Hearts, Minds, and Dangling Balls in Urban Warfare

While many urban warfare tactics are universal, you need to fight differently when trying to take an enemy city than you would when trying to rescue/separate a city's population from enemy insurgents. 

American urban warfare experience from the Iraq War counter-insurgency campaign is not fully relevant when dealing with an enemy-held urban area, such as ISIL-controlled Mosul. Gaza went beyond even that:

Gaza differed from this experience in several fundamental respects, as Israel did not fight alongside a host nation, but rather against it. In Mosul, there was a legitimate Iraqi government, which at least part of the population supported, and the Islamic State ruled the territory for only two years. Hamas, by contrast, functioned not as an insurgent movement but as the sole authority of the Gaza Strip for almost two decades. Through its control of political institutions, welfare systems, education, and ideological indoctrination, it transformed both society and terrain into a prepared urban battlespace. Polling data from Gaza and the West Bank, including PCPSR surveys from December 2023, show overwhelming public support for Hamas’ October 7 attack and its earlier attacks on Israeli civilians, even when support for Hamas as a governing movement fluctuated.

Under these conditions, Israel could not plausibly expect to win over the local population. Organized anti-Hamas militias and protests against Hamas’ rule emerged only after its military capabilities had been severely degraded late in the war, and even then remained limited. For most of the conflict, the key structural conditions that underpin the Iraq and Afghanistan paradigms — friendly local government and a persuadable population — simply did not exist.

I touched on this difference over a decade ago:

Winning hearts and minds isn't some wimpy alternative to fighting insurgents. It is how you fight an insurgency when the objective is the people themselves. You want their hearts. You can settle for their minds. And when you are pacifying an enemy population, you need to grab the insurgents by the balls so the people's hearts and minds will follow.

And capturing an enemy city defended by that enemy's regular forces is even more dangerous. Doctrine for one situation is not a template for all situations. 

And yeah, don't get me started on the misinterpretation of "proportionality" of the use of force around civilians that just happens to only hamstring Western armies. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo of American artillery in Aachen during World War II.

The Winter War of 2022 Becomes a Side Show

The Russian invasion of Ukraine keeps getting knocked out of the headlines by fighting in the Middle East. These are sad days indeed for Putin's goal of making Russia the Big Bad that demands the world's attention and makes targets quake in their boots. And it is getting worse for Russia every day the invasion drags on. How worse could it get?

Oh my:

The war appears to be continuing into 2026 despite Russia’s shortage of cash and soldiers. Russia has hired thousands of North Korean soldiers as a stopgap, but this is a limited resource. North Korea is demanding help with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. This angered China, the last major ally Russia has. Not only is China reducing economic cooperation with Russia but is also raising the issue of extensive portions of Russia’s Far Eastern Pacific coastal provinces that are claimed by China. Over the last few centuries Russia did take many of these territories from China and now China sees an opportunity to get them back, or simply take them back. If this happens, Russia could lose up to twenty percent of its territory. 

Russia's bulldozer is shaking, smoking, and shedding bolts.

Will Putin do something dramatic to try to restore his momentum? Would he really use nukes against targets in Ukraine--even if he avoids striking people or units? How would his military and people react? How would China react? Would that break Ukraine or bolster their resolve? 

Yet how valid is that threat? Can Russia risk revealing the true state of its foundation of its defense?

Or will Putin decide to escape the war through a Trump life line that lets Putin pretend he didn't lose?

Russia has found that its first major step west has not gone anywhere near what Putin planned. Even as China looms over Russia's Far East and gains influence in Central Asia, which Russia has tried to maintain as its backyard for eventual reincorporation into the empire. If Russia believes it can cut a real deal over Ukraine to end the hostility with NATO that has gotten way out of hand from its initial purpose of concealing Russian appeasement of China, Russia could pivot to Asia with its remaining strength and prepare to deter or defeat China's drive for influence or control of large chunks of Russian or former Soviet territory. 

Putin will do that if he has any brains, rather than dangle the Far East in front of China and continue to provoke European rearmament. 

And perhaps much worse.

NOTE: ISW updates continue here. 

NOTE: Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump on Substack. You may read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.

NOTE: Photo from here.

Weekend Data Dump

The Weekend Data Dump is a compilation of short entries about the previous week’s defense and national security news that I found interesting. I couldn’t possibly comment on everything in my news flow or delve into everything that interests me. So most news that interests me doesn’t make the cut for a post. The rest go in the data dump. Enjoy!

HOP ON OVER AND READ IT! On the bright side, you can comment on Substack!

In case you missed it on Substack: The Objectives for the War Against Iran

In case you missed it on Substack: A Curtain of Drones for Air Defense

In case you missed it on Substack: The World War II Prototype for Interceptor Drones

In case you missed it on Substack: Reviewing the New European Security Environment

Help me out by subscribing on Substack and by liking and sharing posts. I occasionally post short data dump-type items (or not-so-short) on my Substack "Notes" section.

Patrolling the Earth-Moon System

The Pentagon is looking at the space from Earth to the Moon. Patrol spaceships and ground troops will secure the region. Failure could mean China expand their nine-dash line of claimed control in the South China Sea.

Yes, talk about the Earth-Moon system: 

As the U.S. prepares to return astronauts to the Moon, the Pentagon is turning its focus to the vast region between traditional Earth orbits and its natural satellite as an emerging front for military operations.

But it won't be a Space Navy yet:

When we have space ships the size of even the Navy's smallest Cyclone patrol ships, then I'll agree that the Navy should control a space force. 

We’ll totally get SMOD.  

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

Distance is the Carrier's Friend

Carriers can last half a century, or more. So I do like to keep them useful for all missions given we will have them for a long time even if other weapons are better for sea control missions.

Can we include enough MQ-25A Stingray drone aerial tankers in a carrier air wing to increase the range of fighter squadrons? 

The MQ-25A Stingray is a carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed primarily as an aerial refueling tanker for carrier air wings. 

It represents the first operational carrier-compatible unmanned aircraft in US naval aviation history and is intended to dramatically extend the reach of fighter aircraft by providing organic refueling capability at sea.

Secondary missions include intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support.

This is useful for their already potent power projection role. I wonder if aerial combat drones could extend the range of carrier air wings enough to make them sea control apex predators rather than expensive prey.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo from the article. 

Proximity is Opportunity

American forces hammered Iranian warships in their ports and in waters near Iran at the start of Epic Fury. This seems like a test for coping with China's large and growing fleet.

America smashed up a number of Iranian warships at the start of the America-Israel attack on Iran:

Destruction of the Iranian Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy is a priority of the ongoing Operation Epic Fury, Pentagon officials have said since the start of the operation.

CENTCOM shows that the campaign has damaged or destroyed over 155 Iranian vessels. We're clearly getting down to the small stuff. Except for two (?) Iranian navy ships sitting out the war in India.

Naval targets includes Iranian anti-ship missiles kept in safe bunkers that American bunker busters destroyed. 

Of course, Iran has lots of smaller coastal assets that can do damage in the narrow Strait of Hormuz. But the damage inflicted is still a big deal. 

Well, hello target-rich environment:

China’s coast is well within range of American bases in the western Pacific. Add in American land-based missiles and aircraft placed on the Philippines and even Taiwan, and China’s ports and shipyards are well within range of American strike assets.

Truly, the Iran War of 2026 is a good test of this capability. And we may get a second production line for the B-21 that could strike in the western Pacific and the mainland from distant less vulnerable bases. 

All is not lost in INDOPACOM.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Image from the article.

Be Careful What You Wish For: Allied Rearmament Edition

Europeans strangely want to buy European weapons as long as they are going to spend more money on national defense.

America wants Europeans to defend themselves but isn’t happy Europeans want to buy European weapons systems:

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has threatened to retaliate against European countries if the EU favors domestic weapons-makers in a drive to rearm the continent.

The U.S. Department of Defense objected to any EU effort to limit American arms-manufacturers' access to the European market and warned that would trigger a reciprocal response.

When we insist our European allies do more to defend themselves, they might just do more to defend themselves. Expecting them to simply buy more American weapons was assuming too much. I mean, nice work if you can get it, of course. But our European allies see things differently. As I've mentioned in other contexts.

The old strategy of doing more than allies made perfect sense when a war begun by an ally might escalate into strategic nuclear war between America and the Soviet Union, eh? We assume that problem no longer exists. Fingers crossed.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: I made the image with Bing.

The Folly of the Imminent Standard

The size of the Iran War is daunting to many who watch it. It is also the consequence of relying on an "imminent threat" standard to justify military action. 

Long ago I warned against the "imminent" threshold for justifying military action as "the last resort" (quoting a 2003 post):

When you believe that any path, no matter how unlikely to bear fruit, keeps you from that "last" resort, then military force is practically speaking never an option.

In regard to Iran I wrote:

And while many here continue to insist that military action must be the last resort, the more the knowledge of nuclear weaponry becomes deeply embedded within Iran. More people acquire the knowledge of how to proceed and unless we kill them all, destroying buildings is the least effective way to slow them down. Iran can rebuild structures if they have the scientists and technicians who take decades to train ready to pick up the pieces. Indeed, Iran could rebuild in other countries and subcontract various stages of the work in locations that may be immune to future attacks. 

Sure, time may provide a solution other than military action. But it can also lead to stupid paper deals to achieve seriously farcical "solutions" resting on fantasy:

President Barack Obama has spoken of his ambition to bring Iran in from the cold, saying the long-time US foe could be “a very successful regional power” if it agrees to a deal over its nuclear programme.

I long worried that a president confronted with finally being the one standing when the music turned off in the game of musical Oval Office chairs in the nearly fifty years of mullah rule in Iran would take the easiest option by unleashing the four-step plan.

Yet here we are with time short but not out, working the much larger Iran problem rather than shrugging our shoulders and hoping the mullahs are not as mad as their rhetoric and violence would indicate.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!