General Robert H Scales laid it out several years ago on how to apply the indirect approach to urban warfare---very interesting.
US military in Iraq following this script very closely.
an excerpt:
THE INDIRECT APPROACH
In his landmark book on strategy, Liddell Hart contended that in most successful campaigns, the dislocation of the enemy's psychological and physical balance was brought about through use of the indirect approach. This also applies to urban warfare.
Instead of conducting a direct assault and massive strike, coalition forces could establish a loose cordon around the city and control of the surrounding countryside. The cordon would eventually result in complete isolation of the city from the outside world.......
Throughout the cordon operation, coalition forces would demonstrate their absolute mastery of the situation, using knowledge and speed to seize, control, and strike selected decisive points within the city........ Unless the enemy attacked, coalition forces would not engage in close combat, instead using greater standoff advantages and technology to strike selected point targets, key leadership, and weapons of mass destruction.
As history reminds us, a continued massive use of firepower often has the opposite effect from what is intended. Thus, the coalition would not attempt to achieve complete destruction of the enemy force, but only to destroy those targets that have the greatest impact on the government, the army, and the population. The purpose is two-fold: to demonstrate the futility of further resistance and to create conditions that will lead to collapsing the enemy's will to continue the struggle.
USING TIME TO OUR ADVANTAGE
Through the use of psychological operations and control of the media, the coalition could create an environment in which the enemy army becomes an unwelcome force. The underlying purpose is to shape the perception that the enemy is a hostile occupying force. This perception eventually turns the population against the enemy. In this regard, the coalition could establish mechanisms to gauge the prevailing moods of the population.
LET THE CITY COLLAPSE ON ITSELF
As the coalition achieves control of the surrounding countryside, it could collect resources to support the establishment of sanctuaries or safe havens around the city. Humanitarian organizations, both governmental and non-governmental, would be encouraged to construct protected camps. The city's population would be encouraged to leave, and coalition forces would freely allow refugees passage through the cordon to the relative security and safety of the camps.
For those who stay, the isolation of the city, in time, would create a refugee problem for the enemy. With the steady depletion of resources, the remaining population would eventually see the government as an impotent entity that can't provide basic services or security for the people. Inevitably, the military forces and their leaders would be seen as the real enemy, particularly among the dispossessed within the city.
Although this approach has its advantages, this is not to suggest that it would always work. The following are key considerations before this approach is undertaken. How much popular support does the enemy have? How willing is the enemy's population to accept suffering? To what extent is the city self-sustaining and for how long? Is there some sanctuary nearby that allows forces to rest and recuperate in safety? To what extent are we relying on a coalition and how strong is the coalition? How coherent were the enemy's military forces when they occupied the city? How close was the city to collapse before the initiation of military operations?
Future conditions will force us to fight in complex terrain. We can no longer fight the destructive campaigns of WWII. The indirect approach enables us to use knowledge and speed to their fullest potential to achieve our strategic ends with the least cost in human life and destruction of physical property.
----link here to full text of article.....................http://call.army.mil/products/mout/scales/scales.htm
US military in Iraq following this script very closely.
an excerpt:
THE INDIRECT APPROACH
In his landmark book on strategy, Liddell Hart contended that in most successful campaigns, the dislocation of the enemy's psychological and physical balance was brought about through use of the indirect approach. This also applies to urban warfare.
Instead of conducting a direct assault and massive strike, coalition forces could establish a loose cordon around the city and control of the surrounding countryside. The cordon would eventually result in complete isolation of the city from the outside world.......
Throughout the cordon operation, coalition forces would demonstrate their absolute mastery of the situation, using knowledge and speed to seize, control, and strike selected decisive points within the city........ Unless the enemy attacked, coalition forces would not engage in close combat, instead using greater standoff advantages and technology to strike selected point targets, key leadership, and weapons of mass destruction.
As history reminds us, a continued massive use of firepower often has the opposite effect from what is intended. Thus, the coalition would not attempt to achieve complete destruction of the enemy force, but only to destroy those targets that have the greatest impact on the government, the army, and the population. The purpose is two-fold: to demonstrate the futility of further resistance and to create conditions that will lead to collapsing the enemy's will to continue the struggle.
USING TIME TO OUR ADVANTAGE
Through the use of psychological operations and control of the media, the coalition could create an environment in which the enemy army becomes an unwelcome force. The underlying purpose is to shape the perception that the enemy is a hostile occupying force. This perception eventually turns the population against the enemy. In this regard, the coalition could establish mechanisms to gauge the prevailing moods of the population.
LET THE CITY COLLAPSE ON ITSELF
As the coalition achieves control of the surrounding countryside, it could collect resources to support the establishment of sanctuaries or safe havens around the city. Humanitarian organizations, both governmental and non-governmental, would be encouraged to construct protected camps. The city's population would be encouraged to leave, and coalition forces would freely allow refugees passage through the cordon to the relative security and safety of the camps.
For those who stay, the isolation of the city, in time, would create a refugee problem for the enemy. With the steady depletion of resources, the remaining population would eventually see the government as an impotent entity that can't provide basic services or security for the people. Inevitably, the military forces and their leaders would be seen as the real enemy, particularly among the dispossessed within the city.
Although this approach has its advantages, this is not to suggest that it would always work. The following are key considerations before this approach is undertaken. How much popular support does the enemy have? How willing is the enemy's population to accept suffering? To what extent is the city self-sustaining and for how long? Is there some sanctuary nearby that allows forces to rest and recuperate in safety? To what extent are we relying on a coalition and how strong is the coalition? How coherent were the enemy's military forces when they occupied the city? How close was the city to collapse before the initiation of military operations?
Future conditions will force us to fight in complex terrain. We can no longer fight the destructive campaigns of WWII. The indirect approach enables us to use knowledge and speed to their fullest potential to achieve our strategic ends with the least cost in human life and destruction of physical property.
----link here to full text of article.....................http://call.army.mil/products/mout/scales/scales.htm
