thedrifter
11-09-07, 12:58 PM
How to stop IEDs
Gian P. Gentile
Friday, November 9, 2007
Want to stop Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs, from going off in Iraq and killing American soldiers and Marines? Then end the war.
This is not a political or policy statement on my part but a simple matter of fact based on my personal experience as a tactical battalion commander in west Baghdad in 2006 and on history. How did the warring sides in World War I stop the deadly artillery barrages that became endemic to that war? When the states involved agreed politically to end the war and the deadly artillery stopped.
In WWI, the supreme goal on the battlefield was to attack deep enough through enemy trench-lines to get at the other side's artillery. But the conditions of trench warfare were such that none of the warring sides was able to get through deep enough and long enough to destroy the other's artillery. Adjustments in the tactics of fighting and moving within the trenches were tried but, without a political agreement to end the war, the deadly artillery continued.
Artillery in WWI was a fundamental condition of the battlefield, like mud - something that could not be changed regardless of how much technology was applied or tactical innovation created. This is the case with IEDs in Iraq.
In Anbar province there has been, thankfully, a huge reduction in the number of IED attacks against American soldiers and Marines with a concomitant large reduction in American casualties. Even with 2007 being the deadliest year for U.S. casualties in Iraq since the start of the war, the last three months have seen a marked reduction in casualties from IED attacks. Some have argued that innovative American counter-insurgency tactics, along with improved technology, has led to this reduction. But it seems clear that the necessary condition that has lowered IED attacks was a political agreement between the tribal sheikhs in Anbar and the Americans to stop fighting each other. If this peace agreement breaks down and the fighting resumes again between these two sides, then one can expect IED attacks to rise in Anbar province.
As preparation for my combat tour in west Baghdad in 2006, the Army's new counter-insurgency doctrine taught me to attack the deep roots of problems that fed the insurgency. But some roots - like those of IED attacks against my soldiers - were very difficult to get at.
After a few months in combat and having had soldiers killed and seriously wounded by IED strikes, I tried to attack what I thought was the root of the problem. We targeted insurgent groups that emplaced IEDs, picked up the garbage off of the streets that hid the IEDs, and carried out civil works projects to improve the lives of the locals and hire young men of the area. Still the IEDs went off.
Even the best counter-insurgency tactics applied by competent military units have limits to what they can accomplish in a civil war. That's when I concluded that IEDs in Iraq were a condition of the battlefield that I could not completely stop.
Eventually, it became clear that the only sure way to eliminate the IED threat in Iraq would be to end the civil war. The chances of that happening seemed remote, however, because the many warring sides had plenty of fight left in them.
Civil wars are the most uncivil of human activities; they take time to work themselves out through fighting and killing. For a combat soldier to be on a WWI battlefield, meant to be hit and killed by artillery. To be in Iraq, sadly, means American combat soldiers and Marines will be hit and killed by IEDs, no matter how hard and effectively we try to mitigate or eliminate the threat.
Gian P. Gentile, an active duty Army lieutenant colonel, commanded an armored reconnaissance squadron in west Baghdad in 2006. The views in this article are his own and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense.
Ellie
Gian P. Gentile
Friday, November 9, 2007
Want to stop Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs, from going off in Iraq and killing American soldiers and Marines? Then end the war.
This is not a political or policy statement on my part but a simple matter of fact based on my personal experience as a tactical battalion commander in west Baghdad in 2006 and on history. How did the warring sides in World War I stop the deadly artillery barrages that became endemic to that war? When the states involved agreed politically to end the war and the deadly artillery stopped.
In WWI, the supreme goal on the battlefield was to attack deep enough through enemy trench-lines to get at the other side's artillery. But the conditions of trench warfare were such that none of the warring sides was able to get through deep enough and long enough to destroy the other's artillery. Adjustments in the tactics of fighting and moving within the trenches were tried but, without a political agreement to end the war, the deadly artillery continued.
Artillery in WWI was a fundamental condition of the battlefield, like mud - something that could not be changed regardless of how much technology was applied or tactical innovation created. This is the case with IEDs in Iraq.
In Anbar province there has been, thankfully, a huge reduction in the number of IED attacks against American soldiers and Marines with a concomitant large reduction in American casualties. Even with 2007 being the deadliest year for U.S. casualties in Iraq since the start of the war, the last three months have seen a marked reduction in casualties from IED attacks. Some have argued that innovative American counter-insurgency tactics, along with improved technology, has led to this reduction. But it seems clear that the necessary condition that has lowered IED attacks was a political agreement between the tribal sheikhs in Anbar and the Americans to stop fighting each other. If this peace agreement breaks down and the fighting resumes again between these two sides, then one can expect IED attacks to rise in Anbar province.
As preparation for my combat tour in west Baghdad in 2006, the Army's new counter-insurgency doctrine taught me to attack the deep roots of problems that fed the insurgency. But some roots - like those of IED attacks against my soldiers - were very difficult to get at.
After a few months in combat and having had soldiers killed and seriously wounded by IED strikes, I tried to attack what I thought was the root of the problem. We targeted insurgent groups that emplaced IEDs, picked up the garbage off of the streets that hid the IEDs, and carried out civil works projects to improve the lives of the locals and hire young men of the area. Still the IEDs went off.
Even the best counter-insurgency tactics applied by competent military units have limits to what they can accomplish in a civil war. That's when I concluded that IEDs in Iraq were a condition of the battlefield that I could not completely stop.
Eventually, it became clear that the only sure way to eliminate the IED threat in Iraq would be to end the civil war. The chances of that happening seemed remote, however, because the many warring sides had plenty of fight left in them.
Civil wars are the most uncivil of human activities; they take time to work themselves out through fighting and killing. For a combat soldier to be on a WWI battlefield, meant to be hit and killed by artillery. To be in Iraq, sadly, means American combat soldiers and Marines will be hit and killed by IEDs, no matter how hard and effectively we try to mitigate or eliminate the threat.
Gian P. Gentile, an active duty Army lieutenant colonel, commanded an armored reconnaissance squadron in west Baghdad in 2006. The views in this article are his own and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense.
Ellie