TF Ranger had it backwards...

Every once in a while I'll hear some commentator say that the 'way forward' in Iraq and Afghanistan or the way the US should only intervene in the future is to not send in a large mount of troops and instead stick with small 'attack' forces to grab bad guys and leave general security to the locals.  And the locals can't then why bother is the second part.  The problem with this is that it has already failed in a Real World situation.  And bad, destine-to-fail-again ideas don't get better with age.  It failed in Somalia.

For those who don't know there was a small UN peacekeeping/humanitarian relief mission in Somalia and in December 1992 lame-duck President G.H.W. Bush sent in a force of about 25,000 US troops (with allies as well, totalling 37,000 troops) into Somalia.  This had the effect of suppressing the local Warlords enough to get food flowing again.  The situation stayed about the same for the next 6 months until the US decided to pull all but 2600 troops out (part of the 28,000 troops and civilians).  About 1200 of the remaining were designated as a Quick Reaction Force meant to back up the remaining foreign peacekeepers when they ran into trouble.  The warlords, mainly Farah Aidid, started pushing back.  The QRF was a total failure in it's role as it wasn't quick, couldn't react and the 1200 or so light infantry* soldiers lacked the combat power, ie 'force' necessary to carry out any mission other then guarding there own FOB. 

In June 1993 twenty-four Pakistani Troops were captured and killed by Aidid supporters.  This led to the US to attack Aidid's support structure, included AH-1 attacks in July on a building full of Aidid's clan members.  The US lacked the willpower to deploy more troops to positively effect the security situation in Somalia and made the mistake of trying to used firepower to make up for the lack of manpower**.  The attack on the Pakistanis also led to Adm. Howe to request for the force that became TF Ranger. 

TF Ranger's failings was that it did nothing to help the average Somali, which lead to it's downfall.  Repeated fly-overs, day and night irritated the population of Mogadishu.  That irritation was turned to rage over time because TF Ranger did nothing about the awful security situation, lack of food and of basic services.  That rage was finally manifested on Oct. 3rd and 4th 1993.  And it's mission was flawed from the beginning.  Taking out Aidid wouldn't have chanced much.  The security vacuum would have led to other warlords fighting for what had been Aidid's fiefdom/organization.  TF Ranger's mission, had it succeeded would have only had the desired effect if addition forces had been present and able fill the void left by Aidid's departure. 


*The Reagan-Era Light Infantry Divisions lacked Armored Fighting Vehicles of any kind making them nearly combat ineffective.  To the point were in Panama a mechanized battalion from the 5th Infantry Division using Vietnam Area M113A1s (not even the post-Vietnam A2 or the newest A3 introduced in 1987) and backed up with M551 Airborne tank/recon vehicles and Marine LAVs tackled the most difficult and dangerous task of going though Panama City and taking the PDF HQ, Noriega's seat of power.  It showed that even using obsolescent equipment, a lighter weight mechanized force is more mobile and has much greater combat power then the 'light infantry' equivalent.

**More importantly properly equipped and resourced manpower.  As manpower without firepower and mobility is as useless as firepower without manpower.

Hiatus

I've been gone for a while.  First it was the MLB play-offs and World Series (Giants win!  Giant win!) then it was job hunt.  And also a certain about of burnout and loss of intest about military subjects.  The latter part happens from time to time to me.

But I'm back, for now.

Stop Being World Police?

You here it a lot now.  In fact you've heard a lot over the last 20 years.  The US should stop playing 'World Police' and intervening in every problem.  Only one problem with that.  The US hasn't been playing 'World Police' over the last 20 years and only has intervened a few times.  Though I don't expect many here in the US to understand this.  The amount of information about what's happening in the rest of the world rarely gets to the average American.  They don't hear about most of the conflicts happening around to world, except in passing.  And they rarely hear about UN and other Peacekeeping missions when something goes horribly wrong. 

Will stating this on another blog someone responded with a Wikipedia Link about US Military Operations.  It's interesting to look at all the interventions over the last 20 years.  If you take out Iraq and the problems the US have had there over the last 20 years, peacekeeping and military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia (which I consider on Meta-Problem) and the Invasion of Afghanistan (a response to a direct attack by an organization that was deeply involved with the ruling Taliban) the US really hasn't done much in the way of 'Intervention'.  In fact most of the military operations were aimed at non-intervention.  Most involved the evacuation of US citizens, reinforcing US embassies or giving limited support to other nations intervening.  There are the cases when the US either bombed or launched cruise missiles at a group or country.  Though wouldn't those be examples of the US trying to do everything BUT intervene with ground forces?  Kind of like a Cop getting a call of a robbery-in-progress, driving up to the location, firing random shots into the building, then driving off to go get coffee w/o going in and seeing if he hit anything.  And when the US does intervene they do it for a very short time and immediately look for someone else to take over the mission.  Not exactly a sterling example of leadership. 

The US is now trying to get Uganda to send more troops into Somalia, so the US doesn't have to get involved.  There is already 7,000 AU troops there, but the most they can do is hold between  1/3 to 1/2 of Mogadishu at any given time.  This isn't the first time the US has asked a Somali neighbor to intervene.  Somalia was invaded twice by Ethiopia in the last 5 years. 

Americans, even those who do want to do more globally, live in a fantasy world were 600 US Soldiers or Marines is a 'major commitment'.  Instead 5 times that many is nothing more then an empty show of force.  Technology simply doesn't give the US enough leverage to make up the difference.  Especially when the US insists on deploying inadequately equipped Light Infantry forces.  On top of this is the insane notion of deploying said under-sized and under-equipped can accomplish even the most complex tasks in less then 6 months.  Nor does the 'full might' of the US Air Force or Navy have any impact on the majority of military missions.  They usually are nothing other then transport.  Something the USAF in particular loaths to do (because the longer they can keep ground forces away the more sorties they can fly, thus legitamizing there 'budget share').

I'm not say the US has to litterally intervene in every circumstance.  But you can't complain about others cutting back their forces, of 'not doing enough' when you yourself expect a place of privedge and expect to tell others what to do and how to do it.  All while cutting back your own forces and cherrypicking the missions you actually do.  Especially when you're ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.