Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance
Published February 22, 2003
For those among my regular readers who are not familiar with the background behind, "Shock and Awe," may I guide you to this link. Here you will find the entire text of a book called "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance." It was written in 1996 by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade.
A review, largely unfavorable, because of poor fact checking, as well as poor writing, editing and organization goes, can be found here. The reviewer does praise the book, however, for being provocative and insightful on its key points. He offers a credible summary:
At the outset the authors sound a cautionary note. The military and political leadership of the United States, confronting an uncertain world and an era of rapid technological change, must abandon the current military-industrial structure born of World War II and the Cold War. The authors seek to "replace or complement" the strategy of overwhelming force by exploiting the "revolutionary potential" of existing and emerging technologies for a new doctrine of "rapid dominance." While, as the authors note, it is not a panacea, the objective of rapid dominance is to "impose [an] overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on." Ideally, shock and awe would both paralyze and deter an opponent before the bullets fly. If deterrence fails, rapid dominance would "seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions . . . that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at tactical and strategic levels."
From my reading, including this link, the concept of Shock and Awe is not far different from the Powell Doctrine. It is that sliver of the Powell Doctrine that says the U.S. should only enter into a military conflict where the U.S. maintains overwhelming force. As we have seen in both Gulf War I and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has a clear strategy of hitting a target hard to reducing an enemy's ability to fight. For example, the first things hit are anti-aircraft facilities, followed by communications facilities and command structures.
The left-wing has, however, taken the Shock and Awe strategy and turned it into something it is not — the complete conflagration of a region. Through hyperbole and outright lies, leftarians are spreading vile propaganda about the U.S.'s intention to reign down death and destruction on Baghdad. Here is an example:
When it comes, the U.S. assault on Iraq will explode as global spectacle, an awesome pyrotechnic display of rolling thunder and lightening death intended to shock and cow the entire planet.
The effect, the planners fervently believe, will be comparable to that which occurred when cannon clashed with spears and arrows on the ever-expanding frontiers of European empire: incomprehensible devastation, soul-consuming terror, complete political disintegration, followed by abject submission. In the grand imperial scenario, the satraps and sultans of the Earth, heads bowed at angles of unmistakable subservience, will gather up their robes and beseech the Americans for life on any terms.
I've heard estimates of 60,000 civilian deaths in the first 24 hours, 100,000 deaths total — the complete leveling of an entire major metropolitan region.
My only response is disbelief that anybody would be stupid enough to expect thinking people to believe such propaganda, but then I keep hearing from some of my very smart readers about how the U.S. must be STOPPED from launching its evil and nefarious battle plan of "shock and awe." Talk about thunderstruck. Do seemingly reasonable people really think the United States military would willfully and purposefully engage in indiscriminate bombing and mass murder?
The willingness of smart people to parrot the outrageous lies of the left-wingers about "Shock and Awe" has left me thinking that these people are so much more concerned with hating America first and hating Bush first that they will buy any anti-American, anti-Bush lie that is fed to them.
One thing people need to understand about the Iraqi military is that it exists in a brutal dictatorship. Saddam Huessin cannot allow a command structure to develop that encourages much independent thinking. He and his closest advisors make all of the decisions. The average captain or major in the field can't make a command decision. Compare that to the U.S. military where the highest ranking private (by even just one-day more time-in-service) can make, and is expected to make, command decisions. If there isn't a segregant to ask, that private better figure out pretty quickly how he's going to take that hill, or get his troops back to safety, and which is the best option within the goals of the mission.
I draw the distinction between thier military and ours within the context of a post about Shock and Awe to point out why such a strategy is likely to be effective against Huessin's military — knock out the command structure, and you break the Iraq military's ability to fight. There is no need to target civilians. In fact, every smart military man knows it's counterproductive. Yes, you want to blitz the enemy, but you want to blitz its command posts and military bases, not its houses and apartments.
I keep hearing from the left about how we're going to butcher civilians. I don't buy it, and I'm in shock and awe that anybody else does either.
- Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance
- Published: February 22, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Writer: Walter Enderby
- Walter Enderby's BC Writer page
- Walter Enderby's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
There's nothing like twisting someone's statements to fit your world view, which you seem to be a master of mike, aka "Mr. Hate America First."
Anybody who believes the America will purposely target civilians is an idiot. Period.
Yes, some civilians will certainly die. They always do in war. But more will be saved.
I can assure you the US will unleash a massive airstrike on Iraq, just like the did 10 years ago, and just like they did in Afghanistan. But the goal will not be to kill civilians. The goal will be to wipe out the military command and control structure, which given Iraq's top-down command lines, is the only smart strategy to take.
Psycho Killer
-----------------
I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I
Can't relax
I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?
Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Ce que j'ai fais, ce soir la
Ce qu'elle a dit, ce soir la
Realisant mon espoir
Je me lance, vers la gloire ... OK
We are vain and we are blind
I hate people when they're not polite
Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh....
--------------------------
So I cite an article in which Mr. Ullman brags of subjecting an entire city to a Hiroshima like conflagration; and instead of addressing my questions, you accuse me of being a hate america firster and brush me off with a the old "some civilians will die, not a bit deal" line.
This reminds me of Bill O'Reilly's recent altercation with an anti-war activist. Challenged with the facts, he flew off the handle and nearly assaulted his guest.
In other words, behavior typical not only of pro-war goons like you, but of the Bush Administration as a whole. Let's pick on weak, defenseless nations to show our toughness. That'll teach the world to challenge the great old U.S.A.
Go read the quote again ... that's not what Mr. Ullman said. You're distorting his meaning.
To whit:
"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
It doesn't say the entire city will be leveled. Mr. Ullman is saying the military targets -- I stress MILITARY targets will be hit in a simultaneous manner. You're plainly distorting Mr. Ullman's position so that it suits your own.
I'm going to clarify a few things regarding my last comment ...
Again, you're taking what Mr. Ullman is saying out of context. Read the whole article, carefully, please. He is clearly talking about targeting military targets, not civilian targets.
The modern U.S. military is very much and entirely geared toward avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible. That was clear in Gulf I and clear in Afghanistan. Feel free to ignore those facts if you like. It's no skin off my nose if you choose to remain ignorant.
Also, Mr. Ullman is not a U.S. official. He does not work for the Pentagon. He is not speaking for the Pentagon. He is a scholar interested in promoting his own view of how war should be fought -- it happens to be a view I agree with, but it is still only his SPECULATION of how the U.S. will prosecute this war. Can I stress that word again -- SPECULATION.
We don't really know what the Pentagon is planning. They aren't going to tell you. They aren't going to tell me. If they tell you and they tell me, then they are really telling Saddam. Remember those big stories in the NYT about six or eight months ago -- the US is going to attack Iraq on this or that date -- reported with certainity -- high Pentagon unnamed sources??? Clearly, that was either Pentagon officials talking out of their ass, or a disinformation campaign aimed at moving the UN toward wanting to get involved (which the UN had been blithly ignoring the issue up to that point).
The point is, I take everything coming out of the Pentagon reported by the news media with a grain of salt.
Including this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/weekinreview/23JDAO.html
The story is about how far the US will go to avoid civilian casualties. (Note that it was reported in the Liberal, anti-war NYT.) While I believe this story reflects official US policy, I think anything in it that hints at specific and clear strategy is POTENTIALLY disinformation. That said, if you really believe that the U.S. is going indiscriminately target civilians and engage in mass murder (a notion so foolish that I'm shocked and awed that any intelligent person believes it), you should read the NYT story.
I never said, Sherlock, that the U.S. was going to target civilians in Gulf II. I said that it is CAPABLE of doing so based on past performance in Vietnam, etc. Nor did I say that Mr. Ullman himself wants to deliberately target civilians. I said that he is indifferent to them and that, based on his war plan, it is inconceivable that massive civilian casualties, however "inadvertent," would not result from raining hundreds of missles on Bagdhad in 48 hours, no matter how "precise" those missles.
And I agree, and said so above, that this may not be the Pentagon's war plan at all. In the aftermath of the worldwide anti-war protests, sensitivity to civilian casualties may be paramount. I hope so.
By the way, it is not correct that civilian casualites were light in "Gulf I." Roughly 2-3,000 civilians died in the bombing itself, but 110,000+ died in the immediate aftermath because of the collapse of the infrastructure (http://www.ippnw.org/gulfwarfacts.pdf).
U.S. military planners had to know that this was a likely outcome of the bombing but they proceeded to bomb anyway to achieve their objectives, instead of doing so by committing more U.S. troops to the battlefield (or, better yet, exhausting all diplomatic options before starting the war). Consequently, the U.S. is morally responsible for those deaths, i.e., guilty of terrorism.
As for Afghanistan, reports of civilian casualties are conflicting, and so the jury is still out on that one. I agree civilians were not deliberately targeted, and that many members of the military command were admirably sensitive to this issue.
The New York Times is a liberal paper? That's drinking the Kool Aid, pal, as I always like to say. The Times is a centrist paper. The article itself is a typical example of government propaganda disguised as elite journalism. The only reason we don't have censorship of the press in this country is because the media do such a good job of policing themselves.
Regarding
A recent directive from The Ministry of Consequences states that "in circumstances where opinion is substituted for fact, it must be clearly indicated on the packaging, and no claims for the validity of the product may be made at any time".
Thank you for your kind attendance to this matter.
Here's the bottom line as I see it: if you are going to fight, do all you reasonably can to make the fight as brief as possible for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is minimizing civilian casualties. The best way to keep it brief is to attack with overwhelming force crushing the ability to respond and the will to do so. That's what this article is about
Eric, are you talking about the war or the argument?
I think shock and awe is a crummy way to argue.
That was funny.
The better comparison in Japan at the end of World War II is Tokyo: the capital city with a very large population. Only estimates can be made of the dead in Tokyo, because a 4 day US bombing (with napalm) caused a firestorm that destroyed the entire city. About a quarter of a million people were killed in that little Shock and Awe campaign. I am not stupid. Those civilians weren't the target, the Emporer and his factories were.
Hiroshima was a hospital/POW city that had not been previously bombed. Of course, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were really aimed at the Soviet Union not at the civilians that lived in those towns. Those unecessary attacks did not save us from invading, they started the arms race.
Which leads us to the present: Iraq. If the reputed size of the attack comes true (8000 missiles) then it equals 4kilotons of 'payload'. If an equivalent aerial bombardment is mounted (likely to be larger), then the total explosive power will be about 10 kilotons. The cumulative power will likely be as great as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. There are 5 million people in Baghdad. As much as 4 pounds of explosive per person IN THE FIRST FEW DAYS. Of course, the civilians aren't the target, the water, electricity and transportation systems that they live on are the target. Note who is not the target of the Shock and Awe: terrorists who have attacked the US. However, there can be little doubt that such aggressive adventurism will provide a fertile ground for nationalist &/or Islamic fundamentalist backlash.
Perhaps the masonry construction of the buildings in Bagdad will not generate a firestorm. One can only hope that the inspectors are right about Saddam Hussein not having weapons of mass destruction or there will be Shock and Awe back here at the length of the casualty list.
Our tax dollars at work. The Democrats helped give the Republican administration a blank check. Vote Green!
you said it, pal.
In response to some of Howard Owens' claims above, let me provide some very compelling information from some very reputable sources (below).
First, if you want to know why Bush's militaristic apologists and damage control "journalists" are so mobilized to correct the growing public outrage about the "Shock and Awe" battle plan right now, consider the following:
"A recent New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that support for using military action to depose Mr. Hussein would fall by 20 percentage points, to 46 percent, if a substantial number of Iraqis died.
'High levels of civilian casualties, or the perception of high levels of casualties, could lead to an international diplomatic outcry to end the war prematurely,' said William Arkin, an adviser to Human Rights Watch who studied civilian casualties in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. 'That is the one thing that could stand in the way of the administration's war plan being fully implemented.' - The New York Times February 23, 2003
(And support is probably much lower than 66%. If you don't believe that go do your own poll. The NY Times tried to find two thirds support in the city and when they couldn't, went upstate and finally got it at a VFW post. But apparently Pete Seeger was over in the corner... International support is almost pathetic. Britain, our closest ally by any measure, has a pubic 84% opposed. Turkish public is 90-95% opposed. $30 billion plus will buy a coalition of the bribed, though.)
I agree strongly with Mike. The NY Times article IS a perfect example of the slick, elite damage control that gets done for the Pentagon. The article is called Damage Control; Battleplan: 'Spare Iraq's Civilians' The article (by James Dao) amazingly contains absolutely NO mention or discussion of "Shock and Awe." Maybe he was afraid readers would do a keyword search and see what the real battle plan is and what people are saying about it - and not just people on the left. But this could have exposed the article's total hypocrisy. The article's title is a typical damage-control tactic to counter the increasingly common phrase: "'Shock and Awe' battle plan." And the perpetual myth that the Times is a liberal anti-war paper makes it the perfect place for this "damage-control for the Pentagon" article to appear on a Sunday, the day when people all over the nation buy the Times. That, my friends, is REAL propaganda at work. So don't tell me some obscure article on a lefty website is "propaganda." It doesn't compare to what the Corporate Media can pull-off. But Ari Fleischer gave some pro double-talk on "Shock and Awe" last week that's really the top of the heap. www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0219-10.htm
Anyway, I'll get to the point.
The 3 major problems, as I see them, with "Shock and Awe" are:
(1) it will be impossible for a bombardment of that magnitude on a city of 5 million (the size of Paris) to maintain any intended distinction between military and nonmilitary personnel. It simply can't be done. [See Hardball transcript: www.msnbc.com/news/877670.asp , and Anthony Dworkin addressed the issue fairly in the Guardian of London last week: "Which way to the war?" www.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,2763,897819,00.html .
(2) By its explicitly stated plan to target and destroy civilian infrastructure, the plan will result in an epidemic, if not pandemic disease crisis. [See the BBC summary of leaked UN humanitarian crisis planning document www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/2636835.stm, and the actual document www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.html.] There is an excellent article, based on six declassified Department of Defense documents, that discusses precisely what happens when the Iraqi water supply gets destroyed. the article: www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html , and the primary document: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/cgi-bin/texis/search/gulfsearch/+NxKef8Tgx_q7f2EJabER02aR20ERTT0NRaUuPN02EFfPfRf0IaeN6qEqhmbetVo3m_qmmowtBmX3de4xwwweNqktqmmow/view.html .
(3) the plan is a very poor euphemism for exactly what Americans are supposed to be so righteously opposed to now: TERRORISM. Try reading a CIA definition of terrorism and see if it does not jibe with the language of "Shock and Awe:" destroy the will to fight / physically, psychologically, and emotionally exhaust / psychologically devastate / overwhelm senses / etc. The plan is to do this to entire city, not an armored column in the desert. What kind of human being would dare to call this anything but terrorism?
Much of this - to plan and certainly to do - is actually illegal, and our officials could one day have to face an international criminal court for it. Pre-emption is illegal. Targeting civilian infrastructure is illegal. Not effectively distinguishing between civilian and military areas / targets is illegal ("blurring the lines.") Ask the Nazis! When they invaded each successive country it was called "pre-emptive." But if you don't trust me, try the Center for Constitutional Rights' pamphlet on the subject: www.ccr-ny.org/v2/viewpoints/docs/no_war_pamphlet.pdf , or the declaration of 43 Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation: www.gooff.com/NM/templates/breaking_news.asp?articleid=114&zoneid=2.
If people doubt what the US military - any military, for that matter -- is capable of doing during war (that's why there are RULES of war that are NOT to be broken by unilateral superpower runaway trains), then hear what the VETERANS themselves are saying now. www.oz.net/~wawai/CtC
And if people think it's only people on the Left who are outraged then check out what a bunch of major Republican campaign donors said in a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal. www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=371
And if there's anything that proves that there's a split in the "establishment" (intelligence/security agencies, editorial boards, etc.), it's this one-page flyer that seems to be getting around: www.pointrichmond.com/peace.htm .
And finally, my favorite articles on it for those of you who need even more:
"US plans "shock and awe" blitzkrieg in Iraq
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml
great very fair balanced article on "Shock and Awe"
www.globalissues.net/article/654
I'm appalled at the apologists. Look at the facts.
Jaime Havenar
The Not in Our Name Project
www.notinourname.net
One of the URLs I gave in my comment above was wrong. Here's the correction:
"If people doubt what the US military - any military, for that matter -- is capable of doing during war (that's why there are RULES of war that are NOT to be broken by unilateral superpower runaway trains), then hear what the VETERANS themselves are saying now. www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC" Or do a keyword search for veterans' "Call to Conscience."
(I thought the double "v" was a "w.")
Jaime
I looked at WSWS and global issues and read Ullman's book. Comparing the stories, I don't see how one goes from a campaign designed to confuse and scare Iraq's political elite to an attack designed to reduce Baghdad to rubble.
The ability to find the people and communications centers that can be disprupted, understanding how the leaders communicate and talk, and then being able to precisely target those things is what Ullman is hinting at. Sun Tzu said the best battles are those that are won with little or no fighting because the other side gets confused and capitulates because it thinks it can't win. This is what Ullman is about.
But lets examine the premise that each warhead will kill a lot of people. Isreal dropped a 2000 pound warhead into a crowded Palestinian neigborhood. 12 people were killed. So 800 cruise missiles x 12 people is 9200 dead if they all land in residential areas. This is not tens of thousands dead as the articles above quote.
The one thing missing in many of the articles on Shock and Awe is the concurrent ground campaign that will use true manuever warfare.
I think its telling to note that there were no Iraqi expatriates at any of the Anti-war rallies in the Western Democracies.
I'll tell you what, pal. Why don't you sit in your house while I rain 300 missles on your town--all "carefully" aimed, of course, at the police station, the town hall, the fire department, and the electric power grid. See how you like it when elderly people die from lack of electricity, children are felled by collapsing debris, the infirm expire without access to medication, the gutters overflow with sewage, and the corpses clog the streets. Meanwhile, the political and military leadership lay safely ensconced in their bunkers, many of them no doubt emerging to become the "rehabilitated" rulers of the New Order.
Thank you for your information about RD and SA.
I just read a large report from the JINSA homepage written by 8-10 four star generals (or similar).
It was dated March 2003
This report is very informative - and frightening.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/3370)
Don't listen to the left, you militaristic fool; hear it from the war criminal's mouth: Ullman says that it's going to be just like Hiroshima!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml
Would you have any insight into how raining hundreds of missles on a city of 5 million would NOT cause civilian casualties? What Mr. Hiroshima says here is far more bone chilling than any leftist's imagination.
Of course, this may not be the U.S. strategy at all but an attempt to demoralize the Iraqi military. It's very possible the U.S. will find a way to occupy Iraq without causing widespread civilian casualties, perhaps by organizing an eleventh hour coup. But as described by Ullman, Shock and Awe bears a strong resemblance to other U.S. terrorist crimes, such as the bombing of Vietnam.
The willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties when desired is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign and intelligence policy, either through direct attack, as in Vietnam, or through proxies, as in the Indonesian genocide of 1965 or the Guatamalan slaughters of the 1980s. Why do you think we have cluster bombs?
If you want to masturbate to stuff like this, that's your business. But keep the rest of us out of it.