Hard to imagine that it would not be tens of thousands, as one has to provide a supply route and have enough force to engaged ISIL (which has been estimated to be at 20,000 or more guerillas). I gather the area of operations would cover half of Syria, parts of Northern Iraq (at least to Mosul) and the supply routes would be probably have to go through Turkey.
Of course, the Assad government in Syria has troops there, along with Hezbollah, Iranian volunteers, Kurdish volunteers and Russia. This could get very complicated.
No new rhyming headlines, but NSC Director Lt. General Michael T. Flynn has resigned. He now holds the record for the shortest serving NSC Director, having only held the seat for 24 days. The longest serving holder of that office lasted 2478 days (Henry Kissinger).
With Flynn having been fired by the previous administration and resigned from this one, I suspect this ends his career in government. He might end up as a news commentator.
As Chris mentioned last week, Lieutenant General Stephen J. Townsend, the Commanding General of Combined Joint Task Force – Operation INHERENT RESOLVE, which is working with Iraqi, Kurdish, and Syrian forces to defeat Da’esh, expressed optimism that the campaigns to retake Mosul and Raqaa, the Da’esh stronghold in Syria, would conclude successfully within the next six months. The recapture of Mosul has been a standing objective for the Iraqi government since the city fell to Da’esh militants in 2014. While the liberation of Mosul may be a foregone conclusion at this point, it seems unlikely to mark the end of political turmoil and violence in that country.
A New Sunni Insurgency?
The Institute for the Study of War recently warned that there are signs that that a post-Da’esh insurgency is brewing in Iraq among neo-Bathist Sunni groups and the lingering al-Qaeda (AQ) presence in the country. Da’esh militants also continue to perpetrate attacks in liberated eastern Mosul, as well as outside the city, and will likely transition back to insurgent tactics.
The absence of a political settlement among Iraq’s Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurdish political factions continues to feed the ongoing sectarian conflict driving the insurgent violence. AQ and the Neo-Bathist groups are positioned to exploit Sunni fears of Iranian influence over the Shi’a majority government and the Iranian-supported Shi’a militias (Hash’d al Shaabi).
Trump Administration Policy In Flux
The administration of Donald Trump has had little official to say regarding U.S. policy toward Iraq. However, recent comments by the president that the U.S. should have “kept” Iraq’s oil and the inclusion of the country in his travel ban have roiled Iraqi politics and undercut embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. Some Iraqi lawmakers have demanded that al-Abadi reduce cooperation with the U.S., limit U.S. troop deployments there, and impose a reciprocal travel ban on U.S. citizens. Hashd members have threatened to retaliate against U.S. troops in Iraq should Iran be attacked.
In a conversation with al-Abadi last week, Trump promised greater U.S. assistance against terrorism. While Trump has expressed a clear intent to ramp up efforts to destroy Da’esh, accomplishing that goal would have little effect on the underlying political divisions afflicting Iraq. Given Iraq’s military dependence on Iranian assistance, increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran would place al-Abadi’s government in an even more difficult position.
By the way, there is a still a war going on in Afghanistan, by most accounts, it is not going that well; and we probably need to increase our troop levels. On Thursday General John Nicholson, commanding general of NATO forces in Afghanistan, told congress “I believe we are in a stalemate.”: nato-shortfall-troops-afghanistan-us-general
I have no reason to quibble with that assessment. Victory is certainly not just around the corner.
Some data from these articles:
NATO has 13,300 troops in Afghanstan, about half of them American (8,400)
Afghan losses in the first ten months of 2016 were 6,785 killed, an increase of a third over 2015.
There were 11,500 civilians killed or injured in 2016, the most since the UN began keeping records in 2009 (nearly 3,500 killed and nearly 8,000 wounded).
Afghan government forces control no more than two-thirds of national territory (60% according to another article).
“We have roughly a two-to-one ratio of contractors to soldiers,” said Nicholson.
So, this works out to be 17,000 contractors, 8,400 American troops and 4,900 other NATO troops.
Cost of the 16 year war so far: around 2,000 American lives and $117 billion.
Needless to say, General Johnson has recommended that we increase troop levels there. He has asked for several thousand more. We did have around 100,000 troops there in 2011, now we have less than 10,000.
Trevor N. Dupuy, Numbers, Predictions and War: Using History to Evaluate Combat Factors and Predict the Outcome of Battles (Indianapolis; New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1979), p. 79
Is there actually a reliable way of calculating logistical demand in correlation to “standing” ration strength/combat/daily strength army size?
Did Dupuy ever focus on logistics in any of his work?
The answer to his first question is, yes, there is. In fact, this has been a standard military staff function since before there were military staffs (Martin van Creveld’s book, Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (2nd ed.) is an excellent general introduction). Staff officer’s guides and field manuals from various armies from the 19th century to the present are full of useful information on field supply allotments and consumption estimates intended to guide battlefield sustainment. The records of modern armies also contain reams of bureaucratic records documenting logistical functions as they actually occurred. Logistics and supply is a woefully under-studied aspect of warfare, but not because there are no sources upon which to draw.
As to his second question, the answer is also yes. Dupuy addressed logistics in his work in a couple of ways. He included two logistics multipliers in his combat models, one in the calculation for the battlefield effects of weapons, the Operational Lethality Index (OLI), and also as one element of the value for combat effectiveness, which is a multiplier in his combat power formula.
Dupuy considered the impact of logistics on combat to be intangible, however. From his historical study of combat, Dupuy understood that logistics impacted both weapons and combat effectiveness, but in the absence of empirical data, he relied on subject matter expertise to assign it a specific value in his model.
Logistics or supply capability is basic in its importance to combat effectiveness. Yet, as in the case of the leadership, training, and morale factors, it is almost impossible to arrive at an objective numerical assessment of the absolute effectiveness of a military supply system. Consequently, this factor also can be applied only when solid historical data provides a basis for objective evaluation of the relative effectiveness of the opposing supply capabilities.[1]
His approach to this stands in contrast to other philosophies of combat model design, which hold that if a factor cannot be empirically measured, it should not be included in a model. (It is up to the reader to decide if this is a valid approach to modeling real-world phenomena or not.)
Yet, as with many aspects of the historical study of combat, Dupuy and his colleagues at the Historical Evaluation Research Organization (HERO) had taken an initial cut at empirical research on the subject. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Dupuy and HERO conducted a series of studies for the U.S. Air Force on the historical use of air power in support of ground warfare. One line of inquiry looked at the effects of air interdiction on supply, specifically at Operation STRANGLE, an effort by the U.S. and British air forces to completely block the lines of communication and supply of German ground forces defending Rome in 1944.
Dupuy and HERO dug deeply into Allied and German primary source documentation to extract extensive data on combat strengths and losses, logistical capabilities and capacities, supply requirements, and aircraft sorties and bombing totals. Dupuy proceeded from a historically-based assumption that combat units, using expedients, experience, and training, could operate unimpaired while only receiving up to 65% of their normal supply requirements. If the level of supply dipped below 65%, the deficiency would begin impinging on combat power at a rate proportional to the percentage of loss (i.e., a 60% supply rate would impose a 5% decline, represented as a combat effectiveness multiplier of .95, and so on).
Using this as a baseline, Dupuy and HERO calculated the amount of aerial combat power the Allies needed to apply to impact German combat effectiveness. They determined that Operation STRANGLE was able to reduce German supply capacity to about 41.8% of normal, which yielded a reduction in the combat power of German ground combat forces by an average of 6.8%.
He cautioned that these calculations were “directly relatable only to the German situation as it existed in Italy in late March and early April 1944.” As detailed as the analysis was, Dupuy stated that it “may be an oversimplification of a most complex combination of elements, including road and railway nets, supply levels, distribution of targets, and tonnage on targets. This requires much further exhaustive analysis in order to achieve confidence in this relatively simple relationship of interdiction effort to supply capability.”[2]
The historical work done by Dupuy and HERO on logistics and combat appears unique, but it seems highly relevant. There is no lack of detailed data from which to conduct further inquiries. The only impediment appears to be lack of interest.
U.S. commander in Iraq, U.S. Army Lt. General Stephan Townsend, said “within the next six months I think we’ll see both (the Mosul and Raqqa campaigns) conclude.”
Fight for the western half of Mosul to begin in days.
“But on the ground inside Mosul, Iraqi troops said as they neared the Tigris, IS fighters launched few car bombs and largely fled their advances—unlike the heavy resistance they faced in the first few weeks of combat inside the city.”
“ISIL morphing into an insurgent threat, that’s the future,” Townsend said.
Concerning Raqqa: “What we would expect is that within the next few weeks the city will be nearly completely isolated….”
Anyhow……keep waiting for the point when ISIL realizes that an insurgency can’t hold ground forever against a conventional force and decides to go back to being an guerrilla force. This offensive is taking a very long time.
Examining the twelfth lecture from Professor Michael Spagat’s Economics of Warfare course that he gives at Royal Holloway University. It is posted on his blog Wars, Numbers and Human Losses at: https://mikespagat.wordpress.com/
This paper continues with discussion of the studies done by Fearon and Laitin (lecture 11, slide 5) and Collier and Hoeffler (lecture 11, slide 15) on civil wars. The lecture basically goes through and tests or challenges their papers in two areas: 1) ability to predict, and 2) causality.
Warning: This lecture may cause you to lose confidence in multi-variant regression models.
I already had. If you go to my book America’s Modern Wars, in Chapter 6 (pages 63-69) I propose a two-variable model of insurgency success or failure. I then tested the model back to the cases I used to make up the model and the model predicted the correct result in 53 out of 68 cases used (77.9%). The model predicted incorrectly in 15 cases, or over 20% of the time. Now, if I was at a blackjack table in Vegas, I would be pretty damn happy to predict the outcome of game almost 80% of the time. The problem I had is that I could not find a clear third variable. I could easily explain away why 7 of the 15 cases were incorrectly predicted, although they were for a variety of reasons; but I could not easily explain why the other 8 cases were incorrectly predicted. In three of the cases the model predicted a red win (insurgents won) when the blue side won (the counterinsurgents); and in four of the cases the model predicted a blue win when the red side won (page 67). There was clearly a third, fourth or fifth variable in play here, but I could never figure out exactly what it was, and it was probably multiple variables. This was the next step and would have been pursued further if we could have obtained further funding.
Of course, we could have just added three or more additional variables to the model and this would have certainly improved the fit….but what are we really doing? This is the point where I begin to loose confidence in adding more variables, so I choose not to.
Getting back to Dr. Spagat’s lecture, one person analyzed the two papers by Fearon and Laitin (called FL) and Collier and Hoeffler (called CH) as to their predictive value. They were not very good at prediction, and sometimes gave false predictions (slide 6). Note that the “false positives” outnumbered the correct predictions for the Collier and Hoeffler model.
On slide 10, Dr. Spagat shows the variables used in each model and how much each variable impacts the results. You will note that one to three variables in each model provide far more explanatory value than the rest of the variables. GDP sort of stands out in both models, although one uses GDP while the other uses GDP growth, which are very different values. There are also some odd variables in there (for example using “squared commodity dependence” in addition to using “commodity dependence” in one model).
Dr. Spagat then goes into the issue of causality, ending up with a discussion on rainfall. Unfortunately, the real world is more complex than the models. A regression model assumes that the inputs are “independent” variables and the output is a “dependent” variable. Yet, in the real world, there can be another variable out there that is influencing both the “independent” and the “dependent” variable. Also, the alleged “dependent” variable can sometimes influence the independent variables. This he discusses in slide 12 (“This is, while it is true that low or negative growth might cause conflict is also true that conflict might cause low or negative growth.”).
Note that Dr. Spagat does address using different measurements of variables in slide 22 (rainfall levels vice growth rates in rainfall). This is an issue. Does one use an independent variable with an clear value (like a GDP figure) or does one use the change in the value of the variable over time as the measure (like percent change in GDP)?
“Amateurs study tactics, armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics,” as the old saw goes. While the veracity of this statement is debatable, there can be little doubt that the study and appreciation of the role of sustainment in warfare lags behind that of the sexier topics of strategy and tactics. A new blog, Logistics in War, [also on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/logisticsinwar/) and Twitter (@logisticsinwar)] is seeking to change that.
The anonymous and somewhat mysterious purveyor of the blog bills it as “a public, unofficial, ‘Professional Military Education’ site,” the purpose of which is “to instigate and inspire, continue and create, a discussion on military logistics that is so often sorely lacking (or if it does occur, does so behind closed doors).”
It seems safe to conclude that the blog’s owner is an Australian Army loggie, however: “Although the blog currently reflects an Australian and Army orientation, its vision is to become broadly applicable; to reflect the many different approaches to logistics as practiced by different military Services, the Joint domain, and militaries of all persuasions.”
The initial posts range in subject from a list of suggested readings about logistics, to the impact of sustainment in battle in recent history, to the challenges of supplying combat forces in the multi-domain battle construct. The writing is crisp, clear, and professional, and the questions and topics addressed are of undeniable importance. Logistics in War is a welcome addition to the online conversation about warfare, and is well worth the time to peruse. It will be very interesting to watch it progress and grow.
This work came about because I was working in the Vietnam records in 1968-1970 for the I Corps area and saw how poorly they were kept. They were the worst U.S. Army records I had ever seen. The U.S. Army World War II combat records were much better kept, and they were at least as busy at the time. In fact, U.S. Army records during Red Cloud’s War (1866-1868) were much better. Hundred year later, the U.S. Army records were incomplete, majors potions of the records had been thrown away, there were significant gaps in the daily operational reports, basic statistical data was missing, etc.
We ended up flagging this issue up to senior leadership in the Army, and were pleasantly surprised when they gave us a contract to look further into it. We ended up doing a survey of U.S. Army record keeping at that time (the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia was the major operation going on).
Several years later, well after we had completed our work, we did go back to the Army to recommend that we do a second survey. This time “the suits” showed up at the meeting (senior SES government managers) and assured the command that everything was fine, they had it under control and another survey was not needed. I am not sure the general we were talking to believed them, but this was the end of the discussion. We went back to analyzing warfare instead of record keeping.
The problem may be as simple as the Army was not sharing its record keeping of helicopter sorties and drone strikes with the Air Force. If that is the problem, then it can be simply corrected. I kind of doubt it is that simple.
Anyhow, record keeping is not as exciting as tanks, but it is part of the nuts-and-bolts issues of running an army.
