Deception in Air-Sea Battle

Captain Brett Friedman has written on this blog several good pieces on Air-Sea Battle (ASB).  In my personal favorite, he describes how ASB falsely promises the US military a strategic victory over an enemy by using air and sea power to defeat our enemy.  He brings in historical examples of the US using air and sea forces to reduce shore-based defenses, like Operation OVERLORD, or the Battle of Iwo Jima, two battles where the shore defenses were hardly affected by the Air-Sea Battle conducted prior to amphibious landings. While the ends of the preparatory fires before Iwo Jima and the D-Day assault were different from ASB, the idea that is promoted is the same:  Air and Sea power are the “be all, end all” of war.  As Capt Friedman puts it, "[I]t was assumed, by the US Navy as late as 1943 and the US Army in 1944, that air and sea firepower would negate shore defenses. ASB is built around this same assumption, an assumption proven false sixty-nine years ago."

Observing the Falklands

The Argentinians call the Falklands the Malvinas,
but since the UK actually owns them,
I refer to them as their owner refers to them . 

In 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia Island.  The reasons were complex.  The Argentinians since the early 1800s have claimed the islands as their own with the British consistently vehemently opposing this claim.  Furthermore, in the 80s, the Argentinian Military Regime was dealing with some serious domestic discontent, and wanted to incite some nationalistic fervor to focus the populace, and distract them from the imperfections of the regime.  They did this by doing what military regimes do best, use military action to solve their problems.  They attempted a seizure of what for hundreds of years belonged to someone else (the Brits).

Humans in Combat

Since the announcement that the exclusion policy for women in combat units will soon be lifted, the milblogosphere has been assailed by depictions of brutal ground combat conditions. When you ignore the gender issues, what is striking is the superhuman expectations we have of humans in combat. Kings of War has a good roundup and other notable additions include the New York Times At War blog and Bing West’s take at the American Interest.

Living History

   

When I was a teenager, I lived in State College, Pennsylvania. Also living in State College at that time, and living there still today, is an older gentlemen by the name of Gerald Russell. Colonel Gerald Russell, USMC (ret), youngest battalion commander during the Battle of Iwo Jima, to be exact. He is a living legend, a treasure trove of experience and historical knowledge.


Colonel Russell, however, is not the focus of this essay. The focus is any and every living former Marine Corps battalion commander, particularly those who have commanded a battalion in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just like Colonel Russell, the value of whose experience no one would question if he were to present those experiences in a speech or in writing, we have battalion commanders who have commanded in war, and whose experiences can be captured and passed on to another generation of leaders.

“Sir, the Private is Fine!”

by LtCol Walter F. McTernan III, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired) 

In 1975-7 I served as a series commander at the legendary Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris, Island, South Carolina, a highly motivating assignment. Every night just before taps the series commander would hold a nightly “health and comfort” inspection of each recruit. This usually perfunctory inspection consisted of a quick walk by each recruit, who while otherwise at a correct position of attention, would hold out his hands for inspection. The series officer would focus on glancing at the recruits’ feet (with an eye out for blisters) and checking hands (both front and back) for blisters and general cleanliness. As the series commander would inspect each recruit individually, the trainee would ritually shout out, “Sir, the private is fine!!!”

Women in Combat Arms

by Andrew Lubin

Let’s get something straight: the courage and commitment of women Marines are not an issue.
From helo pilots to up-gunners to crew chiefs to running convoys; Women Marines have participated in more combat in Iraq and Afghanistan than in any American war – and they’ve performed admirably.

But SecDef Panetta’s announcement opens the worlds of infantry, artillery, and armor to women for the first time, and the commentators, blogs, and discussion boards are extremely unhappy; ‘using the military to push social engineering’ is one of the more polite phrases used. Are they correct?