Summary: Operation Desert Shield

This article is talking more about the strategies and plans for the attacks, maps, and pictures. The book is from an American soldier, so the things in the book is more about the field. According to the book, Saddam Hussein was warned by United Nations Security Council to withdrawal his army, and if he did not, they will start taking action. After the due time passed, and the dictator Saddam was still refusing to withdrawal his force from Kuwait, Operation Desert Shield was already in the Persian Gulf to start the attack. Allied troops arrived to Kuwait to force Saddam Hussein withdrawal his army from Kuwait, and after for days they succeeded. A lot details of these four days, the attacks, who had more advantages, and so much more details.

General Franks and joint planners identified various strengths in the Iraq pre-invasion planning efforts of the Joint Staff. For instance, throughout development of the Iraqi operational approach, planners recognized Saddam Hussain and the City of Bagdad as strategic Centers of Gravity (COG) as a major sources of Iraqi power and strength to the Hussain regime.5 (JP5-0, p. III-22) By comparison, Karl Von Clausewitz referred to the COG as the “the hub of all power and movement, which everything depends or the point at which all our energies should be directed.”6 (JP5-0, p. III-22) In addition, General Frank’s and planners’ operational approach acknowledged the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard as key operational COGs targeted in pre-invasion

This paper was written by Dr. Richard L. Kugler from the National Defense University, Center of Technology and National Security. Operation Anaconda was a success, but taught many lessons for modern-era force operations and defense transformation that deserves to be remembered (Kugler, 2007). Even though the battle plan was complex and sophisticated, it was not followed by the Afghan forces, which left US ground troops to do the battle alone. US forces had to replan the battle at a moment's notice.

The US Central Command’s planning for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was not the all-inclusive plan that joint operations require. Joint operations are no longer limited to major combat operations, but encompass a wide range of actions. Planning for joint operations requires input from many sources to produce a successful campaign plan to meet the desired end state. Operational design provides a concept and a construction framework that underpins a campaign and its execution. (JP GL13). Evaluating the planning process by using the operational design identifies some of CENTCOM’s shortfalls. US military planners’ lack of understanding of the operational environment led to an inadequately defined problem that resulted in a faulty operational approach. CENTCOM’s approach did not have the right assessment to gauge the effectiveness of the plan such as alerting planners when and if the plan needed modification. Current joint planning policy incorporates several of CENTCOM’s shortfalls in an attempt to provide a better planning process for future joint operations.

Operation Just Cause was not the capture of a man; it was the genocide of a country

In order to develop effective solutions for complex military problems, the Joint Community within the US Military adopted the methodology of Operational Design in Joint Doctrine. This methodology addresses the concept of complex, ill-structured or “wicked” problems. In fact, Lessons Learned as a result of operations conducted over the last 15 years played an instrumental role in the continued development of this doctrine. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) illustrates a perfect case study for evaluation utilizing this methodology. Therefore, the intent of this paper is to evaluate US Military campaign planning for OIF by using operational design as the framework for this analysis. First, this paper looks at how planners and commanders interpreted pre-invasion civilian policy guidance, their understanding of the current operational environment, and how these commanders defined the problem. Next, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the initial approach. After discussing this initial approach, this paper examines how commanders assessed the campaign and refined the approach – to include how the reframing occurred. Lastly, it provides examples of how these lessons learned shaped current joint planning policy and doctrine.

II Marine was closing in on the 3rd Army Division of the Southern States of America. So far, there had been no order from DoD asking the Marines to halt in place. Marine scouts had located the rear echelon of the 3rd and a day later they found the main body. The 3rd had held up ten miles from the rear echelon of the 3rd ID. The Marines that had radio communications with the 3rd ID notified them of the discovery. The 3rd ID graciously thanked the Marines, but told them they already knew.

January 12, 1991 - U.S. Congress passes a resolution authorizing the use of force to liberate Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm begins four days later with air strikes against Iraq. Iraq retaliates by launching eight Scud missiles into Israel.

The political ramifications of this successful operation are still being seen today. Russia, the only challenging power to the U.S. dominance across the world and especially the Middle East has just recently started to challenge that hegemony as seen in its operations in Syria but the region is still heavily influenced by U.S. foreign policy that was established during the operation Desert Storm. The operation brought to the battlefield a new era of military technology. Majority of the battles were won from the air (Operation Desert Storm, Evaluation of the Air Campaign, 1997). This aerial manner of conducting warfare was highly effective because it was not only successful in terms of the damage inflicted on the enemy, also it is said

Operations Desert Shield/Storm took place during the Gulf War, which was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of more than 30 nations mandated by the United Nations, led by the United States commanded by General Norman Schwarzkopf, who conducted one of the greatest military campaigns of all times that resulted with the coalition victory. The name Operation Desert Shield was for the operation leading to the built up of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Storm for the combat phase to liberate Kuwait. This war included more than 500.000 United States troops, dominated by technological superiority that definitely favored the coalition forces. The use of missiles, guided bombs and invisible plane made easy to destroy Iraqi ground targets, being so the first war in history to use the air power to defeat ground forces. The commander of this operation General Schwarzkopf was a consolidated leader with great experience in war and diplomacy, who had extend knowledge of the Middle East since the childhood. General Schwarzkopf ability to use the principles of mission command led the coalition into the desired end state, which was the defense of Saudi Arabia and liberation of Kuwait. General Norman Schwarzkopf successfully utilized mission command principles within Operation Desert Storm/Shield by creating a shared understanding, building cohesive teams through mutual trust, provide a clear commander’s intent, and accept a prudent risk, which played a

5 Operation Desert storm was a war between the U.S and Iraq. To those of us who are too young to remember this conflict is one that my grandfather tells me constantly that the price of freedom is never free. Armed forces of the united states and 100 other countries joined in a massive coalition of power to defeat a country called iraq led by a tyrant and dictator Saddam hussein into invading and occupying Kuwait. Naval and air forces and army and marine ground forces of America joined with countries such as Saudi Arabia , france ,Germany ,England ,Italy and other Arab countries joined into one effort to invade Kuwait and liberate that country from tyrannical rule. Where is and always will be the last option because of the deaths of thousands of people both friendly and enemy of soldier and civilian. By this conflict that started in January 1991 and is famously called the hundred hour

After consulting with U. S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in early August 1990, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia invited American troops onto Saudi soil. He had seen Kuwait's destiny; therefore, he wanted protection. It was also the interest of the USA to stop any further advantage of the Iraqi army. The deployment was called "Operation Desert Shield." These troops were armed with light, defensive weaponry.

On August 2nd, 1990, in a dispute over the Rumaila oil field, on the Iraq/Kuwait border, more than 100,000 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. The United Nations condemned the invasion and called for Iraq’s immediate withdrawal. The following day, President George H. W. Bush announced Operation Desert Shield, a 38-nation coalition which later became Operation Desert Storm – the successful military campaign to liberate Kuwait (Britain and the Americas: Culture, politics, and history. The Gulf War (1991). 2005). These events, together with the deliberate destruction of Kuwait’s oil fields by retreating Iraqi soldiers, brought into focus the need for the United States and other western countries to minimize their reliance on foreign oil. Since then, according to authors John Golden and Hannah Wiseman (2015) writing in the Emory Law Journal, advances in oil and gas extraction technologies, such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, have significantly increased America’s fuel production capability. However, despite our move towards energy independence, these technologies are not without controversy. For example, in his article Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Growth, Nicholas Loris (2012) highlights the concerns of several environmental groups who believe that hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes and chemical contamination of the water supply. Despite these objections, hydraulic fracturing is actually good for the environment, and

The 2nd Battle of Fallujah was fought during OIF 2 (Operation Iraqi Freedom). Operation Iraqi Freedom 2 began at about March-April 2004 and lasted until February-March 2005. The 2nd Battle of Fallujah began 7 November 2004 and ended 23 December 2004. The objective of the operation was to capture or kill those responsible for murders and, corrupt activities, and end the rise of the insurgency in the city. The intent of the operation was to restore control of the city to the Coalition and the Iraqi Governing Council. Some of the events that led to the 2nd Battle of Fallujah were the U.S. forces being unsuccessful during Operation Vigilant Resolve (the 1st Battle of Fallujah) to capture the city and the Fallujah Brigade failing to maintain control of the city.

As seen through today’s prism of operational art and design, the U.S. military’s campaign planning for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was not successful. This failure resulted from flaws in the planning process itself, and the conclusions that flowed from that process. The lack of adequate advance planning for Phase IV stability or transition operations proved especially problematic. This contributed directly to rising levels of violence in Iraq, and indirectly to increased public scrutiny of the war at home. Throughout 2006, the U.S. public, pundits and military planners debated the way forward in Iraq. The plan that emerged from this period, known as the surge, successfully overcame the deficiencies in the initial planning and execution