Anybody with even the most cursory knowledge of 20th and 21st century warfare should have known this "shock and awe" was just total horseshit.

I knew. How was that? Simply look at the Battle of Normandy, D-1.

Allied planners were sure this incredible barrage of naval artillery would debilitate any German forces above the beaches (that they didn't immediately kill). After 20 minutes of 14 and 16 inch rounds they were sure those puny humans wouldn't be even able to move for more than hour, if ever again.

The were horribly wrong. The barrage must have been indescribably terrible to live through, but live the Germans did, and after only a few minutes after the barrage stopped they were more than ready for the landing craft crawling toward them.

They killed 6,000 in 20 minutes at Omaha Beach. They were so shocked by those 16 inch shells, so awed.

How the Pentagon ever fell for this crap I'll never understand. Jesus, WWII was only 60 years ago!

Problem is shock and awe used to entail the wholesale slaughter of civilian populations (colateral damage).

Not exactly a popular notion these days.

The book "The Arms of Krupp" covers Krupp steel factories constantly getting bombed during WWII. The book goes into detail about how every time the Allies bombed the factories it would harden the resolve of the Germans to get the factories up and running again, usually within a day or two.

There is also the failed tactics of carpet bombing and defoliation we tried in Viet Nam; a tactic that did not break the spirit of the Viet Cong.

The "shock and awe" tactic doesn't seem to weaken the resolve of the enemy, instead doing just the opposite. At least in situations where the enemy is defending their homeland.

I'm not schooled in strategy and tactics, so I am not qualified to speak to the wisdom (or lack thereof) in Ullman's original theory. However — I heard the man interviewed on a local radio station a few weeks before the beginning of Dick & Dubya's Excellent Invasion, and he argued strenuously against the war. His point was that we would surely win the war, but just as surely lose the peace. I think that events since that time have supported his analysis: Military "victory" in 21 days, but real victory nowhere to be seen. I was impressed by his thoughtfulness in that interview, and fear that he is being misrepresented here.

If the premise behind Shock and Awe is:

"sufficiently intimidating and compelling factors to force or otherwise convince an adversary to accept our will."

then it does not follow that you would use Shock and Awe to topple a government. You would use it to force a drastic change in policy of a government you intended to leave in place.

Shock and Awe does not avoid the counter (that Sadaam took) which was to go to ground and attempt to wait out the attack or occupation and reconsolidate your power.

In any case Shock and Awe does not lead to complete and moral defeat of a people, as the Allies did to Japan and Germany in WWII.

Which is why I have never been able to figure out how the Bush Administration plans to completely and morally defeat AQ. They are not a "people", a state, or even a religious cult. The complete defeat of AQ is annihilation of its members and the Bush Administration all but walked away from that option until recently.

The complete defeat of AQ is annihilation of its members and the Bush Administration all but walked away from that option until recently.

Not so, the complete defeat of AQ is to "win the hearts and minds" of those who are suspectible to AQ's point of view. So far, the Bush administration has been doing a great job of helping the AQ make the case that the US hates all Muslims and is ready to have a war on their culture. (Or why do you think Bush put out those racist campaign ads to make the case its those scary Arabs you have to watch for?) The invasion of Iraq has been a wonderful recruitment ad for the AQ and we will be seeing the fruits of their successful recruitment for at least a generation.

Good job, George.

You are right Mary. You have to cut off the supply of recruits at the front end as well.

When Shock and Awe™ hit prime time, I can remember being amazed that an administration that so aggressively markets itself as 'principled', and that rails so fiercely against terrorism, would allow itself to be publicly associated with an explicitly terrorist military doctrine. The same people who were (rightly) condemning terrorist tactics as evil per se - means unjustifiable by any end - were perfectly happy to be associated with a strategy of

...massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives...

Although not all of Ullman's proposals involve deliberately attacking noncombatants, many of them do, and all are based on intimidation and fear rather than military necessity - precisely the approach that, when carried out by nonstate actors, is presented as cowardly and morally repugnant. Didn't the double standard bother the pro-war crowd even a little bit?

Gamini,

You have pointed out a very real double standard here, and one that I had not noticed before. However, the plutocrats currently running the government have an entire world view based upon a fundemental double standard. They run things and the rest of the world obeys. Everything they do is justified, and everyone else must agree. One set of rules for the plutocrats, and a different set for everyone else.

It is quite simple really.