Tactics- Weapons use-Military Doctrine and execution of plans

All this talk of the tools of war is nice, but does it really matter?

Which Tank is better? Which gun is better? etc. etc. isn't really going to change the face of warfare anytime soon.

in the Russo-Afghan War did the Afghanis have the best tank? or guns? I think not.

in Vietnam did the Viet-Cong have the best tank or gun (we'll they probably did have the better gun at the time) but it was their tactics that determined that conflict.

You can have the best tools and still be a crappy carpenter.

Any discussion about weapons that neglects their use and their INTENDED application is like looking at the women in adult magazines. You never know what they can or can't do until they do. You can only look and dream.

The superiority of one forces strategy and tactics more often than not offsets it's technological deficits.

i.e. The Germans had the best tanks, guns, and planes of WWII (you can argue the planes part). It was only when they lost Air superiority that their combined arms force became undone and that took quiet sometime.

i.e. in the several arab-israeli conflicts it was the MORE effective tactics of the israelis that allowed them to win the day. The Egyptians and Syrians argueably had the best tools on the field.

It's no guarentee that if you have the best TANK or the best gun that you are going to win. It's who has the best minds for the situation at hand.

The Americans have shown that they have the most adaptable military thinkers and have the wherewithal to make vast changes to their doctrine. As the old truism goes, "He who neglects the study of history is doomed to repeat the mistakes"

hrxll Text

Someone who has something new to bring to the table.

I smell a debate, any volunteers?

About Vietnam and Afganistan..

Those werent actually lost in battles..

Those were lost in minds of people back home..



Both US and USSR armys were doing good job in-country..

It was the weak minds of their country men back in the States/Soviet Union that costed them those conflicts..

Good call, Fulcrum.

As far as the U.S. and military doctrine, we have proven timea nd again that the unit sees no obligation to follow them nor reason to study them, much to the consternation of both German and Soviet strategists.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
About Vietnam and Afganistan..

"Those werent actually lost in battles..

Those were lost in minds of people back home.."

I agree with you at least on the US side. The Russians had their media clamped down so the Soviet populace saw only what their leadership wanted them to see.

The Afghan war dragged on because the Soviet army was designed to fight on the rolling hills of Europe not the mountain valleys of Asia Minor. They lost when they lost air superiority (i.e. the US via the CIA started supplying the mujahedeen with Stingers and the advisors and tactics to use them.) and they discovered illicit drugs, mainly coc aine and hashish which sapped the discipline of their levied troops.

"Both US and USSR armys were doing good job in-country.."

That all depends on whose data you're reading. Look at it from a tactical point of new. Did either the Americans or the Soviets prevent enemy movement of troops, supply, or disturb their logistics or intelligence. No, neither did. Neither effected their enemies strategy. So regardless of what either military tells you. They didn't do a good job.

"It was the weak minds of their country men back in the States/Soviet Union that costed them those conflicts.."

Again, you have to look at each country and it's situation. The Americans right or wrong looked to minimize the expansion of the communist state and looked to support their allies territorial claim (remember it wasn't Vietnam at the time but French Indo-china). The American populace of the late fifties and early sixties by in large supported the action. It wasn't until the social upheaval of the sixties and the changes that it brought the American consciousness that the attitudes of the populace changed. To broadly stroke the americans as weakminded is a bit short sighted. These were the folks that saved the world from the tyranny of the Nazis, blunted the communist state in North Korea, they BELIEVED in right and wrong. Unfortunately for them Vietnam was definately a shade of grey.

In regards to the former Soviet state, You have to put the Afghan war in perspective. The Cold War was reaching a crescendo. The West (lead by the US) and the Soviets were playing a global game of "Risk". For the Sovs they have lusted after a warmwater port for centuries. The allure of Afghanistan for the Sovs was doubled down by providing them with a solution to their ongoing insurgency problems from the area and the additional possibly of access to middle eastern oil. The Soviet populace could not openly challenge their government in the early 80's, besides they for the most part knew NOTHING of what was going on in Asia Minor. Like the Americans experienced it was the returning soldiers bringing back drug addictions and horror stories that started putting doubts in the minds of the populace, not that they could have done anything about it. The tide of the war started changing when the cost of the war started mounting. Remember Regan was putting the (how do the americans phrase it) "the full court press" on the Sovs by rapidly developing the US military from is post Vietnam nadir to the mighty force in the mid 80's. It should be noted that the two nations were 1 and 2 in GNP at the time, but the US FAR outstripped the Sovs in GNP on a scale of 15 to 1. The Sov military was spending 40% of their countries GNP and was losing the WAR. By comparison the US at the same time was only spending 5% of its GNP which was devastating news to the Sovs.

Fulcrum,

I cannot agree with you more.

wars now are about politics and marketing and public opinion mostly.

if the US brought all it's resources upon Iraq it would have been over in 30 days.

we both know this.

but it would not look good and all the cowards and weak kneed and backstabbers of the world would have so much ammo to use to undermine the US in the world of public opinion such that they would do what no army could.

When was war NOT about politics. Seriously? Name a conflict that didn't have a political agenda.

War is a tool of politics, and politicians.

The elder Von Bismarck called it "diplomacy by other means"

Don't get caught up in the allure of glory, and the sensate nature of military technology. In the end War is a terrible thing that should remain the last tool used to get your point across.

Until you've seen the face of war close up and personal you may not want to deify it too soon.

hrxll

Originally posted by THENEO
if the US brought all it's resources upon Iraq it would have been over in 30 days.

we both know this.

but it would not look good and all the cowards and weak kneed and backstabbers of the world would have so much ammo to use to undermine the US in the world of public opinion such that they would do what no army could.

If the US used all it's resources in Iraq the would be using WMD to stop Iraq from aquiring WMD. See the hypocrasy? And what is cowardly about standing up to a bully? If the US was to charge in and obliterate Iraq then they would be entirely in the wrong.

Do you ever think about other countries, other people? They are the same as you, human beings. Americans do not deserve better than anyone else. The rest of us need to look after our interests. Why does that bother you?

Originally posted by HerExcellency
When was war NOT about politics. Seriously? Name a conflict that didn't have a political agenda.

War is a tool of politics, and politicians.

The elder Von Bismarck called it "diplomacy by other means"

Don't get caught up in the allure of glory, and the sensate nature of military technology. In the end War is a terrible thing that should remain the last tool used to get your point across.

Until you've seen the face of war close up and personal you may not want to deify it too soon.

hrxll

I disagree war is not all about polotics.

most of wars are DIRTY polotics.

but some are enevidable(spelling)

for example Russia attacking Germany in WW2

also US attacking Japan in WW2.

But yes now a days MOST wars are DIRTY polotics.

Originally posted by Russian

I disagree war is not all about polotics.

most of wars are DIRTY polotics.

but some are enevidable(spelling)

for example Russia attacking Germany in WW2

also US attacking Japan in WW2.

But yes now a days MOST wars are DIRTY polotics.

we may be arguing two sides of the same coin, but name a war that wasn't about politics?

Although the Germans tried their best, Stalin was more effective at killing Russians than the Germans ever were.

Additionally what do you consider "clean politics?"

hrxll

Originally posted by HerExcellency



we may be arguing two sides of the same coin, but name a war that wasn't about politics?

Although the Germans tried their best, Stalin was more effective at killing Russians than the Germans ever were.

Additionally what do you consider "clean politics?"

hrxll

There is NO clean polotics!

only dirty or DIRTY!

But that deosnt mean all polotics are bad.

Hehe we need ATS Chess!!!!!!! &^^%#@!! That would be a sweet x-mas gift for the board!!

If we take a hard look at Afghanistan (and to a lesser point Iraq) we have the confluence of tactics. The Most Modern vs. the least modern.

21st century technology, overwhelming firepower, and state of the art tactics has gotten the US...what?

They have defeated the Taliban in the field (like there was any question) but they haven't truly secured the country. Much of the same in Iraq.

Will rocks, "home field advantage", and patience out duel Satellites, Carrier Task forces, and smart munitions?

America's history in escalating war in third world nations isn't the best...

Thoughts?

hrxll

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

Originally posted by THENEO
if the US brought all it's resources upon Iraq it would have been over in 30 days.

we both know this.

but it would not look good and all the cowards and weak kneed and backstabbers of the world would have so much ammo to use to undermine the US in the world of public opinion such that they would do what no army could.

If the US used all it's resources in Iraq the would be using WMD to stop Iraq from aquiring WMD. See the hypocrasy? And what is cowardly about standing up to a bully? If the US was to charge in and obliterate Iraq then they would be entirely in the wrong.

Do you ever think about other countries, other people? They are the same as you, human beings. Americans do not deserve better than anyone else. The rest of us need to look after our interests. Why does that bother you?

For a second let us step out side what ever bias you have against the US and examine your statement, CiderGood ( I emphatically agree with your screen name, btw).

First I disagree with THENEO's sentiment that the US was not using all strategically available resources. For the past decade civilian planners have been pushing for a leaner American military. The comedic part is, that while they have been pushing for this paradigm, they have been deploying the armed forces more and more. This is due to several shift in American policy, both in and out of the Pentagon.

The forces used in the 2nd Gulf War were by and large the only strategic forces available then. I know the point was that if we were on 'ol WW2 footing it would be over Fast! Yes and no. It would take 4 times as much time as back then, to ramp up to those production levels. Also there are many more skilled labor niches that would preclude people from the draft.

That lead us to another aspect, The Draft. That would have some very bad public sentiment attached to it. If the Administration was smart they would have done it after 9.11 when public support was at it's highest. So as you can see saying that if we were really "flexing" it would be over faster is in fact illogical. It would take years to mobilize to that degree.

Secondly, CG_HB, I do not think for a second that the US would use it's nuclear weapons against Iraq. Period. Even when faced with WMD against its own troops. That is not to say we would not pick a spot in Iraq and lay it to waste with an assortment of MOAB, FAE, etc. Now an attack even given an attack against our own homeland, unless sufficiently devastating, would still not be grounds for an attack. The civilian causalities would just not be acceptable, not only to the US public, but also to the in theater commanders themselves. Japan took the A-Bomb because that had experienced years of war. Their entire economy and civilian infrastructure were almost obliterated but conventional bombing. Not to mention the weapon system was new, the common civilian could not even understand the basic physics behind the weapon, as we can. This would not be the case in the Middle East, enough people would understand, and the everlasting hate toward the US would be completely counter productive. The latent feeling for the US is one of mistrust and lack of understanding. Most of the feelings are due to their governments exclusive control over their media. Their governments keep them preoccupied with hating the US so that they do not see what kind of cesspool their government is. I know this to be a tangent, but due to my previous statement the issue needed to be addressed. But you are correct in that to use WMD, to stop the development of another country's WMD program would be tediously hypocritical.

Thirdly your statement: "And what is cowardly about standing up to a bully? If the US was to charge in and obliterate Iraq then they would be entirely in the wrong." Huh....nothing is cowardly about standing up to a bully. One I think that is a grave understatement of Mid East and Geopolitics in general. Additionally, to say that the US was a bully and the GOVERNEMNT of SADDAM HUSSAIN was a peaceful, loving, democratic, and god fearing is simply not true. America for all our failings and misgivings is simply not in the same league as Saddam's. Period! Even the French, German, Russian, and Chinese foreign leaders have said that Saddam is a ruthless and murderous madman.

Continuing on:
"Do you ever think about other countries, other people? They are the same as you, human beings. Americans do not deserve better than anyone else. The rest of us need to look after our interests. Why does that bother you?"
This stems from a basic logic misunderstanding about American in general. The belief that Americans believe we are superior. Nothing can be further from the truth. If anything go to the thread discussing which country has the best Tank: ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) to see that latent national narcissism runs freely through all courtiers. We American are the truest social Darwinists. Survival of the fittest. You say that we Americans think we deserve better, but in the next sentence you say that everyone else should have the ability to look out for themselves. To look out for yourself implies that you should have the same as us. To do that you have to be like us. You can be different or you can be the same, but you cannot have what we have without duplicating that which made us.....us. Do you see the circular logic your statement implies?

"The rest of us need to look after our interests. Why does that bother you?"
It does not bother us if you look after your own. We expect it. Remember our entire socio-economic system is build on that premise: looking out for one's self. The pointy end of the stick is why does it bother you that we look out for ourselves?


**pffft... that was a long edit. I had alot of typos and I did not copy in my response, just the quote. **





[Edited on 2-12-2003 by vonschuon]

[Edited on 2-12-2003 by vonschuon]

Originally posted by HerExcellency
If we take a hard look at Afghanistan (and to a lesser point Iraq) we have the confluence of tactics. The Most Modern vs. the least modern.

21st century technology, overwhelming firepower, and state of the art tactics has gotten the US...what?

They have defeated the Taliban in the field (like there was any question) but they haven't truly secured the country. Much of the same in Iraq.

Will rocks, "home field advantage", and patience out duel Satellites, Carrier Task forces, and smart munitions?

America's history in escalating war in third world nations isn't the best...

Thoughts?

hrxll

To a certain extent I agree. In a book I read a few moths ago. It discussed the new 21st century paradigm for China. The authors were two PLA colonels. Here is a link to info on the book. It is a highly informative book and I have been able to authenticate it with a couple people "In the Know" ( www.newsmaxstore.com... )
In "Unrestricted Warfare" Liang & Xiangsui, state that the greater the difference in technological development the harder it is for the higher power to succeed. The closer one power is to another the more dominate the higher country?s advantage. The is made very apparent in the march toward Baghdad. At that point the Iraqi defense was using more modern weapons (i.e. tanks, artillery, etc.) and was at a distinct tactical disadvantage. Force multipliers such as communication systems, and threat identification procedures greatly enabled the US military to have full combat awareness. The Iraqis simply could not understand the level of conflict facing them. This same concept was, in a lower evolutionary sense, used in '91. Once the major hostilities had ceased, the remaining Iraqi fighter and the experienced foreign fighter were faced with a war that was more suited to their combat specialties. This is when asymmetrical warfare really comes in to its own.

Another concept Liang and Xiangsui extrapolate it the ways in which asymmetrical warfare can be used the most efficiently. They were the first to codify the idea that asymmetrical warfare is most effectively the more you move away from the higher powers tech base. Look at Viet Nam. They VC and NVA fought essentially they say way had been fought in SE Asia for the past 200 years. The only real change was the teaching of Lenin and Mao. But both Mao and Lenin were some of the first advocate of asymmetry. Although it can be debated that it was Trotsky who was really behind the concept, I would say that only Mao made a true effort to understand the intrinsic concepts underlying partisan warfare. By keeping their tech level in the field relatively low they negated the US technological advantage. This allowed their asymmetrical tactics to be highly effective. Remember the effect of the asymmetrical attack is to affect your opponents will and power base. Not to fight him man to man. This is evident in the latest Iraqi attempted ambush. Many Iraqi fighters will killed because they masses for ambushes. This was a pretty big tactical blunder in much the same way the Tet Offensive was for the VC and VNA, but on a obviously smaller scale.

The American military do have one method to defeat a true asymmetrical offensive. That is taken from the page of religion. To simply show compassion and love to the Iraqi people. To rebuild their country better that it ever was. To sacrifice our men and woman to the dream of their country. Not to have body counts of news of home many fighter we killed. By being a good friend to the Iraqi people we show that we came, not for conquest, but our of their need. Actions speak louder than words. And this is our greatest weapon. As long as we judiciously and genuinely try to protect the Iraqi people, As long as we bring them in to congress with the world, our action bespeak of an attempt to better their life. This undercuts the asymmetrical fighters method of attack. Every bombing put another nail in the terrorist coffin.

Originally posted by vonschuon
[quote
To a certain extent I agree. In a book I read a few moths ago. It discussed the new 21st century paradigm for China. The authors were two PLA colonels. Here is a link to info on the book. It is a highly informative book and I have been able to authenticate it with a couple people "In the Know" ( www.newsmaxstore.com... )
In "Unrestricted Warfare" Liang & Xiangsui, state that the greater the difference in technological development the harder it is for the higher power to succeed. The closer one power is to another the more dominate the higher country?s advantage. The is made very apparent in the march toward Baghdad. At that point the Iraqi defense was using more modern weapons (i.e. tanks, artillery, etc.) and was at a distinct tactical disadvantage. Force multipliers such as communication systems, and threat identification procedures greatly enabled the US military to have full combat awareness. The Iraqis simply could not understand the level of conflict facing them. This same concept was, in a lower evolutionary sense, used in '91. Once the major hostilities had ceased, the remaining Iraqi fighter and the experienced foreign fighter were faced with a war that was more suited to their combat specialties. This is when asymmetrical warfare really comes in to its own.

Another concept Liang and Xiangsui extrapolate it the ways in which asymmetrical warfare can be used the most efficiently. They were the first to codify the idea that asymmetrical warfare is most effectively the more you move away from the higher powers tech base. Look at Viet Nam. They VC and NVA fought essentially they say way had been fought in SE Asia for the past 200 years. The only real change was the teaching of Lenin and Mao. But both Mao and Lenin were some of the first advocate of asymmetry. Although it can be debated that it was Trotsky who was really behind the concept, I would say that only Mao made a true effort to understand the intrinsic concepts underlying partisan warfare. By keeping their tech level in the field relatively low they negated the US technological advantage. This allowed their asymmetrical tactics to be highly effective. Remember the effect of the asymmetrical attack is to affect your opponents will and power base. Not to fight him man to man. This is evident in the latest Iraqi attempted ambush. Many Iraqi fighters will killed because they masses for ambushes. This was a pretty big tactical blunder in much the same way the Tet Offensive was for the VC and VNA, but on a obviously smaller scale.

The American military do have one method to defeat a true asymmetrical offensive. That is taken from the page of religion. To simply show compassion and love to the Iraqi people. To rebuild their country better that it ever was. To sacrifice our men and woman to the dream of their country. Not to have body counts of news of home many fighter we killed. By being a good friend to the Iraqi people we show that we came, not for conquest, but our of their need. Actions speak louder than words. And this is our greatest weapon. As long as we judiciously and genuinely try to protect the Iraqi people, As long as we bring them in to congress with the world, our action bespeak of an attempt to better their life. This undercuts the asymmetrical fighters method of attack. Every bombing put another nail in the terrorist coffin.

I've read a couple of papers on L & X. They really extend the fundamental communist mindset (in a positive way, I don't dislike communism, I just don't think it is practical to a Western mindset) and apply it to military practice.

Let's visit the pages of history and look at the USA's track record of "direct" military action in the Islamic world

Barbary Wars 1801-1805 Win - (it added the Shores of TRipoli to the Marine Corps Hymn)

Moro Insurrection (Phillippines) 1899-1914 Win
argueable America's first assymetrical conflict. Americans use a strong combination of conventional and unconventional tactics to win a grinding war. Americans coin the phrase Peace through superior firepower and Colt introduced the 1911A to the US Army in response to the inability of the .38 caliber to stop suicide Islamic Swordsmen (we'll see this again in the future)

World War II - North African Campaign Win for the US, but it was really against the Germans, but muslims aided and abetted both sides, in relation to this example it was a push.

US-Libyan War (official called a conflict) or Operation Eldorado Canyon. March-April 1986 WIN

Tensions had led up to this one Libyan strongman Mohmar Gaddaffi was sponsoring anti-west terrorism.
Libyans fired upon US forces resulting in two destroyed SAM sites and attacked a Carrier task for group with a missile attack boat (WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!!) resulting in the destruction of said boat and a retaliation strike by the US on the Libyan Navy resulting in the sinking of one of their Corvettes. A choreagrahed precision airstrike against 5 targets in libya was the coup de grace. The Muslim world both renounced the US for aggression on Muslim territory and secretly many mainstream Muslims thought, "He got what he had coming.."

Gulf War I - Win - limited objective, counter offensive with the added bonus of bloodiing Saddam Hussein's nose and reducing his prestige in the Muslim world.

Afghan - Taliban War - Ongoing search and destroy mission against a extremist Muslim group, initially successful now grinding down into a asymmetric conflict.

Gulf War II - Ongoing

The adaptability of the American fighting strategy has allowed them to excel in a ugly war, hopefully they can show the adaptability to win over a foreign people, a foreign ideology, on their soil, with their backs to the wall.

hrxll