Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Colin Powell's Record (halting the pursuit prematurely)
From: briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass)
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:31:14 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <184ki4INNh02@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>Look, my point is simple. One of the fundamental principles of war is to
>hit the enemy hard during the pursuit phase of a battle. Now if you may
>be walking into a trap, or overextending your lines of communication, or
>your forces are becoming disorganized, then there may be good reason to
>halt the pursuit. But I can't think of a single battle in history when 
>it profited the victor to halt the pursuit and let the enemy escape, 
>when there was essentially no military risk in continuing the pursuit 
>phase.

It was a common tactic during Medieval times for a disciplend squadron of
cavalry to shock the enemy cavalry, then retreat to their own lines within
the enemy in hot pursuit.  Arriving piecemeal, the enemy is quickly
dispatched by the infantry.

>This particularly irritates me, because I was ranting and raving on this
>group (ADS), the night before the battle was stopped, about the need to
>throw everything we had into the battle, and to obliterate the remaining
>Iraqi forces (I think the title of the article was "Pour it on!" or 
>something like that if the stuff is archived somewhere). And in a 1985 
>article (Eurocrypt 85) I listed premature halting of a pursuit as one of
>half-a-dozen or so cardinal military mistakes. It's just *never* been
>right to throw away the fruits of victory like that. It has always come
>back to haunt the side that threw away the advantage.

Military mistake, perhaps, but this was a political decision.  Yes, the
situation on the battlefield dictated engagement.  However, there were
other, overriding political concerns, which I think I've iterated clearly
in other posts.  Basically all objectives had been met.  Iraq was leaving
Kuwait, any more action would have just been slaughter.  So the political
decision was made, and I believe was the correct decision.

But, as it was Patton I believe who said, "Politicians never let us finish
it.  And always leave us with another war on our hands."

>I'm not deducing this from first principles, but taking the lessons of
>history. But I think you probably could reason it out logically and come
>to similar conclusions. There was one possible exception that I can 
>think of, when Attila was allowed to retire after Chalons, if memory
>serves, because it was desirable to leave him with some forces intact
>in order that he would remain a threat to one of the parties on the
>winning side, preventing that party from turning against his partners.
>So if there was some political reason to leave Iraq with sufficient
>forces to deter Iran from becoming greedy, for example, then I could see
>it. But I don't think Powell used that argument.

As I said, that was just one political reason.  A bigger one was the
understanding that all objectives were met.  We were there to force Iraq
out of Kuwait.  Once they started to comply, that was it.  We weren't there
to kill every Iraqi in the country after we grabbed it back.

>In any case, after all the abuse that was dumped on my head by pacifists
>at that time for advocating "pouring it on", its particularly galling
>to hear Bush claiming noone at the time wanted the battle to continue.
>I think he's deluding himself and ignoring the facts.

Depends on who you talk to.  Since intelligence was coming straight from
the battlefield, and CNN was nowhere near, I think he had the best grasp
possible on the situation.

>Even more irritating is hearing all the bleeding-heart media types
>claiming that the fact that it was becoming a "turkey shoot" was
>reason to call it off. When the battle becomes a turkey shoot,
>that's the very time you need to push your own forces to the limit,
>unless the enemy forces surrender.
>
>I wonder if they would have complained about the "Marianas Turkey
>Shoot" during WW2 if they had been there :-)

The war had become a turkey shoot, not just a particular battle, like the
Marianas.  They were vanquished, and leaving, that's all we wanted.  We
weren't after the destruction of Iraq, like we were of Germany and Japan.
>
>And another thing, before I exhaust my rage. Bush should have listened
>very carefully to the commander on the spot (Schwarzkopf) before
>interfering in the battle. Unless there were very compelling reasons
>it was properly Schwarzkopf's call as to when to halt the battle.

No.  In a democracy the military is subject to civilian authority.  It is
only Schwarzkopfs position to recommend action at that point, as it was no
longer strictly a military issue.  Before that point, it was strictly
military and therefore Schwarzkopfs job.  But not during the Iraqi retreat
to Basra.

>This is another similarity to Hitler halting Guderian outside
>Dunkirk (over Guderian's violent objections) and so on along the
>lines in the 1985 article.
>
>Not that anyone gives a damn what I think (and the feeling is
>mutual I'm sure :-)
>
>Really, Bush has no business commanding battles (I'm speaking
>of his personality characteristics and lack of military knowledge),

After he flew 50 some combat missions, he has no military knowledge.

>so the poor guy has really been victimized by all us hawks who urged 
>him on. But he ought to be smart enough to choose good advisors
>and delegate the proper authority to them, then let them run the
>show, as Reagan did. If the battle fails, then off with their heads,
>but during the battle they ought to be allowed to use them :-)

He did, but he also exercised his right as CnC called a halt when it was
prudent to do so.  If you check out some of the military journals, I think
you'll find that your position is in the minority amongst the
professionals.

-- 
"... For I have sworn upon the alter of god, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  Thomas Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm