Doctrine Changes?

It seems like a lot of people think that the U.S.'s military and political doctrine is out of date in the war on terror. Basically, the army was designed to fight a war against the Soviet Union where tanks would be fighting tanks and everything would be out in the open, but they are now fighting insurgents in small Middle Eastern countries (which brings to mind the quote that nations try and fight their last war).

If you were in control of everything, what doctrine changes would you enact (can be land, sea, air or politics). Keep in mind that everything costs money, so it is better to use things you already have.

Let me start it off with the idea that the military should drop this whole Armor Piercing nonsense with bullets, and either change the 5.56 FMJ to something that is legal and does more damage to an unarmored target (if possible) or move up to a 7.62 round.

When I think of military doctrine I think of leadership, training, tactics, strategy, adaptability etc., etc... The size of a round is not necessarily doctrine, in my view.

I think this article by Brigadier Aylwin-Foster which was printed in the US Army's Military Review magazine goes over the US miliraty doctrine very well. We may argue the detail, although I think the article has been much debated in the US military.

Stick Brigadier Aylwin-Foster in Google and you'll uncover much debate on US miliraty doctrine.

I confess to being armchair bound myself.

usacac.leavenworth.army.mil...

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
When I think of military doctrine I think of leadership, training, tactics, strategy, adaptability etc., etc... The size of a round is not necessarily doctrine, in my view.

I guess it would be better to say that the doctrine is that the military is designed to fight other militaries which equip their soldiers with armor rather than insurgents wearing civilian clothes. The type of round used is determined by the doctrine. I am just trying to use specifics as they can be more interesting and informative than more general ideas.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by PBscientist]

Close borders entirely, do not send troops into the country. Starve it, economically, food .. water.. starve it. (war aint pretty folks)

After that, preventing the influx of weaponry by creating the human blockade on the borders, send in speical forces to take out weapon caches, insurgents, key political leaders. After a while, offer food and water to those who bring in weapons, an amnesty program. After a while of SF opperations begin training domestic troops (iraqis) out side of the country, ship them in to patrol the streets. Tanks and us troops guarding street corners are not needed, because you are not fighting a normal enemy, you cannot be so kind hearted in war.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Close borders entirely, do not send troops into the country. Starve it, economically, food .. water.. starve it. (war aint pretty folks)

And thus by doing this fueling the anger and hatred of the enemy...not to mention the anger of the enemy's allies or future allies.

After that, preventing the influx of weaponry by creating the human blockade on the borders

And a human "blockade" would be easy or possible because?
You do recall the US cannot close it's own borders...

send in speical forces to take out weapon caches

Not fighting a regular enemy, they just don't stash their guns...or there would be no more fighting by now...

insurgents

Finding them how? They usually just don't tell their enemies if they are insurgents or not...

key political leaders

Like Osama??

After a while, offer food and water to those who bring in weapons, an amnesty program

And they will give up their weapons instead of attacking does who try to starve them to death? Don't think so...

After a while of SF opperations begin training domestic troops (iraqis)

Not many iraqis are joining up...wonder why??

out side of the country

Waste of money...

ship them in to patrol the streets

To clean up the mess the US created? Don't see that working anytime...

Tanks and us troops guarding street corners are not needed

Well...the Humvees they ride in are almost cardboard...maybe tanks are a good idea... Supplying more guns to the Iraqis won't work too well, and starving them would rally all of them around the radicals, not the US

Americans have been playing war with kid gloves on.

Listen, its like taking down a wasp's nest, if you poke it and whack at it for a while, you just anger the bees. However, if you club it to the ground and stomp the crap out of it, the bee problem is gone.

"All war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier"
-General Curtis Emerson LeMay, US Air Force Chief of Staff, 1961 - 1965

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Americans have been playing war with kid gloves on.

Kid "gloves" means torture or breaking the rules of Geneva?

Listen, its like taking down a wasp's nest, if you poke it and whack at it for a while, you just anger the bees. However, if you club it to the ground and stomp the crap out of it, the bee problem is gone.

Interesting and inhumane analogy...let's see. problem is, the US wants the wasp's hive, they want that dark slimy and thick buried in the ground called oil. Don't expect the kid "gloves" to come off at anytime.

Second, these wasps (bees are a tad different) are not the ones you just smack down. For your analogy, is like feeding the wasps with steroids(supporting saddam), giving them super venom(giving saddam weapons and support against Iran, not to mention CIA clandestine intervention, Al Qaeda's mujaideen for instance, trained and equipped against the Russians by...CIA!) and then trying to smack them with a bat...

Best solution: Bug out!

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Americans have been playing war with kid gloves on.

Kid "gloves" means torture or breaking the rules of Geneva?
...

"Kid gloves" in the sense that places like Baghdad, Fallujah or Umm´Qasr are still existing. Not that I´d advocate bombing urban areas of course.

so you suggest the use of nuclear wepons , against targets that have neither a home base nor a big `kill me now` flag on them


so you glass the major cities in iraq (btw have you noticed the only major issue is in baghdad - the usa was trained by israel in civil unrest and well look at how they deal with things and you`ll see the failure)

then what? several million dead for what? the same thing will just start again , but on a larger scale.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Americans have been playing war with kid gloves on.

I disagree. I think the US play at war and win. The problem is that the world is no longer massed armies facing one another (aka the Cold War). The type of conflict the US is currently facing in Iraq and Afghanistan and will doubtlessly face in the future, demands a more adaptive and less blunt approach.

Brigadier Aylwin-Foster highlights the doctrinal deficiencies in the US Army.

Regards

Originally posted by Lonestar24
"Kid gloves" in the sense that places like Baghdad, Fallujah or Umm´Qasr are still existing. Not that I´d advocate bombing urban areas of course.

Sooo..if I'm understanding well...you mean destroying those cities (which implicates killings thousands civilians) would end resistance? Well...it would in those places, but if fuel much fiercer and determined resistance everywhere, not to mention the whole world would not approve of that much, and many US citizens wouldn't either.

Besides, why would that be a solution if they suposedly went there to "liberate" people? You do realize you'd give those that do survive a better reason to fight?
Since when is Genocide an option??

Originally posted by paraphi
I disagree. I think the US play at war and win.

Win? I wouldn't be so sure, yes sure, I'll acknowledge the US is good at taking out technological inferior countries (very inferior... Iraq, Vietnam, anyone?) But really don't know how the US would fare against a country who actually has a chance of defending...like China in 10 years, or Iran in 20...

The problem is that the world is no longer massed armies facing one another (aka the Cold War).

Well...the US is focusing only on harassing and attacking the weak, the world still has large armies, the US simply decided it best to fight weaker opponents (wise decision...unless you plan to stay)

The type of conflict the US is currently facing in Iraq and Afghanistan and will doubtlessly face in the future, demands a more adaptive and less blunt approach.

Maybe you have some suggestions for that kind of conflict?
Not genocide...as someone suggested above...


[edit on 5-9-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]

War doctrine is always out of date because you never know exactly what enemy and under what conditions the next war might be fought.

However, during the 1990s, the United States Marine Corps developed the three-block war concept and it has worked well in Iraq.

The Three Block War is a concept devised by Gen Charles Krulak in the late 1990s to describe the complex spectrum of challenges like [sic] to be faced by soldiers on the modern battlefield. In three contiguous city blocks soldiers may be required to conduct full scale military action, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Small Wars Manual (1940)

Three-Block War

In the 1920s and 1930s, the United States Marine Corps put enormous effort into improving amphibious assault tactics and equipment. This effort proved to be invaluable during WWII.

The Marine Corps opened schools in Quantico, Virginia, in 1920 to address this problem under the leadership of Commandant General John Lejeune. By 1934 Marine tacticians had developed effective amphibious techniques, and that year the Marine Corps published the Tentative Landing Operations Manual, which remains an important source for amphibious warfare doctrine.

The Marines put this theory to work in 1933, creating the Fleet Marine Force from what had been known as the Advance Base Force. The Fleet Marine Force served as America’s quick-reaction force and helped test emerging ideas on amphibious warfare through annual fleet landing exercises.

This preparation proved invaluable in World War II (1939-1945), when the Marines not only spearheaded many of the attacks against Japanese-held islands in the Pacific theater of war, but also trained the U.S. Army divisions that participated in the island-hopping campaign. Another important milestone was the creation of the amphibian tractor, sometimes known as Amtracs, which was brought into the fleet in 1940.

The amphibian tractor could ferry troops from a ship to the shoreline and then continue driving on land with the marines protected inside. Although amphibious landings continued to be very dangerous, the development of amphibian tractors gave the Marines better odds in such conflicts.

encarta.msn.com...

If nothing else, you can always depend of the United States Marine Corps to be on the cutting edge of weapons and tactics.

One of the huge mistakes during the war in Vietnam was General Westmoreland's refusal to utilize the lessons learn by the Marine Corps during the Banana Wars in fighting insurgents and pacifying the local populace.

The Small Wars Manual: Fleet Marine Force Reference Publication 12-25. Sunflower University Press;(formerly Navy and Marine Corps Manual 2890), July 1940. By Major Timothy M. Parker, USMC, NOPC 2002

THE SMALL WAR MANUAL AND MARINE CORPS MILITARY
OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR DOCTRINE: A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History by ALLEN S. FORD, MAJOR, USMC B.A. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 1989


[edit on 2006/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Win? I wouldn't be so sure, yes sure, I'll acknowledge the US is good at taking out technological inferior countries (very inferior...

Iraq, Vietnam, anyone?) But really don't know how the US would fare against a country who actually has a chance of defending...like China in 10 years, or Iran in 20...

There are some of us who don't actually think China and the US will never go to war, what with the Pacific in the way and all that!

I think that is pretty well understood that the Iraqi forces were obliterated by the US-led Coalition in the first couple of weeks. The situation at the moment is more about Iraqi v Iraqi and psycho terrorist v anyone and you just need to watch the news (recommend BBC) to see that. I think Vietnam was a mess, but I do not think it was a military defeat per se - more a political defeat/failure. That said, I think the US military approach was flawed and there are stacks of papers and analysis that compare the US in Vietnam (failure) and the UK in Borneo (success).

Of course, Vietnam and Iraq support the assertion that the US military machine is not doctrinally adjusted for waging war where the enemy is not a mass of tanks and aircraft and men (aka the Warsaw Pact). The Warsaw Pact being the primary threat up until the USSR dissolved.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well...the US is focusing only on harassing and attacking the weak, the world still has large armies, the US simply decided it best to fight weaker opponents (wise decision...unless you plan to stay)

The "weak" being who exactly?

A point of order... On paper Iraq had a large and well equiped military. I think the big surprise in GW1 and GW2 was how quicky it was overcome. In defence of the US, I am sure they don't choose weak opponents, because let's face it all nations are weaker! Additionally, the US has never faced a technologically advance nation in conflict (i.e. First World) because as a rule these nations just so happen to be democracies and democracy vrs democracy conflict is pretty rare...

Regards

[edit on 6/9/2006 by paraphi]

Originally posted by paraphi
There are some of us who don't actually think China and the US will never go to war, what with the Pacific in the way and all that!

Lol, then China is modernizing the totality of it's army and navy, not to forget airforce to face...Sri Lanka, not the US...

I think that is pretty well understood that the Iraqi forces were obliterated by the US-led Coalition in the first couple of weeks.

Sure, a way inferior army, with low training and morale, who used stupid tactics like digging their tanks into the sand (especially when your tanks have only optical aiming...) and who's airforce consisted of old planes...

The situation at the moment is more about Iraqi v Iraqi and psycho terrorist v anyone

Hey you're forgetting US vs everybody...

and you just need to watch the news (recommend BBC) to see that.

Yep, and they pass ocassionally the Humvee being thrown into the air by an IED, but they don't pass that images so much, because it's kinda boring now, though they did pass the AH-64 being shot down...

I think Vietnam was a mess

Agreed, completely

but I do not think it was a military defeat per se

How many US cassualties? against how many civilians killed? (or viet cong, as the US sometimes called them) Well...if the Cold War was about capitalism against communism, and communism prevailed in Vietnam, that's a defeat...

more a political defeat/failure

Political defeat at home, military defeat in Vietnam-

That said, I think the US military approach was flawed

Agreed again. US should just have kept it's hand about away from the cookie jar (filled with snakes)

Of course, Vietnam and Iraq support the assertion that the US military machine is not doctrinally adjusted for waging war where the enemy is not a mass of tanks and aircraft and men (aka the Warsaw Pact). The Warsaw Pact being the primary threat up until the USSR dissolved.

Well...that was 10 years ago...they could have known they were going to go hunting into the mountains for "rebels".

The "weak" being who exactly?

A point of order... On paper Iraq had a large and well equiped military.

? Large yes, well equipped, certainly not. Old russian, chinese and french equipment...not to forget almost lost a war against Iran...

I think the big surprise in GW1 and GW2 was how quicky it was overcome

Lol...to you it may have been a surprise...

In defence of the US, I am sure they don't choose weak opponents, because let's face it all nations are weaker!

Really hope that was sarcasm...

Additionally, the US has never faced a technologically advance nation in conflict (i.e. First World) because as a rule these nations just so happen to be democracies and democracy vrs democracy conflict is pretty rare...

Lol...democracy has nothing to do with US attacking someone...you should know that by now... and it hasn't recently (they did face a technological advanced, if not superior at first during WWII) simply because it implies cartloads of casualties, not to mention loosing face in front of the world as the "number 1"