Strategy of Anniliation: What's not working in Iraq

Published on February 22, 2005 By jdkeepsmiling In Current Events

I was thinking today that the Unites States pretty much has fought all its major wars the same since about the Civil war. We use a strategy of anniliation, or maybe better put, a stategy of total victory. We base our ability to fight war on the idea that we have superior resources and therefore we should be successful.

This strategy worked well in WWI and WWII. We basically won a long war of attricion, becasue we had superior weapons and resources. This was a sound doctirne during a time when the main goal of the war was to anniliate both the enemy army and the enemies ability to make war. The problem is that US military never adapted thier strategy from there. It has advanced in other areas, such as being able to move small stricke forces arounfd quicky. It has also contuinued it's technological dominence... but it has not faced the reality of a new battlefield objective.

In all the wars since WWII, the Unites states has continued with this same strategy...and its not working. We continue to overwhelm our enimies, in both sheer numbers and technology. We continue to have no problem dealing with conventional forces on the ground. We have a problem after, according to our strategy, success is achieved. The current Iraq conflict is a great example.

1. If you dont beleive that we are still using this style of strategy I have 2 words for tyou...shock and awe.....

2. Bush declares end of combat operations...because according to our strategy...we have won. No more ability to make war, no more conventional forces to oppose us. We all know the basic facts that we have sustained far more casulties after this declaration then after.

I am not stating these things as a protest to the Iraq war, more to point out the US doctrine of warmaking is flawed from the begining given the currect political goals of conflict. We must realize that "shick and awe" and a strategy of annilation is not going to give us the political ends that we seek today.

Thoughts and opinions please.....

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Feb 22, 2005

I disagree with your premise, and you leave me wondering what alternatives you are suggesting. Did I miss something?

Your premise states that we (as the U.S.) prosecute war by annihilation, yet all your examples and statements point away from annihilation of the enemy and towards a strategy of denying the enemy the ability to continue fighting. Since annihilation goes beyond merely denying the enemy the means to continue the fight, I'd say the two are diametrically apposed.

I would say that the only time we even used annihilation as a threat would be our use of the atomic bombs on Haroshima and Nagasaki. We dropped those bombs and let Japan know that that kind of bombing would continue unless they surrendered. Annihilation was the threat, but was averted by Japan's unconditional surrender. Germany surrendered because, after years of a war that they almost always enjoyed the upper hand, their ability to continue was broken after D-Day and the allied offensives that followed it up.

In Desert Storm we had such an overwhelming effect on the enemy that it ceased to be a war. A ceasefire agreement was offered to the leaders of Iraq, and they accepted it. There was no attempt at annihilation, since we offered a ceasefire, even when annihilation was ours for the taking.

In fact, ceasefire and surrender have seen the end of all our wars, win, lose or draw we only once reached for the annihilation card. In each situation we were always eager to stop once the ability of the enemy to continue the fight had been destroyed.

jdkeepsmiling

on Feb 22, 2005

Your premise states that we (as the U.S.) prosecute war by annihilation, yet all your examples and statements point away from annihilation of the enemy and towards a strategy of denying the enemy the ability to continue fighting. Since annihilation goes beyond merely denying the enemy the means to continue the fight, I'd say the two are diametrically apposed.

I will respectfully disagree with you there. i think that in the Modern context the two are intrinsincally intertwined. The strategy that I outlined is not one that must rely on TOTAL annilation like the atomic bomb, but one that rests on the annilation of the enimies resoures and armies. You basically back up my opinion when you state the following

In each situation we were always eager to stop once the ability of the enemy to continue the fight had been destroyed.

. It does not matter in which way we annilate the enemy, as long as we do so in an area does not allow them to

My real point is that this strategy does not meet the current political goels that are set out at the onset of conflict. For example in Iraq the goal is to establish a democratic government, a noble ideal. THe problem is that our strategy of shock and awe and annilation just does not accomplish this goal. In all the referances that you cited, (which I state this stragey is a good one for) the goal was to end conflict and go home. Now we face the prolem of nation building. We had the same problem in Iraq the first time, Vietman, Korea, Bosnia.

I have to be blunt, i dont know what would work better. I have just observed this happening, I have never been in the military and dont pretend to know all about it. I am sure they have people way smarter then me working on it. do you have any ideas for an alternate strategy?

Eastern Diamondback

on Feb 22, 2005

I also have to respectfully disagree.

The past wars where "Total Victory" was the aim include, imo:

The Mexican-American War (Halls of Montezuma)
The Tripolitan War (The Shores of Tripoli)
The Civil War
World War II

Desert Storm was the antithesis of total victory. The fourth largest army in the world was decimated in a few weeks of bombing and four days of intense ground war. The path to Baghdad was wide open, yet no move was made to the capital and Saddam Hussein was left in power.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 22, 2005

Ok, so you are qualifying "annihilation" to mean annihilation of the enemy's ability to fight. Ok. I don't agree, but hey, it's your blog and your article, so you get to set the terms.

That sort of "annihilation" only works when a war is between two (or more) governments. Since our enemy in Iraq is no longer the government of Iraq, we are left fighting an enemy with whom we cannot negotiate terms of ceasefire. For instance, if we had have negotiated terms with Moqtada Sadr all we want, but then Nasiri wouldn't be under any obligation to honor it.

What we have left is, continue to fight the insurgency and train Iraqi defense forces in order to allow the new Iraqi government to continue flourishing until they are able to stand on their own.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 22, 2005

Desert Storm was the antithesis of total victory. The fourth largest army in the world was decimated in a few weeks of bombing and four days of intense ground war. The path to Baghdad was wide open, yet no move was made to the capital and Saddam Hussein was left in power.

Agreed. My unit was in Southern Iraq, gearing up for the push into Baghdad. When we got the stand down order, and the war was over, we were elated! However, even then we talked about the mixed message and how we would be returning to "finish the job" when Hussein broke the ceasefire. Even us lowly enlisted troops knew he had no intention of living up to the terms.

Eastern Diamondback

on Feb 22, 2005

I've heard various explanations for why the job wasn't finished in 1991, but the ones I hear the most are:

A. The UN Mandate only called for the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq.
B. The removal of Saddam would allow the Iranians to assert their dominance in the region.

How valid were each of these reasons? Both of these were legitimate concerns in my mind. But have the last 14 years certified these concerns? I always find "what ifs" to be problematic.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!