He is one of the few journalists really willing to spend a LOT of time in some of the filthiest ass-end parts of the world finding out what's happening there. He also knows soldiers and soldiering in a sort of latter-day Ernie Pyle way, and I like that.
On the downside, he's a sort of dirty-boot Bob Kaplan, Tom Clancy with a notepad, a guy who's never met gee-whiz cool Aaaaaarmy training he didn't love. He's sort of a man-size eleven-year-old that way, and he commonly mistakes technical and tactical proficiency for strategic and geopolitical competence, and he always assumes that the GI's are the epitome of studly cool and the fuzzy-wuzzies are dirty rats.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49e59/49e59dedd04fd34be2d1f613398af03b476beec2" alt=""
But as I'm enjoying the pretty night fire pictures I come across this:
"Sometimes the crews fire “H & I” or “terrain denial” missions. Harassment and Interdiction missions are fired at terrain known to be used only by the enemy at certain times, and so anytime the enemy feels like rolling the dice, they can move into that terrain. Such missions also provide influence for “shaping” the battlefield. If the commander is trying to flush the enemy into a blunder—maybe an ambush—or maybe to cut them off from an escape route, he can have the guns pound into a gorge, say, that is used as an enemy route. Or maybe he just tries to persuade the enemy to take a route where we have sniper teams waiting. The battery can be used in many ways that do not include direct attacks on enemy formations."Yes, indeed.
When I was just a mere slip of a redleg, my FDC Chief taught me that H&I fires in a LIC were the worst way of substituting motion for direction, a bad excuse for shooting unobserved rounds at a grid coordinate, a waste of rounds and a good way of pissing off the locals at you.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64e25/64e25e8865bbd35024f2b9c03104ae30dca0bb66" alt=""
I have no idea if H&I fire is any better in A-stan than it was in Vietnam. But the fact that we're doing it at all...?
Hmmm.
2 comments:
Chief,
Thanks for this post. It is shameful that we are using H&I given our stated "protecting the population" strategy. At least with the (now mostly banned) airstrikes (and ongoing drone attacks), there ARE some eyes on target). Of course, there's no IFF and those IR images could easily be the local Romeos and Juliets. Nevertheless, some eyes on target unlike H&I.
Personally, I think the underlying assumption of H&I -- they never know when hell will rain down and thus avoid certain terrain -- simply does not hold water. At best, it's thinking about conventional military movement across channeling terrain that provide firing opportunities; good against the hordes of mech inf, not so good against homegrown partisans. It also gives the perception of weakness/cowardice (that big, well equipped army won't fight us man to man? they use the big bombs instead?) And, as you note, it ticks off the locals.
I've said before, I'll say again. How do you know you're doing real COIN? When the life of any of your troopers matters less than the life of any civilian in the fighting zone. Yes. Even those "males of fighting age" must rank above your soldiers in the protection calculus. Simply put, this is a key difference between Liberation and Occupation. And isn't COIN itself something of a "liberation" operation???
Anyways, thanks for the post.
SP
Is there any information available online about the H&I program in Afghanistan? I am interested in learning more, as I thought we gave up H&I after Vietnam.
Post a Comment