"The high tech weapons developed in the 1990s--the smart bombs and computerized networks--certainly gave the U.S. military an unrestricted edge on the battlefield. But they don't win wars; they can't achieve the political objectives that inspire a war in the first place. They're useful for toppling regimes, but of no use in inspiring order afterward. In the end, the old verities--boots on the ground, shrewd strategy, knowledge of the local language and culture--remain key."
That's Fred Kaplan, in an excerpt from his forthcoming book "Daydream Believers," reprinted in Slate on Sunday. This isn't revolutionary stuff--military journals, some of the smarter milblogs and Secretary of Defense Gates have all been saying the same thing for some time--but being embedded with the U.S. Army's 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team just west of Baghdad this past week, I've seen some of these technologies in action. The Stryker vehicles I've tooled around in ride like the Cadillac of combat vehicles--their maneuverability around the HESCO barriers and blast walls the Iraqi CLC groups have erected all over the roads in this rural region is remarkable, and their speed, range and force protection is unmatched. The regular infantry carrier can put nine infantrymen on the ground, and comes equipped with a .50 caliber machine gun controlled by a gunner who views the battlespace from inside the vehicle through a camera sight. The senior officer or NCO can view the same image from his own screen, but always (in my experience) prefers to stand up, scanning the road through the front hatch. Rear gunners stand in the two back hatches--and all are connected though networked headsets, which provide total communication at all times. Top that off with a maximum speed of 60 mph with a 330-mile range, along with FBCB2 and Blue Force Tracking systems, and you've got a hell of a vehicle.
But back to the Kaplan quote. When fighting an elusive enemy that relies on small cells, hidden IEDs, and blends in with the local populace, can the Stryker prove decisive? Earlier in the week, an officer stressed to me that the Stryker is "not an infantry carrier, it's more of a capabilities platform." Well sure, except that out in the field, the Stryker is being used primarily as an infantry carrier. While at Combat Outpost Courage, Captain Glen Helberg of Charlie Company told me that the vehicles themselves, while great, are "really a ride to where we need to go. We're not gonna win this thing just driving through the towns." Helberg's First Sergeant Kenny Clayborne chimed in that "as far as operations go, it's kind of just a ride. But the soldiers feel safer, and the guys around here know that the Strykers mean business." They sure do, and this isn't to say that the technologies the vehicles have aren't being utilized--but in a fight like this, an infantry carrier by any other name is still an infantry carrier.
