Often times in these debates, it gets brought up that “way more of them are dying than us,” and sometimes this fact is even dressed up and paraded around as a symbol of victory.
Well, the cause is fairly simple - we have a well trained military with superior medical care, control of supply routes, established hospitals, and well equipped medics that are all wearing advanced composite body armor, helmets, etc and moving around in armored vehicles. These forces are fighting largely untrained insurgents often barricaded in cities with rudimentary first aid stations. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which side will have more or less casualties. When an American gets shot or hit with shrapnel, they are evacuated, sometimes by air, their entire squad pulled out, and treated at a hospital. Sometimes they get IVs and bandages in the field. When an insurgent gets shot, they usually end up laying where they got hit until they bleed to death, and if and when they do receive medical care, it is in abysmal conditions - unsanitary areas and tools, less skilled doctors, etc.
The question remains, what is the effect of this? Well, obviously, severalfold.
This drives the insurgents/enemy combatants deeper into hiding and encourages ambush hit and run tactics more focused on supply lines than front line forces (unless opportunity presents itself).
It creates enemy controlled ghettos where civilians are in the line of fire. This creates a very sticky situation, such as Falloojeh
For the enemy, it produces a great deal of sympathetic reactions - that they are being abused by a superior power and are valiantly fighting for their freedom, which is both a domestic and international effect that we’ve seen have heavy results with the new Iraqi military not fighting.
It creates resentment and hostility towards each American troop - when one is taken down, it is a bigger deal (as seen with the mutlilations in April). Additionally, a bigger deal is made out of it domestically. 700 soldiers dead is subjective, not relative, so it seems like a great number when it is a relatively small one.
It encourages tactics such as kidnapping or attacking secondary targets such aid workers and police officers, which drives away said aid workers and police officers.
I’m sure there are other effects I’m not thinking of. Maybe someone can fill me in.
In any case, these are unintended effects of protecting our troops. I am not going to say that we shouldn’t protect our troops in interest of making a fair battlefield and drawing the enemy out, that is absurd. I will, however, say that our battlefield superiority is a weakness in the types of situations we will be fighting, and we have to take that into consideration before entering these types of conflicts. The Bush Administration seems almost surprised that the insurgents are using “terrorist tactics” in their fighting. I would sincerely hope that the military was more prepared for this type of situation, but it seems that they simply aren’t.
I am anti-war as a matter of moral principle. However, I am not a pacifist. A long-dead white male once put it brilliantly - Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I very much support the principle of self defense, and preparing/arming oneself for self defense. I support armies where their existence prevents wars from happening.
It seems to me that this works best when the self defense or army is evenly matched to the threat. A matter of balance of power. It seems to have prevented the Cold War from turning hot.
I would very much have liked to see the Americans and Fallujans in Iraq evenly matched. Imagine the Americans knowing that they would get their asses handed to them on a platter (in a 1:1 ratio) if they tried to attack that city. That would surely have cooled some tempers there.
IMHO, the worst effect of overwhelming military superiority (including, like you describe, the capability to greatly protect one’s own troops from casualties) is that it can encourage military adventurism by the superior party in the first place. Upon which the only realistic response from the opponent is all those things you mention.
Hm, that is a very good point - the concept of “I’m invulnerable, therefore I can do anything.” There has to be some fancy ass Latin name for that somewhere.
Expanding on your point, that military adventurism can lead to your greatest enemy being yourself - you so overdeploy your forces that you are stretched thin and can’t respond to an attack. I believe that we are at that point now. Anyone who pays close attention to the military knows that it is rationing supplies already, and is short on manpower. The reserve troops already sent their supplies to supply the fighting troops, and industrial capacity hasn’t ramped up to replace it. This could leave us in a situation of actually being almost defenseless. It may not result in something dangerous happening, but it is a bad habit to get into. Do it one too many times, and someone will notice…
Haha, funny. I shouldn’t be responding but somehow can’t resist.
Unfortunately I didn’t read that novel so I don’t see the context. It depends on the goal. Is this arguing for peace or for war?
If the latter, then it’s putting something else entirely.
If the former, then it’s making a case for pacifism. Which I don’t see working. (With exceptions - Gandhi, South Africa, Civil Rights Movement - very honorable (and rare, and special-case) examples of pacifism working.)
So sorry, I think that Latin thing still puts it better. And it sounds more profound, too. Or, as they say in Latin : Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur (didn’t somebody have that in his sig sometime ago?)
Well, shouldn’t the issue of losing the initiative when you keep protecting more and more your troops be mentioned ? After all what good are US soldiers as peacekeepers and law enforcement if they are hiding in green areas, safe zones and armoured vehicles ? Basically the Iraqi attack when and where they want or can attack. The more americans want to be safe from these attacks the less they control the tempo of the insurgency.
Good point too, this is. Continuing along this line of reasoning, the preoccupation with minimizing own casualties, easily leads to a trade-off where more needless collateral damage and civilian casualties are inflicted. Seems to me this is exactly what’s happening with the irresponsible use of high-altitude bombers and 500 (2000??) lb bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another morally objectionable effect of force disparity.
An interesting scenario. I wonder what would happen if one US Marine came up against one insurgent. Who do you think would be better trained and better armed?
Excellent. Now that I think about it, I play my wargames with an American style of fighting. Like, I remember Total Annihilation - I was huge on artillery and bombardment forces, building up huge bases and carpet bombing the enemy for hours before moving in to eliminate them. While that is just a game, it demonstrates a strategy - I don’t like casualties. That is my motivating factor.
As you bring up, this has drastic effects when you are dealing with civilians in the equation.
Well, obviously, the American, as things stand. I believe FM’s point was that if the American lacked the technological advantage, our tactics and strategy would be drastically different, which is the point of this thread - not comparing the inherent value of the fighting man himself (I think it would be fair to say that giving the Iraqi insurgents the years of training and technological equipment that US soldiers get would make for a pretty fair fight. The question is - how would the conflict be different if that were the case?)
: Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur (didn’t somebody have that in his sig sometime ago?)