Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Yesterday on DontMeetDavidGregory, President Obama provided a preview of the Strategy he seems to have signed off on.
US President Barack Obama is to set out his "game plan" against Islamic State militants in a speech on Wednesday.
Mr Obama, who has been criticised for failing to outline a strategy, told NBC TV the US would degrade IS, shrink their territory and "defeat them".
US jets bombed IS targets in western Iraq for the first time on Sunday.
Meanwhile, the Arab League has vowed to take "all necessary measures" against IS, which has seized a huge amount of territory from Iraq and Syria.
...
Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, Mr Obama said: "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from Isil."
...
Mr Obama went on: "On Wednesday, I'll make a speech and describe what our game plan's going to be going forward."
...
But the strategy was "not going to be an announcement about US ground troops", he added.
He said: "This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war. What this is, is similar to the kinds of counterterrorism campaigns that we've been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years.
"I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we're going to deal with it and to have confidence that we'll be able to deal with it."
Mr Obama said the strategy would not involve the US alone but would be one pursued by an international coalition.
Of course; now President Obama will have his coalition of the willing. If you want a preview of some of the regionalal challenges, you may want to check out yesterday's Midrats with Bill Roggio from Long War Journal. If I may be a bit pedantic; we already have US ground forces in Iraq, can we please stop playing word games? There are better ways of wording that - and, well, life is what happens when you are planning other things. Here is the executive summary;
If you fell asleep on Memorial Day and woke up on Labor Day, your head is probably swimming. The situation in the Muslim world from Libya to the Iranian border has turned in to some strange chaos if you have not been paying attention - but when you look at the details and trendlines, the logic is a lot clearer. The long war has not gone anywhere, like a field untended, the weeds have returned and are prospering. To help us understand developments over the summer, coming back to Midrats for the full hour this Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern to discuss this and more will be Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Bill is also the President of Public Multimedia Inc, a non-profit news organization; and the founder and Editor of The Long War Journal, a news site devoted to covering the war on terror. He has embedded with the US and the Iraqi military six times from 2005-08, and with the Canadian Army in Afghanistan in 2006. Bill served in the US Army and New Jersey National Guard from 1991-97.
Join us live if you can with the usual suspects in the chat room and offer up your questions for our guest, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here.
Anniversaries are important, so it is time for a repeat FbF and a return to ... Most of us know about the Battle of Westerplatte because it started WWII and involved one of the most storied ships of any navy, the Pre-Dreadnought Schleswig-Holstein.
Before we go further though, I want you to look over this map.
Now ponder the real story of the Battle of Westerplatte and ask yourself - what determines victory? What makes the difference? Do you make the most out of every post you have? Do you underestimate your enemy?
On September 1, 1939, at 0448 local time, Germany began its invasion of Poland, starting World War II; the Schleswig-Holstein suddenly opened broadside salvo fire on the Polish garrison held by 182 soldiers and 27 civilian reservists. Major Sucharski radioed Hel Peninsula "SOS: I'm under fire". Three holes were made in the perimeter wall and oil warehouses were blazing in the southeastern sector. Eight minutes later, Lieutenant Wilhelm Henningsen's crack marines storm unit from the Schleswig-Holstein advanced in three platoons while the Wehrmacht's Pioneers blew up the railroad gate going on the land-bridge, expecting an easy victory over the surprised Poles. Wojciech Najsarek, a Polish soldier, was killed by machine-gun fire, the first victim of both the battle and war. However, soon after crossing the artillery-breached brick wall, the attackers suddenly came into a well-prepared ambush. German soldiers found themselves caught in a kill zone of Polish crossfire from concealed firing points (the Germans believed they were also fired on by snipers hidden in the trees, but in reality that was not the case), while barbed wire entanglements effectively blocked quick movements. The Poles knocked out a machine gun nest at the German Schupo and Lt. Leon Pajak opened intense howitzer fire on the advancing Germans who faltered and stopped their attack. The Field gun knocked out sniper machine-gun nests on top of the warehouses across the canal and almost knocked out the Schleswig-Holstein's command post but was destroyed by the ship's guns.
...
At 0622, the Marines frantically radioed the ship they had heavy losses and were withdrawing, Danzig Police had tried to seize control of the harbor on the other side of Westerplatte but were defeated. Casualties were 50 Germans and 8 Poles. The Germans tried again at 0855 but met mines, fallen trees, barbed wire and intense fire. By noon the SS men fled and Henningsen was mortally wounded. The initial assault was crushed and a second attack that morning (after an artillery barrage of 90 280 mm shells, 407 170 mm shells and 366 88 mm shells) was repelled as well, the Germans suffering unexpectedly high losses. The Poles eventually retreated from the Wał and Prom outposts (and for a time also from Fort), tightening the ring of defence around the New Barracks in the centre of the peninsula. On the first day of combat, the Polish side lost one man killed and seven wounded (three died later, including two of them who were captured and died in a German hospital). On the other side, the German naval infantry lost 16 killed in action and some 120 wounded (injuries of various gravity), the majority out of the 225 men deployed. The German losses would have been even greater if not for the order by the Polish commander, Major Henryk Sucharski, for the mortar crews to cease fire in order to conserve ammunition, issued after firing just a few salvos (because of this order only 104 out of their 860 shells were spent when the mortars were destroyed on the next day).
On the following days, the Germans bombarded the peninsula with naval and heavy field artillery, including a 210 mm howitzer, turning it into World War I-style moonscape. Eberhardt convinced General Fedor von Bock a ground attack was not possible. A devastating two-wave air raid by 60 Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive-bombers on September 2 (the total of 26.5 tons of bombs) took out the Polish mortars, directly hit guardhouse 5 (destroying it completely with a 500 kg bomb) and killed at least eight Polish soldiers; the air raid covered the whole area of Westerplatte in enormous clouds of smoke and destroyed their only radio and all their food supplies; German observers believed that no one could possibly have survived such bombing. On the night of 3–4 September more German attacks were repelled. On September 4 a German torpedo boat (T-196) made a surprise attack from the seaside. The "Wal" post had been abandoned and now only "Fort" position prevented an attack from the north side. On September 5, a shell-shocked Sucharski held a war council who urged Westerplatte was to surrender; his deputy, Captain Franciszek Dąbrowski, briefly took over command. Several cautious probing attacks by the German naval infantry, Danzig SS and police and Wehrmacht were again repulsed by the Poles; at 0300, during one of these attacks, they sent a firetrain against the land bridge, but failed when the terrified driver decoupled too early. It failed to reach the oil cistern and set ablaze the forest, valuable for cover. The flaming wagons gave a perfect field of fire and the Germans suffered heavy losses. A second fire-train attack came in the afternoon but it failed too. Instead in the meantime, Polskie Radio continuously broadcast the message "Westerplatte still fights on" in each morning of the battle. A second war council was held and the Major was set to surrender. After all, the German Army was now outside Warsaw and gangrene had started to appear among the wounded. At 0430 September 7, Germans opened intense fire on Westerplatte which lasted to 0700. Flamethrowers destroyed Guardhouse 2 and damaged 1 and 4. The besieged garrison lacked sufficient water and medical supplies; Cpt. Mieczysław Słaby, the WST medical officer, was unable to maintain basic care of wounded soldiers.
At 0945 the white flag appeared; the Polish defense impressed the Germans so much that the German commander, General Friedrich-Georg Eberhardt (who later became the military governor of Kiev during the Soviet-German War), allowed Sucharski to retain his ceremonial szabla (Polish sabre) in captivity (it was apparently confiscated later). At the same time Polish wireless operator Kazimierz Rasiński was murdered by Germans after the capitulation; after brutal interrogation, he refused to hand over radio codes and was shot.
Sucharski surrendered the post to Kleikamp and the Germans paraded in full order when the Polish garrison marched out, still proud and erect. In all, approximately 3,400 Germans were tied up by being engaged in the week-long action against the small Polish garrison.
...
The exact figures of German losses remain unknown, but are now often estimated to be in range of 200 to 300 killed and wounded or sometimes more. Some of them might be actually hit by friendly fire, in particular from the battleship which was initially anchored too close to its target. About 30-50 German troops were reportedly killed. Polish casualties were much lower, including 15 to 20 killed and 53 wounded. There's a controversy regarding the burial site discovered in 1940, containing the bodies of five unidentified Polish soldiers who were possibly executed by their comrades for attempted desertion. Eight of the prisoners of war also said to have not survived German captivity.
In the likely event that you missed it, I recommend you watch CNN's Christiane Amanpour's interview Tuesday with Brett McGurk, Deputy U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran. Brett is a smart guy with a tough job - and if anyone should have this wired, he should. He doesn't, and it isn't his fault. He is trying to make sense of the nonsensical; trying to keep a very slowly spinning plate in the air. He is trying to sell bread being cooked at 120F. Until the President decides to decide and stop planning to plan, I don't think this helps anyone.
There are disconnects both real and cognitive that need attention - here are a few.
“We are putting the features in place, developing a broad regional coalition, a broad international coalition, working to get a new Iraqi government stood up, working to get our plans in place. So stay tuned,” Brett McGurk, Deputy U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran, told Amanpour.
Stay tuned? The world doesn't work that way very well. Let's look at the map, shall we?
Who are the "regional coalition" partners? Who is in the region? Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia - and if you widen the circle a bit; Lebanon, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and even Egypt in a stretch. So, what does he say about the 4:05 mark?
... humanitarian operation with us, the UK, France, and Australia ... with our air force conducting targeted airstrikes ...
Let's speak as adults. What we have are the martial members of the Anglosphere plus France. The only thing regional about that is ... well ... nothing. So far, all we have are the usual gathering of Muslim Arabs waiting for their Christian mercenaries to do their wet work for them. I get the lead from the front "follow me" ethic (I thought we led from behind now? Oh, nevermind.) - but that is so Eurocentric, Western, and ... well you know the drill. Where are the Arab armies? Where is the Muslim outrage about the medieval cancer that is consuming their religion?
They have been with us before. In DESERT STORM Egypt fought with us with 40,000 troops, 5,000 of them special forces. Heck, even Syria fought with us 14,500. Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations did as well. Turkey? Don't get me started with Turkey. Huge armed forces. Their back yard - heck Amerli is a Turkman village for the love of Pete. Once again, Turkey hasn't failed to fail. In the broader neighborhood yesterday we had a start;
The United Arab Emirates voiced readiness Wednesday to back world efforts to confront the threat from jihadists, amid calls by Western powers for an international fight against the Islamic State.
The UAE affirms "its solidarity with regional and international efforts against terrorist threats... and its readiness to take needed measures to confront this phenomenon in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2170," its foreign ministry said.
The resolution, passed last month, seeks to cut funds and the flow of foreign fighters both to the Islamic State, which has seized swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq, and to Al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, Al-Nusra Front.
The UAE said it "stands against terrorist threats facing our region and the world, especially with the dangerous human rights violations by terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria and other Arab and Muslim countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan suffering from... movements such as IS, Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda."
UAE with Egypt did do some bombing in Libya. Tripoli still fell - but it is the thought that counts. Why nothing so far in Iraq but talk? Stay tuned ... indeed we shall. If we are to maintain our credibility - we have a lot more work to do. A lot more.
As promised at the end of May by VADM Bill Moran and CDR Guy "Bus" Snodgrass, the full report is available. Head over to DODRetention for the full results, with a shortcut here. There is a lot there for everyone - but I don't want to go section by section, as what I find interesting and important may not be what strikes you as being top of mind. I will pull a few things - one that is hugely important ... and the other a bit self-serving. The most important is the graphic to the right. If senior leadership just dismisses it as bitter-boy butthurt, then they are missing an opportunity of self reflection. Especially in naval aviation, there is a reason for that. I'll help here - the problem is not the JOs, Millennials, Fo'c'sle Follies, or any of the usual causes of grown men having fainting spells. It is the fainting spells and the frag pattern from the flop sweat of moral cowardice from Tailhook to the IG of the month club cargo cult. Now for the self-serving part - and again BZ to everyone involved for putting this out there. It looks like the Front Porch is right to feel a little vindicated - and more beers are owed to the Salamander;
Perceptions about the Littoral Combat Ship are perhaps the most concerning results of the surface warfare officer component of the survey. 60% of respondents do NOT want to serve on an LCS – this was relatively stable across rank and experience. Most do not believe costs will decrease significantly. Only 16% believe it will be “an excellent surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, or mine countermeasures platform.” Finally, respondents were skeptical about its survivability in combat. 60% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with the statement “LCS will be survivable in combat operations.” Only 8% agreed. Skepticism actually increased with age and rank – 70% of Lieutenant Commanders and Commanders disagreed with the statement, and 72% of Captains and flag officers disagreed. There is slight skepticism as to whether a tour on an LCS is valuable for officers: 25% agree that the SWO career track supports a LCS tour, while 30% disagree.
There is a theme developing here ... either we are having trouble selling our stuff to the end user, or the end users are sending a signal back to the provider;
Perceptions about the future of naval aviation were mixed. When asked if the Joint Strike Fighter was the “right aircraft for Naval Aviation,” 60% “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed”, and 22% were neutral. Only 10% “agreed” or “strongly agreed.” Conversely, when asked if they would prefer an Advanced Super Hornet over the Joint Strike Fighter, 62% “strongly agreed” or “agreed,” and 20% were “neutral.” One commenter, a JSF pilot, noted that much of the community has yet to see the JSF in action, which — when coupled with years of negative press — may be one reason for the deep skepticism about the F-35.
Maybe the JOs are just reading too much CDRSalamander. Wait ... no ... that's a good thing!
Perhaps one of the greatest reasons for the unlikely success of this initiative and of the original paper is the rise of social media, which gave ‘the little guys’ a louder voice. Sites such as CDRSalamander.com, AskSkipper.com, and USNI.org supported this effort early and often, raising awareness with active duty Sailors throughout the fleet. Ward Carroll, a former fighter pilot now at military.com, and David Larter, with Navy Times, were early supporters who also helped raise awareness of the survey, undoubtedly increasing our overall reach to the fleet.
Even if we decided not to play the Islamic State's game - they will play it for us. This is why this latest iteration is going to fester and grow if we don't start to cull it sooner more than later. This is like any other pestilence or infestation that you cannot completely eliminate - you have to keep at it. If you don't, it will overwhelm the host. Keep at it, and you can still prosper. Talk to beekeepers about varroa mite management - they'll tell you all you need to know about managing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Via The Economist - what the future holds for everyone in a simple graphic;
Europe - you've screwed yourself. You were warned for a long time - now you are going to have to deal with it.
Regardless of where you stand on Iraq or if you are a fan of President Obama or not, I think everyone can agree that this was a lemon last week;
“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse: we don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said of the effort to combat the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) in its safe haven in Syria. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”
Inartful is a kind word - but I think some are being a bit too harsh at the President. The following damage control should, for my fellow planners, help add a little nuance;
“In his remarks today, [Obama] was explicit — as he has been in the past — about the comprehensive strategy we’ll use to confront [ISIS] threat,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a series of Twitter posts. “He was referring to military options for striking [ISIS] in Syria,” Earnest added in a hastily scheduled CNN appearance.
Obama was set to meet with the National Security Council on Thursday evening, and he said his Administration is working hard to develop a plan for stemming ISIS’s spread from Iraq to Syria.
Bingo. Remember, military operations are not inside the President's comfort zone - even though he as been at this for over half a decade. He may be, technically at least, correct - and here is why. Different Operational Planning confessions will use different terms, and processes may differ here and there - but try not to nit pic the following and just follow my lead on the dance floor and ignore me if I step on your toes. Here is my entering argument - the reason the President said what he said it that, technically, if we are in the middle of a Crisis Response Planning process, he may not have a Strategic Operational Plan (OPLAN) to sign off of. He may have only provided broad Political level guidance, and the Joint Staff/CENTCOM have not spit back a Strategic Level plan back his way. Here are some of the assumptions (not Planning Assumptions, I may get to those at later posts if I turn this in to a series), I am working with. These are broad assumptions and may be totally off base, but here we go. If nothing else, then at least it is an entering argument. 1. In spite of warnings about what is now the Islamic State, we are well behind the power curve on Crisis Response Planning (CRP). Either that, or we had one working, but the Course of Action (COA) that is playing out is worse than what the J2 led Red Team came up with as Red Worst Case COA and they have had to start over from scratch. 2. The President, as he has before, is not a fast decision maker on national security matters and is sending back Blue COA options he doesn't like. 3. Most importantly for this and other crisis we are facing; in the place of Gates, Hillary Clinton, James Jones, and Leon Panetta - the President now has Hagel, John Fracking Kerry, and Susan Rice .... with Joe Biden even closer to his ear. 'Nuff said on that. My guess, he is still waiting for a Strategic Plan that he can sign off on. That is what he meant ... and in a way it is true - if you don't have an overarching national defense strategy, then you don't have a default answer. If nothing else, Obama's national security strategy is to disengage - to lead from behind - and that is not working. It has become the square peg facing the round whole and he does not want to admit it. This leads to analysis paralysis as a system holds its breath, threatening the world that it won't breath until it changes. Not a successful theme ... not a strategy ... but a theme. This President only takes non-domestic crisis in serial. He doesn't do parallel and he doesn't see the larger macro trends. He has in his mind what he wants the world to be, and anything outside that world view in how the world actually is, he either doesn't understand or has little interest in trying to understand. I think he sees them as distractions and irritants from what he really wants to do as President. As a result, in this case, he is just waiting for staff work to get done so he can sign off on it and talk more about Ferguson. Here how it is supposed to be done: the President is at the Political Level. Under the Political is the Strategic, the Operational, and then the Tactical Level. One has to rely on the other. As I am sure that there was no useful standing OPLAN done on the Islamic State, then this would require using the CRP process - a Parallel Planning Process where Strategic, Operational, and Tactical OPLANS are worked at the same time. Now let's play in the land of make believe. Let's make an assumption that the President has already put forth his Initiating Directive. We don't have it, and we also do not have is Political Direction and Guidance (D&G). Depending on who is advising him, they may be the same thing, or not even called that. I am being a little pedantic - but the process is well known, just as it is well known that it is usually ignored. So, we know what we don't know, and that puts us in a spot - as the military will plan anything - all it takes is for the CINC to tell us what he wants. Want us to put on deliver MREs, copies of Dreams from my Father, and free condoms to the world's 20 most isolated villages? We can do that. Want us to plan to nuke every suspected Taliban village in Waziristan (North and South) and Islamic State troop concentration in Syria and Iraq - we can do that too. Well, the truth is somewhere in between, but we have no idea what it is. I don't want to put my mind in President Obama's head ... so where do we find a compromise? What can we assume? What can we use as a proxy? We need someone who is more than qualified to think at the Strategic and above level - yet isn't clearly seen as a Susan Rice or Paul Wolfowitz acolyte. For this blog, it might be fun if we could find someone that I have had issues with in the past, yet respect. Better yet, someone how has pissed inside and on everyone's tent. Yes, that would be a good proxy. Who has already made some assumptions of his own and has put out something like you might see as Strategic/POLMIL D&G after receiving some vague guidance from Obama at the Political level ... the Commander's Initial Guidance? Not perfect (it never is) - but something broad enough that a Planning Group J-5/CJ-5 Planning Group Chair can take to his core planning team and run with it? Ahhh ... perfect. Let's go with General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.). I am going to make the former CENTCOM Commander and all around gadfly the Strategic Level Commander proxy. Though I am sure the Joint Staff has received something from Obama to work with - in this case in order to make sense of what follows - let us assume that Obama has opened the door to some ... but not many ... ground forces on the ground. I will also make the assumption that no one at the Political level is being clear about exactly what they want done, Hagel is fuddled and Biden is jumping the chain of command all over the place and contradicting everything else that is being said, including by the President. CJCS are getting in business that isn't even theirs and muddying the waters ... actually ... a fairly realistic set up. How would an Operational Planning Group get their Strategic D&G? Not textbook - but if we run with our parallel universe historical fiction of the now - how could it happen? Assume that Zinni is playing the role of Hindenberg pulled out of deep retirement (minus standing awkwardly at a railroad station in his Prussian Blue uniform). Keeping with the spotty and disjointed nature of CRP being done too late to be done perfectly (we'll go with good), we would probably just get some verbiage via is a very brief VTC with General Zinni - message to follow later, maybe - and in the course of a short session, the Planning Group would have to run with as Higher Commander's Guidance something like;
“... put two brigades on the ground of U.S. forces, ... push ISIS back to Syria ...”
Follow the link above to see where I plucked this from. I like this a lot. This isn't even close to what doctrine requires, drills down well below Strategic (at first glance), and gives you frustratingly little to work with, etc - but so what. That is reality. So, the VTC ends and that is what we have for now until more D&G trickles in. At the end of the VTC, we have the J-3 and/or J-5 looking over at the Planning lead with a, "Well, get me a plan - chop chop!" look, and off they go. What do they have? 1. Limited to two brigades. 2. Push ISIS back to Syria. Can you build a Plan with this as Strategic Guidance? I argue that yes, you can. Especially at the Operational Level, you can build a plan based on just that. You'll probably need a serious re-write or two as it is briefed up through the J-codes, but you have enough to build around. Is this even an option being considered? I hope so. Is it a good answer, I don't know that either. War is a dark room; once you step through the door, you have no idea what is in there. I do know this. Especially about Iraq, Zinni was right about a lot of things. For him to offer this, it cannot be ignored as a possible option and is worth considering. I found Zinni ... who else out there who has actually been a Strategic Level Commander has put something out you could build an OPLAN around? Zinni's short note is about as close as I can see to something that could realistically be an option ... even if way to the far side of the kinetic area a probability for this Administration ... but not out of the realm of possibility. One note of caution; doing nothing is an option as well - but a different topic for a different day.
