Thursday, September 21, 2017

The Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (RAM) Threat in Asymmetric Warfare

ប្រជុំកាណុង រ៉ុកកែត កាំភ្លើងធំ និង កាំភ្លើងត្បាល់ៈ ហានិភ័យក្នុងសង្រ្គាមមិនសមមូលកំលាំង
ប្រព័ន្ធការពារអាកាសៈ ការវិវត្តន៍ពី ប្រឆាំងយន្តហោះ ប្រឆាំងដ្រោន ប្រឆាំងកាំភ្លើងធំ ប្រឆាំងកាំភ្លើងផ្លោង និងប្រឆាំងកាំភ្ល់ើងត្បាល់។

The Army is fast-tracking a lot of technology to send it into Iraq because we are suffering casualties there. Normally, these things  would be tested for one, two, three or four years before they were put into the field. So, we are going to be putting many of these  new systems into the field in Iraq without complete testing, and some of them are going to work and some of them are probably  not going to work very well, but I think it is worth our trouble...any American life saved is worth the effort.. .Although it is not the ultimate solution, of course, we don’t have anything now that will, with 80 to 90 percent accuracy, take these mortars out.

កងយោធាបានតាមច្បាមយ៉ាងខ្លាំងក្លាជាមួយនឹងបច្ចេកវិជ្ជាយោធា ដើម្បីបញ្ជូនទៅកាន់ប្រទេស អ៊ីរាក់ ដោយសារនៅទីនោះមាន ទាហានជាច្រើនរងគ្រោះក្នុងសមរភូមិ។ ជាធម្មតា គេត្រូវធ្វើតេស្តសាកល្បង០១ឆ្នាំ​ ០២ឆ្នាំ ០៣ឆ្នាំ ឬ ០៤ឆ្នាំជាមុន​ មុនពេលបំពាក់ឪ្យដំណើរការតាមកងឯកភាព តែ យើងបែរជាដាក់បំពាក់បច្ចេកវិជ្ជាថ្មីៗបែបនេះជាច្រើនទៅសមរភូមិ ដោយគ្មានការសាកល្បង ពេញលេញតាមបទដ្ឋានបច្ចេកទេស ដូច្នេះ អាវុធមួយចំនួនមានដំណើរការស្រួល មួយចំនួនគ្មាន ដំណើរការល្អ ទោះជាបែបណាក្តី នេះជាប្រការដ៍អាក្រក់។ ជីវិតទាហានអាមេរិកកាំង មានតម្លៃជាង តម្លៃអាវុធទាំងនោះ។ បើទោះបីជាមិនទាន់បានដោះស្រាយបញ្ហាទាំងស្រុង ពេលនេះយើងកំពុងដោះស្រាយបាន ពៅ ៨០% ទៅ ៩០% ក្នុងការកំចាត់កាំភ្លើងត្បាល់ចេញពីសមរភូមិដោយប្រសិទ្ធិភាព។

discusses attempts of non-state actors to choose irregular warfare in an attempt to break the will of the U.S. military in a protracted conflict. The DoD is therefore refocusing its portfolio of capabilities to address irregular and disruptive challenges in  addition to sustaining the ability to address traditional challenges.

The [National Defense Strategy] acknowledges that although the U.S. military maintains considerable advantages in traditional forms  of warfare, this realm is not the only, or even the most likely, one in which adversaries will challenge the United States during the  period immediately ahead. Enemies are more likely to pose asymmetric threats, including irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive challenges.

Asymmetric strategies toward warfare are “strategies that do not directly engage the full armed forces of a military power, instead  taking advantage of anonymity, patience, and willingness to suffer casualties to counter an adversary’s advantage in firepower” strategies. Insurgents usually employ weapons in a war zone that are available in large numbers and simple to operate, and the  threat from rockets, artillery, and mortars (RAM) is ever growing. This approach is certainly not a new idea, such as the Vietcong guerrilla attacks on U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War, however, Vietcong use (and many other historical uses) of asymmetric  warfare was in addition to, not in lieu of, a nationally organized military.

The collapse of the Soviet Union strengthened the position for the use of asymmetric warfare, as it was a large driver in the creation  of many new centers of arms production in the world making available large numbers of highly sophisticated conventional weapons  to anyone willing to pay for them. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 clearly exemplified how the United States, arguably having the most  advanced military in the world, likely could not be beaten in a war, in the traditional sense. This traditional military advantage is  likely a major factor that makes asymmetric warfare strategy more appealing to insurgents.

The U.N. intervention in Somalia is an early example of this premise. The broadcasts of the bodies of American soldiers getting  dragged through the streets of Mogadishu on the news had an immense impact on the American public, limiting its willingness to  sustain additional casualties. The civil unrest after Operation Iraqi Freedom is an example of how insurgents with minimally capable

conventional weapons are able to successfully stage operations against American troops and interests, as well as attempt to cripple  Iraq’s fragile economy. This type of warfare attempts to show the world that the U.S. may quickly be victorious in a full scale  conventional war, but not when trying to keep the peace in an asymmetric warfare environment.


The Baghdad Green Zone

The Green Zone, formally known as the International Zone, is the heavily guarded area of closed-off streets in central Baghdad, Iraq,  where U.S. authorities live and work, and includes the main palaces of former President Saddam Hussein.

This area houses the civilian ruling authority, as well as the military presence run by the Americans and British, and includes the  main offices of major U.S. consulting companies. This area is commonly referred to as the “ultimate gated community” because of the numerous armed checkpoints, razor wire coiled and chain linked fences, and numerous reinforced blast-proof  concrete slabs. Security is very tight, and American and British officials rarely leave the Green Zone, only doing so with many body guards and armored vehicles. Civilian traffic is very limited through the Green Zone because of the many terrorist attacks against  both Coalition and Iraqi security forces and civilians . The Green Zone is considered to be the safest area within Baghdad,

however, terrorists are no longer limiting themselves to planting bombs. On September 27, 2003, insurgents fired three rockets at a  Baghdad hotel housing American soldiers and civilians. The attacks did very minimal damage, as the hotel stands hundreds of  yards from high, earth-filled barriers circling that area of the Green Zone. This was the first terrorist attack of this type on coalition  forces in this area, and mortar and rocket-propelled-grenade (RPG) attacks are now a common daily occurrence. New defenses  against these asymmetric rocket and mortar attacks are sorely needed.

No comments:

Post a Comment