Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Newsflash: NYT Misunderstands Modern Warfare!”

« Brave Sir Robin vs. the Mosque of England | Main | The Missing Piece »

March 28, 2008

Newsflash: NYT Misunderstands Modern Warfare!

Hatched by Dafydd

This may be quite a shocking story with the potential to shake the worldview of readers of this blog; if there are children reading over your shoulder, they should be sent to bed without their suppers immediately, before you read another line. (Of course, if your kids read faster than you, perhaps they should send you to bed without din-dins.)

Forwarned is four-horned. I don't want to judge before all the facts are in, but it appears from available evidence that the New York Times has only a dim idea of how we conduct modern warfare. And by "modern," I mean all warfare since the introduction of the airplane. First, the factual content:

American warplanes struck targets in the southern port city of Basra late Thursday, joining for the first time an onslaught by Iraqi security forces intended to oust Shiite militias there, according to British and American military officials.

I realize some of you reading this, those with military experience or an interest in military history, may be nodding heads and saying, "yeah, yeah, so what's your point?" After all, we've been using close air support since the Great War... which coincidentally was the first significant war for the United States after the development of heavier-than-air flying machines in December, 1902. (Europeans had a bit of a jump on us here, as they had more wars.)

First, let's introduce one more fascinating fact into the mix:

The strikes by American warplanes in Basra, one on a militia stronghold and a second on a mortar team that was attacking Iraqi forces, were made at the request of the Iraqi Army, said Maj. Tom Holloway, a spokesman for the British Army in Basra.

Major Holloway said that the Americans conducted the air attack because the Iraqi security forces did not have aircraft capable of making such strikes. American and British forces have been flying surveillance runs over Basra since the latest fighting in the city began this week.

“I think the point here is actually that the Iraqis are capable, they are strong and they have been engaging successfully,” Major Holloway said.

All right; so in Basra, Iraqi forces are calling in airstrikes against stubborn targets of Mahdi Militia. Again, what's the point of this post? Isn't that SOP for modern warfare? Of course... and this brings us to the crux of the Times and its "understanding" of that subject. Read on:

But the airstrikes by coalition forces after a four-day stalemate in Basra suggested that the Iraqi military has not, on its own, been able to rout the militias, despite repeated statements by American and Iraqi officials that its fighting capabilities have vastly improved.

In other words, the Times hears that Iraqi army units routinely call in airstrikes during combat, which are supplied by American helicopters and fixed-wing attack aircraft -- and the Times pronounces that a failure of the Iraqi military. Have I missed something vital here?

Let's rephrase the sentence above. Suppose some reporter heard about an American action in which soldiers on the ground called in an airstrike against an enemy position:

But the airstrikes by the [Air Force] after a four-day stalemate in [Upper Iguana] suggested that the [Army Infantry] has not, on its own, been able to rout the militias, despite repeated statements by [Pentagon] officials that [the Infantry's] fighting capabilities have vastly improved.

Do you see why this statement is absurd? It's not a failure of the Infantry when they call for airstrikes from the Air Force, the Marines, the Navy, or even an Army aviation unit; that's how modern warfare has been conducted for decades. It's what distinguishes a modern army from a pre-modern one... coordination between different branches.

The extremely close operational relationship between ground and air forces, which coordinate so well nowadays that they fight as if they were a single unit, is one of the most significant developments of contemporary warfare. And that is exactly what happened in Basra... except in this case, the operational relationship was forged not just between different branches (infantry and aviation) of the same military, but between different branches of two different militaries, Iraq's and America's.

Far from constituting a failure on the Iraqis' part, this is exactly what "success" looks like: the coordination of all branches of allied militaries to achieve victory over the joint enemy.

But the Times doesn't get it; nobody has ever before suggested, so far as I recall, that every time we supply close air support to Iraqi units, that's a black mark against the latter. In reality, this is precisely the relationship we expect and need to see anent the New Iraqi army:

When violence arises, the Iraqis make the initial response;

They evaluate whether the situation can be handled by police or requires military force;

If they decide upon the latter, they build up their own forces and make contact with the enemy, while we ready ourselves in case they need support;

If the Iraqis decide they need support -- close air support, strategic bombing, aerial surveillance, or satellite intelligence -- and they don't have their own helos, fixed-wing aircraft, bombers, drones, or satellites available (they will probably never have MilSats), then they call on us... but it's the Iraqis who coordinate the attack, not the United States.

When all engagements proceed as the one in Basra has, then we can honestly say we have stood up a modern, effective, and independent Iraqi army. At that point, we can withdraw to well-defended bases in Iraq, whence we can sally forth not just to help keep Iraq free -- but also to fight anywhere in the Middle East where American national security requires our military presence.

That's not failure, "Pinch" Sulzberger; that is the face of victory.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 28, 2008, at the time of 3:55 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2923

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Newsflash: NYT Misunderstands Modern Warfare!:

» ATTENTION: NYT’s MAY BE STUPID from D=S
All right; so in Basra, Iraqi forces are calling in airstrikes against stubborn targets of Mahdi Militia. Again, what’s the point of this post? Isn’t that SOP for modern warfare? Of course… and this brings us to the crux of the Times ... [Read More]

Tracked on March 28, 2008 6:35 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

I've heard of people arguing whether the glass was half empty or half full, but the NY Times carries that argument to unbelievable extremes. To them, a full glass would be empty. And then they wonder why newspapers are losing revenue.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz at March 28, 2008 10:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

Well, liberals studiously avoid anything resembling military service, the study of warfare, and hold our military (at least) in contempt. No surprise they are abysmally ignorant on the subject. We've also seen them lie without concience, so even if they knew better they might well lie about it.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD at March 29, 2008 6:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: MarkJM

Fritz, That full glass would only be empty if held by a conservative. ANY glass held by a democrat or liberal is always full of it.

The above hissed in response by: MarkJM at March 29, 2008 6:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: hazy

Pretty much could have left the modern warfare off of the headline and still been accurate.

The above hissed in response by: hazy at March 29, 2008 7:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: MarkJM

Speaking of 'full' of ignorance, back in the 90s and until 2002, most of the Middle East hated the West and certain groups spent time to organize, plot, plan and successfully execute attacks that hurt, killed innocents and cost billions in what otherwise would have been positive productive peaceful business. Now we have at least two democratic countries in this same area as allies against these same thugs with no further attackes on U.S inteerests, plus strategic position in an area that contains even more anti-West sentiment with even more dangerous weaponry. Hmmmm. I'll take door number 2 every time. Apparently the ant eater prefers chaos, mahem and misery for everyone. Oh well, tytpical liberal.

The above hissed in response by: MarkJM at March 29, 2008 4:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: SlimGuy

Currently the fledgling Iraq airforce includes some transport aircraft to begin their own logistic support of their units a few choppers for medivac purposes and a couple of single engine propeller driven aircraft to monitor roads and pipelines for terrorist activity and vary few of these aircraft are even armed.

It is going to be a long time before they have true offensive aircraft, much less anything capable of acting as a self defense force against regional potential enemies.

The above hissed in response by: SlimGuy at March 29, 2008 4:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

One comment deleted for obscenity, personal insult, and unmitigated jackassery.

To the commenter (you know who you are): This isn't Kos; please read and obey the commenting rules. They are enforced.

Unlike most liberal blogs, we welcome dissenting views; but also unlike most liberal blogs, we slam the door on "smashmouth" commenting.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at March 29, 2008 6:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/30/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M at March 30, 2008 5:54 AM