With let’s say China as an opponent.
More a question then a statement,
Will the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya help the US and its NATO allies prepare for the next Great War? (Testing new weapon systems and methods), or does it weaken it preparedness for large scale warfare?
And is it a consideration in the decision to use its military might?
I do not think that America wants war with China, but I bet they make plans for one
Having an armed force full of actual combat veterans is always a good thing.
Burning them out or running equipment so hard that it breaks down or wears out without replacing it isn’t a good thing. Nor is losing your best people in action or to combat fatigue. So it all depends on how you manage the military during times of conflict.
What the U.S. has been doing won’t help it prep for a war with China so much, though. But the U.S. military is now much better at fighting terrorists and insurgents than it was ten years ago. It has adopted new tactics, built new weapons systems, and trained people to be much better at this type of warfare. That’s arguably much more important for the future, because asymmetrical warfare is probably what the U.S. is destined to find wherever it goes into combat.
Even if hostilities broke out with China, it would likely take the form of proxy wars, just as the cold war did. The U.S. and China aren’t going to be meeting on a battlefield in massed infantry conflict or anything like that. The stakes are way too high, and I can’t think of a scenario where the U.S. would or could wind up in a massive ground war against China.
an all-out shooting war? nukes may very well be involved. also, certain weapons and tactics that had worked so well in a limited war against a weaker nation will have limited use.
unless nukes (or the threat of it) have not decided the issue, it will involve a huge number of men and machinery. i’m not so sure how effective smart weapons and specwarriors will be in this scenario. think red storm rising and debt of honor. a new and proprietary technology could provide a decisive first strike but likely the outcome will depend on who is willing to commit more men and material, who can get other countries to commit, and who engineers a cleaner way out.
Of course the US military planners are planning for a war with China, their official doctrine is to plan on the basis of capability, not intent, and the Chinese are all kind of capable. Plus, the Commies who still control the nation probably would have no problem with gobbling up a smaller nation if they think they could get away with it. See: Tibet.
No, our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya aren’t training for the ‘next Great War’…more like training for future asymmetric warfare.
A war with China would be completely different than any of the fighting we are currently doing. It’s also highly unlikely that the US and China would ever go to war or confront each other directly in a military fashion. You don’t see two countries with nuclear weapons that can reach each other and who are on pretty much opposite sides of the globe from each other usually going to war against each other in a direct manner. Conventionally, China couldn’t attack the US directly, and while the US could attack China conventionally I don’t see how we could do so decisively, or support such a major attack logistically for any sustained period of time. I suppose both powers COULD clash in Korea, but even that seems very unlikely.
Like Sam said, it helps to have veteran troops who have seen the elephant, smelt the smoke and actually live fired their weapons. By the same token we’ve rather drawn down our weapons and maintenance and of course the personnel, which would make it difficult to jump from the kinds of conflicts we’ve been in to something more conventional.
Also, the type of combat would be very different. The troops are training and using tactics suited to our current enemies…asymmetric warfare instead of conventional set piece battle tactics. While we still train in those, what the troops are actually doing right now is mainly asymmetric.
I’m sure there are some Pentagon weenies who are looking at this somewhere and have written a bunch of position papers on the subject, so I guess the answer is ‘yes’. Unless what you mean by this is that the US went to war in Afghanistan or Iraq and now Libya to train specifically for some fantasy war with China. While I’m sure that there is a plan in the Pentagon somewhere for a war with China, it’s not the reason we sent troops into Afghanistan or Iraq or why we are helping out NATO in bombing the crap out of Libya.
The Pentagon has plans for war with everyone, including plans for what happens and what we do if there is an alien invasion of rabid space squirrels.
-XT
A land war in Asia? That’s usually a good idea . . . still . . .
Rabid space squirrels?
Great band name.
The current actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are not representitive of what a war with China would be like.
In the current conflicts, the U.S. (and it’s allies) completely control the airspace and seas adjacent to the theatre(s).
The current opponents are fewer in number, and not as organised/controlled. China has a few (?) satelites for comms and recce, Qhaddafi does not.
The Chinese could bring greater numbers of heavy weapons (artillery, tanks) to bear than we are currently faced with.
These detail differences (and I’m sure there are more I didn’t think of) will require a different approach to deal with.
I believe some technologies and tactics that were refined and evolved during the actions in Iraq/Afghanistan and in other recent theatres have transferable value to possible future conflicts. Drones come to mind, as does intelligence gathering, special forces operations, and cyber-warfare. The US also has built and expanded military cooperation and relationships with many peripheral nations (see this Atlantic Monthly article for efforts in Mongolia for one example) that may be of use in the future (or a bane, depending on perspective).
As Ting said, definitely some tech development, T&E, and such on the intel gathering and drones.
as for slugging it out with China, if it happens, it will probably be over Taiwan. Google up Opplan 5077 for more details.
No.
What the US is currently doing is fighting, in essence, the kind of colonial brush fire wars that the British Empire used to. In 1910 Britain was well prepared to put down a revolt in Africa, the Middle East or India, rather less prepared to defeat the German Army. Never mind China, the US would be hard pressed to counter North Korea on it’s own ground; we’d have to bomb the crap of North Korea for weeks or possibly months, before moving in and even then the US dead (not total casualties, dead) would be in the five digits.
I do believe we have ourselves a fancy word here, and it’s détente.
No, we are not preparing for another Great War, and besides, full scale ground troops iz for the backwards folk or those attempting to overthrow a government.
No, definitely not. If anything Iraq and Afghanistan could be weakening the western worlds ability to fight major wars.
Fighting lots of counter insurgency type wars cause a military to become lighter and more mobile. That’s exactly what you need for a counter insurgency and for fighting 3rd rate militaries. But when facing a major opponent, you need heavy forces.