12.07.2015 Views

On Point: the United States Army in Operation Iraqi ... - Boekje Pienter

On Point: the United States Army in Operation Iraqi ... - Boekje Pienter

On Point: the United States Army in Operation Iraqi ... - Boekje Pienter

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>On</strong> <strong>Po<strong>in</strong>t</strong> has not been able to deliver authoritatively on <strong>the</strong> importance of special operationsforces (SOF) and <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g SOF with conventional operations. Due mostlyto cont<strong>in</strong>ued classification of <strong>the</strong>se operations, that story rema<strong>in</strong>s to be told. Anecdotes aboundamong <strong>the</strong> conventional units that attribute <strong>the</strong> best <strong>in</strong>telligence and combat <strong>in</strong>formation tothat developed by SOF units. JSOTF-North operations appear to have fixed some of <strong>Iraqi</strong> unitsthat manned <strong>the</strong> Green L<strong>in</strong>e. JSTOF-West denied sanctuary to <strong>Iraqi</strong> units, particularly to <strong>Iraqi</strong>missile units. The heroic actions of <strong>the</strong> special operations troopers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> south stood out everyday because of <strong>the</strong>ir close <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>in</strong>to V Corps and I MEF operations.The contributions of <strong>the</strong> civil affairs and PSYOP components of SOF, while <strong>in</strong>cluded, aredifficult to assess this early. Civil affairs troops absolutely reduced human suffer<strong>in</strong>g and enabled<strong>the</strong> delivery of humanitarian assistance, and <strong>the</strong>y are at <strong>the</strong> center of <strong>the</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g operations<strong>in</strong> Iraq. PSYOP, as part of <strong>in</strong>formation operations (IO), achieved some success as alluded to <strong>in</strong><strong>On</strong> <strong>Po<strong>in</strong>t</strong>, but tell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> whole story must wait because assessment of IO is perhaps <strong>the</strong> mostdifficult of tasks and requires details not yet available.After World War II, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Army</strong> debriefed enemy field commanders <strong>in</strong> considerable detailto determ<strong>in</strong>e what <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>in</strong>tended, to learn how <strong>the</strong>y fought and what <strong>the</strong>y perceivedabout Allied actions. The documents and studies that emerged obviously are essential tounderstand<strong>in</strong>g both what happened and why. Sixty years later, historians and soldiers cont<strong>in</strong>ueto learn from that effort. As <strong>On</strong> <strong>Po<strong>in</strong>t</strong> went to <strong>the</strong> publisher, some early results of a similareffort emerged. <strong>On</strong> <strong>Po<strong>in</strong>t</strong> does not have <strong>the</strong> benefit of those early results for a number ofgood reasons, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g sensitivity and <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> analysis of that data is ongo<strong>in</strong>g. Whenthat data becomes available, <strong>the</strong> relationship of enemy and coalition actions will be betterunderstood. That understand<strong>in</strong>g is essential to writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> authoritative history of <strong>Operation</strong>IRAQI FREEDOM.In title and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>mes, this study unabashedly claims <strong>the</strong> <strong>Army</strong> served <strong>On</strong> <strong>Po<strong>in</strong>t</strong> for <strong>the</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>tteam and <strong>the</strong> nation <strong>in</strong> OIF. OIF was essentially a land campaign brought to decision <strong>in</strong> groundcombat by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Army</strong>, Mar<strong>in</strong>e Corps, coalition ground forces and SOF. That does not mean that<strong>the</strong> ground forces achieved decision alone—<strong>the</strong>y did not. The <strong>Army</strong> also provided essentialservices to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r members of <strong>the</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>t team and contributed essential C2 systems, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gBFT. However mundane, both support<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ater logistics and provid<strong>in</strong>g C2 components areessential to susta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g jo<strong>in</strong>t campaigns.In o<strong>the</strong>r campaigns, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Army</strong> will not be on po<strong>in</strong>t. Ground operations may sometimesbe merely precursors to set conditions for decisive operations from <strong>the</strong> air. In Kosovo, <strong>the</strong>air campaign proved sufficient to br<strong>in</strong>g Slobodan Milosevic to <strong>the</strong> table. The <strong>Army</strong> enteredKosovo as part of a coalition force to enforce <strong>the</strong> agreement won by coalition airmen. At IwoJima, mar<strong>in</strong>es paid for a B-29 base with <strong>the</strong>ir blood. These facts nei<strong>the</strong>r dim<strong>in</strong>ish <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong><strong>Army</strong> <strong>in</strong> Kosovo nor that of <strong>the</strong> Mar<strong>in</strong>e Corps at Iwo Jima. They do emphasize <strong>the</strong> importanceof jo<strong>in</strong>t operations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> past and <strong>the</strong>ir cont<strong>in</strong>ued relevance <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> future. They also suggestthat each of <strong>the</strong> services must be able to lead as well as support operations. Equally important,each of <strong>the</strong> services is liable to provide <strong>the</strong> “core” of jo<strong>in</strong>t force headquarters. The implicationsof this possibility are far reach<strong>in</strong>g.In stak<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>the</strong> position that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Army</strong> was on po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> OIF, <strong>the</strong> study group also felt boundto suggest that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Army</strong> should also be on po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> support<strong>in</strong>g and lead<strong>in</strong>g jo<strong>in</strong>t transformation.429

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!