the end of the story, we know his gambit failed. The Third Reich was crushed within the next 7 months.

I think we are in this circumstance once again. The terrorists, like HItler sense the end is near and need to score some big points and hope we’ll go defensive and possibly have the will of the people broken.

At the Battle of the Bulge, the situation for our troops was far more desperate, and there was a reasonable probablity of them being overrun. How did the on scence commander respond? When asked by the German Commander to surrender, Gen McAulffie responded with a one word, famous answer: “Nuts!”

A commander surrounded, using cooks and clerks and anyone else with a uniform, to hold off the Wermacht troops, stood his ground. Patton’s Army did a “left face” and sped north to relieve the troops at Bastonge, no small feat for an entire Army.

The outcome? Stunning defeat for the enemy.

I once heard courage defined as hanging on for 10 seconds more than anyone else. I think that definition tends to fit will into this discussion of a battle 61 years ago. I think it’s a thought we need to hold onto for today.

My take is, like sharks, who can sense 2 parts per million of blood in the water, the terrorists have heard the cries from our own Congress, and are making an all out effort to make a splash. They want us to perceive they have been resurrected, and this spate of attacks is a foreshadowing of what is to come. It defies logic to believe an enemy, who has no “home court” at all, is composed of various competing groups, loosely held together by a hatred for the allied forces, with no effective means of secure communications, facing a well equipped and well trained military, armed with technological marvels to augment boots on the ground cannot have gathered the resources to mount a sustained offensive capable of dislodging our forces.

On the other hand, having learned the lesson of both Vietnam and Mogadishu, know if they can spill some US soldier’s blood and get Congress to begin howling for a pull out, there is a chance we will leave, only to later find out they were on a tactical “sprint,” designed to appear as a strategic offensive. we also need to hold to these lessons.

They are on the ropes, the country of Iraq is coming along well, we need to steel ourselves hang on for “10 more seconds.”

We have been here before, facing much worse at the Alamo, Gettysburg, Wake Island, Chosin Resevoir, in the Pusan Perimeter, Ia Trang Valley, Khe Sanh and during the Tet Offensive. In each case, the US military stood up to the task with incredible dedication to a cause greater than themselves, and, while men were lost, the long term battles were won.

The enemy of today isn’t anywhere near the caliber of the other amred forces we encountered in those battles. Our forces are today every bit as good as thier predecessors wearing the uniforms of the United States.

This entire push by the left is what we used to call a “banana.” Put something stupid in your staff work, near the front, to catch the boss’ eye, let him harange you for it, correct that and come back to get it signed out “because it reads much better now.” Don’t buy into it, “read” their entire message…

To pull back now is to admit defeat and go home, not only dishonoring the sacrifice of the 1700+ service members lost in this war, but the loses of all before them on the battlefields here and abroad where we have fought to defend freedom, particularly in desparate circumstances.

Update 6/30/2005: Reference my speculation above, see what Major K has to say about the terrorists’ huffing an puffing (before being smoked like a cheap cigar….)

Digging around the urban legend site Snopes, I came across a speech by a retired Air Force Officer. The speech was given in the fall of 2001, obviously from the text, after 9/11. Great speech. Brian Shul has flown 212 combat missions from Vietnam, and in the Cold War. Here’s what caught my eye:

And many years later, while fighting another terrorist over Libya, my backseater and I outraced Khaddafi’s missiles in our SR-71 as we headed for the Mediterranean…

I recall clearly that night in April, 1986, while aboard USS BIDDLE (CG-34), we had been told a “national asset” would be traversing our airspace. We gathered around the radar scopes in the Combat Information Center, switched on the SPS-48 air search display and proceeded to watch the SR-71 smoke by. We probably could see about 600 miles across (about 300 around the ship). As the radar rotated, we saw about 4 radar returns from one side of the area of coverage to the other. He was a real “fast mover.”

Now I know it was Brian Shul who flew by.

It has been 13 years since Richard Marcinko’s autobiography, Rogue Warrior was published. He was the first commander of SEAL TEAM SIX, back when it didn’t exist, and was the Navy’s first full time counter terrorist organization. It would be wise to review his findings (hint: READ HIS BOOK!)

I read it with great interest many years ago, and as I listened to the discussions about the errant pilot in a Cessna 150 that flew too close to the White House and Capitol buildings today, a piece of Richard’s story came back to me.

Close to the end of Rogue Warrior, Richard Marcinko describes how his unit, SEAL Team 6, was tasked to conduct a terrorist attack on a Naval Base in Southern California. I don’t recall if it was Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station, or the Naval Weapons Systems Engineering Station at Port Hueneme, but in either case, they were bases with perimeter fences, and the general public did not have access to the base.

What has stuck with me all these years was Richard’s description of his tactics. He had a two week window for the exercise. His could attack at any time during this period. Start with the premise that we have not manned our bases to have a person physically present at every point of a a perimeter, but we have elected to place guarded access points (gates), and then use physical structures, most usually, cyclone type fencing topped with barbed or concertina wire.

The base to be attacked knew they had to put out vehicle and foot patrols to protect against the impending attack. If you’re the bad guys, what do you do? Well, for a bunch of SEALs (remember, they were playing terrorist roles) with two weeks to just get in and show they could, the answer was easy. Prep your gear, do your scouting, then it’s party time for almost all the rest of the two week window.

Why would they do that, besides the fact that most every sailor won’t turn down paid “liberty ” time, when they had a mission to complete?

Simple: The base security had to guard every approach, all the time. Because they were not manned to do this under regular operating conditions, it meant they would have to suck it up and put a much more intense watch schedule into effect. Over time, it’s easy to figure out that before long, the defenders would be dog tired, trying to cover everywhere, all the time.

What happens when you get tired? Complacency and lack of attention to detail. Both, in a combat environment, will kill you or the others you are with or protecting.

The SEALs partied it up in San Diego, then headed up within a few days of the end of the time frame for the exercise, made their final checks and coordination, and they successfully (and easily) made it into the base.

We have been in that set of circumstances since well before the morning of 9/11/2001. We have made conscious, money related decisions, even back a number of years, to acknowledge that “we” cannot defend against any kind of attack everywhere and all the time.

The inevitable finger pointing will come, most likely as early as tonight, saying things were chaos, there was no plan, no one knew what to do, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah. The result was a slow, small aircraft, with a very tiny radar “paint” (return signature) was detected and people were alerted and sent away from the possible target (in a worst case scenario), or directed to shelter. Not only did the White House get the message, but so did at least the Capitol and the Supreme Court buildings. I heard they had people cleared out in about 4 minutes. Pretty good response time, I’d say, given it’s not a ship full of trained sailors being called to General Quarters. Actually, in light of that, 4 minutes to herd a whole bunch of civilians, both in and out of the Federal Goverment’s employ, that quickly is remarkable.

I for one am pleased at the response.

Consider what Richard Marcinko taught us back in the 1980’s, and told about in 1992. It applies to the circumstances of today, but the “adversaries” aren’t going to just embarass the base commander and his security department….

Part XII – “Red Blood or Red Ink”

Index to the Series:
Part I: Initiative, marketing, sales, project planning and program management skills
Part II: Auditing Skills
Part III: Operations 24/7/365
Part IV: “Point Papers”
Part V: Collateral Duties
Part VI: The “Git ‘er done!” Factor
Part VII: “Total Care”
Part VIII: Communications in the Workplace
Part IX: “Give a smart person with potential a chance”
Part X: Process Engineering, Continuous Improvement, Total Quality Management, Total Quality Leadership, or what ever you call it. The bottom line title: Making “it” better
Part XI: The Military’s Supply System
Part XII: “Red Blood or Red Ink”
Part XIII: Constructive Plagiarism

This is probably an original way to portray what I’ll comment on below. It’s been running around in my head for a few years now, and this seems to be the right time to roll it out.

Think jeopardy. What’s the difference between warfare and business? Bingo. One is a more gentile form of the other, but in each case, the goal is to take something from the other party, and make it yours. What’s the difference between Wal-Mart moving in, with the local hardware, toy and grocery stores taking a significant, if not financially fatal “hit,” and Hitler moving into Poland? I think you can’t argue that there is a fundamental difference here.

It’s all about competition. It’s about figuring out your enemy/competitor’s weakness and exploiting it to your gain. Certainly one venue is far more radical, and in many cases, far more final. Particularly for those service members who have been able to attend one of the National or international service colleges, this is a daily exercised skill, and therefore, a part of their thought processes.

The curriculums of the war colleges focus on building better warfighters, at the upper levels. The degrees awarded are in the Strategic Studies arena at the Master’s level. The almost universally studied texts is “On War” by Carl von Clausewitz. The other classic is “The Ancient Art of War” by Sun Tzu. These writings are studies in how people operate in the most extreme climes of competition, that of armed conflict.

Reduce this to the business environment and what you have is people who subconsciously know what to look for when you ask them to figure out how to increase market share, or how to take over, or penetrate a market. To them, it’s just second nature to mentally construct an operational concept, that will form the “battle plan.”

Not only will they formulate the concept, they will have had practice in drafting the operational plan and then communicating it to the office/sales force staff.

Think about it. How many business seminars have you been to where some tremendously successful business person stand before you and they reference some great philosophy that is directly derived from a great warrior? Why shouldn’t they, it’s the same concept at work.

I wrote an earlier post on the winning of hearts and minds, and it included some information about some small “nation building” efforts at the village level by some Marines. There was also some references to the way the composition of the makeup of regular versus reserve/national guard units was modified in the period between Vietnam and Gulf War I.

This afternoon, I was toying with the thought that something very unique is going on a half a world east of me, but I believe it is more off cycle, that I hope becomes a trend.

My basic thought is we have, quite by accident, built a military well suited to nation building. The concept of the re-mixing of logistics to combat unit ratios between active duty and the “citizen soldier” components after Vietnam is described by Col. Harry Summers, Jr. in “On Strategy: Gulf War.” Harry describes how the middle grade combat leaders from that War moved into assignments where they had the opportunity to recompose how we manned our armed forces, to ensure they, and their juniors marched to the next war with “the will of the people” in their corner.

The concept of having an active duty organization that could march quickly into battle, but only for short periods, needed rapid augmentation by reserve and National Guard units right away, if there was a sustained conflict. “Round out” units, such as the 2/263rd Armored Battalion from the South Carolina National Guard would provide the 3rd battalion to bring the 2nd Armored Division to full strength. Military police, engineer, chemical and quartermaster corps units would have to come along to provide vital logistical and combat support functions. People in these units would be your banker, lawyer, sheriff, hardware store owners, etc, from cities and towns all across the nation. In other words, just about every one of us would have a personal connection to someone who would be sent out in the name of the people of this United States. It was, quite frankly, pure genius. This concept was to solve a problem real warfighters in the late 60’s and 70‘s had to contend with. From their pain and anguish, a plan was conceived and executed.

Not only was this idea right on target to tie our military to the general civilian population for support for a war, it has the added, and I would argue, subconscious, benefit of placing a “governor “ on the emotions of this Nation. The mere fact we may consider entering our military into a conflict, they are not as they were during the Vietnam era, a sub-class of people who were poor or too stupid to hold a real job, but they are who we live alongside. It was too easy to emotionally discard the people who defended us when they were drafted into service. With this new force makeup, it is our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors at stake. If the cause is important, we will acquiesce to their deployment, and most unfortunately, the death and injury to some of them. Conversely, if that’s too great a risk for what is at stake, then our voices will be raised in protest.

In Gulf War I, the designed benefit of connection to the will of the people played out. “We” went forward and pushed an invader out of a sovereign nation. Not only did the country rally behind the troops, when some of them were killed by “friendly fire” (most people who have been in combat will argue that there is no such thing- any fire is unfriendly when it’s coming at you!) It was the public sentiment that helped spur on the budgeting and development of better communications and identification equipment and procedures.

I’ll stop here, and soon post my analysis of an added, third benefit of this force structure I’m sure wasn’t foreseen decades ago, as this plan was forming.

Part II is here.

I’m honored to share this poem with you, from a man who “gets it.” A Vietnam vet, with a keen mind, has “penned” another great one…

Pulled from The Mudville Gazette (a “paper” you should make a habit of reading), here’s Russ:

When the World Dials 911

Disaster strikes a world away
We get the call, what do we say?
We move at once, to ease their plight,
To aid them through their darkest night.
But come shrill cries from carping Press,
That’s not enough to fix this mess.
We know that, fools, but give us room,
To counter Mother Nature’s doom.

America gives to those in need,
With no regard to faith or creed.
We’re there for all when need is great
A helping hand to any state,
That’s fallen under Nature’s wrath
And needs a lift back to the path.
So what they may have mocked our ways?
We’ll turn our cheek ‘til better days.

But there are those who hate us so,
They’ll carp and snipe and hit us low,
Who’ll bend disaster to their needs,
And try to choke us on our deeds.
They’ll play their dirty liberal tricks,
For them it’s only politics.
In the face of massive human pain,
They only think of their own gain.

But the world knows sure whom it must call,
When disaster strikes, when nations fall.
America is the beaming light
That fades, dispels disaster’s night,
And standing firm provides relief
To salve the pain, allay the grief.
So to Hell with what our critics say,
America’s fine, still leads the way.

Russ Vaughn

Russ; Thank you!

I continue to be baffled by the lack of the participation of NOW in the current world situation. I would think with all the news of the mistreatment of the sisters of the American women from other parts of the world, most notably the Middle East, we would have seen women “suiting up” by the thousands, demanding slots at Parris Island and Fort Bragg. I would think any way they could get into the fight, now that we have functionally acquiesced to women in combat, they would be demanding.

So, what’s up with the lack of concern? Are there too many important glass ceilings in corporate America, that are oppressing women on a world-wide level for them to leave their executive suites they have worked so hard to gain? Must they stay put in order to protect the right of women, or can they just keep their sisters in Africa and the Middle East, and even now, parts of Europe, better protected from where they are?

I could go one for a while and provide plenty of links to stories about honor killings, stoning and mutilations, but they have been ignored so far.

What about me you may wonder? In case you think I’m speaking from some ivory tower, demanding someone do something I’m not willing to do, I did my time, and would still be in, had it not been for the reasonable and required downsizing of the US Military after the Cold War ended. I’d love a chance to get a piece of those who are preventing the basic human right of freedom. Along the way, equal rights for everyone would be a cause good enough for me to fight for.

If you’re a feminist at heart, I’d challenge you to step up to the plate and do something, besides figure out if you can get that next promotion, while your sisters are being brutalized at the hands of men who think they are property, and not worthy of respect. Any of the services will take you, but I’d suggest the Marines, because in the Corps, everyone is a rifleman first.

On the ride home the night of 9/20/2004, the local talk fill in host talked about how he was for George Bush, but he didn’t think he was being aggressive enough prosecuting the war in Iraq. Most of his callers agreed.

Here’s the skinny: Step back and look at the proper long term strategy. If President Bush had gone full tilt boogie on the bad guys, it’s still like trying to get rid of the cockroaches in your southeast low country home. You can go after them and beat them back, while you consider your options, or just burn the house down. Option two helps you make it through the day, with only sometimes seeing the bugs at night when you turn on the light. You keep them from overrunning the place, and it’s pretty livable, given other more aggressive options. If you burn the house down, you’ll probably have the cockroaches around, and you’ll get really, really wet when it rains. So here George is, standing at the threshold of getting rid of many of the cockroaches, while his “family” pleads with him to quit gassing the house and spreading chemicals all over, because it hurts the environment. He’s within striking distance, but the gate he must pass through to do more is the one labeled “Re-Election.”

If George leaves office now, we will slip in our resolve, and many of the hard fought gains will be lost. Because the “family” of the American public is teetering on the fence right now, it’s good that he takes a generally moderate, strategic holding battle into the war. It will cost some lives, but here’s the advantage: It will keep the squeamish conservatives on his side that may sway the vote. Since the President has a term limit, once he’s back in, then he can roll up his figurative sleeves, take off his gloves and stand and fight hard for us. It will repel some, yet in the long run, think what four more years of fighting terrorists would do for World peace? If we have come this far since 9/11/2001, and we have had a military that has been transmogrified into a flexible, well trained organization, capable of fighting in asymmetric environments, and conducting joint operations, augmented by OGAs as well as drawing on the significant expertise of the citizen-soldiers of this modern time. In Vietnam, the book On Strategy argued we took a European heavy armor mentality to the triple canopy jungle. The author was right, it didn’t fit the battle field strategically.

Since Vietnam, we have evolved somewhat in our war fighting orientations, but it was still focused on building a better self-contained military. We have been pretty successful at that. What we didn’t seem to learn very well, until we somewhat got it in GWI, is that war is a multi-faceted thing, to include the press, economics, and many other things, and not all of those arenas have people in camouflage in them. We did better this time. Anyhow, back to may main thesis: George Bush needs to grit his teeth until he is re-elected, before he goes to the “and I’m not joking” bare knuckles approach needed to get rid of the terrorists. Once in office for the four more years, then he can get busy prosecuting war as he should, for the betterment of the entire human race. Short of impeachment, and it has been demonstrated how hard that is, he will be able to run it well, provided he has a Republican Congress in his bag of tricks. So, for those who are frustrated with George Bush, help put him back in and see where this goes. Don’t put him in and see what happens in our back yard.