Do we ever learn from history?

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:33:24 -0400

I thought we already knew air power alone can't get the job done?

We have seen/found/learned... time and time again... that air power alone will not get it done.

In the end, it requires boots on the ground, securing, holding, and restoring order, and a genuine long term commitment; with an end state (no date) determined only by reaching well established and discernible goals...

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/27/analysis-against-is-airstrikes-may-not-suffice/28035009/

Analysis: Against IS, airstrikes may not suffice

BAGHDAD — It is the modern era's military strategy of choice: overwhelming air power delivering precision-guided punishment backed by intelligence on

Response by LTC Stephen C. made May 28 at 2015 11:45 AM

LTC Stephen C. — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:45:09 -0400

COL Charles Williams, some do (or did) understand, and utilized previous lessons learned. Here are GEN George Patton's thoughts on the subject, all penned some 65-70 years ago!

"It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon he uses, that insures victory."
"The soldier is the army."
"Wars might be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the victory."
"... many, who should know better, think that wars can be decided by soulless machines, rather than by the blood and anguish of brave men."

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made May 28 at 2015 11:52 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:52:34 -0400

Colonel you are absolutely correct! Without boots on the ground all the bombing is for not. All we will be doing with air strikes is chasing the enemy all over. You need boots on the ground in order try and keep them from running all over like a bunch of cockroaches when you turn the lights on.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made May 28 at 2015 11:53 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:53:56 -0400

If we want to win their hearts, we must first grab 'em by the ****s! It's rather difficult to make that reach from 10,000' above the ground.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2015 11:58 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:58:43 -0400

I think we thought our air power and their soldiers would be enough to fight and win. But their, Iraqi, forces can't take advantage of the success of the air strikes. The Iraqi Army expect the air strikes to kill all of the enemy. That isn't going to happen. You aren't going to show up after the fight is over and came victory. I just think we didn't think they were that much of cowards as they are.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 28 at 2015 11:59 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:59:52 -0400

Sir, airpower is not employed today because of it's effectiveness (or lack of it). Airpower is employed because it's politically expedient and relatively low risk. It's much easier and less risky (both in safety to the SM and politically to the politician) to drop a bomb on a tent and say "look, I'm doing something!" than to deploy a company of Soldiers or Marines to assault that tent and say "look, I'm doing something!"

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 28 at 2015 12:12 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 28 May 2015 12:12:14 -0400

If we can't seize and hold the ground, the insurgents will have safe havens, and space in which they can operate in. It's obvious that air power is flawed as ISIS continues to use large troop formations to attack towns and cities. The Brits have a lot of experience with counterinsurgencies but we never bring up their TTPs.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 28 at 2015 12:13 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Thu, 28 May 2015 12:13:06 -0400

Well... My second marriage is better than my first....

But, no. Politicians and the public are eternally enamored of the idea of war without human cost. As such "Airpower alone" will never die.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 28 at 2015 12:15 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 28 May 2015 12:15:08 -0400

As a nation we seem not to learn from history. Thankfully at the tactical, operational, organizational design, equipment design and sometimes at the strategic level we have groups of dedicated military and civilian personnel who do their best to sort through lessons learned to modify the "way we do things" and review and analyse operational requirements versus capabilities of existing inventory, damage by wear and tear and kinetic, IED, etc to design and field or procure and modify equipment which either better meets operational and tactical requirements or meets ones which have never been met before.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made May 28 at 2015 1:24 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 28 May 2015 13:24:53 -0400

I'd like to find the guy who said "air power alone can get the job done" and drive a pitot tube through his throat. It's like saying boots on the ground alone can get the job done. Who's saying this? And the article itself gets me beaked...if the strategy is "overwhelming air power delivering..." then what we're executing definitely is NOT the strategy. Overwhelming? Arrrgghhh!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made May 28 at 2015 1:34 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Thu, 28 May 2015 13:34:59 -0400

I keep hearing "75% of the bombers come back with their payloads because they couldn't identify where the ordinance was needed. (paraphrased)" Well, DUH! But there are other history lessons that seem to have been forgotten, like thinking that Americans on the ground in Muslim countries will ever be seen as "a peacekeeping endeavor."

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2015 2:09 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 May 2015 14:09:33 -0400

I think some people have been spending too much time gleaning their combat strategy from Command and Conquer...

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made May 28 at 2015 2:12 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Thu, 28 May 2015 14:12:45 -0400

Short answer is no, we do not. As a nation, voters and politicians alike are more focused on the issue-du-jour rather than the fact that history repeats itself, and that those who do not study the failures of the past are apt to repeat the same failures.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 28 at 2015 2:38 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 28 May 2015 14:38:31 -0400

The same folks running operations released five Taliban guys for one deserter and now we may have to fight these dudes again. That is an example of how things are done.

Response by PO1 Donald Hammond made May 28 at 2015 2:39 PM

PO1 Donald Hammond — Thu, 28 May 2015 14:39:40 -0400

BUT during Desert Storm we saw how devastating air power and long range missile attacks can be before boots go on the ground. We wiped out the Iraqi army from afar and THEN put the boots on the ground. Jr. should have learned that from Sr. Bomb them into the stone age and then go in. Saves lives on our part. Gives submarines something to do ie firing rockets that don't make the world go away.

Or, using the cold war mentality we had, Nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 28 at 2015 3:23 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 28 May 2015 15:23:57 -0400

In using nuclear weapons I'd say yes. in conventional warfare, I'd say no. Afghanistan for instance - the British tried and failed, the Russians tried and failed, we just haven't given up yet but have the longest occupancy.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made May 28 at 2015 4:23 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 28 May 2015 16:23:24 -0400

Emails, phone calls, press conferences from the comforts of a plush golf course aint gonna cut it....I have one thing very much in common with those we are fighting, I don't play golf....

You ever hear of the adage "its the old men that go and declare war but the young men that must go and die".....well too few of our elected officials have skin in the game today - maybe they'd act differently if we had more veterans in the seats, with that being said, I agree with you COL Charles Williams, an air campaign alone aint the answer here.

Response by LTC John Wilson made May 28 at 2015 5:34 PM

LTC John Wilson — Thu, 28 May 2015 17:34:07 -0400

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
-- George Santayana
"Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it"
-- Randy Bartlett
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
--Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV)

The question is not so much “Do we ever learn from history?”, but rather WHY don’t we ever learn? If we could answer that question, then solutions to “novel” problems – especially with regard to human relations – might stand a better chance of actually working.

With regard to WHY, there are at least THREE contributing factors to our overall failures (in general). The first is human conceit which believes that mankind is perfectible, that we somehow evolve beyond our base human instincts…or may somehow have them trained out of us. We believe that we will naturally do things better than the previous generations – without a firm or comprehensive first-hand knowledge of what they had to deal with. The Framers of our Constitution – recognizing this self-serving conceit – sought to put in place control measures to prevent abuse and repetition of errors made in every previous human experience with government. Bottom line: we tend to believe the very best in everyone,

“The [human] heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9

Another reason we seem to miss the mark is the sheer amount of interactive complexity that exceeds our human mind’s capacity -- individual or collective -- to grasp. Therefore, we tend to oversimplify the problems and fail to consider unintended consequences of their “obvious” solutions.

Thirdly, we (some more than others...just ask my wife) get pigheaded that OUR solutions WILL work, and we do not like to be proven wrong (See Reason #1). Our tenacity to hold on to flawed solutions tends to grow the more of ourselves we devote to their success.

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Situations/dp/ [login to see] /ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=1-1&keywords=logic+of+failure

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2015 5:38 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 May 2015 17:38:15 -0400

The way the world is rolling currently, then I would have to say that most people in charge have a massive brain-fart/brain-dump when it comes to history. This usually happens when they enter a close relationship with the Good Idea Fairy

Response by LTC John Wilson made May 28 at 2015 5:39 PM

LTC John Wilson — Thu, 28 May 2015 17:39:09 -0400

Unless one is prepared to exercise a nuclear option with a commitment towards the total extermination of one's adversary and ensuring the adversary's territory remains uninhabitable for generations, then Airpower alone can NEVER and WILL NEVER win a war...

Pape makes the compelling case...

http://www.amazon.com/Bombing-Win-Coercion-Cornell-Security/dp/ [login to see] /ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=1-1&keywords=bombing+to+win+air+power+and+coercion+in+war

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made May 28 at 2015 6:50 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 28 May 2015 18:50:28 -0400

It's obvious that Santayana isn't required reading these days (or for the last 6 decades for that matter).

I spoke about ISIS at my Holocaust Memorial service. Just as the world mostly shrugged as Hitler gained control of Europe, the world is mostly shrugging right now, with ISIS. The reality that ISIS has Boko Haram, AQ, Taliban and other terrorists groups paying fealty to them, meaning that much of Africa and the Middle East is in their reach. Because they have groups in the Sinai at Rafa, and in Libya, it's just a short hop to Europe now.

If the UN/NATO/US/etc don't start acting soon, this world will get ugly really quickly.

Like it or not, as a country we created this mess, so, imho, we bear a moral obligation to clean it up. I know that's easy for me to say, since I am undeployable, but I'm sure that many on this list would agree...

Response by SGT Richard H. made May 28 at 2015 7:43 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 28 May 2015 19:43:13 -0400

You'd think those that make these decisions (politicians) would eventually figure this out....but then again there is a lot you'd think that they (politicians) would figure out that just never seems to come to pass.

Response by TSgt David Holman made May 28 at 2015 10:21 PM

TSgt David Holman — Thu, 28 May 2015 22:21:00 -0400

Each facet of the military is important, no one on its own can give a definitive win. If you do nothing but bomb the enemy, they just regroup and rebuild. If you don't have airpower, resupplying and support functions become a nightmare and hazardous.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 4:14 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 04:14:13 -0400

Sir: Agree with your sentiment here, fahrenbach pegged this very well 50 some years ago.

But, strategically, if we look at big picture national strategic objectives, one can place air strikes against ISIS in their appropriate place, as just one of the means being employed to counter-ISIS (the others being coalitions, Special ops direct action, cyber, training Iraqi security forces, etc) to support the containment of ISIS (the "ways") so as to maintain the structure/territory/viability of a unified Iraqi government and state (the "ends").

And this counter-ISIS strategy is but part of broader regional strategy, the centerpiece of which is stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the short-term (or defending Israel, depending on how you want to frame it).

So, in both cases (counter-ISIS strategy and regional strategy), let's not dumb this down to "we're only doing air strikes" because this is just inaccurate and because it is a perspective that ignores the strategy that exists and is evident to those who look for it.

Whether these strategies will work or are appropriate---that is a different matter.

But we are clearly doing substantially more than a few air strikes here and there.

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 4:52 PM

1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 16:52:47 -0400

Sir,

I think one part of the issue is that we assumed the local fighters, who we trained and equipped, would be more effective. We keep hearing of Iraqi soldiers throwing down arms and running away, even though they largely outnumber the ISIS fighters. I think we were hoping that our air power would be the supplement to the local trained army.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 30 at 2015 11:13 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 30 May 2015 23:13:07 -0400

No matter what the lessons are from history, if are our leaders ignore those and follow some other path of idiocy, all we can do is follow orders as we are required to.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 3:08 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:08:23 -0400

COL Charles Williams, Sir, until the POTUS and Congress begins to realize cutting back and no boots on the ground does not work in this day and age. Conflicts are springing up in old familiar places. If they don't realize that dog don't hunt anymore, they are putting the troops that are deployed now in grave danger. ISIS reads the news and watches TV, so they can see how our government is lagging behind, and, they WILL, take advantage of that. Boots on the ground is the only way of stopping the worlds enemies.

Response by LTC Terrence Farrier, PhD made May 15 at 2017 9:29 AM

LTC Terrence Farrier, PhD — Mon, 15 May 2017 09:29:29 -0400

COL Williams, you are entirely correct! After visiting with both the PRTs and the Imbedded PRTs returning from Iraq in DC and later a combat division and their commanders from Afghanistan I came to an undeniable conclusion. Force alone is not the answer. Without an infused strategic and diplomatic solution, the war games will only continue as often...or possibly more often...than they do currently. Somehow the DOD and the DOS have to sit down at the table as co-dependent strategists and the political leaders accept that winning battles alone does not transfer into winning the war...period! Prosecution is easy....strategic justice and weighing them at the cost of redeployment back to a war zone without pragmatism is not.