Shock and awe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:19, 26 July 2006 editStarcare (talk \| contribs)277 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:02, 26 July 2006 edit undoED MD (talk \| contribs)228 edits delete original researchNext edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{POV\|POV dispute tag}}		{{POV\|POV dispute tag}}

			] ] image of ], April 2, 2003. Smoke pillowing from Iraqi set fires in an attempt to affect weapon guidanc systems.]]
	].<ref name="wsws">Henry Michaels, "", World Socialist Web Site, ] ].</ref>]]

	'''Rapid Dominance''' is a military doctrine that has as its main principles "overwhelming decisive force," "dominant battlefield awareness," "dominant maneuvers," and "spectacular displays of power" (also known as '''Shock and Awe''') as a means of destroying an adversary's will to fight and adversely affecting the psychology and the will of the enemy to resist. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James. P. Wade and is a product of the ] of the ]. The military operation named "Shock and Awe" signaled the beginning of the ]. Debate exists as to whether or not this operation actually was a true Rapid Dominance campaign or truly elicited Shock and Awe.		'''Rapid Dominance''' is a military doctrine that has as its main principles "overwhelming decisive force," "dominant battlefield awareness," "dominant maneuvers," and "spectacular displays of power" (also known as '''Shock and Awe''') as a means of destroying an adversary's will to fight and adversely affecting the psychology and the will of the enemy to resist. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James. P. Wade and is a product of the ] of the ]. The military operation named "Shock and Awe" signaled the beginning of the ]. Debate exists as to whether or not this operation actually was a true Rapid Dominance campaign or truly elicited Shock and Awe.

	Critics point out that the words "shock" and "awe" are both ]s of ]. Shock and awe is in many ways difficult to distinguish from ] because of the large number of ]. For example, mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents.

	==Doctrine of Rapid Dominance==		==Doctrine of Rapid Dominance==
Line 42:		Line 40:

	The operation "shock and awe" described the initiation of the Iraqi campaign and not the fight against the insurgency.		The operation "shock and awe" described the initiation of the Iraqi campaign and not the fight against the insurgency.

	==Criticism==
	Shock and Awe met significant criticism from both military and civilian sectors. United States theorists had criticized its assumptions of total information awareness, unmatched technology, and assumptions of symmetric warfare.

	In coverage by ] before the ], "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "]" or ] <ref>Oliver Burkeman, "", ], ] ].</ref>. Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the ] during the ],<ref>Gar Smith, "", ], ] ].</ref> and termed such plans as ]<ref name="wsws">. The ] had said that targets, munitions and attack times were chosen to minimize civilian casualties
	<ref>"", ], ] ].</ref>.

	Shock and Awe–style warfare seems to be less effective against an extended insurgency than against an enemy's military.

	===Shock and awe versus terrorism===
	At face value, the doctrine of shock and awe shares much in common with the tenets of terrorism, with both intending to affect political outcomes through non-traditional uses of military power. American supporters of Shock and Awe claim that unlike terrorism, Shock and Awe does not deliberately target civilians, although civilians could be killed. Critics however, point to the difficulty in reducing civilian casualties while bombing locations with high civilian population density.

	Excluding considerations of moral supremacy, it is difficult to determine if Shock and Awe is empirically different from terrorism, as both tactics' primary goal is to elicit terror, shock and awe. The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror."

	===Indiscriminate civilian deaths===
	Exemplifying the problem of indiscriminate civilian deaths inherent in execution of the Shock and Awe doctrine, anti-war author ] writes in ''],'' about the deaths at the onset of the ]:

	:''The ''Lancet'' study estimating 100,000 probable deaths by October 2004 elicited enough comment in England that the government had to issue an embarrassing denial, but in the United States virtual silence prevailed. The occasional oblique reference usually describes it as the "controversial" report that "as many as 100,000" Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. The figure of 100,000 was the most probable estimate, on conservative assumptions; it would be at least as accurate to describe it as the report that "as few as 100,000" died. Though the report was released at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign, it appears that neither of the leading candidates was ever publicly questioned about it.''

	Other sources support this estimate of large numbers of civilian deaths, often — and even commonly — referred to by the ]s "causalties" or "]."

	One of the authors of the ''Lancet'' study in question has stated in a letter to the U.K. ''Independent'' newspaper, “Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000.”

	==Popular culture==		==Popular culture==
	Following the ] in ], the term "shock and awe" has been used for commercial purposes. The ] received at least 29 applications using "Shock and Awe."<ref name="29patents">Robert Longley, "", ], ] ].</ref> The first came from a fireworks company on the day the United States started bombing ]. The ] manufacturers ] and ] have attempted to use "shock and awe" in titles, but met with criticism. Miscellaneous uses of the term include ] equipment, an ], a ] and a set of bowling balls called Shock & Awe and Total Shock & Awe by the company MoRich.		Following the ] in ], the term "shock and awe" has been used for commercial purposes. The ] received at least 29 applications using "Shock and Awe."<ref name="29patents">Robert Longley, "", ], ] ].</ref> The first came from a fireworks company on the day the United States started bombing ]. The ] manufacturers ] and ] have attempted to use "shock and awe" in titles, but met with criticism. Miscellaneous uses of the term include ] equipment, an ], a ] and a set of bowling balls called Shock & Awe and Total Shock & Awe by the company MoRich.
	]'s 2006 album "]" features a song titled "Shock and Awe." The album largely represented Young's response to the invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom).		]'s 2006 album "]" features a song titled "Shock and Awe." The album largely represented Young's response to the invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom).



	==See also==		==See also==
	*]		*]
	*]

	==References==		==References==
Line 85:		Line 62:

	==External links==		==External links==
	'''Video''':
	* on ]. The first half of this video is unrelated; the fifth minute starts with an introduction and then comes live pictures from the '''Shock & Awe''' campaign in Iraq.

	'''Text''':
	*], from ]		*], from ]

Revision as of 08:02, 26 July 2006

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Rapid Dominance is a military doctrine that has as its main principles "overwhelming decisive force," "dominant battlefield awareness," "dominant maneuvers," and "spectacular displays of power" (also known as Shock and Awe) as a means of destroying an adversary's will to fight and adversely affecting the psychology and the will of the enemy to resist. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James. P. Wade and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States. The military operation named "Shock and Awe" signaled the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Debate exists as to whether or not this operation actually was a true Rapid Dominance campaign or truly elicited Shock and Awe.

Doctrine of Rapid Dominance

Rapid Dominance is defined by its authors, Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, as attempting "to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fit or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe." Further, Rapid Dominance will

"impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on . . . seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."

Introduced in a report to the United States' National Defense University in 1996, Ullman and Wade describe it as an attempt to develop a post-Cold War military doctrine for the United States. Rapid Dominance and Shock and Awe, they write, may become a "revolutionary change" as the United States military is reduced in size and information technology is increasingly integrated into warfare. Subsequent U.S. military authors have written that Rapid Dominance exploits "superior technology, precision engagement, and information dominance" of the United States.

Ullman and Wade identify four vital characteristics of Rapid Dominance: "near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment; rapidity and timeliness in application; operational brilliance in execution; and (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment."

Shock and Awe is most consistently used by Ullman and Wade as the effect which Rapid Dominance seeks to impose upon an adversary. It is the desired state of helplessness and lack of will. It can be induced, they write, by direct force applied to command and control centers, selective denial of information and dissemination of disinformation, overwhelming combat force, and rapidity of action.

Evolution from Decisive Force

The doctrine of Rapid Dominance has evolved from the concept of Decisive Force. Ullman and Wade enumerate the elements between the two concepts in terms of objective, use of force, force size, scope, speed, causualties, and technique.

Historical applications of Shock and Awe

Ullman and Wade argue that there have been military applications that fall within some of the concepts of Shock and Awe. They enummberate nine examples.

Overwhelming Force: The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few causualities to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The establishment of Shock and Awe through "instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively few numbers or systems."
Massive Bombardment: Described as the "precise destructive power largely against military targets and related sectors over time."
Blitzkrieg: The "intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale."
Sun Tzu: The "selective, instant decapitation of military or societal targets to achieve Shock and Awe."
Haitian Example: The "imposing Shock and Awe through a show of force and indeed through deception, misinformation, and disinformation."
The Roman Legions: "Achieving Shock and Awe rests in the ability to deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility."
Decay and Default: "The imposition of societal breakdown over a lengthy period, but without the application of massive destruction."
Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The selective application of force emphasizing "standoff capabilities as opposed to forces in place" to attain military objectives.

Iraq War

Before the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003, officials in the United States armed forces described their plan as employing Shock and Awe. During the war, however, Harlan K. Ullman, principal author of Shock and Awe, said the United States did not execute a Shock and Awe campaign.

Limited bombing began on 19 March 2003 as United States forces unsuccessfully attempted to kill Saddam Hussein. Attacks continued against a small number of targets until 21 March, when at 1700 UTC the main bombing campaign of the Coalition began. Its forces launched approximately 1700 air sorties (504 using cruise missiles). Coalition ground forces had begun a "running start" offensive towards Baghdad on the previous day, attempting to strike quickly. Coalition ground forces seized Baghdad on 5 April, and the United States declared victory on 14 April.

Whether or to what extent the United States fought a campaign of Shock and Awe is unclear by contradictory post-war assessments. Within two weeks of the United States' victory declaration, on 27 April, the Washington Post published an interview with Iraqi military personnel detailing demoralization and lack of command. According to the soldiers, Coalition bombing was surprisingly widespread and had a severely demoralising effect. When United States tanks passed through the Iraqi military's Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units outside Baghdad to Saddam's presidential palaces, it caused a shock to troops inside Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers said there was no organization intact by the time the United States entered Baghdad, and that resistance crumbled under the presumption that "it wasn't a war, it was suicide."

In contrast, in an October 2003 presentation to the United States House Committee on Armed Services, staff of the United States Army War College did not attribute their performance to Rapid Dominance. Rather, they cited technological superiority and "Iraqi ineptitude." The speed of the Coalition's actions ("rapidity"), they said, did not affect Iraqi morale. Further, they said that Iraqi armed forces ceased resistance only after direct force-on-force combat within cities.

The operation "shock and awe" described the initiation of the Iraqi campaign and not the fight against the insurgency.

Popular culture

Following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003, the term "shock and awe" has been used for commercial purposes. The United States Patent and Trademark Office received at least 29 applications using "Shock and Awe." The first came from a fireworks company on the day the United States started bombing Baghdad. The video game manufacturers Midway Games and Sony have attempted to use "shock and awe" in titles, but met with criticism. Miscellaneous uses of the term include golf equipment, an insecticide, a horse and a set of bowling balls called Shock & Awe and Total Shock & Awe by the company MoRich. Neil Young's 2006 album "Living With War" features a song titled "Shock and Awe." The album largely represented Young's response to the invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

References

Harlan K. Ullmann and James P. Wade, Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (National Defense University, 1996), XXIV.
Ullmann and Wade, Shock and Awe, XXV.
Ullmann and Wade, Shock and Awe, Prologue.
David J. Gibson, Shock and Awe: A Sufficient Condition for Victory? (Newport: United States Naval War College, 2001), 17.
Ullmann and Wade, Shock and Awe, XII.
"Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage" (CBS News, 24 January 2003.
Paul Sperry, "No shock, no awe: It never happened", World Net Daily, 3 April 2003.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom - By the Numbers", USCENTAF, 30 April 2003, 15.
William Branigin, "A Brief, Bitter War for Iraq's Military Officers", Washington Post, 27 October 2003.
"Iraq and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy", presentation by the United States Army War College to United States House Committee on Armed Services, 21 October 2003.
Robert Longley, "Patent Office Suffers 'Shock and Awe' Attack", About.com, 27 October 2003.

External links

Shock and awe, from SourceWatch

Categories:

Misplaced Pages