No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

What was new and effective in the Iraq War?

Janes Defense Weekly provides this analysis of the war in Iraq. A key statement is:

Arthur Cebrowski, a retired vice admiral and director of the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Force Transformation, said he expects analysis of operations in Iraq will reveal a "new air-land dynamic: the discovery of a new 'sweet spot' in the relationship between land and air warfare and a tighter integration of the two. The things that compel that are good sensors networked with good intelligence disseminated through a robust networking system, which then yields speed. Speed turns out to be a very, very important factor," Cebrowski said.

The war was also notable for how 'psyops' - psychological operations - was brought to bear on the enemy in new and unusual ways.

To put the war into perspective, it should be remember that we had total control of the air from the very beginning, and everything that happened during the war should be considered in that context. If control of the air is contested effectively, much of what happened in Iraq would not apply.

Also, the Jim Lehrer news hour last night had one analyst who kept pointing out that the data required for analysis of the war has not yet been collected, so any commentary on the war at this time has to be considered as very tentative. He is quite correct. Much of what has been reported will be revised, and much that went wrong will be brought out.

Since Psyops were such a major factor in the war, I would expect that there is a great deal of general misinformation which is currently believed to be true. I'm sure that a great deal was given to the media with the intent of winning the war rather than providing objective information to the general public. That is as it should be. It is now up to the analysts and the media to separate the truth from the fog of war.

It will be very interesting from a military perspective. Even more interesting will be how it is spun politically. Effective analysis will probably not be available until after the 2004 Presidential election. Remember, you heard it here first.
posted by Richard at 9:39 AM