Billmon:
It’s so much easier just to lose the war, especially when the Pentagon can throw a shitload of money to its favorite contractors while doing so.
Back to Main
September 8, 2006
WB: A Bigger Bang for the Buck
Comments
Ironic; from Billmon to Bill Lind, most senescent commentators point out that the Iraq War can’t be won. But, that doesn’t hinder the continued dispensation of money or propaganda. Most American casualties in Iraq are in re-supply convoys not from trying to suppress the insurrection.
In the 20th Century, third world societies learned the techniques of guerrilla warfare that made foreign occupation too costly in lives and money to continue much longer than a decade. Nothing has changed in the 21st Century except the resistance has increased exponentially as Israel found out in Lebanon. Now even the Invasion can be stopped dead in its tracks. The only option left for the Western Invaders is either withdrawal or escalation to a nuclear exchange.
Posted by: Jim S | Sep 8 2006 19:38 utc | 1
One way to prevent roadside bombings in Iraq: tear up all the roads…
Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 8 2006 20:02 utc | 2
The point and purpose of this war is certainly not to spend money on armor or comfort or safety for American grunts.
Nor to spend money on Iraqi informants.
That’s certified US taxpayer money, brother. That goes to the American arms industry, and no one else.
Whether it’s for $647.00 claw hammers, or for Star Wars tests, or for pie in the sky explosives detection research — that money stays in the family.
Because if it goes to people or companies outside the military industrial complex, there’s no campaign kickback for Congress. Without that political contribution set aside, how are our elected leders supposed to pay for their ultra-costly media campaigns? Bake sales?
Nope. With every contract that goes out, a few basis points are earmerked for the Congressperson who made it all possible.
I believe the going rate around the halls of Congress is ten thousand in campaign cash for every ten million in contracts awarded.
Posted by: Antifa | Sep 8 2006 20:19 utc | 3
After Gulf War I, I was part of a team of analysts asked to assess options for preventing “friendly fire” casualties. (Most GWI casualties were due to “friendly fire”, and Congress was worried.) The study was funded through the “Mark XV Identification Friend-Or-Foe System” program office; the Mark XV being a high-tech (read “complex, high cost”) solution for locating military equipment and units on the battlefield.
One of the members of my team was a former Army logistics specialist. He thought that most of the solutions being proposed were too expensive and too complicated. Moreover, they required years to develop and design. Another colleague, a former Marine, reported that the Israeli Army marked their tanks with the “design of the day” using 3-inch reflective tape. It was a cheap solution, but it meant that a ‘friend’ identification could be spoofed by enemy units. (The Israelis had concluded that the benefits of avoiding friendly fire losses outweighed the problems from spoofing.)
Our former Army logistican suggested we drive to an Army base and do some looking around. He called some buddies who were still on active duty and learned that a threaded aluminum tube could be attached to most tank turrets. Running a power cord through the tube to a power outlet in the turret meant that flashing lights, special reflectors, etc. attached to the top end of the tube could be powered, providing visibility even in dust and smoke. Total cost per tank: approximately $200. Allowing for Pentagon markups for design, development and testing; we figured the upfront costs wouldn’t exceed $10 million. (Remember, this was the pre-Bush-II era.)
Our recommendation to go with such low tech solutions as tape or aluminum tubes weren’t well received by the study’s sponsors. They weren’t very high-tech, and they did not provide the battlefield commander with information about every unit on the battlefield. We countered that Congress wanted the “friendly fire” problem addressed immediately. Furthermore, battlefield awareness wasn’t going to help the soldier or flyer having to make split-second decisions. We documented our study and recommendations…and never again heard from our sponsors.
(I’ll let you guess the rest of the story….)
Posted by: infoshaman | Sep 8 2006 21:15 utc | 4
I have some acquaintances that are working on IED jammers. The company that they work for was approached by some Congressmen to take over development from another company that wasn’t delivering. I mentioned that these systems appeared to have a very limited shelf life, and one of the acquaintances stated that any reduction in casualties was worth the cost, and he felt that the Congressmen were desperate to find a solution.
Posted by: tmay | Sep 8 2006 21:49 utc | 5
” … most senescent commentators
Not to be a smart ass but did you mean sentient? Or did you mean sensible? Either would apply ‘though my vote would be for sensible. Senescent means growing old with the implication that senility is imminent.
Posted by: markfromireland | Sep 8 2006 21:52 utc | 6
However, fewer patrols and a lighter footprint on the ground reduces the flow of intelligence that helps guide the high-tech gizmos in their search for IEDs.
Or on a more basic level, fewer patrols mean increased freedom movement for insurgents and therefore greater opportunity to plant even more IEDs.
Uncle $cam, thanks for the link.
I’ve been watching this too.
I’m surprised it doesn’t come up more in talk of war with Iran.
What do you think the chances are that Bush has ever heard of Waziristan?
Posted by: Karrlsfini | Sep 9 2006 1:14 utc | 9
How come they keep bringing in retired generals to run these things? Don’t they already have far too many on the regular payroll? Lack of confidence in the professional serving corps?
Just asking.
Allen/Vancouver
Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 9 2006 2:50 utc | 10
I imagine the ‘retired generals’ would tell rummy to go fuck himself…
Especially, after he (rummy) fired and pushed so many out i.e., made them retire, when he became Secretary of Defense.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 9 2006 3:28 utc | 11
Eustis chief: Iraq post-war plan muzzled
FORT EUSTIS — Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.
In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
…
Well we have heard of Waziristan before it was 5 maybe 6 warcrime/atrocity outrages back. Early in 06 the amerikans slaughtered a bunch of people in a village on the pretense that Ayman al-Zawahri spent some time in the village last winter. The week before further north on the border between Afghanistan and Waziristan there had been another similar atrocity when US air force attacks on a village klled at least 14 but missed the target one Maulvi Noor Muhammad, a religious leader in Saidgi.
As per usual it was the cover up rather than the crime which really brought the shitstorm down.
A journalist by the name of Hayatullah Khan had been reporting the atrocities and assassinations that were being committed in Waziristan and his mysterious disappeared in December 05 really came home to roost once once his body showed up in April 06.
. By June 06 the BBC had put together a doco on the funny business throughout Pakistan particularly Waziristan. Musharrif was in a hole that could end up with someone Islamic outside amerika’s control, being in charge of Pakistan nuclear weapons and all.
So while everyone was looking at Gaza then Lebanon, Bush and Mushie were backing out of Waziristan.
This is the result which was always gonna be. amerika is in company with most other empires (britain, USSR) in having the dream shattered on the “north west frontier”.
They got a mayor of Kabul, a Lord Mayor of Islamabad, and the Nabob of Baghdad, none of whom have enough control /smarts to run a brothel on the proverbial troopship.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 9 2006 13:26 utc | 13
The war in Iraq can’t be won. It can’t be won because it isn’t a war.
Iraq was invaded, and the invasion was successful in the sense that the Gvmt. was decapitated and disbanded.
Then, Iraq was not so much occupied as squatted and thrashed. Somewhat later, Booted Bremer destroyed the State apparatus by getting rid of the Army, breaking up the police force (some thousands were sent to guard the pipelines, amongst other things), and removing the top and medium level administrators or functionaries (who were all Baathists) in all Ministries and Gvmt. agencies (except the Oil ministry). The purge stretched all the way down to primary school teachers, some devastating number were fired and sent home. …That is what the Taliban did, and what the War Lords in Afgh. are doing now, with another method – they set fire to the schools.
The plan – insofar as there was one – was for a puppet Gvmt with Chalabi as Pres. of all the Iraqis. Bremer and the Iraqi toadies sat around for practically a year discussing nutty things like import tax on biscuits (while agriculture was being destroyed), how many people should be allowed on buses (while the streets choked up, petrol prices rose, roadblocks sprouted, and poor Iraqis could no longer buy fuel for stoves), how school books should present Saddam (while schools were under tents and classes doubled up and children had to pee in the yards), what role Women should play (after depriving them of jobs), how the US soldiers should liaise with ‘local commanders’ (when they did not share a language and soon grew to hate each other)…
No amount of soldiers, or equipment, or military tactics, would have had any impact on this situation. Even a soldier in each Iraqi home would have changed nothing. 10 soldiers on each main street – no change, except that more of them would be killed.
Catch and kill insurgents? The insurgents are not a military force, not a terrorist group, not a core of resistance fighters – they are pissed off Iraqis belonging to (by now) multiple different groups or sects, as well as hyped up young men who are bored out of their minds (like the US soldiers) and find excitement and recognition where they can. Plus the criminals, who thrive in the chaos.
You could imprison a quarter of the Iraqis, and nothing would change. You could add 50 000 US troops, and nothing would change.
What are the troops supposed to do? What aims are they supposed to achieve? How many Iraqis are they supposed to kill and/or imprison or muzzle to ‘get the country on its feet’?
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 10 2006 15:11 utc | 14
Bremer and the Iraqi toadies sat around for practically a year discussing nutty things like import tax on biscuits
says it all
Posted by: annie | Sep 10 2006 15:26 utc | 15
Bremer and the Iraqi toadies sat around for practically a year discussing nutty things like import tax on biscuits…
IIRC, the Coalition Provisional Authority abolished all import taxes and restrictions on foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses. This was supposed to make Iraq into the dynamic, business-friendly hub of the “New Middle East”, but instead it led to a torrent of cheap imports from Iran which, together with the lack of water, electricity and security, caused the collapse of Iraq’s industrial base.
I remember reading the outpourings of daft pundits who imagined that American corporations would sweep in to transform the state-controlled Iraqi economy with a dose of free-market capitalism and, hey presto, there would be a 7-11 on every corner. Never mind that retailers from other Arab countries would have a better idea of how to break into the Iraqi market. Reading behind the lines, I got the impression that these pundits thought of Iraq not as a real free market at all but as a captive market for American businesses, as well as an opportunity to acquire assets at knock-down prices.
Posted by: Gag Halfrunt | Sep 11 2006 13:46 utc | 16
yes Gag, that was the idea… I mentioned the biscuits because I read some dopey article where reports of discussions about biscuits were mentioned.
The Iraq invasion lead to an undergound wheat war between the US and Australia.
The only ‘foreign’ member of the CPA was an Australian, who was there on US sufferance, and sent by the Aus Gvmt. to ensure that Aus. would get its ‘fair share’ of the new wheat market.
I don’t recall the details at this late date, but the Aus. wheat board was very active, and there were all kinds of quarrels, shenanigans and storms. It is not worth going into and linking etc. now I feel.
Biscuits – in the sense of dry bread and not Oreo cookies – came up, I seem to recall, in a sort of protectionist way.
The traditional method of converting grain to edible food, in conditions of grain scarcity and lack of energy, as well as conservation and transport difficulties, is to make biscuits, or, failing even that, to buy the biscuits from elsewhere. They keep and can be transported.
For example, on Santorini (Greek island, no woods left at all) until 1950, 1970 (these dates are hard to fix) grains, imported and home grown, were all transformed into biscuits. Maximal performing and very large ovens were lit 3 or 4 times a year, not more, to turn the available grain mixed with water (etc.) into biscuits, which were then shared out according to input, etc. An acceptable bang for small bucks, rather, resources in general.
I’m not arguing but embroidering…cheers! Have a glass and a nacho chip!
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 11 2006 19:46 utc | 17