RANGER AGAINST WAR: Blitzkrieg Bop <

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Blitzkrieg Bop

The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerilla wins if they do not lose.
--Henry Kissinger

Granted mobility, security (in the form of denying targets to the enemy), time, and doctrine (the idea to convert every subject to friendliness), victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain.
--T. E. Lawrence

Hey, ho! Let's go!
--Blitzkrieg Bop
, The Ramones

The Army, the press and the administration are nominating Lieutenant General David Petraeus--"whom he (Bush) can plausibly describe as our nation's top counterinsurgency officer"--as the Silver Bullet that will pull the U.S. administration's bacon (or goat) out of the fire ("Military Knows Troops Surge is Not the Answer," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/08/06.)

As stated in the article, LTG's Petraeus's online biography shows he is "eminently qualified," but as a LTG, not a Counter Insurgency (CI) expert. He has a rock-solid Army formula combat arms career, one which leaves Colin Powell in the dust, but I do not believe he is the pony to lead this dog-and-pony show.


This because his expertise lies in conventional combat operations, and not Special Operations. And we've already seen how successful the conventional tack is in Iraq. His closest exposure to unconventional or insurgency warfare was his short-lived assignment in Bosnia.


Americans should be wary of this reassignment effort that in effect is doubling our gambler's debt and putting all our money on one turn of the card. The article states the new CI manual, the drafting of which Petraeus oversaw, recognizes, "the most effective weapons often aren't weapons at all, but are political and economic." LTG Petraeus will not be able to work miracles within the confines of his conventional warfare experience.


If one accepts the CI manual finding, then the State Department should be the lead agency in this redoubled effort, if there is to be any hope of a different outcome. Otherwise, it is Operation Iraqi Freedom redux, and a futile last gasp of U.S. desperation.

2 Comments:

Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Claymore, I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you mean by "that is irrelevant."

Could you clarify?

Friday, January 12, 2007 at 4:38:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Lurch,

As you see, I responded in a post, but I know I'm still dancing around the issue. Really, all I mean is, S.F. would bring more intelligence and less U.S. casualties to bear on this operation. I fear the next few months will become a mindless bloodbath.

Friday, January 12, 2007 at 5:02:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home