Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Lessons Learned Keywords: lessons, grenada, panama Message-ID: <12932@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 9 Jan 90 02:20:25 GMT References: <12601@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12694@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12778@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: The Boeing Co., BAC MMST, Seattle, WA Lines: 123 Approved: military@att.att.com From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) > :There is already information leaking that Panama may have been as much > :as a fiasco as Grenada, we just made different mistakes. The biggest > :failing once again was the lack of good intelligence. All the > :satellites and recon pictures in the world can only tell you so much. > > The armchair commando will always claim that an operation could have > been done in a better manner, however in reality the commander of an operation > has to act on data that is coming to him from various sources at various rates > he does not have the luxury of hind sight intell. Like the old adage " any > landing you can walk away from is a good one" any time a military operation > is completed with all or most of its goals attained it is a good one. > Grenada was a fiasco? I thought all those medical students came away alive... Don't let 'sci.military' fool you. Combat Operations are not an exact science. First, it's a profession (the profession of arms), secondly, its an art. Orchestrating a large operations or a small firefight takes initiative, adjustment, and improvisation - something that American soldiers are very good at accomplishing. Once the first bullet is fired, plans may be thrown out the window. Rigid adherence to a "OPORD" written in the safety of a garrison headquarters is very dangerous. Once on the ground, small unit leaders accomplish their missions/objectives through fire and manuever and react to 'combat information' (not intelligence). Operations can always be 'done better'. That's why extensive after action reports and debriefings and studies are made after an operation. I would guess that the success of Panama is due, in part, to 'lessons learned' from Grenada. (and what makes you think Grenada was a fiasco?) The airborne drop of Rangers at 500' in Grenada was not 'planned'. It was 'improvised' by the Battalion Commander (a classmate of mine) to avoid suspected anti-aircraft weapons. The succes of the 500' drop allowed the 'planning' of a 500' foot drop into Panama. > :It appears that the Panamanians had better intelligence than the US > :forces. For example apparently 20 Navy SEALs landed at a supposedly > :lightly or not defended airfield. There were at least 3 APCs waiting > :at the airfield. Needless to say the SEAL platoon was shot up badly Well, there is no such thing as perfect intelligence. And small unit leaders should always expect the unexpected. (I have to question why 'SEALS' were sent in, in the first place - and not troops better equiped/armed for ground combat????). But, I don't think the PDF had 'better intelligence'. > :Another indication of the lack of planning and/or foresight. The US > :went in and conducted a good military operation. Appaerntly none of > :the planning even considered any measures to control the political and > :social chaos that would be caused by an abrupt removal of the de facto > :government. Well, the combat troops did conduct a good military operation. Their mission was not a 'good political and social operation' though from all reports it looks like the 'front-line' troops acquitted themselves very well in their contact with the civilian population. Combat troops are not equipped nor trained in political/civil operations. After troops secure their objectives/area - then it's safe to bring in support troops and Civil Affairs units (Reserve and National Guard?), and Military Police units.. These units are equipped/trained in establishing population control, re-establishing civilian government. > :There have been other incidents, but the point is that the US made > :much better *military* perparations and didn't consider all the > :factors of the operation. In addition it seems that it is yet another > :failure of the US intelligence community. Here we go again! Another 'Pearl Harbor' syndrome of "Who shot John". Well, I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Most 'failures' attributed to the 'US intelligence community' are really a failure to 'act' on known information rather than a 'lack' of information. 'Intelligence' is provided to the commander(s). (what is known and what is not known). The commander must weigh this information with his mission objectives and decide on the tradeoffs. The fact that 3 APCs were at the airfield may very well have been known. And someone may have decided to go ahead as planned. The SEAL Team leader(s) may have said, "We'll take care of 'em." He may have asked for more firepower support and been told, "I can't give you any more - you'll have to take 'em out yourself." No one knows at this point. But, you certainly can't make such a negative comment that there were any intelligence failures. > :(Maybe with peristroika we > :can get the KGB to give us some pointers on running HUMINT operations:-) Actually the KGB is notorious for failures in the arena of gathering intelligence for military operations. Matter of fact, historically, they are so inept, that the military GRU was formed for gathering of military intelligence. The KGB, then, is more akin to the CIA. Its the GRU that conducts military intelligence operations. -------------------- Two comments: First, having served with the 7th Lt Inf Div, I was pleased to see elements of the Bayonet Division deployed to Panama. (The 7th hasn't seen combat since Korea). We deployed on numerous training exercises to Alaska, Korea, Florida, and Central America - and conducted plenty of training in MOBA (Military Operations in a Built-up Area := city fighting!) - glad to see it all pay off. The 7ID trains a lot at Hunter-Ligget with Marines. If the Marine Contingent at Panama came from California (???), then these Army and Marine forces were used to operating side-by-side, as they did in Panama - now, there's some smart planning for you. Second. The last couple days have seen some media coverage of the women soldiers deployed to Panama. Especially noteworthy is the female MP captain that led her company into a firefight against some PDF elements. This will certainly stir up some controversy about the role of women in combat. IMHO: I think it's great. What do you'all think? mike schmitt