In an attempt to combat the deadliest weapons used against American troops, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the military has increasingly turned to Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs). However, the better these vehicles are at insulating soldiers from attack, the better they are at insulating the soldiers from the people they are supposed to be protecting. Is increased reliance on MRAPs a wise idea?
The main argument for MRAPs is their tactical effectiveness. There is little doubting they are well constructed. The MRAP below was hit with a 300 - 350 pound IED. All five soldiers inside survived.
In an article from USA Today discussing the use of MRAPs in Iraq, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is favorable of them:
1
"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees"
The same article paraphrases the words of Major General Rick Lynch expressing similar views:
...the 14-ton MRAPs have forced insurgents to build bigger bombs to knock out the vehicles. Those bombs take more time to build and hide, which gives U.S. forces a better chance of catching the insurgents in the act and then attacking them.
However, Lynch is also revealing one of the flaws of a strategy that relies on MRAPs. They don't prevent people from wanting to place bombs or placing them. This is the main criticism of MRAPs and similar vehicles offered in Thomas E. Ricks' Fiasco.
The use of MRAPs goes against couterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine, which calls for soldiers mingling with the populace. Only when the Iraqi and Afghani people no longer have a desire or reason to place bombs will the problem truly be solved. The words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates from October 10th, 2007 mirror this sentiment:
2
“[W]e have spent billions on tools and tactics to
protect against IEDs. Yet, even now, the best
way to defeat these weapons – indeed the only
way to defeat them over the long run – is to get
tips from the locals about the networks and the
emplacements or, even better, to convince and
empower the Iraqis to prevent the terrorists from
placing them in the first place.”
Yet on May 2nd, 2007 Robert Gates also said :
“The MRAP program should be considered the highest priority
Department of Defense acquisition program.”
The presentation from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) that was the source of the two above quotes recognized the divergence betwwen these statements, labeling a slide "Mission v. Force Protection: The Doctrinal Disconnect". This is a challenge the military must face with no easy solutions.
1 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm
2 http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/S.20071017.Of_IEDs_and_MRAPs/S.20071017.Of_IEDs_and_MRAPs.pdf
Craig, I am very interested
Craig,
I am very interested in your post. IEDs are a critical issue for our military today, and one the greatest problems for our soldiers is protecting themselves from the bombs while trying to locate and neutralize the bombers. As far as MRAPs go, I believe they are incredibly valauble. Without any doubt, they save the lives of the soldiers inside them when they are hit by IEDs. As you said, this only leads to the terrorists building larger and larger explosives, but the lives saved and the time gained to finding the bombers are invaluable. As I see it, we have only 1 logical and ethical way to stop the bombings, reflected by Robert Gates: using the locals to help us find and destroy terrorist networks and their handiwork. There is no other way, seeing as there will always be elements in the culutures of Iraq and Afghanistan that desperately seek to harm us.
Craig, I really like your
Craig,
I really like your post, as it brings up the problem superpower countries face when fighting guerilla forces. When the force we are fighting is driven by ideals rather than the chain of command, superweapons, although still effective for their designed purpose, do not win wars. The COIN doctrine is, from what I can see, the only way for the U.S. to win these wars. Through aid programs, we are more likely to sway our enemies to our side, but the consequence is a lot of American death before we have won the hearts of the people. Although the MRAP is effective against IED's, its very nature (not to mention its cost) makes it an enemy of the war effort. Conventional techniques for winning wars will not work in the current era.
Oh, and speaking of MRAP's:
Griffin, I laughed so hard
Griffin,
I laughed so hard when I watched this. Its good to see our guys having a little fun. For some reason, the guy on top of the hood reminds me of the figures used in "Robot Chicken". Don't know how you found this, but well done.
Sincerely,
Ben
Craig, Your pust reveals a
Craig,
Your pust reveals a troublesome dilemma the military faces right now. MRAPs are a very valuable asset, but, like you said, they go against counterinsurgancy doctrine. However, to me the priority needs to be keeping the U.S. soldiers alive. While I understand risk and loss of life are both a huge part of war, I think that if these MRAPs can protect soldiers, then they are a valuable asset to our army. These IEDs are very dangerous especially because they are nearly undedectable. Our soldiers need MRAPs so they are not ripped to shreds by bombs they can't even see and have no other chance against. All things considered, the benefits of the MRAPs out-weigh the fact that they are not a part of COIN.
Robert
Craig thank you for
Craig thank you for bringing s subject matter like this to my attention. I had no idea about the MRAPs until I read your article. I think it is great that these MRAPs are saving soldiers lives and we should do whatever it takes to save the lives of our soldiers. On the other hand I feel like it would be easier if our forces weren't there in the first place. They wouldn't be IEDs blowing up soldiers if there are no soldiers. Well anyways great article.