Our Association is a not-for-profit fraternal organization. It's purpose is a) to foster camaraderie among the graduates of Signal Corps Officer Candidate School classes of the World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War eras, b) to organize and offer scholarships and other assistance for the families of Officer and Enlisted OCS cadre who are in need, and c) to archive for posterity the stories and history of all of the Signal Corps OCS Officers who served this great country. We are open to ALL former Army Signal Corps OCS graduates, their families and friends, as well as other officers, enlisted men, those interested in military history, and the general public. Please, come join us. For more information about our Association, to see a list of our Officers and Directors, or for contact details, click on the OCS Association link at left.

Please note: The views and opinions expressed on this website are offered in order to stimulate interest in those who visit it. They are solely the views and expressions of the authors and/or contributors to this website and do not necessarily represent the views of the Army Signal Corps Officer Candidate School Association, its Officers, Directors, members, volunteers, staff, or any other party associated with the Association. If you have any suggestions for improvements to this site, please send them to WebMaster@ArmySignalOCS.com. We are here to serve you.                       

So You Think You Know Everything About The Development Of The Telegraph?

Check out this trivia trove...

Does Dutch Treat
Work In War?

The Reality Of "Degrade And Destroy"

There is something positive about President Obama’s policy with respect to “degrading and destroying” the so called Islamic State (IS, ISIL, ISIS or whatever you want to call it). The positive thing is that he appears to be attempting to build a consensus among other countries for them to do the on-the-ground fighting that will be needed… when the war against ISIS gets to that stage … rather than us.

Don’t think any on-the-ground fighting will be needed? Think he can do everything he needs to with just airpower... drones? Surely you jest. Every good military strategist knows that you cannot win a war with airpower alone, or naval power either for that matter. While you may be able to debase and wear down an enemy’s capacity to wage war against you, you cannot defeat him without the proverbial boots on the ground.

Why? Because for a war to be concluded the warring society that existed has to be replaced at the conclusion of the war with a functioning society based on a stable form of government, able to govern the citizens of the war zone in question.

…and to build a functioning society peace must reign throughout a land.

…and for peace to reign throughout a land that still houses a bunch of disgruntled dead enders that used to be fighting against you and still probably harbor some nasty feelings about having been defeated, and are therefore likely inclined to do all they can to resurrect themselves in the form of an insurgent force, someone’s army is going to have to occupy the country in question and keep the peace until the new government is up and running, and the economy is back to normal.

In other words, a drone war may look good on paper, but no war can be won with airpower alone, nor can an enemy be “defeated” after he is “degraded”... not without an army on the ground.

So where is President Obama going to get the army on the ground he needs? The one he will eventually require to put an end to ISIS?

Judging by his words on the topic of degrading and destroying the Islamic State, he seems to be planning on getting his army from the coalition his Secretary of State is busy trying to put together.

We wish him well. Many President’s before him have established coalitions of countries to follow us into war, but none to our reckoning have established such coalitions solely for the purpose of having our coalition partners provide the ground troops needed, instead of us. If President Obama succeeds in this new and creative approach to war, he may just set a precedent that will not only give future U. S. Presidents a new tool in their arsenal of international power politics and relations, but also  usher in a new way for America to fight its wars.

Imagine that: we provide the air power, you provide the soldiers.

Don’t be too quick to dismiss it… it just might work.

For it to work however, our coalition partners’ armies will have to approximate in capabilities those of the good old U.S. Army. Unless they can, a drone war is likely going to go nowhere… just droning on, if you will (sorry, we couldn’t resist that).

So let’s pick an Army to fight alongside of us against ISIS: how about the Jordanian army as our fighting partner? Or Iraq? Turkey? Bahrain? The Kurds? Or better still, Saudi Arabia?

In the case of fighting ISIS, if, say, Saudi Arabia provided the troops and fought with American air power above its head, the idea of a coordinated yet bifurcated force (instead of a combined force operation), with the Saudi’s providing the foot soldiers and America the airpower might work. Why? Because the Saudi’s have a damned good army, predominantly outfitted with U.S. military equipment, communication systems, et cetera.

That’s pretty much true for Jordan too; although it’s anyone’s guess if Iraq has either the skill or the stomach to fight a modern war.

Continued at top of page, COLUMN AT RIGHT

---

 

---

 

This page last updated 1 October 2014. New content is constantly being added. Please check back frequently.

Update 1 October 2014 – COL (R) Earl Tingle, Class 09-67, sent along a picture of our fellow classmate Kent Sterling, who passed away in April of this year. In it Pete Bradley is also shown. Pete died in 2009. How young our fellow classmates are, to die so soon! Such good men all. Honesty, integrity, intellect, kindness, compassion, true friends never to be forgotten, true American heroes. The kind of men we all long to be, even in these advanced years of ours. Honorable beyond measure. See their picture here:

Update 1 October 2014 – Don Mehl, OCS Class 44-35, dropped us a note to let us know he can’t produce hard copies of his book anymore, so you folks that haven't bought one will just have to settle for spiral bound copies. They are still excellent quality prints, so be sure to  buy one from our PX. Look for TOP SECRET COMMUNICATIONS OF WORLD WAR 2 BY DONALD MEHL      $49.50 PLUS $6.50 S & H. Sales are good and the response from readers is good too, so get your copy today. SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW CLASSMATES!  BUY NOW BY CLICKING HERE

Update 1 September 2014 – Regular readers of our website know that we often provide "linkable" reference documents as background material in support of some of our articles. Beginning this month you can gain access to an archive of these documents by clicking on the "Document Library" link in the menu list in the upper left margin. You'll be surprised, some of these documents are more interesting than our original article!  Check them out! New documents will be added as we publish more stories. Enjoy!

Update 11 August 2014 – Candidate Rexford Davis, OCS Class 21-67, sent us a few pics of his time in Vietnam. Part of the 37th Signal Battalion, Rexford served at Hoi An and on Monkey Mountain, of all places. You can see his pics on the Class Page for 21-67. Today Rexford is a Retired Lieutenant Colonel, currently serving as a Department of the Army Civilian with the G-37 Office at the United States Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, NC.

 

Continued from left column... 

Which brings us to our point: Let’s call President Obama’s new war fighting policy the Dutch Treat War Policy.

In a traditional Dutch Treat lunch you pay for your share, I pay for mine, and we both enjoy our lunch, walking away happy and content that we each did our part to enjoy our time together and have a positive outcome. Under an Obama led Dutch Treat War Policy, you would provide the army, I would provide the air force and/or navy, and we would both fight the war. And when it’s all over we would then sit back, slap each other on the back, and congratulate ourselves for a campaign well waged and successful.

Does Dutch Treat Work In War?

By now some of you readers are rolling on the floor laughing. A Dutch Treat War Policy! Are you crazy?

Not really. If looked at from afar this concept of two or more partners joining forces towards a common goal but keeping their individual contributions separate is only slightly different than what NATO does today.

In NATO’s case, if a new war comes along there will be multiple “coalition partners” fighting alongside each other… men from the armies of multiple NATO member countries, fighting arm in arm towards a common goal. Most likely the format for combat will take the old WWII form, where a supreme commander is appointed, thus causing the forces from multiple countries to fight under his direction and control… as a common, unified army.

But what would happen if a modern day Montgomery stepped into the picture… and insisted that his British men come under his command and his only? Would NATO throw this hypothetical Monty and his men out, or instead would it carve out a special spot for him so that the Brits could contribute to the war, yet still retain the autonomy they might insist on?

And what if that autonomy was not commander related, but related to the type and kind of fighting that the allied army provided? Think, for example, of this hypothetical modern day Monty offering to provide a tank corps... tanks and only tanks... no infantry. Would NATO turn it away? If he said he would provide it only under his local command, would NATO turn his tanks away just because that's all he would provide?

Isn't this the essence of President Obama's Dutch Treat War concept? Each country provides what it will... with some force other than the U.S. providing the ground troops while we provide the air cover?

A similar situation to this played out in Afghanistan. There the Japanese offered to fight alongside of us… but couldn’t. Their constitution forbid them from doing so—sending armed troops to fight in a third country. How then could the Japanese show America, who today carries the bulk of the task of defending the Japanese homeland, that Japan stands beside America, is appreciative of the fact that our military protects their country, and that while they might be precluded (for the moment) from providing armed military support in our cause, are desirous of contributing what they can, as they can, towards any war we may fight?

As we all know, the answer is that what Japan can provide is logistical support… to a level and degree that puts their own men in harm’s way without requiring them to carry a weapon. And so we see Japan in nearly every war America gets itself involved in, sending all manner of equipment from thousands of Toyota Hilux trucks, to road building machinery, artificial legs, and whatever else they can offer to help win the war. It’s true that the Japanese men sent to distribute this equipment and train the locals in its use end up having to be protected, and that draws troops away from the fight itself, but so would be the case with any group of people working to support the civilian side of a war effort.[2]

Small potatoes you say? True, but the model works. That is, the “war model” of one country providing the soldiers while the other provides the logistics, tools and materials works. And if it can work in such a situation, why not in one where one country provides the troops on the ground while the other provides the air cover?