View Full Version : What would be different?
sduarfts
01-06-2005, 22:59
How would the world be different if Eagle Claw had succeeded?
On our end did it take that to get JSOC, SOCOM and SOAR?
On the other side how would it have affected our enemies actions? Beruit, etc, etc.
My intent is not to bring any critisim to any one or units who participated or violate any kind of OPSEC issues just curious to responses from members here.
Team Sergeant
01-07-2005, 09:55
On our end did it take that to get JSOC, SOCOM and SOAR?
Good questions.
In my opinion some of the post mission analysis facilitated the creation of what we know today as United States Special Operations Command, (USSOCOM).
You could write a doctorial thesis based on your questions.
There are books on the subject, I suggest you read some of them and make your own informed conclusions.
Team Sergeant
Roguish Lawyer
01-07-2005, 12:27
I am no expert, but based on what I have read it seems to me that many positive developments may not have occurred. Excellent topic. Glad to have you here!
sduarfts
01-07-2005, 22:14
You could write a doctorial thesis based on your questions.
Team Sergeant
Given the time of the attempt, 6 months before a Presidential election, would Carter have garnered enough support to hold of Reagan? In todays world I think he just may have.
I will take your advice and read some books on it.
This is a really interesting question in the broader sense. In several ways it can be construed that this lends credence to the idea that sometimes, catastrophic failure is necessary in order to enact needed reforms/developments. Obviously, however, failure is a bad thing, something we avoid to the utmost.
This leads to a dilemma. Is failure a necessary component of change? I would say no, but it often acts as such. What can we do to avoid stultification and promote a continuous 'tip of the spear' mentality (especially at the above-my-pay-grade higher levels) without requiring a debacle to propel us? Sometimes disasters turn out, in the long run, to have beneficial effects; what can we do to get them, without the disaster?
Looking at Military History, I'd argue that if disaster does not completely eliminate the victim and the victim has some strength left to rebuild, it will lead to a change in the victim's behaviour which it foresees will allow it to adapt/overcome the disaster it had faced. This change, however, does not have to be positive. Blitzkreig, for example, was the German reaction to the disaster of trench warfare in WW1. Blitzkreig facilitated Germany's entry into WW2, and gave Germany confidence in Operation Barborossa, which was one of the reasons it lost WW2. Thus, Blitzkreig, while a positive adaptation, led to Germany's downfall.
No- this isn't me saying that SOCOM will destroy America :)
Looking at bureaucracy, self-review is one of the most important processes. For this to happen, however, it is necessary to have an 'objective opinion'. The military, especially regarding the upper levels, is highly experience-intensive. The Colonels and upwards have spent a large amount of time in the military, and this creates a problem in terms of self review. Self-review must be done by those with an excellent idea of how the bureaucracy should be run. In military terms, this would mean someone with a large amount of military experience. The problem is that because the military is an extremely hierarchical system, the liklihood is that these reviewers will have the system so ingrained in them that they will be insufficiently objective. The military also promotes conformity, which clearly isn't beneficial here.
How do you overcome this problem, let alone many other ones related to the same issue? It has been proposed that the way the US military has managed to stay on the leading edge (or tip of the spear) is through technological development. The US has enormous factors of output and defense production is a competitive procedure involving public companies. Thus, innovation is guaranteed. When this new technology is integrated into the military, the military produces doctrines to facilitate its operation. These doctrines amount to efficiency increases in the US military's ability to wage war. These changes keep the US at the leading edge.
One problem that has been noted with this development is that it works only in one direction- INCREASED technology. Because constant technization, technology either becomes a crutch, or actively ensures that the military is not adapting and making more efficient doctrine dealing with low-technology fields. Technology as a crutch (ELINT and SIGINT advances led to reliance on satellites etc) has been partially blamed for the dearth of HUMINT in the M.E. A lack of low-tech development and doctrinal evolution could impede our ability to wage UW or L/MIC.
A further problem is that through these constant increases in technology, C2 links in the military are stretched too far or become too convoluted, thus transforming the military into a slow moving juggernaut, which diminishes its ability to maneuver or participate in, again, Small Wars.
Great discussion. Sorry if the above amounted to a hijack, it sort of ran with the idea.
Solid
sduarfts.... I have read quite a bit about that Operation through the past decades. I agree with TS. Last book that I read, that included a description of that mission (a couple years ago) Delta Force by Charlie Beckwith. Beckwith was the Commander at Desert One. Real quick, from what I remember after the study on that failed mission. We didn't have the right choppers (Navy Sea Stallions were used) of the 8 required I think only 5 were available, before one of them hit the C-130. Another problem was trained pilots for that type of mission, hence SOAR.
Eagle Claw/Desert One was in 1980. Yes this caused an investigation and SOCOM and such was a result, albiet something like 7 or so years after . Solid's post pretty much explains how that crap happens.
Still have the images burned in my mind when I learned about that failure and the images on TV... the burnt wreckage... worse, a couple charred bloated US bodies and how the iranians were treating them!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah there is a ton more......
sduarfts
01-09-2005, 20:58
I've read Beckwith's book and also "The Guts To Try" and John Carney's book "No Room For Error" on the subject. I believe that enough questions were raised during the planning/rehersal phase that JSOC or something similiar would have been formed regardless of the missions outcome on a slower time line of course. However, it would have still lead to SOCOM.
As for the world view of the US, I want to say that terrorism against us would have been reduced for at least awhile, but I have trouble backing my idea.
I'm obviously no expert. I carry the standard background of a 1 enlistment Ranger and am left concluding the world could potentially be a very different place had the mission been acomplished. For now the only answers I come up with are questions.
Solid you give proof that there is credence to destroying your enemy. Also, armies by their sheer size are forced into bureacratic boxes. There must be elements that remain outside of the said box to be prepared for as many scenarios as possible. These brave men working outside the box by the experience they gain allow the bureacracy to grow by proving what is feasible and what is not.
I appreciate all the responses given.
[QUOTE=sduarfts]I've read Beckwith's book and also "The Guts To Try" and John Carney's book "No Room For Error" on the subject. I believe that enough questions were raised during the planning/rehersal phase that JSOC or something similiar would have been formed regardless of the missions outcome on a slower time line of course. However, it would have still lead to SOCOM.
As for the world view of the US, I want to say that terrorism against us would have been reduced for at least awhile, but I have trouble backing my idea.
I'm obviously no expert. I carry the standard background of a 1 enlistment Ranger and am left concluding the world could potentially be a very different place had the mission been acomplished. For now the only answers I come up with are questions.
Solid you give proof that there is credence to destroying your enemy. Also, armies by their sheer size are forced into bureacratic boxes. There must be elements that remain outside of the said box to be prepared for as many scenarios as possible. These brave men working outside the box by the experience they gain allow the bureacracy to grow by proving what is feasible and what is not.
Just my.02... I doubt terrorism against us would have reduced if that mission had been successful. In this case the hostages were all held in the embassy and this was known. If the mission was a success. terrorists would have just smacked thier forhead and gone DUH? No more keeping them in one known place all together. If any of them had a large group of hostages now or in the past years, think they would have them all in one known location? They merely adapt, not stop. Not even for awhile. Any lag or absence of terrorist activity is only due to thier patience and planning. Much like they did ultimately with passengers from TWA 847 in 1985. They removed the passengers at times and ferreted them all around Beirut in small groups, over a hundred. Think the pukes that did this may have learned something 5 years prior during Eagle Claw?
sduarfts
01-10-2005, 21:31
Just my.02... I doubt terrorism against us would have reduced if that mission had been successful. In this case the hostages were all held in the embassy and this was known. If the mission was a success. terrorists would have just smacked thier forhead and gone DUH? No more keeping them in one known place all together. If any of them had a large group of hostages now or in the past years, think they would have them all in one known location? They merely adapt, not stop. Not even for awhile. Any lag or absence of terrorist activity is only due to thier patience and planning. Much like they did ultimately with passengers from TWA 847 in 1985. They removed the passengers at times and ferreted them all around Beirut in small groups, over a hundred. Think the pukes that did this may have learned something 5 years prior during Eagle Claw?
Honestly in Beruit I was only thinking about the Marine bombing. Thanks for the reminder about the hostages.
I'm not ready to write a thesis yet, but if I can convince myself that Reagan would have still won the election in 1980, than I don't believe the world would be that much different today. This is based on my feeling that enough causes were found durning planning phase to begin the process that led to SOCOM and our enemies adaptation to our methods and capabilities.
CPTAUSRET
01-10-2005, 22:12
Honestly in Beruit I was only thinking about the Marine bombing. Thanks for the reminder about the hostages.
I'm not ready to write a thesis yet, but if I can convince myself that Reagan would have still won the election in 1980, than I don't believe the world would be that much different today. This is based on my feeling that enough causes were found durning planning phase to begin the process that led to SOCOM and our enemies adaptation to our methods and capabilities.
The fact is, if that mission had been successful Carter might have been re-elected, and Reagan probably wouldn't have had 8 years in the Oval Office. How different the world might be if he hadn't served 8 years.
I am guessing he (Reagan) wouldn't have had more than one term, as there were signs that he was failing towards the end of his second term; which if Carter had been re-elected would been towards the end of his first term.
Interesting subject.
Terry
Great point CPTAUSRET...... Shudder to think what the World today would be like had carter been re-elected due to that mission being successful (although not as bad imagining kerry having been elected) :eek: One doesn't even have to remember being around while carter was in office, he demonstrates what a worthless pinhead he is to this day.....