All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Monday, July 05, 2004

Army Takes Its War Effort to Task

LA Times
Report says U.S. forces prevailed in Iraq despite deep supply shortages and bad intelligence
American soldiers who defeated the Iraqi regime 15 months ago received virtually none of the critical spare parts they needed to keep their tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles running. They ran chronically short of food, water and ammunition. Their radios often failed them. Their medics had to forage for medical supplies, artillery gunners had to cannibalize parts from captured Iraqi guns and intelligence units provided little useful information about the enemy.

These revelations come not from embedded reporters or congressional committees but from the Army itself. In the first internal assessment of the war in Iraq, an exhaustive Army study has concluded that American forces prevailed despite supply and logistical failures, poor intelligence, communication breakdowns and futile attempts at psychological warfare.

The 542-page study, declassified last month, praises commanders and soldiers for displaying resourcefulness and resiliency under trying conditions, and for taking advantage of superior firepower, training and technology.

But the report also describes a broken supply system that left crucial spare parts and lubricants on warehouse shelves in Kuwait while tankers outside Baghdad ripped parts from broken-down tanks and raided Iraqi supplies of oil and lubricants.

"No one had anything good to say about parts delivery, from the privates at the front to the generals" at the U.S. command center in Kuwait...
This journalist is obviously pretty ignorant about the nature of warfare. While the above is technically true -- in actuality, the performance of the military in the Iraq war was much better than any other war in history. War is inherently chaotic and confusing, and this war was not an exception to this rule. But in comparison to the expected screw-ups, things went very well indeed.

When I worked operations staff I wrote several of these papers. The heads of various departments would send me a memo and I would incorporate it into the overall lessons learned paper. Even exercises and operations that everyone was talking about as being outstanding successes would read like total disasters if you read nothing about the operation but the lessons learned report.

Lives are at stake, so no one is as self-crtical as the military. After action 'lessons learned' studies such as this one are designed to be as critical and nit-picky as possible. This is an essential tool for trying to change the system until next time. It is considered a bit of a taboo for a military person to say anything nice in public about an operation. It is always, "well, it wasn't a complete disaster". This is considered high praise.

This journalist shows a lack of perspective on these issues that comes from having inadequate knowledge of military culture.
Posted by: Zayphar / 7/05/2004 01:54:00 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home