"Shock and Awe"

[Faux Real]

I am sure you have all seen the videos surrounding the initial 2003 invasion and bombing of Iraq.

What reasoning, real reasoning, is behind that [horrid] strategy?

Is it tied to the concept of Blitzkreig?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:02 am
I am sure you have all seen the videos surrounding the initial 2003 invasion and bombing of Iraq.

What reasoning, real reasoning, is behind that [horrid] strategy?

Is it tied to the concept of Blitzkreig?
It's the most ancient of strategies: put on such a show of overwhelming force that the enemy realizes the hopelessness of his position and gives up, or is at least primed to surrender or desert.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting... This is the method of attacking by stratagem of using the sheathed sword."

The goal is that by demonstrating what the U.S. can do, it will decrease what they have to do to achieve victory. It is 95% a psychological operation.

Blitzkrieg is totally different. It is not really psychological at all. Blitzkrieg is a tactic, not a strategy, and it consists essentially of plunging forces so rapidly into enemy territory that the less mobile defenders cannot mount an effective defense, and are surrounded and thus neutralized.

[Red October]

Yeah, that's pretty much what it's all about. You just want to scare the shit out of your enemy so bad that they won't know how to react effectively, if at all. It works well in conventional battles, but as we can see from Iraq, it doesn't do much to deter unconventional resistance forces.

[ComradeR]

Blitzkrieg is totally different. It is not really psychological at all.
I would like to point out that Blitzkrieg is most definably psychological, it's strategy is to quickly penetrate and strike the enemy rear to sow confusion and fear in order to prevent the enemy from implementing a coherent defense and get them to surrender with putting up little to no resistance, it allowed them to defeat armies of superior size with speed and ease. The modern shock and awe (the strategy applied in the invasion of Iraq) could easily be considered a kind of 21 century Blitzkrieg, it's based on overwhelming concentrated force, maneuverability, and spectacular displays of power.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 18, 2007 03:11 pm
It's the most ancient of strategies: put on such a show of overwhelming force that the enemy realizes the hopelessness of his position and gives up, or is at least primed to surrender or desert.
They didn't do a very good job then. lol :P

[pusher robot]

I would like to point out that Blitzkrieg is most definably psychological, it's strategy is to quickly penetrate and strike the enemy rear to sow confusion and fear in order to prevent the enemy from implementing a coherent defense and get them to surrender with putting up little to no resistance, it allowed them to defeat armies of superior size with speed and ease.

I have to disagree there. It may be true that Blitzkrieg did cause fear and confusion, but that was not its main purpose, just a side-effect. It was chiefly a tactic, designed to overcome fixed or slowly-moving defenses. You would not say that a blitzkrieg maneuver was a failure if you capture all the territory but failed to cause fear and confusion.

On the other hand, a "shock and awe" demonstration may have some military impact, but its main purpose is intimidation. If a "shock and awe" demonstration results in all targets destroyed but no decrease in enemy morale, then it was a still a failure.



They didn't do a very good job then. lol tongue.gif

Well, yes and no. It certainly worked well against the conventional military forces, which deserted en masse and put up no real resistance. Obviously it had little impact on insurgents, but then they were not really the target of the operation.

[Organic Revolution]

The insurgents werent the target of the operation? But I thought we were fighting terrorists!!! ::gasp::

[guerilla E]

Shock n' Awe; Fighting the Middle East in Texan Excess Style.
*insert cowboy hoot*

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 25, 2007 07:59 am
The insurgents werent the target of the operation? But I thought we were fighting terrorists!!! ::gasp::
Well, your memory may be hazy, but Iraq was most definitely a state with a sizeable state-run military, not just an amorphous blob of insurgents. They only resisted a matter of days, so I suppose it's understandable you'd forget about them.

[Lynx]

Males trying to intimidate each other - seems to be a biological imperative.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:47 pm
Males trying to intimidate each other - seems to be a biological imperative.
If so, that doesn't bode well for the feasibility of a completely cooperative society.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 25, 2007 12:07 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 25, 2007 12:07 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 04:47 pm
Males trying to intimidate each other - seems to be a biological imperative.
If so, that doesn't bode well for the feasibility of a completely cooperative society. [/b]
I doubt that.

BTW: London 1940 = Baghdad 2003.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 25, 2007 01:07 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 25, 2007 01:07 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 04:47 pm
Males trying to intimidate each other - seems to be a biological imperative.
If so, that doesn't bode well for the feasibility of a completely cooperative society. [/b]
Getting them out of politics and into sports should help.

[Ultra-Violence]

FUCKING START YOUR OWN THREAD YOUR FUCKS! THIS WAS ABOUT SHOCK AND AWE!





.............................


continue