UPDATED: Texas Hold’em versus Russian Roulette = The New Eastern Front? Let’s explore an alternative military option
Follow my blog posts and this week’s newspaper column and it’s clear that I’m looking at the diplomatic mid-term and long-term for resolution of the Russo-Georgia War.
However, this morning I had “one of those conversations” about US and Western European military options—in the gym. Hey, these chats are occurring in defense ministries, in State Departments, in trenches outside of Tbilisi — the difference is, the conversation in the gym doesn’t matter while the ones in the ministries and trenches do.
So what military forces could the US send? The gym talk was a serioius conversation, after a fashion. I’d also had this exchange with a commenter on a prior post regarding the Russian decision to halt:
Commenter 2: “I believe Russia decided to quit before the counter stroke could be applied. At least it looks that way if you consider the terms of the armistice.”
My reply is fairly involved but it included this: “Would the counter-stroke you forsee involve Georgian allies? Now that follows a different time line, doesn’t it…?”
Reinforcement is a “counter-stroke” – one with risks.
Moving Georgia’s Iraq force home in US air transports was a reminder of US strategic reach. That was a military option and it has been employed. WHo knows? It may have given Moscow some pause. We’ve already seen at least one quasi-military option employed. Using USAF cargo planes to bring humanitarian supplies is standard policy – but a C-17 is a US military plane. That is a message, a limited, careful, but calculated message, and constitutes a low-risk option that, well, the order has been given and the transports are flying. The presence of US military training forces in Georgia is a message — one Russia chose to ignore. Beefing up the training and support mission is a military option.
In the gym I produced a scenario that puts two big-time geo-strategic gamblers in an armed face-off. I dubbed it “Texas Hold’em versus Russian Roulette.” In succinct terms: the force deployed comprises a reinforced US airborne brigade plus allied contingents if you can get them (Polish, Ukrainian, Iraqi, even Chinese?– this is, after all, fantasy). Base air support in a Black Sea littoral nation, and two carrier battle groups in the Black Sea itself when (if) Turkey allows their passage through the Straits. Nail overflight permission – told you, tricky diplomacy required at all levels.
But — say this in the gym, say it on the radio, say it on the blog– to make a genuine military statement on the edge of the Russian land mass requires heavy forces – at least a division that can be supported by follow-on heavy divisions. All else is a speed bump. Heavy divisions take time to deploy and move either by land through Europe or by sea.
The downside of any US-led military option is summed in this pseudo-equation: Texas Hold’em plus Russian Roulette = The New Eastern Front. Advantage Russian Roulette. You’re on the Bear’s turf.
Thus ended an exercise in political science fiction.
As a retired military friend of mine says, in a Georgia-type scenario the US can execute a minimal show of force mission (airborne brigade plus) or launch nuclear strikes. Ouch.
But willing or not, the scenario proceeds. Even though it’s fiction we’re out of the gym. A military planner is called on the carpet in the White House and receives a grim howdy from an American president committed to defending an emerging democracy located in Russia’s European near-abroad. The president has played global Texas Hold’em for years. He says: “So. You keep nixing military options. I’m not satisfied. Give me a mil option that meets my strategic requirements but adapts to diplomatic initiatives and works within time and logistical constraints.”
The fictional reply: Insert a Peacekeeping Brigade (PKB). Call it a Peacekeeping Organization (PKO) if you want to give it an extra diplomatic smudge.
(Texas Hold’em raises an eyebrow.)
A peacekeeping brigade comprises at least two engineer battalions with attached military police, medical, Civil Affairs, signal units and lots of media connectivity. Cameras matter. Add State Department personnel. Add Special Forces with their linguistic talents and a light infantry battalion for local security. Embed non-governmental organizations with the guts to participate and promise support to NGOs who choose to operate on their own but would accept clean water and blanets. Why, Mr. President, you can help the human shields. Aren’t they heading for Georgia to stop a super-power invasion? Tell the human shields our peacekeeping outfit will give them MREs and bandaids while they chain themselves to Georgian churches to protect them from Russian bombs.
(Texas Hold’em grins at this possibility.)
Insert the PKB in a Russo-Georgia type situation and the emerging democracy gets on-the-ground support. The PKB is not an offensive military force, but an airborne brigade at the end of a long logistical tether isn’t either. The PKB serves as a military-diplomatic “transition signal” – Texas Hold’em and the emerging democracy get some of the value of a combat speed bump, while reducing though not eliminating the risks of inserting combat forces.
(Texas Hold’em…the man nods. Says thanks.)
REALITY CHECK: Unfortunately, we don’t have a dedicated peacekeeping brigade I’ve supported a dedicated peacekeeping organization since the early 1990s. This blog post from 2006 captures some of that history. The US Army War College paper I mention (advocating a “PKB”) drew a note from its grader, a US Navy commander. To paraphrase from memory: “Your generals won’t let you do it.” That was 1997.
UPDATE: I don’t usually do this but I will this afternoon.
George from Sunnyvale writes via Creators.com (my creators syndicate box):
“I read your comment about our military options in Georgia on austinbay.net with great interest. Your post made me think of a question.
Would it be possible for us to give the Georgian’s cruise missiles without the Russians deeming it an act of war on our part? And could cruise missiles close the Roki tunnel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roki_Tunnel
Thank you for your reply. Feel free to respond via email or on your blog.”
Tunnels and roads and railroads aren’t the problem — it’s the Kremlin’s behavior. A US-supplied cruise missile closing a tunnel might make for great pix, may make some people feel good (for the moment), but unless the missile attack is part of a concerted effort of coordinated and supported actions, it gives Moscow another “cause” with few consequences. The Kremlin could plow straight through a US peacekeeping brigade and toss the troops into prisons, but it faces immense political risks and conseqeunces if it does. For the record, I don’t think Moscow has won — I think it is in position to get a victory of a type. Instapundit had a poll asking who won? I voted for “neither.” We don’t know yet. Moscow doesn’t know yet. Tbilisi doesn’t know yet. We can speculate. Welcome to freedom of speech. Worth defending, isn’t it?
Who says the heavy stuff needs to come from Europe or the sea? Looks like there’s some pretty smooth terrain from Iraq, through northern Iran, then right up the gut of Azerbaijan into southern Georgia.
We can play this game too. Cut off Tabriz from Tehran. Move to the Azerbaijan/Iran border. That’s all good turf for a pipeline too. And who knows what we might find along the way? And if the heavy stuff needs to move south toward Tehran, well, so be it. Seems justifiable to me.
So send the 82 or 101 Airborne into southern Georgia. As a protection force, or course. Put a carrier group into the Black Sea. Mass some big stuff in Mosul. Lots of it.
That’s a message that gives us some options, especially if we need to deal with Iran anytime soon.
Comment by jaymaster — 8/13/2008 @ 7:21 pm
What is the situation in Ukraine regarding its ethnic minorities? Does this mean the Russians would be less inclined to go there now that they have to deal with Georgia? Ukraine is a much bigger country.
I heard an interesting interview on the PBS program Fresh Air. The person had recently been in South Ossetia. He said they dislike both the Georgians and Russians and are under no illusions about the impetus for Putin’s move. They figure they need the Russians more at the moment and will deal with the possibility of being assimilated later.
Comment by Keith Waters — 8/13/2008 @ 7:22 pm
Hmmm… like the PKB, but wouldn’t go airborne. When you have mountainous terrain you go Alpine with 10MD - those folks did a great job in Iraq, fielded questions all around, made COIN look easy. What they can do that airborne can’t, easily, is survive off the land and figure out every single chokepoint in Georgia. And if Putin used the PKK, we can ask the Iraqi Kurds for some supply help and trying to keep their kin in line.
Its not, exactly, ‘Texas Hold ‘em’ as you are also starting the hard training of the local troops to that level of capability. Mountains make a mockery of high tech, armor and mass movements of troops. You are basically changing the ante from disuasion via diplomacy to saying: You might win Georgia by main force to start, but it will slowly bleed you out if you *try* to hold it. In a situation like this you must change the parameters of the equation away from emphasis of force. It would help to get any of our allies to help in those specialize alpine/mountain training areas, and they have been lax save for the very active forces of Canada. Now *there* is a mountain group that knows their business.
On the diplo-side it is far past time to get together with Poland, Latvia,Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and possibly Romania and Bulgaria. NATO isn’t helping, the EU is supine and these folks need some leadership and help getting organized…. that should have happened a decade ago. Do anything to change this from a main-force confrontation and start putting longer term and wider ramifications in place. You don’t need a lot of force to do that, but you need the right kind of force to make sure that for each mountain pass it is understood that one man can keep a thousand bottled up. The USSR failed with that in Afghanistan. Time to remind Russia of that.
Comment by ajacksonian — 8/13/2008 @ 7:26 pm
Too bad we don’t have a supply of EFP’s to send along with the Georgian Army units. WAIT a moment… where could we get some of THOSE?
Comment by k. pablo — 8/13/2008 @ 7:30 pm
If we go in, we need to go in light but ready to fight.
Never underestimate Ivan on his own turf. The last army that did that was the Wehrmacht, considered the finest army to lace up boots. 70% of it is buried in Russia.
Comment by section9 — 8/13/2008 @ 7:37 pm
We could also toss in some of those flashy new assets we’ve been practicing with in Iraq. A handful of drone units, some of the new data-wrangling tech, and the like. That way, when Russia gets itchy and decides to shoot down one of our planes, we get a good PR shot without a “no return” loss of life, while we get to use some of that gear on the other side of the insurgent wall.
Comment by cirby — 8/13/2008 @ 7:40 pm
Use a few airborne battalions as tripwires, through in a light infantry brigade and maybe an ACR, and you have yourself a nice defensive force in a hilly region like Georgia (outside the central plain) and in the cities. Add them as fibre to the Georgian (shambles of an) army, and you might have yourself a force that can fight back if attacked (and, given the vast differences in training and materiel between the Iraq/Afghanistan veteran American force, and the Russian conscripts who, if they have any experience, have largely been involved in organized crime in the Caucauses, and I am not certain that the Americans would be overwhelmed easily, especially if the force is leavened with USAF, a carrier group maybe, and some AH battalions).
Makes you wonder if we shouldn’t do what the Russians did in Pristina, during the Kosovo war.
Here’s a different sort of Texas Hold’em - and one less likely to cause WWIII. Why not use this as an excuse to send loads of American men and materiel to Ukraine (with Uk’s permission, of course)? Maybe put them right in Crimea (a good next-target for the Russkies). You could transport some from the sandbox, and maybe get more from central Europe. This would drive the Russkies nuts - moving forward the very relationship they’re hoping to undermine, and in the biggest near-abroad territory there is - while it doesn’t put a lot of trigger fingers facing each other in sketchy situations.
Comment by James in DC — 8/13/2008 @ 7:40 pm
No, I’m not even an armchair “swiveler.” But the other day I read a post about Israel threatening Russia, for its sale of the S-300 anti-aircraft defense system to Iran. Israel said “if you sell it, we will defeat your communications.”
So, there ya go. That’s my question. We’re no longer in 1997. We’ve got satelites. And, we’ve got military equipment that could sent russian signals flying into silence.
Since I don’t think it will be nukes. And, in the current atmosphere all you’ve got is putin LYING about stopping. While he insists on making this issue much more “pregnant.” Is he the “piston that could?”
By the way, the people to watch are the POLES. The Poles don’t trust anything out of the old soviet union; which means all the “hangers-on” to russia, all the way to the Polish border with the Ukraine, are kind’a suspect. In other words, it’s the mentality of Marx at work; among people who ar notoriously drunk all the time. And, who manufacture nothing of quality.
The buildup? That was known by satelite. While russia not only spreads her military “thin” … it becomes obvious … if you just look at the perverted bomb drops. That the pilots, in the newest technological marvels of planes, still dropped their bombs and ran home. Accuracy wasn’t present. (Hence, the civilian death tolls.)
As to nukes, they’re not as efficient as you’re being led to believe. If you own them, they deteriorate on you. And, then you have garbage left over for 10,000 years. Why do the arabs want nukes? They haven’t got the ability to fight well with forces. And, they think nukes will let them blackmail their way to getting what they want out of diplomats.
It’s here the ground has shifted. Sarkozy? Could be he gets handed Chamberlain’s umbrella?
From history, I know Americans hated getting involved in European wars. I still think this is true. As to the “charity” flowing into Georgia now, I’m reminded how the junta learned to love these shipments, too, when they went into Myanmar after the flood. Or was it an earthquake?
Charity is a big time business! The Red Cross right now is filling up.
And, again, I think if anything “military” happens ahead, russia will learn that we can ace their communications systems. That, I think, is our best bet. (But I’m no military wiz. Nor am I even a computer programmer. But I raised one.)
Comment by Carol Herman — 8/13/2008 @ 7:41 pm
Tactics are not that difficult. We can easily achieve air superiority and with A10 tank killers it would be the same when we took out Saddam Hussein tank formations in 1991 and 2003. We did that with air power. However do we really want to bloody the bear that much? Our navy would massacre the Soviet Navy in the Black Sea and that is without the carrier inside.
But if a great power threatens a near great power too much and the near great can’t defend with conventional weapons then they may be scared enough to resort to nukes.
So easier to nudge the bear that they too big a bite and take their goodies and go with an apparent victory that they punished the Georgians.
The Russian have not advance toward Tbilisi and won’t as long as foreign leaders are in the capital. The Georgians have good defenses by now at Mtskheta with tanks and with advice from our 1000 troops that has been there the whole time and the 137 trainers. Plus the extra well trained Iraqi Georgian contingent with cargo I am sure have been deployed to best effect.
Russian is now occupied in a smash before they leave mode. They are leaving but will leave behind the irregulars to loot, rape, kill and sack that came from all over Russia and the Ossetian’s
Russia blinked when they did not stop the first C17 delivering the Georgian troops. Message sent by Bush and received. They will not expand the war to attack USAF and once we got a naval vessel off Poti they will leave the eastern half.
Bush has given a message that the US is not scared to enter a war zone and chance an attack. Also that we do care about Georgia and will not leave it to be dismembered.
Russia will be allowed to leave with dignity and get a consolation prize on the diplomatic front. However we have now given the message that no longer will Russia get to have exclusive use of the Black Sea. That is a major change from the Cold War. That is the punishment for Russia adventurism.
Comment by RAH — 8/13/2008 @ 7:54 pm
I’m honored to have kicked off your train of thought.
My fundamental error was in thinking the Russians would honor their agreement. I promise not to make hat mistake again.
Comment by M. Simon — 8/13/2008 @ 7:55 pm
That ‘PKB’ sounds like hostages in camo.
Comment by Dawnfire82 — 8/13/2008 @ 8:00 pm
I was watching Fox News and one of their military generals had an interesting suggestion. What would happen if the US based F-22’s out of Turkey and set up a “No-Fly Zone” over Georgia? F-22’s specifically because they can lay the smack down on any Russian fighter/bomber with utter impunity.
Comment by Steven — 8/13/2008 @ 8:06 pm
If the price of oil keeps dropping and Congress opens up drilling, there will be much more pressure on Putin to do something stupid because the only thing keeping the Soviet military running right now is Russian oil money.
I’m wondering if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case.
It’s baffling to think that one day there might actually be Iraqi troops fighting with Americans to defend Georgia.
Yes, it is worth defending.
Comment by Tman — 8/13/2008 @ 8:08 pm
The US can operate out of Turkey for a long time.
As for stopping the Russians, we plinked thousands of T-xx tanks in Iraq and we can do it again.
Comment by Austin — 8/13/2008 @ 8:11 pm
Fascinating discussion here, and one of the few which seems to recognize he enormous opportunities available to the US, Georgia, NATO and assorted individual European states. Leaving aside the comments on the Poles and Sarkozy, and the liklihood that NATO may do nothing, here are a few questions:
1 - Wouldn’t TWO carrier groups in the Black Sea be unneeded overkill? Did we ever do that in the Cold War? I recall destroyer and related electronic recon patrols very close to the Soviet Black Sea coast, but never carrier visits. Wouldn’t a port call anywhere in the Aegean get lots of folks thinking, let alone if we visit Bulgarian or Romanian port?
2 - Isn’t Russia relatively overextended at this point, certainly diplomatically and to a great extent militarily? What more can they do? For all the Georgian “losses”, do they have any military manpower left available for hill/mountain/guerrilla campaigning? What more can Russian armor do?
3 - Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltics are noticeable and impressively vocal. Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan are the opposite - what’s up with that?
Comment by Interested Conservative — 8/13/2008 @ 8:11 pm
Who said it had to be quick? Who said it was going to be quick? You’re going to fight a war with Russia you take the time to do it right. It takes a year to prepare, then you take a year to prepare. It takes two, three, four years to conquer the damn place, you take two, three, four years to conquer the damn place.
“What about the nukes?” I hear you ask. stuff the damn nukes. You don’t want the Russians using their nukes, give them the option of honorable surrender. They surrender we’ll occupy the country, clean out the crap, and rebuild government and infrastructure.
And we ask for volunteers to settle the land. Citizen or immigrant (legal or illegal), you agree to work the land or the equivalent for a period of no less than seven years, you get free land and assistance in getting set up in the business of your choice. In addition, all Russian citizens gain the right to enter the U.S. without passport or visa, and to attend school at any level as if a citizen of the state where the institution is located.
The goal here is to get Russia straightened out and back on her feet.
We start thinking long term. We also get the American people involved, and I mean in a real way. Involved enough to make sacrifices, do without. Involved enough to go to a foreign land to establish the rule of law, democratic institutions, and an infrastructure that works.
Screw this “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” crap. We go in ready for a long term relationship, or we don’t go in at all.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 8/13/2008 @ 8:35 pm
A couple notes from my thought of when Russia was on the brink of attacking Israel I believe during LBJ’s term. I believe he told a carrier group that was heading out the of the Mediteranean to turn back around and head towards Israel. It stopped the Russians from carrying out their assist with the Arabs. I am not familiar with the current Navy logistics but I can’t help but think that moving a significant Navy presence off the coast of Georgia would be absolutely perfect. Any move by the Russians inward causes rains of Navy Fighters and cruise missles to be reigned down on their heads. So what you are left with is no significant movement of the Army but a significant amount of power that is a deterrent and was uses well throughout the 90s with our Air Wars in Kosovo and the Iraq sorties through the Clinton years.
Comment by bmili — 8/13/2008 @ 8:41 pm
I might add, let the former Eastern bloc countries form the ground forces. Let them build up their pride and in a terrific show of solidarity by having Polish, Ukranian, Latvian, Estonian, Georgian troops standing together.
Comment by bmili — 8/13/2008 @ 8:42 pm
I guarantee our little adventures in the Third World will become a little more “interesting” if we start overtly messing around in Russia’s backyard.
Comment by Cody — 8/13/2008 @ 8:48 pm
The Javelin missile system proved very, very effective against armor when used in Northern Iraq by light infantry. This coupled with enough air power could be enough. But, do we have enough airpower to actually gain air superiority?
Comment by Aaron — 8/13/2008 @ 8:53 pm
Allen K,
Yes, thats my point too. No need to rush an attack.
But there are some bold moves we can make over the next few weeks/months that can be game changing over the longer term.
Comment by jaymaster — 8/13/2008 @ 8:55 pm
Why wouldn’t Turkey be willing to do almost anything to prevent Russia or a reconstituted Soviet Union from having military forces directly on its doorstep? If the present Turkish government isn’t able to see clearly in this regard, why can’t the Turkish military see the strategic implications for their nation of Russia permanently reabsorbing Georgia into its sphere of influence? Turkey possesses a 150-some-odd mile long (250 km) land frontier with Georgia, after all, and the latter’s value as a buffer against Russia beyond ought to be enormous from the Turks’ point of view.
Comment by Michael McNeil — 8/13/2008 @ 9:00 pm
At first send no military but forward controllers and logistics units, along with their organic security (or security attachment/reinforcements determined by local commanders’ evaluation of conditions).
No AFV’s beyond command - configured Strykers or whatever the current radio - on - wheels/tracks is for the Army or AF. Up Armor Hummers and soft skin transports are okay.
Put a field hospital near Tiblisi. Create an air bridge to Germany or other supportive NATO country out of the combat zone. I must admit that I am delightfully surprised by some of the rhetoric that has been coming out of our ungrateful kids…
Establish two or three formal expeditionary airfields suitable for fixed wing transports; commercial airports where available, at least one true “EAF” carved out of a field on the Georgian side of the line of the FEBA. This last airfield handles the lion’s share of U.S. flagged short - haul fixed wing and helo traffic.
We won’t be an offensive threat by any standard; just in place, executing a humanitarian mission.
After a week, we’ll have reconned and mapped the country down to submeter accuracy. The fleet air arm will be on station. American service men and women and diplomats will be on the ground across Georgia. We will be there to help the Georgians fix their country, and if the EU/NATO weenies actually sack up we may even have company. And if the Russians decide that they aren’t going to honor their own cease fire… they’ve brought a lot of crappy equipment into bad terrain to run out of air superiority in. Multiple choke points. The rainy season opens in three weeks, maybe four. The Black Sea Fleet v. two carrier air wings; bets?
Now just who was it who fights at night, in all weathers?
Comment by TmjUtah — 8/13/2008 @ 9:14 pm
“It’s baffling to think that one day there might actually be Iraqi troops fighting with Americans to defend Georgia.” — Comment by Tman — 8/13/2008 @ 8:08 pm
You know, I read that and got a shiver — in a good way. Why wait for that day? It wouldn’t surprise me to find some volunteers available, and it would be a great show of what responsibility looked like in the global village. If everyone manages to get out alive, so much the better.
It’s a position that requires boldness, pride, and honor — and doesn’t require sophisticated weapons-handling or familiarity with complex logistics — and accumulates goodwill at great rates. In combat, the Iraqis must feel some inferiority with the US in-country. But this would enable them to “punch above their weight” in diplomacy.
Comment by cthulhu — 8/13/2008 @ 9:36 pm
I think Texans play hold’em with their cards hidden and their forces covert.
Comment by DRJ — 8/13/2008 @ 10:07 pm
One thing I liked about the Cold War, compared to the WOT, is that the Politburo members did not, officially,
believe in an afterlife.
They can be crazy, as in make nutty decisions, but they won’t be deliberately suicidal.
As a domestic issue, it would probably be worth challenging the anti-war folks to
get in the game. Not that they would, but it would help to discredit them among normal people.
That would make our politics easier.
Comment by Richard Aubrey — 8/13/2008 @ 10:12 pm
Keep in mind that Russia using “Sudeten-Russians” as an excuse for invasion provides powerful incentives for other nations to expell any Sudeten Russians.
This resolves one problem of Russia: their high rates of leaving their corrupt government, and their low reproduction rates.
That is how I would resolve the “South Ossetian” population in Georgia. Any claiming Russian citizenship would be deported. If they couldn’t prove legal entry, they could be fined, jailed, and deported.
Comment by Don Meaker — 8/13/2008 @ 10:15 pm
The problem with the anti-war folks is that they aren’t anti-war. They are simply anti-American. Which makes them useless for anything.
Comment by ken anthony — 8/13/2008 @ 11:24 pm
I don’t see any of these grand plays happening.
I think that Reagan’s Afghan tactics are what we’ll chose - those “humanitarian” flights will be loaded with light anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft missiles. The Russians might hold ground but we can help the Georgians make them bleed profusely for staying. Suddenly, it’s a war of attrition and the Russians will be attriting faster than the Georgians.
We’ve been very vocal that the US will not let this stand. Victory for us is the Russians WANTING to end the war.
I wouldn’t dismiss a naval presence in the Black Sea. Freedom of navigation is a policy going back to the Barbary pirates and our “force in being” off Poti is a legal threat.
Comment by Whitehall — 8/13/2008 @ 11:45 pm
“to make a genuine military statement on the edge of the Russian land mass requires heavy forces.”
Nonsense! This statement and the thought process behind it comes from a tired old brain belonging to a REMF with stars that wants to re-fight WW2.
Georgia has plenty of fighting men, the Air force has a MAJOR air base about 400Km’s or so away. Put them together for a Afghanistan type air campaign. As a sovereign nation, Georgia has the right to contol her airspace. Let them subcontract that job to the USAF. Once the sky has been cleared of Soviet, errr……Russian fighters, a quick transfer of a few weapons (Javelins and EFP’s) and the Bear can be driven back to his cage.
The last thing that needs to be done is putting U.S. Army units in Georgia. Not needed and it would complicate the diplomatic efforts.
Wait, make that the next to lastthing. Moving a CVBG into the Black sea would be insane, even if the Turks allowed us to. Talk about shooting carriers in a barrel.
Mr. Putin, meet the Raptor. The Army really doesn’t want to see this sort of response. It will give the Air Force a leg up at budget time. What did Nimitz say? “We may be at war with the Japs, but the enemy is the Army”. Or something like that. The traditional, desk bound US military flag officer doesn’t worry about external enemies, that is why he has subordinates. He worries about that other flag 4 offices down, the one with an eye on his budget.
“Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth.”*
*
_Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke to his staff
Comment by John Samford — 8/14/2008 @ 12:08 am
I like the Bush strategy. Treat Georgia as if they had just been hit by a typhoon or a huge volcanic eruption. Send in the organization best equipped for speedy humanitarian aid- the US military. What can the Russians do?
Comment by Elroy Jetson — 8/14/2008 @ 12:11 am
“The problem with the anti-war folks is that they aren’t anti-war. They are simply anti-American. Which makes them useless for anything.”
Well, useless for us, anyhow. The Russians have long thought these idiots to be useful, as it were. But, I’ve been thinking on a use for them, for our side. The Army’s combat medicine training program has been catching heat for using gut-shot live pigs for training filed medics. I’m thinking two birds with one stone here…
Comment by Cybrludite — 8/14/2008 @ 12:34 am
And what you sweet neocons think of that : The russians give a lot of anti-air to Iran, along wit a lot of nuclear stuff.
Well, you’re screwed for good, since together they control an awful lot of the overall world oil exports. If you move to do anymore russian or iran bashing, oil prices hit 200$.
And I am not speaking of the russian smuggling fancy anti-tank weapons in Afganistan.
That is reality. Best to be friends with the russian.
And what the hell are you doing in Georgia ?
Are the russian meddling with Mexico ?
Comment by Titus — 8/14/2008 @ 5:10 am
Why not just place an umbrella of U.S.A.F. Fighters over Georgian airspace and destroy all roads and tunnels leading out of Georgia? Bingo: “Georgian Forces” just captured the entire Russian invading force. Then put them all on trial in a Kangaroo Court and imprison them. Trade them for lots of neat things, it mocks Russia. America could “punish” a country like Georgia without sending in a single soldier or piece of “materiel”. What I find ‘revealing’ about Russias moves is that they could not. I mean REALLY: Their most modern aircraft couldn’t even accurately hit a frick’in Airbase! They were OBVIOUSLY firing ‘dumb rockets’ from a consideral distance. We drop Smart Bombs from dozens of miles away, and launch Cruise Missiles from hundreds of miles away (Sometimes over a thousand miles away). In Poker, that’s called “a Tell.”
Comment by Nostradamus — 8/14/2008 @ 5:24 am
DARPA has some nice toys not currently being used. Using an airborne platform based EMP to make a few passes over Russian controlled areas could zero out every computer in the ground cone. When your motor won’t start, your commo/radar/etc is out, the landlines don’t work, the power grid is kicked offline, well - just hang out until someone comes along to lead you out by the hand. It effectively reduces the affected units to the level of 1940’s infanty. At that point friendly options are plentiful.
Not keen on being a human tripwire - seems easier for the folks above to suggest that but troops aren’t idiots and won’t be keen on becoming fodder. Also the concept of 2 carriers in the Black Sea feels like floating a boat in the bathtub. Sub support/defense seems awfully challenging in that environment. Also flight time for inbound bandits is extremely short. Carrier groups are EXPENSIVE and not convinced they need to be that close to the action given aircraft range, presumed availability of Incirlik, etc.
Comment by Vejadu — 8/14/2008 @ 6:37 am
I think that’s for the best because the military option looks ripe for leading to an epic disaster.
Basically we can only mount a token force there. So ok, what are the incentives if we do that? Suppose the Russians overrun them, kill a bunch, and imprison the rest.
Do we declare a full scale war on Russia over this offense? If we did, I don’t see any potential resolution that favors us. Any way you cut it we loose a tremendous amount of clout on the international stage, a lot of lives, and have what to show for it? Absolutely nothing.
I’d prefer a bluff that has less downside to it.
Comment by MikeDC — 8/14/2008 @ 6:40 am
Hmmmmmm.
1. Inform Turkey that we *require* access to the Black Sea by US Navy aircraft carrier groups. If Turkey declines, they’re are permanently removed as an ally and are no longer considered as such.
There’s a time when the rubber hits the road, and that time is now. We don’t need fair weather allies. And an ally that doesn’t act like an ally is worthless.
2. Deploy American Special Forces into Georgia supported by US military aircraft.
3. Use smart weapons a la Afghanistan to destroy mobile Russian armored columns within Georgia.
4. Require the Russians to deploy troops into disputed areas as peacekeepers for a minimum of 50+ years but leave Georgia proper alone.
5. Sit back and watch the Russian soldiers, not terribly well trained or behaved by any subjective standard, quickly wear out their welcome.
Comment by memomachine — 8/14/2008 @ 6:48 am
Hmmmm
“I’d prefer a bluff that has less downside to it.”
*shrug* The downside is that unless this sort of thing is nipped right in the bud, and right now, it’ll become the new normal.
You think this is bad. Consider this: China and India are watching this very very carefully.
Both of these countries believe themselves to be ascendent and have a multitude of smaller nations surrounding them that they would like to absorb without interference. Plus India borders China and China borders Russia. And none of them like each other.
That’s a special kind of joy right there.
Comment by memomachine — 8/14/2008 @ 6:51 am
One thing we can do is to reinvigorate the Monroe Doctrine; the next Russian military or quasi military shipment to Venezuela or Cuba goes to the bottom of the ocean. We should give Venuezuela a silent ultimatum that we will not tolerate their hegemony in South America, using Russian money and weapons. If the Russians try to land a bomber in Cuba — as they threatened to do recently in a fit of anger over our defensive missiel shield, we shoot the bomber down. It is time to tell Cuba to leave the Russian orbit, or we foment the counter-revolution. We need to end the Iranian nuclear program, now more than ever, since the Russians and the Iranian axis control the two most significant choke points on the flow of oil and gas west. Screw the Russian barbarians.
Comment by Gary E Hill — 8/14/2008 @ 7:10 am
Re: Comment by bmili that LBJ acted in 67 Six Day War
Actually, it was Richard Nixon in the Yom Kippur War in the early 1970s that put our military on the highest alert since the Cuban Missile Crises that repelled the Russian threat to Israel, as Israel was fighting for its life against the surprise attack led by Anwar Sadat. The Russians were stopped cold in their tracks, Nixon then opened up the supply flood gates and promised Israel complete re-supply allowing Israel to go full throttle to reverse the gains made by the Eyptian forces after they crossed the Suez.
Comment by Gary E Hill — 8/14/2008 @ 7:21 am
Seems like we’re trending into macho fantasy land here.
Our troops won’t be fighting but we can do a lot to keep the Georgians in the game and putting the hurt on Russia.
Agreed that a carrier group in the Black Sea is pointless but surface combatants could make the point.
Comment by Whitehall — 8/14/2008 @ 8:12 am
“Best to be friends with the russian.”
Thanks, Neville.
“Not keen on being a human tripwire - seems easier for the folks above to suggest that but troops aren’t idiots and won’t be keen on becoming fodder.”
Vejadu, I came across pretty trite, and I do apologize for that. A tripwire is a sacrificial gesture. The scenario that I proposed, as far as the airlift component, is exactly what is going on right now.
The stakes really are high; the world is watching. We need something that works to curb the armed aggression of a criminal state. We’ve seen this before. If we don’t uncluster this, come spring it will be Ukraine’s turn. Or Taiwan’s. Or the Baltic States.
And in truth, I doubt there are any admirals that would permit (I’m talking resignation level resistance here) to CV’s to be sent to the Black Sea, or for that matter even substantial surface combatants. But there are ways and ways to project airpower, and I’ll reserve further speculation on that.
Comment by TmjUtah — 8/14/2008 @ 9:20 am
Yup… so why is it that we have a national interest in going down that rabbit hole?
The military option we’re talking here puts us in a position to get exposed and embarrassed by the Russians. We move in troops. The Russians wipe them out. Our next move is what? We don’t have the capability or political war to respond with the sort of full scale warfare it would take to re-secure Georgia and obtain some kind of adequate compensation for the initial defeat.
It’s true the Chinese and Indians are watching, and while it might lower our esteem if we “lose” Georgia without fighting, it will lower our esteem much more dramatically if we lose George and get a bunch of Americans killed in the process.
Comment by MikeDC — 8/14/2008 @ 11:07 am
Austin’s hardly a REMF. He’s been on the ground in Iraq several times, wandered around different parts of the country, and been on the wrong end of some mortars, IIRC. Maybe he hasn’t gone hand-to-hand with Ali-Jihadi, but the army frowns on that sort of thing in fiftyish guys.
Anyone who’s been following his blog would know that. To say otherwise is BS.
His plan fits the situation; the reaction matches the action. The Russians are claiming they’re only fulfilling their role as peacekeepers, so call them on it; “Hey, we’re here to help disentangle the situation.”
Russian troops aren’t Saddam’s minions, either. Never underestimate your enemy. Sure we can beat then, assuming we want to go whole hog. That means full scale military response, a couple of heavy mech divisons. Hard to see how we could do that in the present circumstances.
And the PK brigade described would hardly be helpless. MP battalions, light infantry, and engineers carry a lot of firepower. And lots of folks have been mentioning F-22s but no one has commented about TLAMs; for many targets they’s not only cheaper, but easier to use. And all of Georgia is in range.
Comment by Al Nofi — 8/14/2008 @ 12:53 pm
Mike D, what makes you think that the Russians A) would want to attack American forces, and B) be able to take them out? You’re basically sticking a straw man arguement up as a “reason” for not wanting to do anything. You’ve already put the cart before the horse, and assumed that the Russians would win straight away, and that US would immediately fold up it’s tents.
You’re also making the broad assumption that we don’t have the forces to interject into Georgia if we wanted to; our Carrier groups are most definitely in play, as is the USAF. The Russians really don’t have much to counter the air power that the US has. And also, if the US goes in, who else goes in along with us? Poland? Turkey? Iraq? Lastly, how much longer will the US maintain it’s current troop levels in Iraq? Maybe 2 years, tops? What about units like the 101st and 82 Airborne Divisions? Granted, we ARE busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the logistical line towards Georgia isn’t great, but hey, we defeated Afghanistan in 6 weeks when the Russians couldn’t do it in 8 years.
None of this means that Russia gets the nice and tidy scenario that you proclaim.
Comment by Jason B — 8/14/2008 @ 12:56 pm
Also, this doesn’t mean that I think we SHOULD go into Georgia. I like the idea of having US Carrier groups act as an umbrella screen for Georgia (and frankly also for, Turkey, Iraq, and Azerbaijan), and also the humanitarian aid to the Georgians with maybe a token military brigade. Russia should also lose a crapload of diplomatic and economic prestige, probably lose their seat in the G-8, forget about WTO, and also watch all of Eastern Europe take Missile Shield.
Of course, this is all contingent on Russia. It’s an entirely different game if they really want to take all of Georgia.
Comment by Jason B — 8/14/2008 @ 12:59 pm
“But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “We can forget about talks on Georgia’s territorial integrity because it’s impossible to force South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree that they can be returned into Georgia’s fold by force.””
That’s from Rueters. Looks like it’s rope a dope and wait for the Western Left to rationalize away the aggression.
Comment by TmjUtah — 8/14/2008 @ 5:21 pm
Now is the time to send a big scare into the hearts of the Russian people. Forget Putin and the generals and the Oil Barons.
Start shipping RPGs and IEDs to Georgia. Heck, hire some local talent out of Iraq and start harrassing the Ruskis.
Shades of Afganistanesque fiascos?
Comment by Scott Sterling — 8/14/2008 @ 5:54 pm
Jason,
Your final sentence answers your opening question. If the Russians really want to take all of Georgia, then they could push through whatever we can muster there on short notice. Hell, humiliating us and greatly diminishing our sphere of influence would be another reason. Do you think the Europeans will stop buying oil and gas from them if they did? I don’t.
Second, could they overrun whatever forces we put there? Yep, short of land lines it’d only be a matter of time, and you’d also have to contend with the folks back here in the US wondering why we’d matched the Iraq casualty count in a couple months fighting for a country most Americans know nothing about. I mean c’mon, that’s not a winning hand.
And what makes me think the Russians could overrun whatever we put there?
1. Russia is right there and we have no supply lines.
2. Russia has an overwhelming advantage in quantity and, while not being up to our quality levels, they’re motivated and know what they’re doing.
3. We don’t have any obvious way to gain air superiority there. Bottling a carrier up in the Black Sea sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Again, extended supply lines will limit their operational capacity and they’ll be under round the clock anti-submarine and land-based missile and bomber attack. Really and truly, the Russians can probably win a battle of attrition simply by putting more missiles in the air than a carrier group (even equipped with Aegis cruisers etc) have SAMs to shoot them down.
Comment by MikeDC — 8/14/2008 @ 8:48 pm
All this is rather moot though interesting. With Pelosi, Reed, and Obama in the wings. Pacifists all, we can’t take the chance right now when they would cut the legs out from under any efforts our military might take to resolve this problem.
Comment by Franklin Lee — 8/15/2008 @ 5:21 am
Al Nofi, #44
No heavy divisions? Then build them. You don’t have to beat Russia immediately, what matters is that they are beaten. Not having the resources at the start of a war isn’t a problem, so long as the enemy can not take advantage of it. Russia can’t take advantage of our lack of resources, which gives us the time we need to build up those resources and bring them to bear.
We get the divisions built. In the mean time we and our allies start constructing the road and rail net that will carry the troops from Poland to Ukraine and Moldava. As American forces build up we assist our allies with expanding their forces.
When the forces are in place we start with the liberation of Iran. That task we assign to Iraq and Azerbaijan. Expect the Iraqis to the bulk of the work. With that done the Turks and Armenians invade Georgia to tie down Russian forces there. When the Russians commit resources to Georgia we and the Ukrainians attack eastward from Ukraine to the Caspian. With a substantial portion of her army trapped in the Caucasus we can then attack north and take Moscow. With a centralized society like Russia, that will put a lot of hurt on them. And keep in mind that Russia had a centralized government a long time before the communists came on the scene.
But people don’t do this sort of thing these days? They do when the enemy gives them no choice. Russia gives us no choice. So long as men such as Vladimir Putin run Russia, and Russian society produces men like Vladimir Putin, Russia will be a danger to the world. Better to end the threat and remake Russia as we remade Germany and Japan after World War Two.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 8/17/2008 @ 3:37 pm
Short term thinking is what I’m getting out of some people here. That and the belief that the American people can’t make sacrifices over a long period of time. The idea that it could take awhile, and that Americans can and will buckle in for the long haul just doesn’t seem to cross their minds.
Vietnam is a poor example of how we respond to long range sacrifice; first, because our case for the war was poorly presented and a lie; second, because America was never really called on to sacrifice. In World War Two we were called upon to sacrifice, in part because we did need to, but also because it made us feel like a real part of the war. We were contributing, we were part of the struggle in a substantial way.
To fight this war this is what we need to do.
1. Mobilize the nation. We put our economy on a war time footing. Rationing, rebuild our industrial base, call up our reserves and national guard, institute a universal draft. And by universal draft I mean no exemptions except for any medical condition that would absolutely preclude service in the military. You’re a pacifist, you get medic training.
2. Rebuild and expand our communications infrastructure. The audio and video net for one. Harden the Internet for another. Road, rail, and water ways get rebuilt and expanded, they are part of communications. Airfields and airports modernized, air routes rationalized, for air travel is part of communications too.
3. We make the case for the war, and for the necessity for sacrifice in the course of prosecuting it. Emphasize the need to end the tyranny now plaguing Russia, and make our goal the liberation of Russia and the Russian people from the despots.
It will be long and it will be tough, but unless we do it now we’ll have to come back again, and the struggle will be much harder than it had been before.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 8/17/2008 @ 4:00 pm
This is the downside of taking too much of the “bounce” out of Germany post-1945. Now - if Ivan had to worry about heavy German divisions on his border - he probably wouldn’t have undertaken his little Georgian adventure. This reminds me much of the “Winter War” of 1939 when Stalin tried to bully Finland after successfully bullying the Baltic nations of Latvia,Lithuania, and Estonia (this came back to haunt him after Operation Barbarossa commenced in June 1941, for many men of those countries flocked en masse to join the Germans in their war against the Soviets) but unfortunately, Georgia doesn’t have what the Finns had in 1939; they haven’t inflicted heavy casualties nor publicly embarrassed the (Russian) leader. Nor do they have a western nation willing to bloodlet on their behalf (this being Britain, which never actually did).
If the Germans stepped up to the plate, this might keep Ivan in his place. Unless they’ve gone too far left with the endless apologizing and handwringing. Opinions?
Comment by boarwild — 9/5/2008 @ 6:37 pm
Suggestions from a foreigner - before going to overt or covert war against Russia, or for that matter Iran:
(1) Finish the little warlets you have already started (win, lose, bring to a stalemate - whichever).
(2) Pay off your debt to China and the Arabs.
(3) Become again the world leader in economy, science and hi-tech
Then, you will notice you are much better equipped to go to war against Russia. You will have a strong undivided army, a lot of money and international support. Actually, by that time your reputation will be so strong, you won’t even have to go to war - just ask the Russians or Iranians for a little favour, and they will be pleased to oblige.
Won’t they?
Comment by merlin_kat — 9/14/2008 @ 8:49 am