PDA

View Full Version : Much to Learn in Iraq



thedrifter
07-06-04, 07:27 AM
07-02-2004

Guest Column: Much to Learn in Iraq



Editor’s Note: The following comments were written by a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Special Forces in Iraq identifying what he concludes are key issues facing the U.S. military occupation there. The memorandum was forwarded to DefenseWatch by one of our readers.



Subject: A View from Baghdad Rapid Equipping Force



By SF Lieutenant Colonel



(Disclaimer: These are my own personal views of what I’ve seen in Iraq thus far in eight weeks from an SF LTC in a conventional theater operating against an unconventional threat) It’s my humble opinion on problems and recommendations for you Warriors (Future Bn/Bde/Div Cdrs and Staffers) to chew on. I don’t purport to be the quintessential warrior/diplomat with all the answers. I’m sure there are big pieces of info that I am not privy to that might change some of my recommendations or give you the other side of the story. Take this for what it is worth and do with it what you may. Please forward to anyone you want if you feel that they can get some usefulness out of this)



In No Particular Priority:



1. Civilian-Miltiary Operations: are almost negligible, unorchestrated, undermanned, etc. We taught you that CMO in SASO [stability and support operations] has to be a main effort/it is not here hence this may become a 10-year-war fought one year at a time.



2. MSRs/Logistics: Remember the long-long, 3-country MSR [main supply route] that we glazed over in the Caspian Sea scenario, forget it - Impossible unless you dedicate 6-10 Divisions to secure. A small band of insurgents have almost paralyzed the U.S. army in Iraq in terms of shutting down MSRs through IED [improvised explosive devices] attacks, RPGs, complex attacks. Hard to fight a sustained campaign when you have interrupted CL1/3/V plus other things.



Go back and figure out how to offensively take control of MSRs through the use of combat power in conjunction with an IO/Psyops/Civil Affairs to secure the populace support along MSRs. Think through securing MSRs from the short term (tactical) perspective to the long term (op/strat) perspective of turning security over to the host nation by phasing US/ICDC and Iraqi Police patrols/Ops over time. Have that thought process finalized to the 75 percent mark before you go into another conflict like this. Hard to back up and rethink the right equation once you’ve started on the bus to Abilene.



3. Information Operations: Go back to someone else's books, NOT US, to figure out what this is and how to employ it in a synchronized campaign strategy. Don’t let anyone blow smoke back there about a great IO plan here which I’m including (EW/Psyops/PAO/CMO/Intell). We are not getting the Bde/Div-level IO assets readily down to Plts that are executing in the bad areas daily.



The young Plt Ldrs are using common sense to figure out what needs to be done to influence the Imams/Mosques/local leaders but are not getting access to well thought out Psyop/Civil Affairs projects/messages in a timely manner. We (OIF 1) units promised a lot and didn’t deliver in terms of improving quality of life in a lot of key areas. As a result, the civilian populace is turning a blind eye towards the insurgents, because they would rather see the U.S. occupation force leave. Yes, the educated folks in a district I patrolled (Ministry official, PhDs, etc.) view us as occupiers that have not quickly added value to their daily lives.



4. Working with Indig: SF had to turn this mission over to conventional troops because our efforts during OIF/OEF were reprioritized towards two different mission sets other than FID [foreign internal defense]. The conventional folks are having a hard time getting past rapport building skills that come as a result of time and experience training indigenous forces.



I would rather see SF split its effort now and focus 75 percent on FID (Consulting with Regular Units) and 25 percent DA/SR/CT [direct action/strategic reconnaissance/counter-terrorism]. Strategically, this will become more important as time passes, especially after 30 June transition to Iraqi control. WE MUST WORK OURSELVES OUT OF A JOB IN A SMART, SUSTAINABLE WAY. SF guys MUST be a part of this plan due to our experience and expertise in this area. The longer we stay

away from this, the harder it will be.



5. Staff Work: Some staff guys still think they are more important than shooters. The Fantasyland effect gets bolstered as more hardstand mess halls/MWR facilities/PXs start popping up. Yes, we have softball tournaments for the folks on the big base that is not hurting for luxuries.



STAFF TOADS MUST get out on patrols at least once every two weeks to realize who the customers are and what the REAL PROBLEMS are. If not, they create work for work’s sake that adds little value, because it becomes disconnected from the realities on the ground. The moral of the story is, “SLIP AWAY from staff jobs if you can, especially on staffs higher than Division level.” Corps level folks are having a hard time in my opinion adding to a primarily Bde and below fight. Now, we’ve introduced another echelon of command in an already staff/higher command saturated environment. Every layer of staff dilutes responsiveness - agility. We’re supposed to have 31 general officers in Iraq now.



6. Equipping: The Army is doing a great job overcoming/improvising/adapting. By that, I mean that there are numerous units in the Active and Reserve components over here doing jobs that they are not by MTOE/TDA [modified table of organization and equipment/table of distribution and authorization] manned/equipped/trained to do. They are doing an admirable job with what they have on hand. The Army is doing a mediocre job of creating a Theater TDA for units conducting SASO security ops (The Ops common denominator in theater).



If in the future you are associated with an attached Reserve or other units redesignated (ie. FA/ADA/EN units doing mobile infantry stuff), think it through for them in terms of home station training/equipping/manning. Trying to do it in theater will be A LOT HARDER than doing it in the States. Assigning a Washington State reserve unit to conduct perimeter security on your main base w/o giving them proper

NODs/Thermals/Sniper Rifles/Optics/Commo may not be a wise thing to do. Think 2d/3d/4th order effects (ie. Past your rotation) and help establish a theater standard TDA for any unit to fall into once they arrive in Kuwait or Iraq.


7. Property Accountability: Save yourselves a lot of trouble and Report of Survey/15-6 time and maintain standard U.S. Army property accountability procedures (not that hard). OIF 1 did not establish a theater property book account. This created several nightmares (missing a few small items like lots of Humvees, a few tanks, 400 connexes of unclaimed “Frustrated Cargo” sitting in Kuwait and not in soldier’s hands, etc.) It gets worse when you start talking about the commercial off-the-shelf stuff that was bought.



continued..............

thedrifter
07-06-04, 07:27 AM
The bad thing is that there was needed equipment for OIF 2 that was not left behind by OIF 1 units or was improperly handed off which resulted in equipment sitting in connexes. Not sure of the scale BUT (1 warfighting item that went back to the States or sat in a connex b/c there wasn’t a plan was too much).



8. Civilians on the Battlefield: Get used to it/the Army sold out a lot of its CSS structure to KBR/MPRI/etc. There are just as many civilian vehicles running outside the gates of each base as there are soldiers (numbers might not agree BUT there are a large number of U.S. soldiers that never leave a FOB/base). The military is responsible for these guys as well as policing up their contracted security firms (Blackwater/Cochise/Triple Canopy/etc.) when they get into trouble. We allow some of these guys to roll out of DoD compounds w/o comms that can call back for MEDEVAC/QRF when they get whacked.



We went from separate services to the joint concept in 1986/87 (Goldwater-Nichols driven). From 1986/87 to 2000, we included Joint/Interagency/NGO (Not sure what color was designated for this) I would suggest that we expand our doctrine to include the realities of the current and future Common Operational Environment (Services/Joint/ Interagency/ Coalition/Alliance/UN-NGO-PVO/Multinational Contractors (Service and Security Firms)/Host Nation Gov’t Agencies). Call it going RAINBOW. They all are operating on the current Iraqi/Afghanistan battlefields whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.



Each requires its own unique analysis reference synchronizing/deconflicting/coordinating efforts. This is a MONUMENTAL EFFORT in terms of C4I arrangements and is critical to ensure a GRAND, WELL-ORCHESTRATED, SYNCHED, LONG-TERM vice SHORT, CAMPAIGN PLAN. Whoever gets this Committee type assignment must be signed up for a 5-year tour for CONTINUITY's sake. We are already reeling from the effects of either 4-month tours (CJSOTF), 1-year rotations (CJTF7), CPA transition to OSC then Iraqi Gov’t. Lack of a SOUND CONTINUITY plan will be the equivalent of pulling four pistons out of an 8 cylinder engine. It will still give you power, but not what you planned for initially or need to get you to your destination on time.



9. Technology as a panacea: Heard this one before folks. Technology is only one of many variables in a complex equation for a successful operation nested in a successful long-term campaign. Some other (principles) variables in this equation are LEADERSHIP / TTP (ie. DOCTRINE)/VERSATILITY-FLEXIBILITY/MANNING/TEAMWORK (I see the service parochialism still living in this age of “Jointness.”



Successful Ops/Campaign = (Well though out/managed/led technology solutions) + (LEADERSHIP: equals Ldrs knowing what’s in their battlespace/AO/AI; PRIORITIZING and weighting main efforts (assuming MEs and Spt Efforts have been designated), making hard calls on resources). Just-in-time technology solutions for IEDs are definitely making a dent in the enemy's plans/ops over here, BUT he adapts quickly in a move-countermove fashion to keep us chasing the next iteration of technology spiral development. The difference is that he spends next to nothing changing his TTP and homegrown technology while we throw millions at it. Step ahead technology is a band-aid on a big gaping cut in the close in sub-tactical fight. The enemy has perfected a cat-and-mouse game that has us stymied at times (closing all MSRs days at a time).



The good thing about the situation over in Iraq in terms of technology and the acquisition system is that it’s making it apparent to the “Old Establishment” that we can’t take years to field the perfect solutions. Organizations such as the Rapid Equipping Force/Rapid Fielding Initiative/ANMC-FAST teams are breaking paradigms in the Cold War acquisition system for getting 70%-90% solutions fielded in time to do the current warfighter some good. Just remember, it is always a Technology AND TTP change that makes the operation more effective. Neither technology alone nor does TP change alone always makes the situation better.



10. Thinking Outside of the Box: I was riding with a smart Cbt Engineer Plt Ldr the other day on a night patrol in a BAD section of Baghdad. He said that he was frustrated because he feels stifled in terms of innovation to beat his enemy. He said, “Sir, if I could only get a few local vehicles and have my guys dress up in robes, I might have a chance at getting into hide sites or achieving surprise on these guys. These guys see us coming a mile away even though we try to vary our routes.”



Were not fighting normal, conventional Republican Guard units in Iraq. We are fighting guys who could care less about the Laws of Land Warfare, Geneva Convention, or anything else. They do what it takes to kill our guys plus civilians, and they do it effectively. It is time to get outside the box reference fighting these insurgents/terrorists/or whatever category you want to place them in.



As societies, technology, politics, operational environments change, we, the military, must change appropriately while still maintaining the moral high ground (i.e. change to win but not sacrifice our enduring values: life/liberty/pursuit of happiness/etc.) We (U.S.) established the League of Nations way back when – then the UN – fund the UN – give direction to the world – turn countries into democracies – etc. Who says we can’t modify or change the rules that we helped make in order to rid the world of the bad apples? What's wrong with letting our boys rent/buy local vehicles and wear local clothes to sneak up on him emplacing 56 rockets aimed at our Command Posts/main camps? Can’t do it/violates LLW - sets bad example for others/etc. Next step, really bad guys launch rockets, kill 6 more in camp, press cries about inability to win the war, president’s popularity decreases, world press paints a picture of inadequacy, troop morale and effectiveness goes down, etc. Not a good ending to sticking with the rules that should not be etched in stone. Rules and Regulations change - have to or organizations become irrelevant or ineffective.



We MUST start relooking rules and regs that restrict our smart, innovative, college-educated leaders and soldiers at the squad/Plt level so that they can use this education to outsmart the bad guys. We’ve thrown big expensive tanks, Bradleys, smart bombs, SP Howitzers at the bad guys (All were designed with big formalized armies in mind to destroy) to a much limited avail. For the price of one major DoD program (F-22 Raptor), we can buy/lease more than adequate numbers of local vehicles; give EVERY soldier secure comms; give every soldier an M-4 with short & long barrels-both with all the rails, optics; night vision devices with thermals. Yet we CHOOSE not to do this. We outfit from the top down and not bottom up.



Time to get a new prescription for our DoD/DoS glasses. We’re not seeing the current “BATTLEFIELD” clearly and as a result, are getting pushed around by a second rate ball team - all because we are not “THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE

BOX (TOB)” enough. There are individual, small-scale TOB efforts out there, BUT not enough to make a dent where/when it counts. Joint Forces Command needs to accept proponency for Thinking Outside of the Box/Unconventional Warfare which primarily resides in the small SF community now.



11. Security: We’ve secured ourselves out of being effective. We must TOB reference the merits of security for a limited number versus access to info for all. Comms must be prioritized from the ground up in order to effectively execute mission type orders. In my experience, lack of comms (secure or unsecure) causes 95% of all problems in any endeavor in life).



There are numerous units that have been thrown into battle over here without proper comms (ie. Joe can’t talk to Joe across the street in a firefight when it counts). How can this be when I can whip out a cell phone in the same battle and call my wife? The technology and monetary resources have been there for a long time to solve the problem.



What has happened is that folks in DC who haven’t been in the firefights lately to see the real frustration of Joe watching his buddy move straight into an enemy position get killed because he doesn’t have a squad radio to call him? Why doesn’t he have one? Well he is the unlucky Joe who is in a combat engineering platoon that does not have an MTOE that supports each dismounted soldier having a SECURE squad radio. He’s not supposed to buy an UNSECURE Motorola Walkabout b/c the enemy might detect him after he’s initiated the ambush. Joe can’t even buy a

secure Motorola walkabout because it is not J(Something) compliant, a standard that hasn’t even been finalized and won’t be for a few years.



Meanwhile, Joe tried hollering above the gunfire to his Ranger Buddy, but it’s too late, he’s whacked. Now Joe needs to quickly call his Plt Ldr to call in a MEDEVAC. But wait, he doesn’t have a squad radio. So, Joe thinks he remembers where the PL’s vehicle moved in this motorized environment, and takes off running to get close to relay that he needs a MEDEVAC. While he exposes himself to go the distance, he gets nailed by a sniper/RPG team.



Folks, this is a hypothetical story BUT... ask yourself, what are the chances that this story can and has panned out in Iraq and Afghanistan? SHOOT/MOVE/COMMUNICATE: “Warfighter/Peacekeeper BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS” equip from the soldier up, not defense contractor down. The resources (i.e. funds are there NOW).



It’s all about LEADERSHIP and decisions and priorities.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=552&rnd=415.2107045764254


Ellie

CMyr
07-06-04, 08:29 PM
SNAFU