Author of 'shock and awe' strategy says concept was misused in Iraq War

[Nambe]

MONTEREY, Calif. (AP)

The military strategist who coined the term ``shock and awe,'' which was used to describe tactics in the U.S.-led war against Iraq now says the expression became a ``PR nightmare'' that was misunderstood and misapplied during the conflict.

Harlan Ullman, who wrote a 1996 paper that outlined the doctrine of using massive force against an enemy, said the widely used term ended up backfiring on the Pentagon.

``It was used against us, there's no doubt,'' Ullman told an audience at the Naval Postgraduate School here. ``'Shock and awe' `` was not meant to be this massive application of force. It was meant to be very focused, very intense to get the enemy to do what we wanted them or stop doing things, but not wholesale destruction.'' ---

Ullman, who as a Navy officer completed over 150 combat missions in Vietnam, said he was surprised when the Bush administration began talking about a ``shock and awe'' military campaign earlier this year. He said he was never contacted by anyone in the White House for advice.

Go to the Store!

Get an Excelent ’04 Party Hat!

[rooboy]

1. Do you guys get a lot of Harlan Ullman on tv in the states??

Seen him interviewed quite a few times by the Aussie media. He's well worth listening to, imho.

[indictrichardperle]

2. thats because

the neo-con civilians Wolfowitz, Perle and the cabal in the pentagon....never served in the military. They dont know what the hell they are doing. The uniformed military, is pretty much not in the decision making.

[flamingyouth]

3. If I recall

He was somewhat critical of this even before it unfolded in Iraq. I remember reading interviews with him at the time.

[wtmusic]

4. I guess 'Blitzkrieg' was already taken n/t

x

[warren pease]

5. Here's what Ullman told me...

From an email exchange just before the US invaded Iraq:


ME

Mr. Ullman -- Shock and awe -- along with loathing, disgust and
a barely suppressed gag reflex -- pretty well characterize my response to
your "little Hiroshima" plan for Baghdad.

They don't hate us for our freedoms, Mr. Ullman. Nor do they hate us
because we can buy houses.

They hate us because all sane people detest murderous imperialists
engaged in cynical resource grabs. They hate us because we have
demons in our midst who advocate unleashing the fires of hell on
civilian populations, then dismissing the results as "collateral damage."

Not in my name, Mr. Ullman, and not with my tax dollars.

XX
Portland, Oregon


ULLMAN:

Sadly, you miss understand (sic) the point. Shock and awe is meant to get the
enemy to quit as quickly and cheaply as possible not target civilians.
there is a moral imperative on our part to use our force to minimize
casualties and damage all around.

Assuming you oppose the war and it still comes, what is your
alternative to possible tens of thousands of civilian casualties if we
go to battle the old way?


ME:

Mr. Ullman -- I fail to see how lobbing between 600 and 800 cruise
missiles into a city of about 5 million people over a two-day period
creates a credible "alternative to possible tens of thousands of
civilian casualties" -- unless, of course, your objective is to kill
far more than tens of thousands. In that case, shock and awe seems
just the ticket.

And in case these Iraqi civilians are just statistics to you, here's
what some of them look like:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/iraqkids.html


XX
Portland, Oregon



ULLMAN:

No one is talking about lobbing hundreds of bombs profligately into a city. If we do, then that will be a huge and costly error. However what I don't understand is how things have been so turned around. why is GW Bush cast as the villain and the real thug, Saddam, seen as the victim?


ME:

On the contrary, every news reference to shock and awe I've seen has included some sort of dire threat to Badhdad itself. Note this line from a CBS News story from Friday, January 24th:

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

The full story is here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

And I've heard similar threats from administration officials on NPR, PBS and ABC.


As to the Bush/Saddam/thuggery issue . . That's a false dichotomy. Just because I see Bush as a murderous thug with designs on Iraqi oil doesn't mean I support Hussein, yet another murderous thug.

As far as I'm concerned, an imperial presidency and an autocratic dictatorship have far too much in common. A pox on both houses.

I could enumerate my personal list of Bush administration offenses against the Constitution -- and against sanity in general -- but they've been done to death by others already.


XX
Portland, Oregon



Thus endeth the conversation.


wp

[study_war_no_more]

6. very well done

as for hating us for our freedoms one thought might be that USA represents six percent of the worlds population but uses over fifty percent of the worlds resources. This leaves us with two choices the current one is to label the "others" as terrorists backward heathens godless jealous savages or... we can recognise our blessing through no virtue of our own have left us incredibly fortunate and in a position to help heal this small blue marble we live on. True wealth and power is reflected in what we have the ability to give.

[w4rma]

7. It sounds like Ullman got your point, warren pease

Good job :)