The first Gulf War was our First Iraq War. Then the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), which became the Second Iraq War. President Obama pulled out all U.S. combat troops, not even leaving a residual force to allow for a smoother transition, and Iraq ends up in chaos and a new enemy surfaces, ISIS. For quite sometime our government refused to acknowledge that it had made a mistake and that Iraq was on the verge of collapse and take over by (at first) a rag-tag, unbelievably cruel terror group that calls itself ISIL or ISIS. So now (it started with the recent Delta raid on ISIS compound), we are back, engaged in Iraq with boots on the ground. The so-called surgical air strikes alone did not work. They cost the tax payers an astronomical amount of money but failed to dislodge ISIS. Critics maintained from the start that "boots on the ground" were needed and that we should have never pulled out as we did. Belatedly we are now sending additional Special Operations Units and a Rapid Reaction Force (more than likely Army Rangers or Marines to back up the Special Operation Forces). We are slowly, once again, building up ground forces in Iraq.
Meanwhile, in Syria, we have been "leading from behind" all these years, prodding Saudis and other Arab countries as well as Turks to do the fighting and only using our air power. Obviously it didn't work. Now (yesterday) President Obama announced that "less than 50" Special Forces advisors and trainers will be sent to Syria within a week to help train and advise Kurds and moderate Arab rebels. Fifty men? That's roughly four Special Forces A Detachments (12 men each). One A Detachment is capable of training and leading a Battalion in battle. Are we going to try to win the war in Syria with four battalions of Kurds and moderate rebels? Not likely.
First of all, why so few, and second, why announce the number? Everything is so politically motivated that it is just sickening. Obviously by announcing that "less than 50" Special Forces members will be sent into Syria, the chance of public opposition will be diminished, no doubt that is the reasoning behind the announcement. However, sending a mere "less than 50" contingent of U.S. soldiers into the lion's den, no matter how well they are trained, is really a very bad move! Unlike the Special Forces teams in Iraq who will have a U.S. Rapid Reaction Force to help them out if they get into trouble, who will bail out these "less than 50" men if they get into a tight spot? Syrians? Iranians, or perhaps Russians?
In Vietnam the Special Forces learned that they could not rely on none U.S. forces to help them if they got into trouble. Most U.S. units were too far away from the isolated Special Forces camps, so a Rapid Reaction Force was created by the Special Forces itself, the Mobile Strike Force known as Mike Force made up of Nungs and Montagnards. They were on call 24/7 to help any beleaguered Special Forces unit. Apparently the new generation of our leaders have forgotten that lesson. To allow a small American unit to go deep into enemy territory without any backing is truly a monumental folly! The whole business that they will only "train and advise" and not be exposed to danger is laughably naïve. Our very first combat death in Vietnam was a Special Forces soldier killed in an ambush in 1958! Yes, he was an "advisor and a trainer" sent to advise and train, not fight! Also, you may not be hearing this in the news, but we are suffering casualties in Philippines, a few deaths and wounded out of the 1st Special Forces Group on Okinawa, and these soldiers are trainers and advisors!
Earlier in Aghanistan and Iraq, the British and Australians tried the approach of training and advising, but not leading the men in combat. It was a miserable failure by their own admission. The troops were fine as long as the British or Australian Advisors were in their presence, but once they were on their own, everything went to hell. We, fortunately, never did that. Our advisors always stayed with the indigenous troops for that is how we operated in Vietnam! The Vietnamese use to say, "either protect us and be with us, or leave us alone!" When we instituted the "Vietnamization" we essentially left them alone! So, don't you believe the hogwash dealt out by the White House that our advisors and trainers will not participate in combat. Besides, it is the Special Forces doctrine to not only train and advise, but actually lead the indigenous troops in combat.
If you look up the definition for strategy in war, it will read something like this: "Strategy ensures that you get to the right place with right force for the right reasons and the right war." Of the three Iraq Wars, only the first one, the Gulf War appeared to follow the definition of strategy. It was never the intention to take out Saddam Hussein or occupy Iraq, so we stopped short of Baghdad, despite heavy criticism from some quarters, and ended the war. Unfortunately, our leaders today are unfamiliar with the definition, for we have no strategy! That has been the criticism and complaint about this administration and its policies or none policies in the Middle East - No Strategy!
An ancient Chinese warrior/philosopher, Sun Tzu, said that "strategy without tactics is a slow road to victory, but tactics without strategy is noise before defeat!" We have plenty of tactics, great tactics. That is how we were able to carry off that raid on the ISIS compound with such success. Every time our ground troops go to battle we employ sound tactics, but unfortunately, we have no strategy! To paraphrase from Sun Tzu's book, The Art of War, "those without strategy cannot but be defeated!"
The worst possible way to engage in a war is to "lead from behind." We have been "leading from behind" in Syria, and Libya. Look where it has gotten us! Syria is a mess and now Russia and Iran appear to be the major "stockholders" in the region! Libya caused the death of our Ambassador and four others, a shameful occurrence. We made threats about crossing the "thin red line" which was crossed numerous times and we did nothing. Putin saw that he could push his way into just about anything without fear of our intervention. He was right. So now, after Syria had reached a point where "moderate" rebels are about to be wiped out by Russia's indiscriminate bombing (Russian "smart" bombs are considered accurate when they strike within a block!) and Iranian ground forces, we are going to send "less than 50" Special Forces soldiers with no back up such as a Rapid Reaction Force? Talk about no strategy!
This latest move is doomed before it has started, unless there will be an announcement shortly that additional forces will be deployed to Syria. But I wouldn't hold my breath. We have a White House that is micromanaging the wars in the Middle East. This has happened before, under Jimmy Carter. What we have is a bunch of civilians with no military or combat experience who think they know better than the generals in the Pentagon and are micromanaging the whole thing. They see wars as computer games, rely too heavily on technology, drones, etc. They believe that the concept of boots on the ground is outdated, old fashioned, after all, this is the 21st Century! They think that boots on the ground means only Special Operations, which they can watch on monitors in the White House Situation Room like a video game. They hate to admit that they are wrong, so right now they are viewing the situation as a temporary set back and grudgingly agreed to putting boots on the ground....without an overall strategy!
No comments:
Post a Comment