shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) (12/27/89)
From: shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday)
With all the news from Rumania, the situation in Panama has not
been covered as extensively as it might otherwise have been.
The impression I have received is that the invasion did not accomplish
its military objectives of:
1. Capturing Noriega.
2. Removing him from the political/military arena in Panama.
My impression has been that the initial intelligence was faulty
and no satisfactory contingency plans were prepared for the events
that arose. It is still unclear to me why the US opted for a large
scale involvement, to which I currently see no end, rather than
a clean "surgical" operation by elite forces, with a large scale
followup dependent upon a successful accomplishment of (1).
Any opinions?
Shai Guday : BITNET: shaig@hujinix
Hebrew University, Jerusalem : [Standard Disclaimer]
"Man and nations will act rationally when all other
possibilities have been exhausted." (Katz's law)raob@uunet.UU.NET (Richard Oxbrow) (01/02/90)
From: munnari!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!raob@uunet.UU.NET (Richard Oxbrow) In article <12604@cbnews.ATT.COM> shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) writes: > > >From: shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) > >With all the news from Rumania, the situation in Panama has not >been covered as extensively as it might otherwise have been. > >The impression I have received is that the invasion did not accomplish >its military objectives of: >1. Capturing Noriega. >2. Removing him from the political/military arena in Panama. > > ... Maybe you should add number 3 3. Preventing Noriega from gaining control of the Panama Canel when the US returns the control of the canel to Panama in the next x years ( i can't remember the date off hand). At least they have succeeded in the 3rd case .. richard .. Richard Oxbrow |ACSnet raob@mullian.oz dept. of ee eng ,uni of melbourne |Internet raob@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU parkville 3052 australia |Arpa-relay raob%mullian.oz@uunet.uu.net fax +[061][03]344 6678 |Uunet uunet!munnari!mullian!raob
emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) (01/02/90)
From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) >From: shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) >It is still unclear to me why the US opted for a large >scale involvement, to which I currently see no end, rather than >a clean "surgical" operation by elite forces, with a large scale >followup dependent upon a successful accomplishment of (1). >Any opinions? Yeah. People who talk about "surgical" operations like this really haven't thought about what that means. Unfortunately, "Mission Impossible" operations work on TV. Kidnapping a head of state, particularly one as crafty as Noriega, are basically impossible to do. There's too much that can go wrong. Noriega deliberately did his best to prevent such an operation from succeeding. For instance, no one but Noriega and maybe his driver knew where he was night after night. In military operations, the concept of "minimum necessary force" is complete <insert your favorite expletive here>. It's been established time and again that the way to save lives is to use overwhelming military force. Consider: You're a Panamanian Sentry, and you've been listening to a lot of anti-American propaganda. All of a sudden, a U.S. paratrooper shows up. So, you shoot him. Now change the scenario. A platoon of U.S. paratroopers shows up, with all kinds of automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and maybe even a tank or such. What do you do? Unless you want to be a dead hero, you surrender without firing a shot. Personally, I think we did this one "right", based on what I've heard so far. We put in plenty of troops, to insure that we had overwhelming superiority where we needed it, and we didn't scrimp. As a (former and current part-time) U.S. Serviceman, that's the way to do this, to save U.S. lives, and also Panamanian lives. The major complaint I have so far is the U.S. failure to control looting, but that's mostly a political decision and not a military decision. dave emery emery@aries.mitre.org
ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson) (01/02/90)
From: ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson) In article <12604@cbnews.ATT.COM> shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) writes: > > >With all the news from Rumania, the situation in Panama has not >been covered as extensively as it might otherwise have been. > >The impression I have received is that the invasion did not accomplish >its military objectives of: >1. Capturing Noriega. >2. Removing him from the political/military arena in Panama. > With Noriega in the Papal Nuncio, Noriega is effectively removed from the political/military arena in Panama. Whatever one's opinion about whether the US should have gone into Panama, it appears the military operation was a tremendous success. Look at the reports (facts?): o The US successfully invaded another country with 24,000 troops and lost only 24 men. A training exercise of this magnitude could easily have cost 4-6 killed. The military is a dangerous business. o The operation was performed at night and all of the key objectives were taken before morning. The execution of the invasion was flawless, especially since the troops were flown in from bases approximately 1000 miles away. o According to the news reports, Noriega was never in command of of the PDF. What is incredible is how Noriega screwed up by declaring war and then not preparing for it. Once again the value of surprise is shown in a military operation. o Noriega has effectively been neutralized by seeking sanctuary in the Papal Nuncio. I think the media will ultimately dismiss the action as the big superpower stepping on a banana republic that couldn't adequately defend itself. Considering the destructiveness of modern weapons in the hands of determined men (or women) I shudder to think of how it might have turned out. Dennis
illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) (01/02/90)
From: illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) In article <12604@cbnews.ATT.COM> shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) writes: >The impression I have received is that the invasion did not accomplish >its military objectives of: >1. Capturing Noriega. I think it's important to contemplate what exactly the administration had in mind when it decided to strike the PDF and Noriega. I would hope that no one briefed the President that U.S. forces would CERTAINLY capture Noriega. It was common knowledge that Noriega has been constantly on the move; sometimes moving around to four or five locales in a given evening. While someone might have kept better tabs on him it was obvious that he would have been a tough nut to nail down when the operation started or immediatly before. The present situation does pose interesting questions as to whether or not he is actually captured. No, he is not in the hands of the U.S. However he certainly is limited in his present movement and it seems as though the Vatican isn't going to allow him to stay in their embassy much longer. The final objective of bringing Noriega to the U.S. has not been achieved but the President should feel comfortable that U.S. troops drove him to the Vatican embassy. I'm certain he wouldn't feel too good if Noriega made it to the Cuban embassy. >2. Removing him from the political/military arena in Panama. If you can explain to me what influence he still holds over the political/military arena then I might believe this statement. The fact that he is still alive keeps him in the public eye but he holds no influence over events in Panama. The objectives of the U.S. were to put him out of business, install the rightfully elected government and bring Noriega to a U.S. courtroom. >My impression has been that the initial intelligence was faulty >and no satisfactory contingency plans were prepared for the events >that arose. It is still unclear to me why the US opted for a large >scale involvement, to which I currently see no end, rather than >a clean "surgical" operation by elite forces, with a large scale >followup dependent upon a successful accomplishment of (1). >Any opinions? I noticed only two flaws in the operation; 1) Landing Marines in the mud. For as long as we've been in Panama we should've had the area staked out better. Fortunatly for the Marines the locals were friendly and helped them. If it had been some 'Ding-Bats' it would've been ugly. 2) Not knocking out all radio and television not controlled by U.S. forces immediatly. Allowing a Noriega tape to be played could have been devastating. These few flaws in an otherwise competent operation don't indicate to me a lack of intelligence. In order to eliminate the pockets of resistance that would be present it was necessary to bring in the additional troops. Keep in mind that the 13,000 troops already in Panama had their responsibilities to their fixed stations (e.g the Howard AFB flightline). Those whose mission was strictly defense of these facilities and the canal needed augmentation by light and Airborne forces. A surgical strike would have been effective for snatching Noriega but with the Ding-Bats pocketed around the country and the uncertainty of who in the PDF would turn over their weapons it was obvious that we would need greater numbers to do the job.
chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) (01/04/90)
From: Irving Chidsey <chidsey@smoke.brl.mil>
In article <12698@cbnews.ATT.COM> ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson) writes:
<
<With Noriega in the Papal Nuncio, Noriega is effectively removed from
<the political/military arena in Panama. Whatever one's opinion about
<whether the US should have gone into Panama, it appears the military
<operation was a tremendous success. Look at the reports (facts?):
<
<
< o Noriega has effectively been neutralized by seeking sanctuary
< in the Papal Nuncio.
<
I believe that the Papal Nuncio is a man and not a building. That is
the title they choose to give their ambassadors. Noriega is hiding in the
Papal Nuncio's palace. ( Which is probably also a matter of terminology. )
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>rdh@sli.com (01/04/90)
From: rdh@sli.com In article <12700@cbnews.ATT.COM> illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) writes: >2. Removing him from the political/military arena in Panama. If you can explain to me what influence he still holds over the political/military arena then I might believe this statement. The fact that he is still alive keeps him in the public eye but he holds no influence over events in Panama. You mean, like Khomeini had no influence over events in Iran? Just because he got booted out of the capital/country/government/etc. certainly does *NOT* nullify his capability to cause much continuing grief and aggravation to all parties concerned. Even locked up in a [U.S.] prison, he could still potentially wield tremendous influence, let alone if he was running around free in some sanctuary, 'fer instance, Cuba. -RDH
stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) (01/04/90)
From: stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) In article <12693@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!raob@uunet.UU.NET (Richard Oxbrow) writes: > stuff deleted to beat the mailer program... >Maybe you should add number 3 > 3. Preventing Noriega from gaining control of the Panama Canel when the US >returns the control of the canel to Panama in the next x years ( i can't >remember the date off hand). > >At least they have succeeded in the 3rd case .. Well, according to the morning news, the date was ah...yesterday ;-) We were suppossed to turn the canal administration over to Panama Jan 1, 1990. I suspect this was one of many factors that caused us to invade when we did. Steve Wilson
shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) (01/04/90)
From: shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday)
In article <12696@cbnews.ATT.COM> emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
%
%
%From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery)
%>From: shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday)
%>It is still unclear to me why the US opted for a large
%>scale involvement, to which I currently see no end, rather than
%>a clean "surgical" operation by elite forces, with a large scale
%>followup dependent upon a successful accomplishment of (1).
%>Any opinions?
%
%Yeah. People who talk about "surgical" operations like this really
%haven't thought about what that means. Unfortunately, "Mission
%Impossible" operations work on TV. Kidnapping a head of state,
%particularly one as crafty as Noriega, are basically impossible to do.
First things first. I have an excellent idea of what a surgical
operation means. I agree that "Mission Impossible" type ops,
with no enemy soldiers killed or injured and without leaving
any indication of penetration, is ridiculous. I do not
agree that a penetration, without the limitation of leaving
enemy soldiers alive is as difficult.
%There's too much that can go wrong. Noriega deliberately did his best
%to prevent such an operation from succeeding. For instance, no one
%but Noriega and maybe his driver knew where he was night after night.
That is incorrect as far as the facts I have heard. In fact, intelligence
sources had pinpointed his whereabouts finely.
%In military operations, the concept of "minimum necessary force" is
%complete <insert your favorite expletive here>. It's been established
%time and again that the way to save lives is to use overwhelming
%military force.
True, which just goes to back up my previous point.illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) (01/06/90)
From: illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) I wrote... > > >2. Removing him from the political/military arena in Panama. > > If you can explain to me what influence he still holds over the > political/military arena then I might believe this statement. The fact that > he is still alive keeps him in the public eye but he holds no influence > over events in Panama. rdh@sli.com wrote... >You mean, like Khomeini had no influence over events in Iran? Just because >he got booted out of the capital/country/government/etc. certainly does >*NOT* nullify his capability to cause much continuing grief and aggravation >to all parties concerned. Even locked up in a [U.S.] prison, he could still >potentially wield tremendous influence, let alone if he was running around >free in some sanctuary, 'fer instance, Cuba. Hypothetically he could run a secret army from his soon to be (hopefully) prison cell in Marion, IL. So NO, I don't mean 'like Khomeini had no influence over events in Iran.' Of course he did. Khomeini and Noriega are very different animals so don't bother with the forinstances. My ststement was based purely on Noriega's power within the constraints of his present position. Now that he's in Miami I am more confident that he holds little, if any power. Being a cult figure to some goons who used to work for you doesn't give you political power. Having the purse strings and the red-line to the military does. [mod.note: Um, I think that pretty well covers this topic. No military technology here... - Bill ]
hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu) (01/06/90)
From: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu) In article <12760@cbnews.ATT.COM> chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) writes: >In article <12698@cbnews.ATT.COM> ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson) writes: >< o Noriega has effectively been neutralized by seeking sanctuary >< in the Papal Nuncio. >< > I believe that the Papal Nuncio is a man and not a building. Of course Dennis means the Papal Nunciature. All of this is moot, of course, because by now you undoubtedly know that Noriega surrendered to US forces yesterday. -dave -- Dave Hsu UMd EE Computer Facility hsu@eng.umd.edu "We must beware of needless innovations, especially when guided by logic." - Churchill