The thing about guerrilla/insurgency warfare is that if by your military actions you’re creating more enemies than you’re eliminating, then you’re not winning.
I thought the US might have learnt this after Vietnam, but Iraq, Afghanistan and US foreign policy in general after 9/11 proves otherwise.
I considered posting a response here, but it seems pointles. It’s blatantly obvious that you all simply want an excuse to bash the President, like you turn all our threads into, even those completely off topic. Likewise, so far the level of comprehension of military affairs is so shockingly low that even a total untrained non-military person such as myself is disgusted by your ignorance. Frankly, I’d post, but there’d be no point. It’s clear you have no interest in the actual topic, and just want to vomit your political proclivities all over this board again. Give me a call if you decide to discuss the topic intelligently.
This thread has been fairly easy on the President, until you brought him up.
Count me among those untrained military ignorants that would just love to be schooled by a totally untrained someone who really doesn’t know much, militarily.
This really is a complex question, because it depends on the situation so much.
I would have to echo the others who quote Clauswitz. Without a clear political objective that you can accomplish with an army, you probably should find another way to accomplish your goals. Prepare to defend yourself and your intrests to the best of your abilites, and make the threat of using your army a very real one. But don’t willingly commit your army unitl you know exactly what things you want to do with it, if you can actually help it.
I’d consider that the proper way of waging war, not just a modern one. Even then, it’s not a recipe for victory. Once you have decided to go to war, or let it come to you, you have to decide what kind of war you want it to be. To mention just one aspect of war, length: A short, decisive one? Or a long, drawn out one? If we were for example to go to war with China, we would want it to be quick, since numbers of warm bodies and years to put all of your nation’s resouces into a war effort play into their hands. If the combatants were India and China, I think both sides would still want to try to win quick. However, the advantage of a decisive attack would be less useful, since they share a border, and plenty of munitions can be delivered by foot. Not to mention, the events that would bring any combination of these nations to war would be different, so the political objectives would be different changing each situation further.
After the war, there is usually something done to keep the peace. Either withdrawing to your border with a treaty and a wary eye, or if you are really successful; occupying the place until folks are broken enough to let you run the place for them.
Afghanistan: In retrospect, I feel that we should have offered the Northern Alliance all the air support and ground weapons it could carry, with plenty of financial help afterward. I’d like to say I thought that clearly in 2001, but I can’t.
Iraq: I have no idea, the way we went in seems to have skipped the first part of the above process. We did the middle perfectly, which is exactly what the military trains itself to do. The first part and the third part are for the Politicians and the diplomats to decide, which was not done well in this instance.
The only thing worse is to do what happened in Vietnam, when the politicians were given free reign over all three stages. Then they fouled up 1 and 2, but got three, albeit a bit late.
I really don’t think that’s fair. The OP asked about the conflicts the current president presided over. The fact they see them as poorly executed is not neccessarily a partisan attack. Nonetheless, the last war that a Democrat President got us involved in hasn’t fared too well in this thread, either. Great Britan and the USSR making similar mistakes have been mentioned as examples as well. If you have a theory on how modern war should be waged, say it.
smiling bandit, I’m no military expert, as I have said numerous times before. But I like to think that my own studies of history have provided me with a grasp of the fundamentals.
However, you state that what I (and everyone else) have said is wrong. In fact, apparently:
So tell us, Spartacus, what we’re missing? Asymmetrical warfare is how things are being fought now, and our military is not designed nor trained to fight that way. I think that’s pretty plainly obvious. The situation is improving, with MOUT training facilities popping up here and there, but the fact of the matters are pretty clear.
So what have we got wrong?
ps- Nobody has bashed any specific people. We’re stating that the current US administration, like other before it, and other nation’s governments, still hasn’t figured out how to fight a modern war. That’s all. Please try not to bring your personal political battles into this.
The OP was on “the proper way to wage a modern war” - surely it is not unreasonable to comment upon real conflicts that are actually happening in the world?
It’s difficult to discuss something of this nature without it becoming political to some degree, particularly as hostilities are still on-going involving participants from countries that feature prominently on these boards.
I would apply my comment on not creating more enemies than you eliminate to many other geopolitical conflicts. For example, I would apply it to both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is perhaps why they are still in such stalemate sixty years later.
But if you’re getting political, there are so many reasons why the Bush administration and Iraq provides a perfect example of how not to wage a modern war (and that’s not even getting into the discussion of whether there should have been a war in the first place): lack of preparation for post-war occupation, failing to provide order amidst widespread looting and sectarianism, disbanding the army thereby providing a massive pool of unemployed military-trained men for the insurgency, staggering lack of financial control and accountablity on the ground, failing to restore key services to the occupied people, use of “private security contractors” (mercenaries) with little accountability. War is more than just about the fighting and glory.
On Afghanistan the main lesson is don’t go and start another war before the job is done, allowing the enemy to regroup and regain strength.
One also needs to consider the less tangible casualties of war, collateral damage not to a country’s people but to its moral and ethical nature or essence - its soul if you like. The suspension of habeas corpus and the condoning of the use of torture are wounds to the American psyche that are difficult to measure in dollars or bodybags. Maybe the OP requires qualification on what constitutes a “proper way” to wage a war. Are considerations to be based purely on feats of military strength and prowess or judged upon their long-term results and ramifications in the grander scheme of things?
What smells like persecution complex?
Oh, hi smiling bandit!
You must not be very familiar with smiling bandit’s posting history. Typically, he’s busy talking about how much more he knows about [this] and how much better he could have done [that] than anyone else.
Some people, in their own minds, seem to think they’re kind of like the simultaneous reincarnation of Patton and Alexander The Great - except, you know, compared to him they were incompetent pussies.
Basically, A.J. Rimmer, S.S.C, B.S.C
The idea that he knows it all but won’t tell you, you filthy liberal mongoloid because you think Dubya The Great is a total incompetent (or at least lightly alluded to it) is pretty much par for the course.
-Joe
So, what’s the right way to wage a modern war?
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
To this end The Powell Doctrine always seemed very sensible to me.
Even before Sept. 11, 2001—at least as early as 1998-- Rumsfeld and his pals at the Project for a New America Century wanted to go to war in Iraq, and if you read the letter carefully, it’s clear this was would be for geo-political reasons, though the language is couched in the word threat over and over.
And these folks–[The Project on Defense alternatives—Adapting Military Policy to The Opportunities of a New Era]( Project for a New America Century)—seem to have had a great influence on our current war strategy, taking into consideration domestic political opinion in order to take advantage of these “opportunities of a New Era.”
The “second honeymoon” is clearly code for saying that you must take into consider domestic political opinion. In other words, if the majority of the public would stomach it.
In 2001 Rumsfeld said that he wanted to downsize the size of defense personnel by using high-tech machinery and weapons. I’m sure his motivation for this was policy and domestic politics : Down-size government, right? (Though don’t talk about the government money that goes to private contractors.) Same thing by going into Iraq with far fewer troops than all of his military advisors—with actual experience–wanted to. Again, fewer American bodies, the easier to sustain politically this “new era of war” at home.
It doesn’t seem to be working, and where is Rumsfeld now?
And as said by
On the eve of the invasion, even in the Whitehouse there was still some disagreement as to what the objectives were.
A few of my thoughts,as to the O.P. there is still a potential for conventional wars,Falklands,Sino Soviet etc which everyone seems to be ready for.
An earlier poster quoted Clauswitz and I believe that it was also him who said the purpose of waging war is not to defeat the enemies army in the field but to destroy his will to fight .
And this is exactly what happened in Vietnam,theoretically the U.S. could have carried on for years while still sustaining the losses that they did but the families back home had had enough and it was political suicide for senior U.S. politicians.
I’ve always been curious as to how long WW2 would have lasted if the civilians had of been watching live action in their front rooms every evening.
Insurgents worldwide seem to have learned the lesson of destroying the will to fight which when there is strong media reaction to events though understandable is actually aiding the insurgents cause.
Personally I am opposed to the occupations of Iraq and Afghan and by mentioning it publicly I am myself guilty in a small way of assisting the people who are killing British soldiers.
When the Irish troubles were on,Irish Republicans of whom I knew many,often as friends,were convinced that the U.K. press was hushing up the British publics outrage at the police action everytime a squaddie was killed,several of them have since told me that now they have seen the body bags coming home to the U.K. from the ME for the last few years that that was wishful thinking on their part.
IMO the West should stop these "peace keeping"adventures all together and particulary avoid staying in countries with diverse cultures that were previously held together by a ruthless dictator as in Iraq,Yugoslavia etc(Or any Sub Saharan nation for that matter)and those parts of the world that feel no cultural affiliation with Western values such as Iran or Pakistan.
If a wolf living on next doors farm keeps eating your sheep then you hop over the fence,kill it and then return.
If you take over the farm then you become responsible and are blamed for everything from the sheep dip to the springlambing which has bugger all to do with killing the wolf.
Everytime that we go mob handed into a country we just cause our every action and every setback to be magnified in the eyes of the world,make the bad guys look like plucky little Davids resisting the big bad bully and also set up a lot more available live targets for the pot shotters.
I think the current problem is the US insistence that it is not an occupying power.
Why not? The US occupied Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan … and countless smaller nations and territories.
The “protectorate” system kept the peace in many areas. Without it every tribal chief would have been able to raise an army.
That’s nonsense. There was never any legitimate reason to capture Saddam. It should have been carried to the point of capturing Osama. THEN it should have been over.
Bin Laden is not a sovereign state and cannot commit an act of war on his own. He is a criminal, and should always have been pursued on that basis.
ETA and one constant truth in the proper way to wage war is that the aggressor country must be prepared to turn its aggressor parties over to a competent GLOBAL authority for trial on war crimes charges, when requested.
This seems to be almost tautologically true to me and seems to cut against the notion expressed up-thread that the military has no business “winning the hearts and minds.” Surely the military has an interest in ensuring that its tactics minimize enemy propaganda efforts to the extent possible while still achieving strategic objectives (see Abu Ghraib).
Good luck finding such an authority.