A nation at war, but kept clear of combat

[Glow2004]

WHEN Jim Molan came home in April 2005 after a year helping the US-led coalition run the war in Iraq, he was asked by his Canberra debriefers what was the most significant thing Australia could do to influence the way the war was being fought. Molan had just finished serving a hectic eight months as chief of operations to the US commander of the multinational force in Iraq, George Casey, which included planning the second battle for Fallujah in November 2004 and the successful general election the following January.

"You should have replaced me with another Australian general," was the major-general's one-line answer to his Canberra interlocutor. Impressed with Molan's performance, Casey had made a specific request for another Australian to take over the chief of operations role but, as events in Iraq took a turn for the worse, Canberra politely declined the US commander's request.

Molan has written a remarkable account of a turbulent year in Baghdad helping the Americans run the war. Working deep inside a command structure controlling 175,000 coalition troops, he had little to do with the 400-strong Australian military presence in Iraq. But Molan's book, Running the War in Iraq, poses some fundamental questions about the way our defence forces are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and how prepared Australia's military will be for the wars of the 21st century.

Compared with the complex counterinsurgency war Molan helped run in Baghdad, the Australian Defence Force, with the exception of its special forces, has not been involved in long-running, close-combat operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Molan worries about how the ADF will effectively manage the "operational art" in the years ahead, conflicts that may demand Australia take the lead in planning, commanding and deploying joint forces on the battlefield.

His experience in Iraq has caused him to doubt Australia's capacity to prosecute an effective counterinsurgency campaign in theatres that demand a complex mix of war-fighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian skills: the "three-block war".

At the command level, he worries that the standard set by the ADF is skewed too far away from fighting towards humanitarian operations, peacekeeping and peace-making.

Australia's war-fighting tradition has retained strengths at the lowest tactical level, but in Molan's view we have failed to keep abreast of conceptual debates and developments about how commanders use forces on a battlefield at the level above tactics.

He notes that the ADF has not been involved in serious, joint sustained combat since Vietnam and has not practised "operational generalship" in a war since that time.

"We in Australia luxuriate in what I describe as wars of choice within wars; we choose the wars we will fight in, we choose the timing of our participation, we choose the geographical areas of our participation (and so control the level of likely combat), we choose the kind of operations we will conduct and we choose when we come home," he says. As Molan tells Inquirer, Americans do not have that luxury in Iraq or Afghanistan. Australia may not have that luxury in the years ahead.

"The Government is spending $50 billion buying excellent war-fighting equipment between now and 2018," he says. "But I don't think we are matching that with an attitude and an ethos of combat. We say it, but I don't see it being manifest in training at a higher level, and that concerns me."

Iraq and Afghanistan should teach us the counterinsurgency struggle or "war among the people" is getting harder to win. If the extreme violence in Baghdad has taught Molan one thing, it is that militaries must be able to fight to win a long counterinsurgency campaign in addition to the provision of a range of non-military skills and assets.

When Molan was in Baghdad, Americans would refer to "swimmers and non-swimmers": those nations willing to fight and die in Iraq and those just there to show the flag. "If you can't fight, then you will never get to the clever parts of counterinsurgency, which is the hearts and minds. Because it is the strategy of the enemy to get between you and the people.

"If you are not strong enough and tough enough, you can't touch the hearts and minds of the people."

When it comes to Afghanistan, Molan warns there is a gap "a mile wide" in terms of the Rudd Government's rhetoric about the importance of the Australia's military commitment and our presence on the ground in Oruzgan.

"To be generous, we (NATO and its allies) have a quarter to half the number of troops that we need to make a fist of it. Not having enough troops means that it's going to be a long, long fight and that exposes your national resolve."

Molan says the question of more Australian troops in Oruzgan is a matter for the Government but observes that a 52,000-strong ADF, now costing the taxpayer $22 billion a year, should be able to sustain a brigade-strength combat force by 2010 to conduct offensive operations in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

"I believe the Afghan people are worth fighting for. If we match the rhetoric with our actions, then someone has got to provide the forces in the province sufficient to do the job.

"If we do nothing, we can wait around for the Americans to come in. I can only assume the overall American strategy is to stabilise Iraq, generate some forces and put them into Afghanistan, and that's what people are talking about at the moment."

Molan says the ADF can maintain its 1000-strong military commitment to Afghanistan at minimal cost until "the whole war falls apart and we bring our troops home".

"It all depends whether you are in the fight to show commitment or in the fight to win. If you are in the fight to win, you have got to conduct offensive operations. If you are only in the fight to show commitment, you can have one man and a dog there."

Molan says securing Afghanistan's border with Pakistan will be absolutely critical but stresses the counterinsurgency campaign inside Afghanistan may have only just begun.

Leaving the army this month after a 40-year career, Molan acknowledges the Australian Army is far more capable than at any time since Vietnam, with "99 per cent" of the overhaul having occurred in the wake of the 1999 intervention in East Timor.

"Our capability now at the tactical level is very high except for our experience of close combat. Our strategic generalship is as good (as), if not better (than), it has ever been. But there is a black hole in the middle in the operational area," he says.

"We haven't seen sustained combat since Vietnam. You can compensate in some ways for that, but I don't think we are taking advantage of the opportunities we have at the moment to learn from those who are fighting.

"The concern I have is that the ADF thinks that the superb performance it has shown in East Timor and Solomon Islands in less than ferocious combat situations is the maximum level of capability that we have to show. I would argue that there is a lot more to it than that."
http://military-world.net/Afghanistan/553.html

[B.E.N.]

This quote embodies the problem in the US with this war.

"To be generous, we (NATO and its allies) have a quarter to half the number of troops that we need to make a fist of it. Not having enough troops means that it's going to be a long, long fight and that exposes your national resolve."

More troops means quicker campaign and victory. McCain for U.S. President.

Interesting read...

[brewerpi]

More of the RIGHT kind of troops and the political resolve to use them properly.
On my last visit to Afghanistan I heard it said that ISAF stood for I Saw Americans Fight instead of International Security Assistance Force.
Put too many large units in there and you can easily replicate the Soviet experience.
This is of course just my opinion.

[Panzerfaust]

You know if you don't go around Nation building, you wouldn't have to worry about troop strengths and how to "Win"...LMAO @ anyone who truly believes that America is there to "Win" this farce of a war.

You don't "win" when you name an invisible enemy "war on terror". lol "War on Terror" in lamens terms means, "endless war"...anyone can be labeled a "terrorist"..even you and I.

Stupid ****ing people.

[B.E.N.]

Bro...to have an opinion is one thing. To call someone a 'stupid ****ing' person because of their opinion is another. Quite silly and rather ironic considering that is why many wars begin.

'War on drugs' seems to be working...your not naming sources in your posts right? Or buying an 8-ball at Walgreens...

Seems to me that there are quite a few more terrorists arrest than terrorist bombing in the World.

I respect your opinion but disagree.

[gixxerboy1]

Bro...to have an opinion is one thing. To call someone a 'stupid ****ing' person because of their opinion is another. Quite silly and rather ironic considering that is why many wars begin.

'War on drugs' seems to be working...your not naming sources in your posts right? Or buying an 8-ball at Walgreens...
Seems to me that there are quite a few more terrorists arrest than terrorist bombing in the World.

I respect your opinion but disagree.

The war on drugs is working? Yes you cant buy it legally but you couldnt before the so called war. The war on drugs has cost how much money? How many people are in prison for it? And drugs are not any harder to get then before the war on them started. So its working to well

[Panzerfaust]

Bro...to have an opinion is one thing. To call someone a 'stupid ****ing' person because of their opinion is another. Quite silly and rather ironic considering that is why many wars begin.

'War on drugs' seems to be working...your not naming sources in your posts right? Or buying an 8-ball at Walgreens...

Seems to me that there are quite a few more terrorists arrest than terrorist bombing in the World.

I respect your opinion but disagree.

I understand but standby my opinion that anyone who thinks the US is their ti "win" the "war" is a ****ing stupid ignorant bastard!

The War on Drugs is a ****ing joke too...but that is a totally separate discussion and another farce created by the gov't.

[thegodfather]

Bro...to have an opinion is one thing. To call someone a 'stupid ****ing' person because of their opinion is another. Quite silly and rather ironic considering that is why many wars begin.

'War on drugs' seems to be working...your not naming sources in your posts right? Or buying an 8-ball at Walgreens...

Seems to me that there are quite a few more terrorists arrest than terrorist bombing in the World.

I respect your opinion but disagree.

Few of the Schedule I-III substances have anywhere near the deadly potential as Alcohol and Tobacco... Explain why those substances are scheduled and Alcohol&Tobacco are not? Then you can answer your question about why the war on drugs even exists.

[B.E.N.]

Few of the Schedule I-III substances have anywhere near the deadly potential as Alcohol and Tobacco... Explain why those substances are scheduled and Alcohol&Tobacco are not? Then you can answer your question about why the war on drugs even exists.

I agree money is a factor. Factor!

But everyone is down on Bush and the current cabinet for doing something. It is a lot easier to worry about approval ratings than it is to take action. If that is the only thing that mattered then the govt. would just pass out cotton candy.

If you don't think the US is there to win ask any troop. They believe. Hell it is our Congressman handicapping their effort. Same thing as Vietnam...except the hippies are liberals now.

Preventive measures are not always the most popular or easiest but they are the best in the long run.

[thegodfather]

Preventive measures are not always the most popular or easiest but they are the best in the long run.

'Preventetive Measures' are not authorized in our Constitution. Thats a fact. Also, wars that are not declared by Congress, are illegal. You need a Declaration of War, so the rebuttal that Congress "authorized" the war by approving funds for it is void. It doesn't matter, they didnt have the authority to do that under the Constitution. Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution... Everyone look it up please...

[B.E.N.]

'Preventetive Measures' are not authorized in our Constitution. Thats a fact. Also, wars that are not declared by Congress, are illegal. You need a Declaration of War, so the rebuttal that Congress "authorized" the war by approving funds for it is void. It doesn't matter, they didnt have the authority to do that under the Constitution. Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution... Everyone look it up please...

Who said they or anything else was or was not authorized. The war IS...arguing why or by who is irrelevant at this point.

The war is/was necessary to wipe out terrorist cells then, now, and in the future. Do it right now so you don't have to fix it or do it over again. Preventive measures...

[thegodfather]

Who said they or anything else was or was not authorized. The war IS...arguing why or by who is irrelevant at this point.

The war is/was necessary to wipe out terrorist cells then, now, and in the future. Do it right now so you don't have to fix it or do it over again. Preventive measures...

You're terribly uninformed... There was never a single shred of evidence to suggest that there was a single terrorist cell within Iraq. Iraq was not ever a state sponsor of "terrorism" and Saddam Hussein actually persecuted Al-Qaeda. So you can join our President in searching for endless reasons and justifications for going to war with Iraq, all of them baseless and unsubstantiated. The war with Afghanistan I supported, as we should have gone in to get the person we suspected was behind the 9/11 attacks.

As far as the authorization goes. You need to read the Constitution of the country you live in. Congress is only authorized to declare war on another country if the United States (homeland) national security is being directly threatened (I.E.-troops massing on our borders, warships inbound to the US homeland, bombs being dropped, inbound fighter planes, or a declaration of war on us from another country). The pre-emptive warfare doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, therefore making it an illegitimate and ILLEGAL policy. It is hard, and I would say pretty much impossible, to make any sort of legitimate argument that Saddam Hussein and his very weak army presented any real and viable threat to the homeland of the United States. Perhaps he posed a threat regionally, but then again that is absolutely NONE OF OUR FUC*ING BUSINESS.

It's a shame to see how out of touch Americans really are with the ideas of the founding fathers and the ideas of liberty&freedom (libertarianism). Your responses to me sound exactly like the garbage the American people get spoon fed by Fox News at 6pm. Do you have any independent free thoughts that you formed on your own? Have you done any real research into the topic(reading the news paper is not research)? Do you even know anything about the countries we invaded, the number of lives lost, etc? My guess is that you do not.

[B.E.N.]

You're terribly uninformed... There was never a single shred of evidence to suggest that there was a single terrorist cell within Iraq. Iraq was not ever a state sponsor of "terrorism" and Saddam Hussein actually persecuted Al-Qaeda. So you can join our President in searching for endless reasons and justifications for going to war with Iraq, all of them baseless and unsubstantiated. The war with Afghanistan I supported, as we should have gone in to get the person we suspected was behind the 9/11 attacks.

As far as the authorization goes. You need to read the Constitution of the country you live in. Congress is only authorized to declare war on another country if the United States (homeland) national security is being directly threatened (I.E.-troops massing on our borders, warships inbound to the US homeland, bombs being dropped, inbound fighter planes, or a declaration of war on us from another country). The pre-emptive warfare doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, therefore making it an illegitimate and ILLEGAL policy. It is hard, and I would say pretty much impossible, to make any sort of legitimate argument that Saddam Hussein and his very weak army presented any real and viable threat to the homeland of the United States. Perhaps he posed a threat regionally, but then again that is absolutely NONE OF OUR FUC*ING BUSINESS.

It's a shame to see how out of touch Americans really are with the ideas of the founding fathers and the ideas of liberty&freedom (libertarianism). Your responses to me sound exactly like the garbage the American people get spoon fed by Fox News at 6pm. Do you have any independent free thoughts that you formed on your own? Have you done any real research into the topic(reading the news paper is not research)? Do you even know anything about the countries we invaded, the number of lives lost, etc? My guess is that you do not.

Yep...very uniformed...ha.

Where is the Constitution rambling coming from? No one but you brought this up. Focus...back on topic. The war is happenning to argue if it should and authorized it is futile.

When I speak to my best friend, whom is a highly educated employee working for the D. Dept. as a Special Agent guarding heads of state, diplomats, and Congressmen in the war zone, and he is telling me what he can about terrosist shooting mortars at his convoy. I'll believe someone in country than some liberal yahoo sitting in front of his keyboard. Same goes for when he was in Afghanistan and Somalia. But I'm sure the US is just there to take over to. How about you do a little reading about the fledgling govt. in Somalia that the US is attempting to support to eliminate the current corrupt govt. there. Yep...no terrorism there either.

9/11 didn't happen either right...

[B.E.N.]

NONE OF OUR FUC*ING BUSINESS.

Yeah...bury your head the problem will work itself out.

[thegodfather]

Yep...very uniformed...ha.

Where is the Constitution rambling coming from? No one but you brought this up. Focus...back on topic. The war is happenning to argue if it should and authorized it is futile.

When I speak to my best friend, whom is a highly educated employee working for the D. Dept. as a Special Agent guarding heads of state, diplomats, and Congressmen in the war zone, and he is telling me what he can about terrosist shooting mortars at his convoy. I'll believe someone in country than some liberal yahoo sitting in front of his keyboard. Same goes for when he was in Afghanistan and Somalia. But I'm sure the US is just there to take over to. How about you do a little reading about the fledgling govt. in Somalia that the US is attempting to support to eliminate the current corrupt govt. there. Yep...no terrorism there either.

9/11 didn't happen either right...

Again, are you capable of forming your own opinions and thoughts, or do you rely on your 'friend' in the DOD to make up your mind for you? The FACT of the matter is, if we had not invaded a sovereign country to begin with, they would not be able to fire mortars at us. If another country had done the same thing to our country, I'm certain a large portion of the population here would be firing mortars at them!

Yes, the issue of the legitimacy of the war is very relevant. I stated a FACT, that Iraq was never a state sponsor of terrorism, and the evidence of such was never substantiated in any form what so ever. So, any suggestion to the contrary is an outright fabrication.

By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative Republican.

[B.E.N.]

Again, are you capable of forming your own opinions and thoughts, or do you rely on your 'friend' in the DOD to make up your mind for you? The FACT of the matter is, if we had not invaded a sovereign country to begin with, they would not be able to fire mortars at us. If another country had done the same thing to our country, I'm certain a large portion of the population here would be firing mortars at them!

Yes, the issue of the legitimacy of the war is very relevant. I stated a FACT, that Iraq was never a state sponsor of terrorism, and the evidence of such was never substantiated in any form what so ever. So, any suggestion to the contrary is an outright fabrication.

By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative Republican.

I'll tell you what helps form my opinion...

When he calls me after having a shit of a day because he actually had to fire on another vehicle attempting to attack his convoy. Or when he almost had to shoot a Hajie point black for running up to a stopped convoy, for fear he was a suicide bomber. Or when the call goes dead because he drops the call because the sky starts whistling with mortars.

Look I understand your passion for your opinion...it's admirable. But don't try to talk to me like I am some uneducated meat head. Or start calling childish names. That lessons to impact of argument and makes you appear uneducated.

[thegodfather]

I'll tell you what helps form my opinion...

When he calls me after having a shit of a day because he actually had to fire on another vehicle attempting to attack his convoy. Or when he almost had to shoot a Hajie point black for running up to a stopped convoy, for fear he was a suicide bomber. Or when the call goes dead because he drops the call because the sky starts whistling with mortars.

Look I understand your passion for your opinion...it's admirable. But don't try to talk to me like I am some uneducated meat head. Or start calling childish names. That lessons to impact of argument and makes you appear uneducated.

I dont see anywhere in my post where I called names, and if I did previously then I apologize in advance. Anyway, you are addressing the unfortunate circumstances which your friend has to deal with as the direct result of flawed political policy in the United States. I am trying to address the reasons that your friend is even put into those positions. He has a job to do, to figh the given enemy of the conflict. I am simply arguing that he would not be put in harms way had our country stuck to the instructions of the Constitution and had the Executive branch not fabricated evidence in order to goto war.