Comments for On the importance of naming... and a reminder about war

On the importance of naming... and a reminder about war

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:58:35 -0600

Stephen Green, the Vodkapundit, has a good ice-breaker post (what other kind for the Vodkapundit, eh?) up at Pajamas Media, called "One of these things is not like the other." It starts out with a discussion on the naming of military operations, and then moved on to the name of the offensive in Afghanistan - Husky.Torch.Anvil.Overlord.Olympic.Linebacker.Reforger.Rolling Thunder.These are the names we used to give our military operations. Forceful names. Decisive names. Military names. OK, so Operation Olympic got called off — but only because we’d already nuked the crap out of a couple Japanese cities. After that, an actual invasion just...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2010-02-20

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:53:12 -0600

As a follow-up to Casey - these people have experience with the full-firepower mode... the Russians.

Comment from Casey on 2010-02-20

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:51:47 -0600

Gotta say John has nailed it down for me. I've spent a fair amount of time following alternate sources (including strategypage.com), and I'm not at all convinced that the "kill them all, let God pick his own" will be effective in this case, much less morally persuasive.

Grimmy seems quite overwrought with respect to alleged ROE, but he doesn't seem to grasp how our current implementation affects the locals. How does the local Afghani (who has by now had extensive experience in just how effective American are as soldiers/marines) look at an American who suffers injury or death in order to prevent injury or death to their kith & kin?

Please recall that these are quite possibly some of the most tribal people on earth. And that these people encounter everyday examples of "No better friend, no worse enemy." Not to mention that they come from a warrior culture that not only laughs in the face of death (see also: resistance to the Soviet Union), but "enjoys" one of the shortest expected life spans on the planet.

Warriors -in many ways- share a simple ethic based on blood spilled as a measure of value. They see American blood spilled while protecting Afghanis.

Comment from Grumpy on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:48:17 -0600

@Mike L,, there are many life lessons and many sides to them. You have tried to *remind* us of the aspects to them. Yeah, I remember the 'Hearts and Minds' SAC patch. But as I heard the story about the bull, in your first comment, I heard a different ending. The bull looks back, The man says, "I'm the farmer and I'm looking for a steer. I've got a sharp knife, Is there something you wanted to say?" The bull looked straight ahead, the old farmer had a firm grasp of the issues, but the bull still had them. "Whew!" The old farmer stood up and said, "He'd make a lousy steer anyway." Moral of the story is this, just because you have a firm grasp of the issues, doesn't mean mean you need to adjust them.

But as I have read all of your comments, you make a very, very valid point about instant answers, there are none. These people have been fighting for thousands, upon thousands of years, between these tribes. How many generations are you willing to send troops over there to fight this war + any other place it spreads?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:34:09 -0600

Grimmy - we can anecdote this to death, and not change anyone's mind.

Clearly, we aren't going to agree on this one. I'm going with McChrystal, if for no other reason than he has the rose, and he is there (as is, I would note, Heartless Lib).

Comment from Grimmy on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:53:25 -0600

John of Argghhh!:

My contention is that we have plenty firepower. We don't need more. We need the will to use that firepower effectively.

Having a unit of Marines taking casualties in an ambush from which they can not break contact and having artillery/air support refused during that ambush because of fears of "innocent civilian casualties" when there are no civilians in that area (no village in sight), is weaksauce.

Having Marines fighting jihadiscum Talibs in a town that is completely deserted of any and all civilians, and has been deserted for years, with the only indigs in the area solid Talib (forgot the name of the town, iirc, it's part of the op named something something sword or some such), and still having those Marines play that "opps, he put down his wep, you can't shoot him now" crap is insane.

That's the short list of weirdness that is part and parcel of our current effort to appease the unappeasable. We're letting ourselves get played. Getting played into such weakness is a direct result of all of us refusing to stand up to the enemy loving filth that dwells among us for the last couple generations.

So much of this over restraint is based upon the meme that our warfighters are ignorant savages that must be kept on the shortest leash possible. We keep on this current path and we're eventually going to end up playing the roll as played by UN forces in Lebanon. That being to provide safety for the enemy.

The really sad part is that such over sensitivity really does not impress the locals. They know weak when they see it.

PS. My rants are not aimed at the military in general or the commanders that have to make these rules. They are aimed, four square and full bore, at the civlian homefronters who let themselves get bent over a bench and played for punks by whatever idiotic propaganda the enemy wishes to pump out.

Comment from Mike L on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:16:58 -0600

"Americans, bless us, like things NOW! We want instant coffee, instant mashed potatoes and instant success in war." It's even worse than that. We do want it fast - but we DON'T want any of that instant stuff. We want the real stuff - RIGHT NOW!! Kind of like a teen-age boy who understands nothing about f0repl*y!! You gotta warm 'em up if it's to be a mutually satisfying experience. ML

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:07:42 -0600

Hey, La Migra - While you were showing up in Germany for your first tour, I had just left after my second. Of course, my *first* tour in Germany began in my personal Year 0. When I go to Europe, it is an even-numbered trip across the Atlantic.

And I was back in Germany in 1969, so I remember $1=DM4.

NDS - Instant Mashed Potatoes - ick. Instant Coffee - only in the field. Instant Success in War... oh, well, never mind.

I know all the arguments about just killing until they're all dead. I understand that when combat starts, the war reverts to it's most common state - political.

But those who argue for the World War II approach are living in a fantasy land that ignores the political context in which this war is being fought.

I alluded to that when I talked about existential vice not existential. Like it or not - this campaign in a larger war is not, nor is it going to be, conducted as a life-or-death of the nation event for us, as World War II was, or as a life or death of our allies, as World War I was. Or even Korea, which was fought as it was much because we were still living in the shadow of World War II. That is not (whether you agree with the approach or not) the strategic context of this campaign. So we aren't going to fight it like that.

The Talibs, for whom it *is* an existential war, therefore do not apply anywhere near the constraints we do, which makes it very hard on our troops, but that's the way it is.

Those who wish us ill have come to understand that if they oppose us in conventional ways, we will erase them. So they have looked at our weaknesses, and developed strengths to counter them. The problem lies in the whole asymmetric piece where we can't just apply more firepower, because, like it or not, in this war, more firepower, as it ends up killing people percieved to be non-combatants (leave aside the realities on the ground - which is a different aspect of the asymmetry) hurts us more than it helps us.

And we aren't going to go at it with more than we've got. You can't wish away the externalities on this one. There is no relatively binary conensus about this war as there was for World War II. We've got to figure out how to fight and win in this environment, which we do not fully control, or we can wait until it *is* an existential fight, and then we can go do what some of you want.

Comment from Geekasaurus on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:34:09 -0600

The always-insightful Victor Davis Hanson has a commentary on the subject at http://article.nationalreview.com/425231/the-tragic-truth-of-war-/victor-davis-hanson

I won't quote him here, but he makes some excellent points that are echoed by other commentators here.

We have to kill the enemy. That is one definition of 'winning' the war.
But I think Hanson and many others who read and comment on this blog miss a very, very big point:

The better definition of "winning" a war is when you make your enemies your friends. By this definition, we did not "win" WW2 until 1991, when Soviet Communism finally collapsed. But I buy this definition. From an economic standpoint, the reason the Imperial Japan started WW2 was because we would not sell scrap metal to them. By 1980, we were begging them not to sell their cars in our country.

We won WW2 not in 1945, but in the 70's, 80's and 90's when we made our enemies our friends. From this POV the Marshal Plan was just as much an operation as was Overlord or Torch.

The restrictive ROE that people complain about IS A WEAPON. It is the ultimate weapon, really because the battle is not about real estate. The battle ultimately IS about hearts and minds. The atomic bombs in Japan were POLITICAL weapons. They persuaded Imperial Japan to surrender POLITICALLY. In the same way, our restrictive and much-complained-about ROE is a POLITICAL weapon...in the same way that the atomic bombs were in 1945. Lets give the Obama administration the credit for following in the Bush administration policies in using these restrictive ROE's as the political weapon they are supposed to be. The ROE's in Iraq were just as restrictive AND WE WON IRAQ.

Comment from Rod Thorsen on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:28:01 -0600

Ahh, though much later, I still recall when a quarter tip ment that the drinks were actually delivered to the table for the entire group for the rest of the night and without weird looks for having ice in the beer!! Hmm, though thinking about it, just having a post stamp sized ice cube cost 'bout as much as the beer itself.

Comment from Grimmy on 2010-02-18

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:15:27 -0600

I'm one of them what the Armorer is speaking against in the OP.

I do admit I can go a bit too hot on such issues. Rage control was never my strong suit lol.

But, I will also remind everyone that "hearts and minds" does NOT mean just being sweeties and gift givers. It's also about strength.

Those who's hearts and minds are reached by the constant gifts in buildings, equipment, candy, goods and services, are already on side. Those who are not already onside don't give a crap about all the give aways. As one village elder was quoted as saying "the Russians gave us stuff too. Look where that got them".

As to the Russian failure, it's because it was Russian. The Russian military is one of the least competent in just about every possible thing in modern military matters. The Russians were aggressively corrupt, incompetent, bloody handed for the sake of being bloody handed and rather mindless about it all.

As to the constant sensitivity about "civilian casualties", we've seen over and over and over ad nausea that many, if not most, of those "civilian casualties" were either fictitious (the Lance Report on such during Iraq; the known habit of the locals in Afghanistan of slaughtering an animal, burying said animal in a grave, then claiming it's a dead human so they can get the guilt money, pernicious and dishonorable reporters vomiting up whatever they've sucked down and swallowed of enemy propaganda releases, etc and so on)...

Most, if not all, of this over reaction in straight jacketing our fighting forces is aimed at the enemy within, not the locals in the battle AO. And, there's absolutely zero prospect of winning that battle. Those hearts and minds are long gone to the Chomskylanders among us.

So, it's all good that a jihadiscum and fire on our men, drop his weapon and walk away laughing in complete safety, or our men can sit in a kill zone for an entire day while arty support is denied, and we coach our enemy in the proper use of "civilian shields" in order to frustrate our war efforts most effectively.

You fight a war for two reasons.
1. To beat the current enemy.
2. To give an example to near future enemy on exactly why it's not a good idea to be our enemy.

Lately, since the enemy within won the war against us in Vietnam, we've conducted ourselves in war in such a way as to coach all future enemy in how best to counter us, manipulate our homefront, and harm us most efficiently.

Of course, anyone saying an enemy should be treated as an enemy by the rules and laws of war that are known to be actually workable throughout history, is calling for wide scale nuke use, or kill em all, or whatever.

We have a long history of "small wars". We've been very successful in the past. I also have faith that we'll be successful now too, IF we can counter the enemy loving filth on our own homefront who do everything they can get away with to ensure our defeat against any enemy, any where, any time. That's a real big IF. Time aint on our side.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:20:24 -0600

The Dari is Moshtarak, not sure about the Pashto. Dari is the language used by the Afghan government, and apparently always has been, probably a relic of when the Persians (Medes) ruled the area. Not sure about Pashto.

I've also seen it translated as just 'Together' which is less touchy-feely sounding in English. The name was probably chosen in Dari first, then translated, because the target audience is the Afghans, not the US. And languages don't translate exactly, especially nuances.

Comment from LaMigra on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:48:27 -0600

Actually, REFORGER was the acronym that covered the movement of forces to and from Germany… REturn of FORces to GERmany, in order to conduct exercises, such as “Atlantic Lion”, etc

Been there, done that, Class of 4th Transportation Battalion, 1968, IIRC; later lived in Miesau, Germany...as in Miesau Army Depot, one of the locations where they depoted (?) the vehicles for REFORGER.

Those were the days....a quarter was good for a half liter of beer...that predates your young-self, Armorer.

Ahh, but I digress, and must tend to animals....

Comment from MAJ Mike on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:39:58 -0600

Operation Talibanwacker? Naaah, sounds too much like Tallywhacker.

Who cares what the name is as long as there's dead Talib and druggies?

Comment from AFSister on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0600

Yukon... you've been dippin your tongue in more than just silver or gold, Dude.

Comment from LaMigra on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:29:46 -0600

OFF TOPIC...BE WARNED!

Firefox 3.5.7.

Huh? I thought I was set for auto updates. Gotta check that out.

Comment from RetRsvMike on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:28:40 -0600

call it Operation Fuzzy Bunny for all i care, as long as they can have Phase Lines Dip, Spit and Chew leading up to OBJs Dog and Pony....

Comment from AFSister on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:11:19 -0600

@ John,
Yes, I did read HL's first comment (he was probably writing his second comment when I was writing mine).

I understand the concept of "togetherness"... I just think the name is stupid. I think it would have been more appropriate to use a word with a similar meaning but with more teeth. We are talking about a military operation, not a high school dance.

Comment from Yukon Cornelius on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:09:41 -0600

I wonder what kind of cooperation we got out of the Iraqis during Operations "DUTCH RUDDER," "DOUBLE DUTCH RUDDER", and "SOGGY BISCUIT?" If you aren't familiar with these terms, see the "Urban Dictionary." If I ever find out who named those actual, real-world ops, I wanna buy them a beer.

Comment from Grumpy on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:45:09 -0600

Paraphrasing, who was it, that said, "Speak softly, and carry one *big* MF'ing stick?"

@MAJ Mike, you accurately describe some history of the region. "If we adopted the *failed* blood- soaked scorched-earth kill-'em all tactic of the Soviet Army,...". That's just it, it failed! This is not about geopolitical lines, but about tribes crossing those very same lines. It is a much larger area than just AF/PAK Region.

Comment from NevadaDailySteve on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:02:45 -0600

I'd say bomb them back to the stone age but apparently someone beat us to it, or they never left it.
I know some folks who like the saying "Kill them all and let God sort them out," but I know it's not the way to go. The thing is, on a gut level, it does satisfy some primal lusts. Americans, bless us, like things NOW! We want instant coffee, instant mashed potatoes and instant success in war.

If the rules of engagement make it harder to win, that's bad. However, if they help keep more of our folks alive than are hurt by the negatives I'm for it. I'll let the professionals decide which it is without any second-guessing from me.

As for how this operation is reported, not much has changed since 2003 when the mainstream media was talking about 'quagmire' two days into the invasion.

Comment from MAJ Mike on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:30:39 -0600

**Sigh!!!**

If we adopted the failed blood-soaked scorched-earth kill-'em all tactics of the Soviet Red Army, the NYT would crap all over themselves. These tactics are exactly what those asshats constantly call for in any armed engagement.

From what I'm hearing, the restrictive ROE is helping to win some "...hearts and minds..." while the Taliban penchant for causing civilian casualties is working against the Talibs. No matter what happens the usual amateurs and chaise lounge field marshals will criticize the actual warriors.

Comment from Rod Thorsen on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:11:55 -0600

I'm certainly not in a position to comment on cultural or marketing requirments for naming operations. This did remind me of a story I'd heard many years ago about Churchill's prefering rough, tough, and agresive names. He'd said something along the lines of "I will not inform a mother that her only son died during "Operation Bunnyhug" (or some such)".

Comment from Jack on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:06:34 -0600

OUTSTANDING. Well said Master Armorer.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:08:50 -0600

Casey - I haven't a clue, since I don't use that newfangledy stuff.

Comment from eric on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:04:09 -0600

if i was a talib i would also prefer "total annihilation 2010".

Comment from Casey on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:21:50 -0600

I'll recycle an observation I made over there, that the Johnson administration objected to at least some of the code names (MASHER comes to mind) used in Vietnam, not to mention that ROLLING THUNDER was less a macho bludgeon than a "nuanced" attempt to persuade the North to stop. Please. Using "signals."

I asked a question over there which seems to have at least a partial answer here. Just how does the name translate to Pashto? From John's expanded comments here, and HL's remarks, it would seem that the word was very carefully chosen.

P.S. I'm using Firefox 3.5.7, and I just noticed that there's now a teeny pop-up that tells me when I hit the Caps Lock key: "Caps lock ON & Caps lock OFF" When did that happen? :)

Comment from Spade on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:18:39 -0600

I can't access PM's site right now, but to pick those names Green is ignoring a lot of others.
Outside of all those warlike names he cites you also get WATCHTOWER and CACTUS(Guadelcanal), CHROMITE (Inchon. It's a rock), TOENAILS (New Georgia), GALVANIC (Tarawa), CASANOVA (France) SHINGLE (Anzio), IVORY COAST (Vietnam, Son Tay Raid), MENU and PATIO (bombing of Cambodia in Vietnam).

And you get some really odd random ones too. Like BLUE SPOON. Which is what Operation JUST CAUSE was called before somebody decided that Operation BLUE SPOON wouldn't look good in the papers.

Comment from David M on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:59:10 -0600

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 02/17/2010 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:31:38 -0600

AFSis - just curious - did you read Heartless Lib's comments before you put yours in?

Comment from AFSister on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:20:19 -0600

Togetherness!!?? WTF?
Are they holding hands and singing kumbya over there??

I'm not suggesting that we create a glass parking lot, but seriously... togetherness?? I can come up with several words that invoke power and still mean "togetherness". How about Operation Alliance? Operation Reciprocity? Operation Fusion, or maybe Operation Synergy???

Gimme some meat to go with those potatoes.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:18:36 -0600

Appropos my above comment, the photo/link to the top story on foxnews.com right now shows an ANA soldier, with another just out of the frame, kicking down a door, while Marines stand in support.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:09:08 -0600

The original name of the now ongoing operation (back when I was working on preliminary planning/resourcing, and under the previous RC-South commander) was 'Prosperous Valley.'

That we are doing things in partnership with the Afghans (i.e, Together) isn't just a theme, it's the gosh darned Commander's Frackin' Intent.

The current OPLAN is co-signed by LTC Rodriguez and his counterparts from the ANA and ANP.

LTG Rodriguez' call sign - as as the commander of a completely new organization, he got to choose it personally - is Partner 6.

And if Vodkapundit didn't notice (I read at least one story that mentioned it), one of the distinguishing features of this operation, different from previous ones conducted by the Marines in Helmand, is that there are as many Afghan troops as Coalition ones.

GEN McChrystal comes from special ops. LTG Rod comes from the 82nd Airborne. They both know a whole lot about killing people and breaking things. And they both agree that, in this war, it's the DISCRIMINATE use of firepower that will save lives in the long run.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:02:13 -0600

We don't have to like it Fishmugger, and it's certainly grating to the troops, but that's the COE that the ROE are designed for.

This ain't your father's war. It would be so much simpler if it was.

Comment from Fishmugger on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:45:23 -0600

There was a very good piece on Fox yesterday about current ROE. It seems Taliban snipers worked for a while then it was reported that they disposed of their weapons and just walked out of the zone. Since the Marines could not shoot an unarmed person, and they couldn't prove that that person was in fact a sniper; they had to let him walk. The enemy has learned to use our ROE to their advantage.

It was further reported, that this situation is under review by Col and above; not just Sgt's and LT's. I can see telephoto lenses being used to take long distance mug shots. Or someone will have to fill out a contact form in triplicate..."Yup...green striped shirt...bang you're dead".

Comment from Mike L on 2010-02-17

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:34:18 -0600

Excellent commentary, John. Of course, I know the ilk "whence thou comest". Bottom line is we are not them - and they are not us. This fight is not a western hemisphere norm. Though the maxim, "if you grab a bull by the balls, his heart and mind will follow," holds true, this particular "bull" will never forget where you grabbed him. This operation, down to and including the naming convention, is more like the male-lion trainer, who found out early that m@st*rb$tion works much better than the whip. My apologies for the mental picture. As you and I have long discussed, this victory will look nothing like the picture most of those who maintain that "certain stultifying cultural smugness that engages in the bigotry of low expectations" (I loved that) expect. We need to remember our child-hood lessons, "the more we work together, the happier we'll be". Just sayin'.