Irregular Enemies

[gunns]

Too long to post, but interesting read. My favorite statement is #2:

The United States has a persisting strategy deficit. Americans are very competent at fighting, but they are much less successful in fighting in such a way that they secure the strategic, and hence, political, rewards they seek. The United States continues to have difficulty regarding war and politics as a unity, with war needing to be permeated by political considerations.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB650.pdf

[elsid13]

This is nothing knew, SSI is one of the many internal education activities DoD has. There are many that believe the US Forces should take approach similar to British have and Marines are currently doing in winning over the ingenious population. I am always weary of author that use Mahan and Clausewitz as basis of their arguments. Plus I think author miss many of the irregular conflicts the services have been very successful in, Philippines, the Native American Conflicts, the small wars of the Caribbean. The problem is that has not been in vogue to study or be in those MOS that are particularly suited to OOTW, if you want to get promoted.

[loborugger]

250 years ago, I think that instead of using terms like "regular" and "irregular" war, they would have called it "fighting fair." The American colonists had little skills for fighting what the Europeans called "fair, gentlemanly" fighting, where they would form up in a ranks, march in close to each other, and let it fly. The Americans did things like (shock) hide behind trees and boulders. The colonists would hold the field for a few moments, and do a fighting retreat (which sometimes just became a route). The colonists knew that fighting in the style that the French and English had come to master would only earn them a quick grave site.

Fast forward to modern day. No nation on earth has the ability to go toe-to-toe with the modern US military. A lot of nations cant even arm their army as well as we armed ours during 'Nam. So, much like the colonists, our enemies realize that fighting the US on its terms is suicide.

So, they redefine the terms of conflict.

Like most people, groups, and organizations that have spent so much time and energy mastering the current environmet, the US does not really wanna change the way it fights. Afterall, we master the battlefield, why change.

The British would win battle after battle against the colonists. Yet, while we were defeated in the minds of the British, we were not defeated in our own minds. In much the same way, our modern enemies deny being defeated even though we occupy their lands, vaporize them on the battlefield, and are trying set up new cultures in their territory.

Which proves the point that you are never beaten unless you think you are beaten. Our enemies will continue to fight us until they are convinced they can not win by any manner. Once it is in their head that they are defeated, then they will be defeated.

This is exactly what happened after WW II that didnt happen after WW I. After the first WW I, the Germans didnt truly feel defeated. They felt betrayed and cheated and unjustly punished, but not defeated. The results... in one generation they rearmed, defied treaties, and created an even deadlier & more potent armed forces.

After WW II, the German people were exhausted and defeated. They had had their share of fighting, pain, and suffering, along with dying. They were defeated because they no longer believed they could win. Never mind that handfuls of SS officers tried to begin a guerrila war and continue the war thru "assymterical" means. The German people did not rally to them, support them, or give their blood to the cause.

Therefore, I think it is safe to say that our enemies will exist and fight us along as they can convince a significant percentage of the Middle Eastern population that their cause is just, right, worthy, and winnable. When the vast majority of the Middle Eastern population has had its fill of death, conflict, and destruction, and no longer cares enough to win the battles, then the conflict will be over.

[Spider]

I think there is 2 parts to this ............
1. everyone is correct , no army can go toe to toe with our army ........
2. now this is a tad bit more complex , we cant hold the ground we took , for example , we could roll through any country we wanted in a months time , but at this great speed , we cant hold what we passed , therefore , the enemy sees us comming , they lay low , wait for our army to pass , then rise up , attack from behind , hide in buildings etc..........
what we need is a 2 phased army , like in football you have the offense take ground , you have defense to hold ground ...........
i dont know if you can ever win over the people of a country , the way I see around this is create an enemy , make him a political maryter , then when you are ready to puill out , make him a Political hero , that you control ..........

[mosca]

2. now this is a tad bit more complex , we cant hold the ground we took , for example , we could roll through any country we wanted in a months time , but at this great speed , we cant hold what we passed , therefore , the enemy sees us comming , they lay low , wait for our army to pass , then rise up , attack from behind , hide in buildings etc.......... ..........
more soldiers, particularly in the case of iraq, would help. a force of 500,000 or so invading would have 'held the ground' quite nicely.

[Spider]

more soldiers, particularly in the case of iraq, would help. a force of 500,000 or so invading would have 'held the ground' quite nicely.
yep ......... but then moving 500,000 troops at that speed acrossed the desert ....... so why not a 2 prong attack ?

[Bronx33]

In reference to number two, i would also like to point out that our military in iraq are held to a different set of rules when it comes to engagement and the enemy has no rule book which the boundries are stretched daily. (read my jungle law thread) it tells you how the enemy changed it's tactics and exactly what they did. fact is as spider elaborated no army can go toe to toe and the radicals are a prime example. But what bothers me is how the rest of the world holds us to the rule book AND PUTS A MAGNIFYING GLASS on the mistake and lets the radicals do whatever they want even if they kill their own to start a civil war to yes kill more of their own. All these candy a** war protestors crying about us (and we are the only ones following a rule book) Iam the type of person that sees stuff for what it is and make judgement accordingly iam not one of those folks that are told how to think and how they should react.

[Spider]

In reference to number two, i would also like to point out that our military in iraq are held to a different set of rules when it comes to engagement and the enemy has no rule book which the boundries are stretched daily. (read my jungle law thread) it tells you how the enemy changed it's tactics and exactly what they did. fact is as spider elaborated no army can go toe to toe and the radicals are a prime example. But what bothers me is how the rest of the world holds us to the rule book AND PUTS A MAGNIFYING GLASS on the mistake and lets the radicals do whatever they want even if they kill their own to start a civil war to yes kill more of their own. All these candy a** war protestors crying about us (and we are the only ones following a rule book) Iam the type of person that sees stuff for what it is and make judgement accordingly iam not one of those folks that are told how to think and how they should react.
They and myself do hold us to a higher standard , we are the best , if we want other countries to follow us , we need to do it cleaner , faster , and so much better ,then the next guy ..... these tactics these radicals use , realy dont amount to much , in fact if we wanted to we could have "cleaned house " in nam , but that wasnt our mission , we was there as a "Police force" type of deal , now in Iraq , we are dancing the exact same dance , and realy these tactics are far more sucsessfull in propaganda ,then in combat ...........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The really real 'Long War'

Savvy players in the military-industrial racket know that the "War on Terror" is just short-end money: fat and sweet, sure, but it doesn't really have legs. "Islamofacism" is too empty a concept to sustain the kind of decades-long looting of the public treasury that the dear old Cold War used to provide – the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world just aren't interested in dressing up in Nazi drag and playing their assigned roles in the Pentagon-Neocon-Theocon war game. I mean, Jesus Herbert Walker Christ, you can even walk your army right into the heartland of Islam and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and they still won't take the bait. Not a single Muslim nation has gone jihad over Iraq; they haven't all turned into a nice, big monolithic evil empire set on the utter destruction of America. It's like they're all just ordinary people or something, good, bad and indifferent, largely occupied with their own concerns – personal, economic, social, religious, national.

Of course, the war has inflamed the extremist fringes, empowered forces of intolerance and hatred to a degree they could never have dreamed of before; yes, its given sectarian terror a major boost, nicely priming the pump for more war profits. And boy howdy, the next go-round, in Iran, will goose the military market to even greater heights. So we're not saying this Terror War gambit is a bad thing, you understand; no, it's been boffo box office all the way. But still, since there actually is no such thing as "Islamofacism," – as opposed to a few virulent and violent outlaw gangs, and a number of authoritarian regimes that have no interest whatsoever in attacking America – you're just not going to get that Cold War mileage you need.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=1