US military Doctrine Seems Obsessed with Attacking Enemy Forces at their Source & Base
IMHO,
The latest hysterical thing is that people are alarmed by this idea held amongst certain elements of the US government, about how Iraq's neighbor Iran has been arming anti-US fighters in Iraq, which is supposed to be yet another reason to launch an aerial attack against Iranian targets.
Some say that the evidence brought forth to prove Iran has been arming violent anti-US Iraqi groups is 'phony' others think the evidence is real. For the sake of argument, let's assume and concede that the evidence is real. Even if we all knew with certainty that the evidence showing Iran has been arming anti-US Iraqi fighters is real actual evidence that proves Iran is arming Iraqi anti-US fighters, such does not in and of itself prove that the US should therefore attack Iran.
All indications are, that if the US were to attack Iran, the level of Iranian support for anti-US fighters in Iraq would increase not decrease. Thus what you would have in a US attack on Iran, is the US being like someone who after being bit by a mosquito, sprays some weird insect repellant on himself that merely results in getting bit by hundreds of mosquitos instead of just one. Counter-productive.
The US seems to always in its military doctrine assume, that the best solution to being struck at point A by weapons and/or men coming to point A from point B is to attack point B, as opposed to disrupting the flow of enemy men/weapons between point B and point A.
Even before the US attacked Iraq, then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld--now disgraced in the eyes of many--was punching the air with his fist an declaring that the only way to solve matters is to "go on the offensive".
At the same time the US has been neglecting defensive measures that prevent men/weapons from getting to the attack points. One would think the US thinks everyone who ever in history resorted to defensive measures such as walls, castles, moats, obstacles, fortifications, shields, and armor, was a fool. (But if they were all fools, why does the US still put armor on its troops and combat vehicles, why does it continue to use sandbags and forts, barbed wire, walls and the like?)
Where has the US obsession with "going on the offensive" punching at the "enemy"'s homeland gotten it so far? It has gotten it into a war on which a trillion dollars has been spent, and in which the US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties, a war which according to the consensus of opinion has thus far been a defeat and a failure, the US failing in its attempt to conquer Iraq, failing in its attempt to own and control Iraq's oil supplies.
Retrospectively the US should have paid more attention to alternatives to the invasion of Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished if the trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war, had been spent instead on border security, on tracing sources of attacks, on developing alternatives to the importation of oil, on providing security for the leaders of the alternative energy initiatives, on decreasing the power of harmful elements amongst those who benefit from US attacks on nations such as Iraq and Iran.
Yet despite the lessons of its experience in Iraq, powerful elements in the US government are now declaring that the US should attack Iran for supporting Iraq, just as earlier they wanted Iraq and Afghanistan attacked for allegedly supporting the militant Islamic movement a subgroup of which allegedly attacked the Pentagon and the WTC in 2001.
This despite the fact that history shows, that nations (and groups similar to nations) when attacked at point A by men and/or weapons from point B, have done wisely by dealing with the enemy forces at point A, or blocking the movement of enemy forces from point B to point A, as opposed to attacking the enemy at its base of operations at point B.
History shows that nations have made serious mistakes by attempting to, when attacked by enemy forces at point A, retaliate against point B the enemy's base from which the enemy forces are sent to the attack point at point A.
Yet there appear to be elements in the US government who are obsessed with attacking enemy forces at their source and at their base, as opposed to interdicting the movement of enemy forces from their source and base outwards.
The US acts as if homeland security were not important when it comes to its own homeland; but at the same time it acts as if the most important thing is to disrupt the enemy's homeland security. This is logically inconsistent. If disrupting the enemy's homeland security is indeed of such strategic value, than protecting one's own homeland security must be of similar value also.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
The latest hysterical thing is that people are alarmed by this idea held amongst certain elements of the US government, about how Iraq's neighbor Iran has been arming anti-US fighters in Iraq, which is supposed to be yet another reason to launch an aerial attack against Iranian targets.
Some say that the evidence brought forth to prove Iran has been arming violent anti-US Iraqi groups is 'phony' others think the evidence is real. For the sake of argument, let's assume and concede that the evidence is real. Even if we all knew with certainty that the evidence showing Iran has been arming anti-US Iraqi fighters is real actual evidence that proves Iran is arming Iraqi anti-US fighters, such does not in and of itself prove that the US should therefore attack Iran.
All indications are, that if the US were to attack Iran, the level of Iranian support for anti-US fighters in Iraq would increase not decrease. Thus what you would have in a US attack on Iran, is the US being like someone who after being bit by a mosquito, sprays some weird insect repellant on himself that merely results in getting bit by hundreds of mosquitos instead of just one. Counter-productive.
The US seems to always in its military doctrine assume, that the best solution to being struck at point A by weapons and/or men coming to point A from point B is to attack point B, as opposed to disrupting the flow of enemy men/weapons between point B and point A.
Even before the US attacked Iraq, then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld--now disgraced in the eyes of many--was punching the air with his fist an declaring that the only way to solve matters is to "go on the offensive".
At the same time the US has been neglecting defensive measures that prevent men/weapons from getting to the attack points. One would think the US thinks everyone who ever in history resorted to defensive measures such as walls, castles, moats, obstacles, fortifications, shields, and armor, was a fool. (But if they were all fools, why does the US still put armor on its troops and combat vehicles, why does it continue to use sandbags and forts, barbed wire, walls and the like?)
Where has the US obsession with "going on the offensive" punching at the "enemy"'s homeland gotten it so far? It has gotten it into a war on which a trillion dollars has been spent, and in which the US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties, a war which according to the consensus of opinion has thus far been a defeat and a failure, the US failing in its attempt to conquer Iraq, failing in its attempt to own and control Iraq's oil supplies.
Retrospectively the US should have paid more attention to alternatives to the invasion of Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished if the trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war, had been spent instead on border security, on tracing sources of attacks, on developing alternatives to the importation of oil, on providing security for the leaders of the alternative energy initiatives, on decreasing the power of harmful elements amongst those who benefit from US attacks on nations such as Iraq and Iran.
Yet despite the lessons of its experience in Iraq, powerful elements in the US government are now declaring that the US should attack Iran for supporting Iraq, just as earlier they wanted Iraq and Afghanistan attacked for allegedly supporting the militant Islamic movement a subgroup of which allegedly attacked the Pentagon and the WTC in 2001.
This despite the fact that history shows, that nations (and groups similar to nations) when attacked at point A by men and/or weapons from point B, have done wisely by dealing with the enemy forces at point A, or blocking the movement of enemy forces from point B to point A, as opposed to attacking the enemy at its base of operations at point B.
History shows that nations have made serious mistakes by attempting to, when attacked by enemy forces at point A, retaliate against point B the enemy's base from which the enemy forces are sent to the attack point at point A.
Yet there appear to be elements in the US government who are obsessed with attacking enemy forces at their source and at their base, as opposed to interdicting the movement of enemy forces from their source and base outwards.
The US acts as if homeland security were not important when it comes to its own homeland; but at the same time it acts as if the most important thing is to disrupt the enemy's homeland security. This is logically inconsistent. If disrupting the enemy's homeland security is indeed of such strategic value, than protecting one's own homeland security must be of similar value also.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 11:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home