4
4
0
Many have criticized the President for often stating what we will and won't do in regards to no military action (no boots on ground, limited this, no to that, etc). However, I think that we are seeing a much larger issue with this.
Right now, I am watching Al Jazeera in the office, and they are discussing how a US General has stated that there will be an Iraqi offensive against Mosul NLT April. Why would we put this out there? Seriously? You are giving the enemy the opportunity to prepare their defenses and ensure that they have personnel in-place to repel the attack. I know I would love to know what my enemy is going to do next and know that I have weeks to prepare for it.
In my opinion, when things like this happen, it should be a shock to the public in general. They should not surprised (if there is a logical reason) but it still should catch them a bit off-guard. This would be similar to all offensive operations in previous conflicts. You knew what would happen but when it started you would always be a little surprised. I think that a wise enemy will know a bit of what to expect, but I just feel like it is a bad idea to give them specifics.
Right now, I am watching Al Jazeera in the office, and they are discussing how a US General has stated that there will be an Iraqi offensive against Mosul NLT April. Why would we put this out there? Seriously? You are giving the enemy the opportunity to prepare their defenses and ensure that they have personnel in-place to repel the attack. I know I would love to know what my enemy is going to do next and know that I have weeks to prepare for it.
In my opinion, when things like this happen, it should be a shock to the public in general. They should not surprised (if there is a logical reason) but it still should catch them a bit off-guard. This would be similar to all offensive operations in previous conflicts. You knew what would happen but when it started you would always be a little surprised. I think that a wise enemy will know a bit of what to expect, but I just feel like it is a bad idea to give them specifics.
Posted in these groups: 
OPSEC
OPSEC
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
Operational Efficiency is what has happened to OPSEC. There is also the need for transparency. The reality of the situation comes from what modern warfare is really about.
None of the current enemies of the state are able to respond to OPSEC leaks in time to make a difference. We win or lose on the PR spin, not on the actual events on the battlefield.
Here is another consideration, the US is able to place firepower at any place in the world within an hours notice at this point. Concentration of enemy force actually works to their disadvantage. Knowing where on offensive is going to occur is a good way to get them to reduce their presence, not reinforce it. Force on Force is a losing proposition for anyone going against a coalition formed around US troops. In a game of numbers, concentration of force represents higher casualties, which ISIS and most of our enemies can not afford.
None of the current enemies of the state are able to respond to OPSEC leaks in time to make a difference. We win or lose on the PR spin, not on the actual events on the battlefield.
Here is another consideration, the US is able to place firepower at any place in the world within an hours notice at this point. Concentration of enemy force actually works to their disadvantage. Knowing where on offensive is going to occur is a good way to get them to reduce their presence, not reinforce it. Force on Force is a losing proposition for anyone going against a coalition formed around US troops. In a game of numbers, concentration of force represents higher casualties, which ISIS and most of our enemies can not afford.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CW2 Joseph Evans I see your point, but I offer you this: we are giving away the Iraqi plan. We do not have the forces on the ground needed to execute a ground-based offensive. I am certain that we will provide air support, but overall ISIL is not afraid of the Iraqi Army. They have made a numerically superior Iraqi Army withdraw many times over.
The other aspect of this is that they now have the opportunity to develop a strategy to be more aggressive in their defense. They could plan a preemptive strike against the Iraqi forces to reduce their effectiveness or they could lure them in with a weak defensive plan in an attempt to catch them off-guard in a counter-offensive operation.
Basically, we have hurt our ally's ability to be as effective as they could have been. If they are truly concerned about our airpower, they now can establish shelters, defenses, or disperse their forces in order to mitigate the impact.
The other aspect of this is that they now have the opportunity to develop a strategy to be more aggressive in their defense. They could plan a preemptive strike against the Iraqi forces to reduce their effectiveness or they could lure them in with a weak defensive plan in an attempt to catch them off-guard in a counter-offensive operation.
Basically, we have hurt our ally's ability to be as effective as they could have been. If they are truly concerned about our airpower, they now can establish shelters, defenses, or disperse their forces in order to mitigate the impact.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
If we think drones can win wars, then we should dismantle the military right now and employ a bunch of COD players.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT (Join to see)
Think chess Sir.
Sometimes you do things to take an opponent's piece. Sometimes you do things to get your opponent to move a piece.
By announcing "part" of our plan, we trick our opponent into revealing where their forces are. Not only total numbers but disposition.
As an example.
Long ago, and I can't remember which war (I want to say 7 days war), we (or an ally) flew a plane through "enemy airspace" which in turn caused all the stationary anti-air radar to get turned on. We now knew where they were for future use. When we were ready, we just destroyed them with our opening strike.
Announcing what we "plan" causes a flurry of activity. Activity reveals things. That creates Information which can be analysed and made into Intelligence.
Think chess Sir.
Sometimes you do things to take an opponent's piece. Sometimes you do things to get your opponent to move a piece.
By announcing "part" of our plan, we trick our opponent into revealing where their forces are. Not only total numbers but disposition.
As an example.
Long ago, and I can't remember which war (I want to say 7 days war), we (or an ally) flew a plane through "enemy airspace" which in turn caused all the stationary anti-air radar to get turned on. We now knew where they were for future use. When we were ready, we just destroyed them with our opening strike.
Announcing what we "plan" causes a flurry of activity. Activity reveals things. That creates Information which can be analysed and made into Intelligence.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I understand that aspect of it, and I would wonder if that were the case here if it were more than an Iraqi Offensive. Then again, we could be using it to do our OPPLAN in order to bring in the right mix of troops. There could be a good reason behind it, but it seems to play more to the trend of letting everyone know what we are doing to gain political points, ignoring the operational and strategic impact that it has. Announcing deadlines to leave certain areas comes to mind in this case.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) Keep in mind that war is politics through force. Letting everyone know what the plan is gives the "illusion" that they were involved in the process. That they have a say in the decision.
Getting the right mix of troops is probably part of it. It takes a while to move an Army, but this is a political move.
Getting the right mix of troops is probably part of it. It takes a while to move an Army, but this is a political move.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google