Cdr Salamander, on his blog, offered a post that contains a pearl of wisdom too good to let pass. He was discussing a recent wargame (2) whose results have been making the rounds of the Internet and one of the specific points he was addressing was that of networks and information advantage and how the military claims this will give us a decisive advantage over our enemies. Here is his thought on the notion:
We had a huge information advantage over the Taliban and how did that work out for us. (1)
I’m not going to discuss that wargame because there is no definitive information on the conditions or results so there is nothing to intelligently discuss. Besides, what little has come out of it publicly is almost too stupid to believe although the military never ceases to amaze me with its ability to self-deceive so …
Instead, I want to expand on Cdr Salamander’s thought a bit.
As we’ve discussed ad nauseam, the Navy (and the military as a whole) has bet all-in on networks and information dominance as the foundation and key to future combat dominance. We’ve also demonstrated the folly of this approach, repeatedly. I’ll try not to repeat that discussion but I would like to expand on Cdr Salamander’s thought with some more examples.
Afghanistan – We had total information – and technology – overmatch over the Taliban to a degree that beggars the imagination and yet, here we are, today, pulling out of Afghanistan having lost after 20 years of total information dominance. As the Cdr notes, how did that work out for us?
Vietnam – We had total information dominance and network superiority (albeit of a cruder level than today) and we lost to people living and fighting day to day in huts, caves, and tunnels. How did that work out for us?
Now, let’s consider another example that turned out differently.
Desert Storm – We had total information dominance and this one was a spectacular tactical victory (and a strategic failure). What was different about this? The difference was that we won through overwhelming firepower, training, logistics, and motivation – all the traditional elements of a powerful military. Of course, having a totally incompetent, unmotivated enemy helped!
Conclusion
Desert Storm was won because we had and applied overwhelming firepower superiority. Contrast that with Afghanistan. We had overwhelming firepower superiority, as a military, but we didn’t apply it. Desert Storm saw armored divisions roaming the battlefield while Afghanistan saw infantry patrols sporadically appearing on the battlefield and then returning to base. Our information dominance had no decisive impact.
The conclusion is obvious: information dominance does not win wars but firepower does – when it’s applied.
We won’t achieve information dominance over China. At best, we’ll achieve parity. If we couldn’t win any wars with total information dominance, why do we think we’ll beat China with, at best, information parity?
_________________________________
(1)cdr salamander blog, “We’re Designing Ourselves To Lose”, 26-Jul-2021,
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2021/07/were-designing-ourselves-to-lose.html
Without the ability and willingness to put warheads on foreheads, information dominance doesn't win you anything.
ReplyDeleteThe Gulf War was kicking an invading army out of an occupation, Afghanistan and Vietnam were invading and attempting to occupy other nations.
ReplyDeleteNever get involved in civil wars directly sell weapons and supplies to the side you want to win sure but don't get involved directly and if the side you don't want to win still wins just do a Cuba and sanction them to irrelevancy.
Hell China can't even pay it's operatives in Hong Kong through Chinese owned banks because of US sanctions because the Chinese owned banks refused to lose access to US dollars the currency of the world.
Gulf One was the only US war in recent decades to have clear, realistic and achievable victory conditions, which is why it was a (very easy) victory.
ReplyDeleteIt was a tactical victory and a longer term strategic failure since we had to refight Iraq.
DeleteCorrect, and that happened exactly for the same reason: while the military had reasonable and achievable objectives, the government did not.
DeleteWithout getting too deep into the geopolitics of it, eliminating Hussein, his government, and his military would, at that time, have been both reasonable and easily achievable. Bush opted not to finish the job and condemned the US to a repeat war.
DeleteWhy did a repeat war have to happen? Iraq was no threat the shear speed with which the Saddam government fell in 2003 proves that. It really was a waste of time and resources especially with the results we see now 18 years later.
DeleteThe repeat war was inevitable because of who we are. Allowing a ruthless, brutal, dictator to exist and to support terrorism and threaten to develop WMD is guaranteed to get the US involved. And we did.
DeleteBy the way, we're not going to discuss whether WMD existed or not. Hussein threatened to develop them and that, alone, was sufficient to ensure US action.
The point is that if Bush had followed through and completed the war, a repeat would not have even been possible.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the premise of the post.
"Bush opted not to finish the job and condemned the US to a repeat war."
DeleteIn hindsight, that may have been the right thing to do at the time, but there are a few things to consider. First, the purpose of the first Gulf War was to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait. Second, many of our allies, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, didn't want to topple Saddam for fear of what might follow. Third, Bush 41 had no congressional authorization to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.
Congress only authorized Bush 41 to conduct military operations to align with the goals of UN Security Council Resolution 678, which allowed member nations to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait after the deadline to withdraw had passed.
"In hindsight, that may have been the right thing to do at the time"
DeleteIt was known to be the right thing to do at the time because it was seriously considered. Bush simply lacked the courage to do what he knew to be right despite the various political challenges he would have to face. That's what a courageous leader does … and he didn't.
"no congressional authorization to invade Iraq and topple Saddam."
That's the same kind of lawyer-speak that Bush used to justify his inaction. Presidents routinely ignore Congress when it comes to the use of the military. To use your own lawyer-speak, toppling Saddam could easily be construed as simply finishing the job to ensure Kuwait could not be re-invaded as soon as the Coalition left.
This is probably enough of the political aspect of this especially as it doesn't pertain to the premise of the post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you have soldiers on the ground for years your occupying especially when they engage is slaughters of the locals.
DeleteVietnam was split by outsiders in 1955 in less than a week the Vietnam War started.
This is an unproductive discussion and has nothing to do with the premise of the post so this is a good point to end at.
DeleteNeither information dominance nor firepower wins wars.
ReplyDeleteLoser that decides when they've lost. Neither the Taliban nor the North Vietnamese decided that they'd lost. Both rightly figured we would eventually tire and walk away from the fight.
We DECIDED to lose.
BTW, we never had information dominance in either Afghanistan or Vietnam. We only episodically ventured out into little villages and town. You can't know the populations motivations, leanings, influences and so on without being there all the time. You can't learn that from a drone or an occasional visit.
"BTW, we never had information dominance in either Afghanistan or Vietnam. We only episodically ventured out into little villages and town. You can't know the populations motivations, leanings, influences and so on without being there all the time. You can't learn that from a drone or an occasional visit."
DeleteYou make an excellent point. Unfortunately, the US military is hoping for total information dominance without ever setting foot outside a computer room. None of our programs are about getting out into the countryside. Instead, they're all about remote data collection.
"Desert Storm was won because we had and applied overwhelming firepower superiority. "
ReplyDeleteFirepower was effective then because of information. You won't be able to destroy what you want simply with blanket bombardments.
Real problem is the nation's technology competence. Many information and network projects ended in failure. This article just provides an example of both Navy and Army.
https://inf.news/en/military/48d7958fb1aea9d06000379155538320.html
"Firepower was effective then because of information. You won't be able to destroy what you want simply with blanket bombardments."
DeleteWith enough firepower, you can most assuredly do that.
"Firepower was effective then because of information."
DeleteYou completely missed the point of the post which, to repeat, was that information, at the expense of firepower, does not and cannot win wars. Firepower wins wars. Information can enhance firepower but is not a substitute for it as we seem to be trying to do today. We are de-emphasizing firepower and substituting information which history demonstrates is a losing proposition.
"You won't be able to destroy what you want simply with blanket bombardments."
Absolutely you can! It's not the most efficient way but with enough firepower it's quite effective.
Sorry if you already covered this but exactly how could you use high intensity warfare tactics to defeat the Talibans (an asymmetrical fighting force) when they would simply mix in with the civilian population or retreat/reorganize in other areas outside US forces jurisdiction (e.g. Pakistan) plus using hard to counter tactics like suicide bombers, IEDs, infiltration of allied forces, etc?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Were there any German or Japanese "Taliban" after 1945, Mauro?
DeleteExactly.
It's definitely possible, just politically improper nowadays.
"It's definitely possible, just politically improper nowadays."
DeleteThat is nonsensical the Taliban are not anywhere near the treat to the US that Japan and Germany were.
A ww2 total war would be absolutely disproportion (to a one off lucky attack) Also you planing planning on a 60 year occupation of country that will never ever be able to defray the costs of that occupation? Also a lot easier to do when your only great power rival took its economic ball and went home and its buddy decided the cultural revolution was a good thing.
"how could you use high intensity warfare tactics to defeat the Talibans"
DeleteThe answer to this would cover a book. This is a comment so I'll give you just a couple of pieces to the puzzle.
1. Militarily, this is the most important. You provide no refuge. We allowed large, known Taliban forces to escape to Pakistan. You seal off their escape avenues and if any do escape, you follow and destroy them regardless of where they go. I've already covered the justification for entering another country to pursue enemies so check the archives for that.
2. You occupy the country so that there IS NO SAFE POPULATION TO BLEND INTO. You occupy the cities, towns, villages, and collections of huts. You learn who is and isn't a legitimate resident and you slowly but surely find and kill the enemy. Sure, a few will escape attention but by the time you leave, they'll be too few to matter and you'll have confiscated their weapons.
There's much more but that gives you a sense of direction to the answer. We pacified Germany and Japan. Would Afg really be that hard?
Now, before the military question, comes the question of what compelling national interest do we have there? That's a debatable issue that's beyond the scope of this blog.
"A ww2 total war would be absolutely disproportion "
DeleteIt all depends on what you perceive as your national interest, however, that discussion is outside the realm of this blog.
"Were there any German or Japanese "Taliban" after 1945, Mauro? Exactly."
DeleteAs pointed out by @Kath WW2 is a complete different scenario than Afghanistan. Imperial Japan and the Third Reich were nations with professional standing armies and associated structures plus entire economies focused on an high intensity war effort. Once their armies and economies were crippled by the superior fighting power of the Allies they were done for.
________________________
"It's definitely possible, just politically improper nowadays."
Well, if it's not politically acceptable than it's not a solution. That is the complex reality of geopolitics.
@ComNavOps
Thank you for your insights.
"Well, if it's not politically acceptable than it's not a solution."
DeletePolitics is just marketing and sales. Just because something is politically unpalatable today doesn't mean it can't be wildly popular tomorrow. Consider the example of Trump. Whether you agreed or disagreed with his policies, he turned a LOT of things 180 degrees around instantaneously. Biden took over and, again, turned a LOT of things around 180 degrees. So, 'politically acceptable' is subject to very short term swings in opinion. It's all about how an issue is marketed to the public. Few people go to the trouble of actually researching a topic to develop an informed opinion. Instead, they depend on sound bites for information. Want a war or an occupation? Market it and sell it. Bush, for example, did a masterful job selling Desert Storm and the support for that endeavor was very high.
@ComNavOps
DeleteYou are indeed right but I wonder if it would have been possible to apply the tactics you mentioned within a time frame reasonable for a civilian population.
I guess it's all about results and if you reach them and can tell them in such a way that the average civilian thinks "This is worth the cost!" then you can keep going.
The ONLY reason that the military has been pushing INFORMATION DOMINANCE since the 1970s is to get HIGHER PAYING post-military retirement jobs from the defense contractors for the Generals/Admirals involved ("I have X years IT experience as well" - RESUME PADDING) than they can get today.
ReplyDeleteOh come on, now. While there is some small degree of truth to that, the pursuit of technology and information/networks has other causes/reasons that are much more influential. Think deeper!
DeleteHint: cultural and sociological issues have a much bigger influence, among other issues.
"one was a spectacular tactical victory (and a strategic failure)"
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the strategic failure? The objectives were achieved.
We've discussed this repeatedly on this blog and geopolitical discussions are beyond the scope of this blog. There are many other sites and blogs where you can go to learn about this and discuss it. We'll stick to the scope of the blog and the premise of the post.
DeleteFine its your blog but than it seems impolite to raise an assertion as truism without allowing it to objected to.
DeleteCertainly debate can be made about the brush fire conflicts, but in the peer war context, history shows that while information/intelligence can be crucial ( reading Japanese traffic leading up to Midway, cracking Enigma, etc), firepower is what still carried the day. Sure, the island hopping in the Pacific could have been slightly less bloody if we had known the location of every single Japanese soldier, MG nest and pillbox. But the dozen carriers that supported the landings, and possibly more importantly, the rain of 16, 14, 8 and 5in shells that destroyed or suppressed enemy forces and positions is what made success possible. Amd thats not to take away from the tanks,artillery, and flamethrowers that the US brought to what was quite often a rifle and knife fight.
ReplyDeleteWhile exquisite weapons were a German hallmark, sheer numbers and weight of fire is what pushed them out of Stalingrad and back to Berlin. There were informational findings on both sides that gave short term advantages, but they didnt change the end result. The winners were the ones that recoiled from initial defeat, and kept fighting, building forces until they were overwhelming. While diving into the hyperbolic, it could be said that with enough firepower overmatch, it could be hard to lose, despite the efforts of inept commanders and a lack of information/intelligence. But even the best commanders with the best intel can't win if the sheer weight of fire isnt there....
This is an interesting post with salient points of order. How do you win a war with information without winning a war on the air/sea/ground?
ReplyDeleteAdmirals & Generals who fight wars without clear political or strategic objectives will lead us into dark corners of unclear meat grinders.
I think that an information war has a greater chance of starting a real shooting war more than a information war has of being a dominant characteristic of a shooting war. Who cares if you have information if the ship your fighting has 3X the bullets left over after you've run out?