Changing military strategy

A while back I contended that terrorists win because they're a decentralized force attacking a centralized one. Like the American colonists battling the British Empire in the 1770s, they only have to stay alive to win. Political opposition (world criticism) and renewed attention (the beheading videos) equate to a sustained victory.

The conclusion is that the best way to meet small groups of opposition (terrorists) is to decentralize and work "horizontally," or in a series of small groups with little hierarchy.

We see this happening in Afghanistan, here:

www.technologyreview.com...

Better, some say, that information and decision-making should flow horizontally. In fact, that�s how the 2001 war in Afghanistan was fought. Special-operations forces organized into �A teams� numbering no more than two dozen soldiers roamed the chilly mountains near the Pakistan border on horseback, rooting out Taliban forces and seeking al-Qaeda leaders. The teams and individuals were all linked to one another. No one person was in tactical command.

(start of the article here: www.technologyreview.com... )

War by attrition went out of style in Vietnam and the U.S. military is finally catching on. But the article tells us that the pervasive communicatation needed for "horizontal battle" didn't work all the time in Iraq. Or did it?

It's commonly known that the army operates by the principle of "need to know." One interesting thing I find with the War on Terror is how the largest and most powerful centralized army is chipping away at its very composition.

It seems as if the wave of the future is decentralized special forces teams. This leads me to wonder if, in the future, roving bands of militias, each operating by slightly different agendas, will "defend" the population. How the army eventually evolves and interacts with the War on Terror will be interesting to see indeed. Any speculations?

Yes as the maintenance of world power and economic wealth must be according to military might and cohesive with offenseive strategy. This cannot function on a small scale. Instead of a two front war there must exist a five, or ten front war. With the expansion of power the expansion of military according to US policy will grow according to the needs of the economy or corporations doing business globally.

That expansion has already taken place. We have finally made the move to stop OPEC and thus regain financial control over key resources required to fuel an army or nation that feeds at an astonishing rate. Any time you create an operation from existing circumstances there must be logistics to support that operation.

The current US agenda has made it clear we are moving into global theaters on the offensive. There must be resources to supply that offensive without being disrupted by enemy interaction.

More hunter killer teams will be formed and more SF units will be molded based on the neccesity of expansion not on guerilla tactics - such as terrorist operations. Unlike the 60's platform the day of training SF units to teach and lead merck units is coming to a close. The days of teaching turkey how to make IED'S has been done.

Your saying will SF teams be in the field as more singular units assaulting or operating using varyinf methods. We already see that htis is not the case. Delta and Rangers have been working together for years. Although Delta was comprised for specialized small assault and counter tactics like SAS our commanders already see past the need of such forces into the future of mass scale assaults and have for years.

Mass assault requires technologically advanced equipment able to strike from afar. Security, which the term should be used loosely, requires large force insertion for maintaining control. It's not secuirty you want but absolute control. Security means dissuade attackers. Control means domination. Specialized SF units will be no better in controlling urban dwellings than well trained soldiers. The one with better control will utilize more ferocious tactics. Remember Chechnya at it's height? Well imagine that in five theaters thats where we are heading.

Well my argument is that we're headed towards battalions of small teams. The article keeps on talking about how they wanted units to "swarm", like they were Zerg with a bad attitude or something. In order to do that you need a larger composition of small groups. The article directly supports this when it mentions that Army is transforming itself.

It's not security you want but absolute control. Security means dissuade attackers. Control means domination. Specialized SF units will be no better in controlling urban dwellings than well trained soldiers.

It just occurred to me that it'd be easy to initiate a refugee program in Iraq with the understanding that on a certain date the US will unleash a neutron bomb to kill everyone else that's left in the vicinity. With everyone else in a gigantic bunker one could easily document and control the population. Then all you'd need to do is feed them while you rebuild the country a bit and release them. I suppose they'd have to be injected with internal RFID chips or something too. Just seems to me that there are ways to secure Iraq absolutely.