Hi, this is my first venture into GD, so I don’t know how much I’ll actually be participating in this conversation if it gets off the ground, but I’ll certainly be following it, as I’m bery interested in people’s thoughts.
My thoughts go like this:
“Conventional” warfare is outdated (we hope), as the stakes are too high, with nuclear war spelling out the doom of the planet. However, it is “conventional” warfare that we measure our military greatness by.
A good analogy would be the British and the colonists:
Britain is the world’s most mighty power, except that, when faced by a bunch a ragtag civilians who just won’t stand still, and won’t line up conveniently out in the open, Britain’s power is useless.
So what are we supposed to do? Shout “No fair! That’s not how WE fight!”?
My point is, has warfare forever changed and left the unadapted behind?
I hope this is clear enough, and that it’s worthy of a Great Debate.
I think warfare is continually changing, and it always leaves the unadapted behind. That’s how we got here from sticks and rocks.
I question, however, whether hijacking planes and flying them into buildings full of defenseless non-combatants really represents a step forward in the way wars are waged.
It seems to me that – in the final analysis – this specific act will prove to have been an ineffective move on the part of those who did it. It is a fact that we will absorb these blows and rebuild.
If you want to defeat an enemy as large as the free world itself, you need to pack an even bigger lunch than can be carried in a few stolen 757’s.
But the answer to the basic question – in terms of firepower, technology, and in this case, moral gravity – is: Yes, we are the world’s greatest power.
I defintitely agree that we are still a major world power in the terms you describe, Mr.Billy- I think perhaps it was a little melodramatic of me to suggest that as of Tuesday, the U.S. was suddenly removed from this position.
But these attacks bring up obvious questions about our future: Now that we’ve seen the potential magnitude of terrorist strike on our on homeland, can we effectively defend against it going forward? Furthermore, can we figure out how to do it quickly enough?
Is it possible that this attack should serve as a wake up call to all the world’s military powers, suggesting that we all need to redefine what we mean when we say “national defense?” It’s doesn’t seem to be about who can round up the largest army to launch attacks against another nation, because it seems possible that the future of warfare may not be against nations at all! I would think it necessary to become HIGHLY effective at launching attacks against groups of people, instead of, and not at the peril of, entire nations.
I contend that the U.S. will need to become as strong in espionage and intelligence gathering as it has been in straight-out, no holds barred tactical warfare. (Not like I’m making any new argument here.)
I don’t know. We certainly should do as you suggest. And I have no doubt that we possess the resources to do such a thing. But even still, I don’t know that terrorism necessarily represents a more efficient means of confronting one’s enemies than conventional war. We can probably accomplish something very like victory with remarkable speed. But the price will be TOTAL conventional war.
I know that total war means the death of innocents in other countries, and I don’t want to come across like a whacko screaming for vengeance, but why are dead innocents in – for example – Afghanistan any worse than more, new, dead innocents in the US? If we were to act with severe and overwhelming military force against any and all targets in the nations that harbor, train and coddle terrorists – even a single time – it seems to me that the limited effectiveness of terrorism as a means of acheiving might become pellucidly clear to generations of potential carbombers and – and this is important – their neighbors. In that sense, there may yet be a great deal to be said for the value of conventional military might.
Having said that, I don’t know if I like the sound of it myself. We are the greatest power in the world. But, oh, the price we may have to pay to remain in that position.
I’m tending towards the thought that it’s not the mode of warfare that’s the deciding factor in our future as a military power, but the type of enemy we face.
What I was trying to get across earlier, although perhaps not all that succesfully, is that those “enemies” that we would normally envision facing in a conventional war either: 1. no longer exist, or 2. are bound in peace by the threat of total mutual destruction.
Now, it has been decisively demonstrated that we ARE vulnerable to mass destruction on our home territory.
So, in regards to your assertion that a conventional campaign against a nation might convince them and their neighbors that terrorism against the U.S. will bring them more pain than its worth (I’m not misunderstanding you, am I)- - I simply am not sure that I agree.
Consider this:
The groups we are talking about have no fear of death, and even go so far as to believe that death is a great honor when the sacrifice is for their nation/god/leader.
These groups, while funded extremely well for terrorist attacks, do not have the manpower and resources to wage a full-scale conventional war against a nation like the U.S.,
which means that,
Terrorism is the most effective means of warfare available to them.
So, if our traditional enemies either don’t exist, or pose little threat by nature of mutual mass-destruction, that leaves terrorist groups as our enemies that are willing to fight. And their modus operandi is quite different from our traditional one. We may not have a choice here.
Also, I think it’s far more likely that a massive counter attack in the Middle East, couple with propanganda, would only serve to steel the beliefs of those that already feel terrorism against the U.S. is the way to go, as well as bring others down from the fence to their side. It may actually PROLIFERATE the number of people willing to act out against the U.S.