Some interesting thoughts on the scourge of IED's

Thanks to correspondent Neil for bringing my attention to a Strategy Page piece on IED's from late last week. It makes a number of points we've put forth here before, like how IED's are a weapon of last resort to the combatant who lacks the ability to fight effectively any other way, like how we defeat far more than hurt us, and like how IED's alone cannot win a war.

But the article also brings up information, statistics, and context I haven't seen before:

The IEDs are an expensive weapon because only a few percent of them hurt anyone. Last year, 3,276 IEDs were detonated or detected before they could hurt anyone, and most of those that do go off, kill or wound Afghan civilians.

Getting these bombs made and placed has become a major enterprise for the Taliban and al Qaeda But there have been some disturbing trends in the IED department. Four years ago, for each IED used in Iraq, one American was killed. By 2007, it took six IEDs to kill one U.S. soldier or marine. The same pattern emerged in Afghanistan, where it takes about six of them to cause one casualty among foreign troops.

...

The U.S. is spending over four billion dollars a year to develop new technologies for thwarting roadside bombs. This is revolutionizing warfare, because the electronic devices, sensors and reconnaissance systems developed have many other uses in combat. So while the Taliban IEDs are useless as a war-winning weapon, the countermeasures are very valuable, and the impact of this new tech will be highly visible in any future wars.

The main problem with all this is that you cannot win a war with IEDs. In Vietnam, IEDs were used, but as a minor, secondary weapon. The Vietnamese communists knew they had to drive the Americans out before they could take over. When that effort failed, North Vietnam made peace, and once the American troops left, the communists launched two conventional invasions across the border. The first one, in 1972, failed, but the second one, in 1975, succeeded. The Taliban have no such invasion option. They have to drive the U.S. troops out and then, still outnumbered, take over the government. Many Taliban believe they can do it, with the help of a media campaign that convinces the world that the elected government of Afghanistan, and their foreign allies, are the bad guys. This is all absurd, but the Taliban are spending several hundred thousand dollars each month to build and place IEDs, just to inflict casualties on foreign troops, in an attempt to achieve their impossible dream.

This isn't to say that IED's aren't effective: they chip away at domestic civilian population morale far more reliably than they do military morale, and that's a strategic centre of gravity. But the article helps us understand the strengths and downfalls of IED use in a way that one can't find in the mainstream media.