From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Subject: Convoys (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:10:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.110826.10293@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:

|> I am aware of Afghanistan. Overall the support for convoy was failry low.
|> What I am advocating is a much larger support structure per convoy. Is
|> much harder to attack a convoy protected by a battalion or division than one
|> protected by a company. I prefer A-10's for ground support as the record of
|> shoulder SAM's was not good against them in Kuwait. Also spotters could be placed on the ridge lines on both sides of the road. B-52's could also be utilized
|> in an Arclight scenario.
|> 
I don't know, basically what you're arguing for is useful in a situation
that's socio-politically more fo a hybrid of WWII and 'Nam.  It's a partisan
war in one neighborhood, but it's also (adopting your plan) a set-piece
conflict.  I think with the convoys, you'd be more into the partisan
conflict realm.  Correct me when I err, but wouldn't a B-52 have too
long of a turn around time to make it much more than a sanitizer preceding
a convoy?  Again, I think this would tip-off the enemy.  It sure did in 'Nam.
(Both ours and the French)  The 'Cong were the ones who found that mortar
trick in defeating U.S. emplacements (the Afghans just re-worked it to use
against convoys).  If you're into the stuff, read Frederick Pohl's Mercernary
(I think it's called Falkenberg's Legion now -- I could have the author wrong).

|> I am talking *very* large scale involvement. The concept of half-way involvement
|> usually equates to more dead in the long run. I agree that it is not desired.
|> I personnally do not want us to get dragged into this quagmire. I also do not
|> want to see men killed because they lacked adequate resources to do the job
|> right. I am not so sure about airstrikes in this theater. I would use them
|> to impede movement of the enemy during an engagement, but I think the only
|> effective way to make sure of the result is by sending in infantry.

This is where I basically have a problem with this.  I still believe that this 
is a partisan conflict (i.e. for those scratching their heads: Partisan
Warfare is a term used in former-Soviet strategic doctrine to describe the
9-5 guerrilla.  A person works, then gets off for a few ( ;-) ) hours of
warfare before going to bed.  Essentially, it is one where the entire populace
is suspect of being the enemy.  I know, generally they are full-time 
guerrillas, but I used an acceptable analogy...).  I think our special warfare
troops would be ideal in this (as per another post), but regular infantry
just isn't cut out for it.  They lack the training, psychological screening,
and general will to do such work.  I think Viet Nam proved this.  

On another front, it seems that Bush has his sights set more on SH, so 2 large
scale foreign commitments aren't going to happen.  On a related note, is any-
one else as disgusted as I that not only are we the world's policeman (I don't
really mind this to an extent that we can afford it.), but that we solicit
payment for it?  The biggest "Gulf War Firsts" was that ti was the first time
in our nation's history where we prostituted ourselves to others.  I find it
reprehensible that we've become a nation of mercernaries.  Perhaps that's
the reason the Japanese keep us around, we're so good at fighting everyone.

-- 
Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met
billb@owlnet.rice.edu     F L L F       in silence, by the act."
Houston, Texas, USA          8       -Dante Alighieri "Inferno" XXIV ln.77-78
"My opinions are mine, no one else is that stupid"