Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military OpSec and the name game

Naming an operation just simplies the planning process, and plannng is a HUGE part of how well things go. Don't swallow the line that success in an operation can happen just by taking a bunch of troops with guns and throwing them at the enemy. Having five support troops for every one combat troop isn't a union featherbedding thing. If we want those troops to be highly successful, we need to plan and provide support to a high level as well.

Of course, I expect VERY few here to even have the slighest clue what I'm talkng about, but all you have to do is engage at the most minimal level in the planning process for an operation to understand the the incredible importance of it.

On a lighter note, I know a guy that was in charge of call signs for fighter missions during one operation. I think he was a tanker Nav and had just about had his fill of fighter types. They'd typically use call signs like "Gunfigther," "Killer," "Viper," "Lazer,", etc. This fellow started assigning call signs like "Bambi," "Thumper," "Flower", etc. After a couple days of this the fighter guys came to him and said "these call signs just aren't working for us." I guess they just didn't have enough testosterone to be heard on the radio saying stuff like: Flower 21 flight, number one, ready for takeoff"...........

I think you missed my point, I'm not against naming ops, I'm just tired of PC names like 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.

Operation "Snuggle Bunny" would make me happy, it gives nothing away.

I don't know if OIF was PC, I always thought is was the goal. The only PC concession remember was changing "Operation Infinite Justice" to Operation Enduring Freedom" to keep the Muslims happy.

What we need is a General Patton naming them, "Operation grease our treads with their guts" or "Operation piss in the Euphraties".

We could keep it light like the guy in Blaine's post and still make folks unhappy with "Operation Ham Sandwich and a Beer".

Jim, I spent some time on a line boat, running lines from big ships to their mooring points.
Anyhoo, we're working this Greek cargo ship and the aroma from the galley is incredibly tantalising.
It's painful just to smell.
When we're done the deck boss yells, is there anything we can do? So we yell back, sure we're hungry.
So he tells us to wait. OMG we think we're in for some incredible food, and they lower down a bucket with two ham sandwiches, sans mayonnaise, and two Heineken's. Bummer.

In all fairness, "Desert Storm" wasn't coined until we already had 400K some odd troops in place, so it was hardly necessary to keep it secret. It was Desert Shield (I know just as obvious) in the lead up, but considering we told Saddam we were coming and took a vote in the Senate to do so, it was not exactly covert.

The LE mission names are silly. I guess it's just to make them feel like they are pseudo military ops. Real military mission names where discretion and covert operations are involved, still use ambiguous names.

Ironically, I got my Tennessee "Desert Storm veteran" license plate today (movied to TN a few weeks ago). They'll make a plate for anything.

Blaine,

The ratio of support troops to triggers pullers is more like 25 or 30 to 1...not 5 to 1. When you get into areas like carriers the ratio is probably closer to 100 or more to 1 to support the pilots and their aircraft.

Having fought (as a trigger puller) in my fair share of operations in Vietnam I can assure you that the grunts on the ground could care less, and many times don�t even know, what the particular operation is named.

Logistics is key to any military operation but I really fail to see how the particular name contributes or detracts from the process in anyway whatsoever...which was the topic of this discussion if I recall.

It�s sort of like naming a Hurricane. The name isn�t going to make the storm any more or any less powerful or have any influence in the outcome (good or bad) when it comes ashore.

The amount of support troops vs combat troops is dependent on the scope and complexitiy of the operation. When I was young and just an airplane driver, I thought my skill as a pilot was key. As I got older and more expereinced, I learned that an average pilot with a good plan is way better off than an excellent pilot with a mediocre plan.

So I have seen how the planning, prep and leadership of the troops is what wins battles, and anything we do to simplify that is a plus--regardless of what the trigger-pullers may or may not undersatnd about that process. The specific name is not a big deal, but naming the OP is just plain smart.

BTW, I am for even more support troops backing trigger pullers, because in most cases the better we can prep, equip, and lead those troops the more successful they'll be.

All very true...but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

�Leadership� that wins battles does not fall under heading of �support troops�...and the farther that leadership is from the battlefield and the trigger pullers the less they have to do with the outcome and the less THEY understand about what is or is not going on on the battlefield.

The US military excels in the �science� of warfare and is increasingly inept in the �art� of warfare...because they have far too many arm-chair, in the rear with the gear, people making decisions that should be made by the people on the ground where battles are up close and personal. Just my opinion as a retired Marine and the father of a soon to be retired Master SGT in the Army, and both of us have actually fought in a war and not just read or theorized about it.

I see leadership a little bit differently. I think the exchange was between Eisenhower and Ira Eaker, but it may have between a different 4-star and 2-star general. What happened was the 2-star had flown on a bombing mission during WW II. The 4-star chastized the 2-star, saying he could go get any 2Lt to fly a bomber, be he needed a 2-star general to run the 8th Air Force................

The US Military of today is the most effectve fighting force this planet has ever seen in both art AND science. Like it has always been, it is the force of exceptional personalities stepping up to the plate that overcomes the constant obstacles of any military operation. I base that observation on nearly 24 years as a USAF pilot, one who still has a month of terminal leave left so my experience is very current.

I didn't "get" to do any driving in a full-up combat zone. My expereince, rank, and timing during our recent combat operations resulted in my being used at the tactical decision-making level during my combat tours. I was one of the guys who melded the higher level guidance and "commander's intent" with the requirements and focus of the guys doin' the drivin.' It was much simpler when I was just a driver....................

I found myself arguing against both ends more than once. I have told senior leaders that if they push planes and crews that hard for that long they will break hard; and have "explained" things to aircrews with often a VERY myopic view of things. I have apologized to grunts for jerking them around so much (due to the afore mentioned senior leaders pushing too hard and/or the afore mentioned aircrews being myopic), and I have told "special" units that I was though jerking around aircrews, maintenance, and loading crews just to have a plane leave their location empty (again) because they didn't have their act together and their stuff ready.

I was there during several recent big name operations, making adjustments on the fly to keep grunts in food and ammo as the environment rapidly changed. I was in the command center when the USAF F-16s accidentially bombed the Canadians and know exactly what the aircrews were told to do.

I have seen error on all levels (except from me, of course ) and as such I find plenty of blame and praise to go around.

Oh yeah, I have ALSO read and theorized about this stuff......

I�m not really sure what it is your are finding so objectionable or offensive in this discussion.

No one, certainly not me, has said that good leadership, planning, logistics, etc is not a primary contributor to success in a military operation.

I have to respectfully disagree though with your assessment about the US military being the best in the world in the �art� of war. The unrealistic �Rules of Engagement� placed on our troops by the leadership sitting safely back in the USA, or their fortified and guarded compounds in the Green Zone, would make Sun Su roll in his grave. Only very recently have our troops been allowed to freely seek out and KILL bad guys whether they were standing there in plain sight firing at them or not.

As for famous military quotes, I have two that I have always found to be the most telling and insightful.

1. When Douglas MacArthur was asked what he thought of General Eisenhower he replied with a slight grin: �Dwight was a very good clerk.�

2. When Marine legend Chesty Puller was shown a new model of flame thrower his first question was: �Where do you attach the bayonet to this damn thing?�

That was my point, if you named a hurricane something pleasant it's not going to make it so.
I guess the PC stuff gets under my skin.
I am finishing up Carnage and Culture by V.D. Hansen, he argues that western militarises are so much more adaptable and lethal than anything the east can produce because of freedom and capitalism.

I�m with ya brother! All of this mamby-pamby PC BS in the military drives me up a wall sometimes.

It has always been my position that the only thing our military does real well is kill people and break things, so if the politicians and citizens of this country are not ready, willing, and able to watch people being killed and stuff getting broken every night on the evening news then for God�s sake don�t send our troops there to begin with.

Just one man�s opinion.

What would make you think I find anything objectionable or offensive? I was a Major for 12 years and a USAF Command Pilot for 8 years. There is not a person on this planet who'd I be shy about making my objection or "offendednedness" known to if I had any. We are just a couple of crusty ex-military guys having a conversation.



I don't disagree with you there, but I blame people at all levels for letting that happen. Maybe that is why I was a Major for 12 years.............

Just my perception I guess...but you sounded as though someone had �pooped� in your mess kit or something.

The military defends democracy it doesn�t practice it...nor should it. Someone has to be in charge, and that�s why it is vital (in my opinion) to have Killers making the plans rather than ticket punchers that have never been on the receiving end of shots fired in anger. If a person has not been in the position to try to carry out the orders from above while being shot at then they have no frame of reference of the reality of what they are asking of the men below them.

Again, just my opinion.

The best commanders I have had were ones that had actually done what they were commanding, but not everyone who's been in combat makes a good commander. I did always find it interesting that the best performers in combat zones were crusty guys who had lots of experience at doing whatever it was that needed done. They was a certain maturity and attitude that those guys carried that often the "fast burners" did not.

Many times, by sheer force of personality I forced things through much resistance because it was the right thing to do. It was just common sense to me. I do not know how many times I've told someone reluctant to do the right thing that I would personality take full responsibilty for the decision--even when the decision was over my pay grade. I cared much more about getting the kids what they needed to be successful on the battlefield than I did how it looked to whomever--probably another reason I was a major for 12 years...........

I reminded many a fighter pilot that the only reason he was there was so the attack and cargo planes could get through, and the only reason we needed attack and cargo planes was so that 19 yr old with an M-16 could hold his square yard of ground. I told many a young Army troop that the whole reason for the USAF was to make sure he had what he needed when he needed it.

Whenever I found someone getting tired and frustrated with all the red tape we had to defeat daily just to a plane in the air, I'd remind him there were kids being shot at who didn't stand a chance unless we got our job done--so put up with the red tape and get it done anyway. This applied to everyone from pilots to planners.

I remember being told at least once: "but to do that I'll have to wake up the Ambassador." You can probably guess what my reply was--"then go wake up the Ambassador! Tell whomever that Maj Painter takes full responsibility for the consequences." Never once did I get anything but a "thanks Blaine" from my senior leaders when I'd do that. Who knows, maybe they cussed me under their breath because their thanks certainly didn't seem to extend beyond the combat zone. Then again, I wasn't doing it get a pat on the back, I was doing it because there were kids under fire who needed the system to flex for them to keep them alive and successful in the line fo fire.

I didn't volunteer for any of my combat deployments, nor did I get any "career boost" from them. However, I am very proud that while I was there I made things work better. They say every time I could get a C-17 into an airfield--which sounds MUCH easier that it is--I saved a ground convoy from having to make a trip which unquestionably saved the lives of the kids having to be in that convoy.

That is the biggest problem with they type of ticket puncher you learned to despise. They never did understand anything more than time in combat would look good on their career resume. They could never connect the dots between such mundane things as submitting diplomatic clearance requests and how that directly affected the ability of the troops on the front lines to be successful.

It�s always enlightening to see how much can get accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit or the blame for it!