Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Lessons Learned Keywords: lessons, grenada, panama Message-ID: <12824@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Jan 90 04:08:48 GMT References: <12601@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12694@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12762@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 83 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) This topic has generated losts of flame. It was a successful operation, moreso since Noriega was finally scared out of Panama by the lynch mob being held back by the US Army. But success doesn't not mean that an operation was well run. Success shouldn't prevent us from taking a critical look to see if things can be better next time. Many of the problems made apparent by Grenada have not been apparent in Panama, so maybe we have learned something. Kneejerk, it was a success, blame the problems on the media discussion will not help. So Bill will post this on to more substantive comments. My main point is that all the information about the invasion is not available, and because the media was successfully excluded, we may never know some things. The operation met its goals, but there still could be massive problems. Most of the operation met apparently little organized resistance. The fate of the SEAL platoon was simply a sample of what could have happened if organized resistance was more prevalent. Some foresight (yes I know hindsight is 20/20, but when I was planning such operations I worked with worst case assumptions) would have provided at least rudimentary anit-armor capability. The airfield was a very important objective, so it was likely to be more heavily guarded. A "traitor" may have been responsible for tipping off Noriega, and he was caught, after the fact. Treason has long been a part of human affairs, and their is no easy solution. Suffice it to say that counter-intelligence is also part of intelligence. To blame the Carter administration for dismantling the intelligence community has no bearing on this discussion. There is still an intelligence community, and we are using it to plan operations. So Bush and the currant administration and them alone bear the responsibility for success or failure of the community. If was dismantled and poorly functional, them why on earth would we depend upon that information to support our troops?!? If it was, and we risked lives on it, then those responsible are the ones that should be shot. Consequently, I don't think that the intelligence community is considered dismantled by those in power. Some analysis of the US intelligence community indicates that the problems arise from a dependence upon technology (how many times have we heard something like this? :-). If that is the case the decline started well before Carter. Let's stop looking for scapegoats and discuss the situation as it is today, and see how it can be better. Speaking of scapegoats, the military's favorite has sprung up in this discussion. I don't know if the media is traitorous. I don't know if they are any worse now than in WWII. In WWII a newspaper reporter printed a story about how US submarines fooled the supposedly crafty Japanese by diving below the depths that Japanese depth charges were usually set. After publication, the depth charges fell right on top of the subs (I no longer remember where I read this, so I will only grant it urban legend status if challenged, but given time I could probably find the source). Is that treason? In WWII? The USNI Proceedings has published several articles about the military-media relation, and there are some interesting problems. For some reason it is an adversarial one. This might be an outgrowth of Vietnam. Ironically, the media was fully on the bandwagon supporting MACV's view of reality. Only when they realized that that view was distorted did the media assume an adversarial position. For the sake of the men dying in Vietnam it was probably good that they did. If the media seems to "not buy the party line" then they have some justification. To blame them for problems with a military operation is ludicrous. All they can do is provide information about what happened, which helps all of us. Few reporters realy object to notification after the start of the operation, they realize some things must be kept from them. But to restrict access after an operation is something else. It does make it easier for the military to hide mistakes. If that is what is meant by treason, I certainly don't want to be in the next invasion. I don't knock the success of the operation in achieving its objectives, and I am glad only 20 or so died doing it. But lets not let that success prevent us from looking at the invasion as seeing its flaws as well as its strengths. Next time there might be organized resistance. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu