Will the West ever win a war in the Future? I don't think so...

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

jastayme3 10/25/2006 1:09:42 PM

The Western model of war was based on the premise of military vs military eg WW2 cold war, wherein mass organized war machines faced each other off. The battle in the Pacific with great battles like Iwo Jima were decisive victory for the grunts. Today the West has shifted to stealth bombers , crusie missiles and high tech. Politically nukes are impossible to use considering other major powers will step in on the non-nuke side--take a look at NATO in Afghanistan and coalition in Iraq--both do not suggest a Western superiority or victory because it failed to manage the streets. The conclusion is unless the West changes its mindset of commiting grunts and accepting high casualties it will never win a war within current rules of engagement. There is nothing more humbling than a ragtag bunch of insurgents with AK-47s, RPGs and IEDs humbling the mightiest war machine in the history of mankind. How should the West change its startegy for the next war...or be on the loser side for the forseeable future(until Japanese robots come in). I still think boots on the ground are needed to win.
Recent conflicts-
1) Israel-Hezbullah---Hizzies can claim points, unimpressive IDF performance on the ground, impressive F-16 sorties-nothing really achieved-Hizzies still there with rockets
2) Iraq-USA--Insurgents totally destabilize US aspirations in the region, and unwillingness to commit more troops and accept high casualties will render it impossible to manage so many insurgencies
3) NATO- Afghanistan- Similar to Iraq, beyond Kabul not a domination scenario for NATO
4) North Korea-(Jap, SK, US)- Not a great scenario either for the tech giants, NK conventional army enuff to scare the rest.
5) Pak-INdia 1999- Kargil, here is the only case where a superior military (India) beat its rival Pakistan decisively, but the battle tactics were extremely grim for the grunts--orders like walk into the bullet wall. They were sent to their deaths. But they won the war. Some call Kamikaze tactics not the answer--but I differ..call it assertive boldness and a willingness to die-to take that risk is the deciding factor.
Unless such grit as this and Iwo Jima is practiced I do not think the West will ever again win a war.

"Never" is to strong a word. Nations have made comebacks before. It was thought that the Venetians were shot before Lepanto, and that the British were before World War II. I think we will become more effective as the percieved threat grows greater.
Tactically the West is still immeasurably superior. Strategic effectiveness cannot really be measured at the momment as the issue is undecided. It is in the spin zone that we are weak.
Border war often takes the form of an eternal stalemate. The fact that it does so is no big suprise.
Suicide bombers are not a tactical advantage; they are a psychological tool. Of course arguably most of land war is psychology, nontheless their is a point to be made. When we recognize that it can scare us but it is no better at killing us then other methods(and it is by definition costly-every suicide attack by definition has at least one casualty) we can grow less scared. Suicide bombers are only threatening if we let them be. Also suicide bombers are to some degree a myth-in the sense that they are truly representative. Suicide bombers are to Islam what the French Foreign Legion is in Western legend-that is where the disgraced, the lovelorn, and the political exile go to disappear.
Also it is insulting ourselves to say that Westerners are not prepared to be equally devoted. Their are numerous examples of Westerners going on missions which are so dangerous that they might as well be suicide missions. The only real difference is that Westerners prefer to "fight to the death" rather then do the job themselves.
The real change is not so much that Western soldiers are no longer willing to do Iwo Jima kinds of things(although the lack of conscription makes them less expendable, PR aside)as it what the public is willing to accept. The fact is that there are large segments of the West that seem not merely to demand reasonable limits to Reason of State, but come very close to rejecting it altogether. Unfortunatly, though there are limits, equally any culture must recognize that there are certain things it must do to survive. It must also recognize that "the line" wherever it is will be crossed occasionally and our right to live does not thereby dissappear. In other words we must accept our own imperfection. As a side note, we could stop hysterically using words out of context. On the blog once I read that some consider that the Israelis using WP was a "war crime". Perhaps technically according to treaty. However it seems to me that "war crime" implies far more then just using a gross tactic on enemy soldiers and that at worst WP would be a "war misdemeanor". This is an example of how a lot of people are not prepared to accept war. They would ask, "why should we accept war?" The answer of course is that war might be most accepting of them.

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc OK 10/25/2006 1:24:43 PM

After WW2 how many wars has Western Europe or USA won, barring the cold war. I think its a pretty dismal number, and it shows a definitive way to battle and beat the west--Have nukes as ultimate backup and confront conventionally without fear-- eg North Korea, in 5 years when they have nukes aimed at Japan and ready to go with Solid fuel rockets there is no stopping its conventional tactics--they will fearlessly support any action against the West if it was mildly justifiable. If I were Iran today, I would have no fear going ahead with the nukes as I realize giving the West a punishing conventional body blow while not threatening its existence was likely all I needed to do. So if Israel threatens airstrikes against Iranian nuke facilities--Iran just has to have the capability to significantly hurt Israel to retard this. I think though 'never' is a strong word I am fairly correct that the Western world dominance once only threatened by Soviets will have many little challengers.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica HERC you are the problem 10/25/2006 2:09:15 PM

Herc,

This isnt intended to be confrontational but you are the best example of whats wrong with the west when it comes to warfare. People like you who have a very cursory understanding of military affairs and national security issues AT BEST are allowed to vote in our democratic system. Like it or not, thats real power. And like all forms of power, if its misused, there are consequences. So the enemy in a desperate fight for his own survival and self interest for lack of better means prays on the weak underbelly of "The West". In other words, you and people like you. You will go to the voting boths with punch lines such as "Bush Lied" or "No WMD's" ect. and use that as a basis for casting your vote rather than a studied analysis of the situation. That is the weapon being used against us by the enemy. Its why the enemy loves the video camera and internet. To get into your mind through psycological warfare which they have. Again, I dont intend this to be confrontational but its the cold hard truth of the matter.

DA

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc Darth 10/25/2006 2:17:04 PM

The cold truth of the matter is barring now probably 50% of the neocons nobody disagrees with my assertions that I stated prior to the start of this debacle--which is coming to a dismal ending -again a testimony to my accuracy in ssituations--oh people lie-for $9trillion in oil--hmmm what could they do --what do u think Darth--?? And I do not form the soft underbelly of the West, but Rummy thinking points to the arrogance of the West and its relative weakness as demonstrated by the ragtag insurgency in Iraq- they won-F-22 or not. So getting bak to this thread--is the West doomed in majority of future wars simply becoz of what u claim is this soft underbelly??

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc Further expanding on ur point Darth 10/25/2006 2:32:37 PM

Forget WMDs, and oil etc etc -the endless arguement--the point is Bush & Co got the war budget the troops -everything-

even if a strong anti-war -withdrawal effort builds up say we have another 2 years in Iraq easily. So how is it that even when $350billion has been spent since 2003 and 2 more years still allowed at similar budget-Iraq is not stabilized. I accept ur point, but just inform me - a civilian of course-why the coalition is nowhere in Iraq. I hope u agree the situation in Iraq is at best 33% of where we would like it to be ideally and Bush till date has got mostyly what he asked for. And oh I will be voting Schwaznagger..so...

Quote Reply

jastayme3 10/25/2006 2:33:17 PM

Berlin Airlift: near-war, victory

Israeli-Arab wars: victory (the chances of another big one are slim and everyone knows what will happen-Hezbollah was a punitive expedition and therefore the Israelis simply weren't prepared to bet as high).

Korea: tie

Cuba: near-war, victory

Wars of decolonization(including Greece-though not technically a colony was a COIN and therefore shared the flavor): mixed

Vietnam: defeat

Cold War overall: victory

Gulf War I: victory

Gulf War II: in contention

Local proxy wars: mixed

Le Carre stuff: tie-enemy gets better marks for prowess but the result was indecisive and could not be otherwise

Third "Battle of the Atlantic"(ships playing sonar tag): Near War, victory

Falklands: victory(does Argentina at that time count as a Western State?)

Arms Race: near-war, victory-they ran out of money first. Very bourgeois way to fight.
______________________________________________________
There have been few decisive victories-in the sense of conquest. However the only crippling defeat was Vietnam. And the most important "wars" was arguably the "sonar-tag" and the Arms Race. Both of which we won. With control of the seas and skys, every conflict remains local. Vietnam, be it noted was fought in Vietnam. It was not fought in Texas. And still we almost won-the final offensive succeeded because we had cut off funds to South Vietnam. ARVN came very close to being viable enough to stand on the defensive indefinitely. It collapsed from lack of supplies and pay and indefinite defense is not that onerous a task. And the Northers were feeling the casualties more then is generally thought.
In a way the Cold War was a giant siege. Containment coraled the enemy until they ran out of money. It was a blockade siege, rather then a bombardment siege, or a storm siege. But blockade sieges often win eventually even though the besieger is often on the tactical defensive. Effectively some sorties were repulsed, and others made minor salients. But ultimatly the fortress fell.
In any case making definite statements about war is not good. There is nothing definite about war. And wondering whether the West will ever win a war in the future is ultimatly futile: there is no choice about it.
And in any case the West spent a longer time wondering if it would win a war against the Turks.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 10/25/2006 3:03:30 PM

After
WW2 how many wars has Western Europe or USA won, barring the cold war.
I think its a pretty dismal number, and it shows a definitive way to
battle and beat the west--Have nukes as ultimate backup and confront
conventionally without fear-- eg North Korea, in 5 years when they have
nukes aimed at Japan and ready to go with Solid fuel rockets there is
no stopping its conventional tactics--they will fearlessly support any
action against the West if it was mildly justifiable. If I were Iran
today, I would have no fear going ahead with the nukes as I realize
giving the West a punishing conventional body blow while not
threatening its existence was likely all I needed to do. So if Israel
threatens airstrikes against Iranian nuke facilities--Iran just has to
have the capability to significantly hurt Israel to retard this. I
think though 'never' is a strong word I am fairly correct that the
Western world dominance once only threatened by Soviets will have many
little challengers.

Berlin Airlift: near-war, victory

Israeli-Arab wars: victory (the chances of another big one are slim and
everyone knows what will happen-Hezbollah was a punitive expedition and
therefore the Israelis simply weren't prepared to bet as high).

Korea: tie

Cuba: near-war, victory

Wars of decolonization(including Greece-though not technically a colony was a COIN and therefore shared the flavor): mixed

Vietnam: defeat

Cold War overall: victory

Gulf War I: victory

Gulf War II: in contention

Local proxy wars: mixed

Le Carre stuff: tie-enemy gets better marks for prowess but the result was indecisive and could not be otherwise

Third "Battle of the Atlantic"(ships playing sonar tag): Near War, victory

Falklands: victory(does Argentina at that time count as a Western State?)

Arms Race: near-war, victory-they ran out of money first. Very bourgeois way to fight.

______________________________________________________

There have been few decisive victories-in the sense of conquest.
However the only crippling defeat was Vietnam. And the most important
"wars" was arguably the "sonar-tag" and the Arms Race. Both of which we
won. With control of the seas and skys, every conflict remains local.
Vietnam, be it noted was fought in Vietnam. It was not fought in Texas.
And still we almost won-the final offensive succeeded because we had
cut off funds to South Vietnam. ARVN came very close to being viable
enough to stand on the defensive indefinitely. It collapsed from lack
of supplies and pay and indefinite defense is not that onerous a task.
And the Northers were feeling the casualties more then is generally
thought.

In a way the Cold War was a giant siege. Containment coraled the enemy
until they ran out of money. It was a blockade siege, rather then a
bombardment siege, or a storm siege. But blockade sieges often win
eventually even though the besieger is often on the tactical defensive.
Effectively some sorties were repulsed, and others made minor salients.
But ultimatly the fortress fell.

In any case making definite statements about war is not good. There is
nothing definite about war. And wondering whether the West will ever
win a war in the future is ultimatly futile: there is no choice about
it.

And in any case the West spent a longer time wondering if it would win a war against the Turks.

Gulf War I was certainly a victory. To say otherwise would be to define victory at an unachievable level. It would be to claim the Germans lost the Franco-Prussian War.
Historically the results of war generally had some ambiguity. Today is no different.
Remember the old board wargames with levels of victory?
And in any case to preserve your own polity without overwhelming cost is itself victory. It doesn't matter if local campaigns are indecisive as long as the state is viable and the people live in safety. Bragging rights are like spoil-an interesting side benefit to or rather consolation for war, but not it's purpose.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 10/25/2006 3:13:18 PM

Forget WMDs, and oil etc etc -the endless arguement--the point is Bush & Co got the war budget the troops -everything-

Thanks for making my point Herc. We are fighting a war, not running a business. If I swear an oath to destroy you and your family. But you are only willing to protect yourself for for some limited duration and on a fixed budget. Well then the conclusion is obvious. This enemy doesnt measure success based on dollars, years or casualties. You are at war with an enemy that doesnt care how long the war takes or what it cost if at the end they achieve their intended results. You are fighting a culture(s) that if necessary, will be waging this war until Sept 11, 2101. Until you can appreciate that, you have no concept of how to win and you are quite literally the soft underbelly of the west.

DA

Quote Reply

jastayme3 10/25/2006 3:31:42 PM

After

WW2 how many wars has Western Europe or USA won, barring the cold war.

I think its a pretty dismal number, and it shows a definitive way to

battle and beat the west--Have nukes as ultimate backup and confront

conventionally without fear-- eg North Korea, in 5 years when they have

nukes aimed at Japan and ready to go with Solid fuel rockets there is

no stopping its conventional tactics--they will fearlessly support any

action against the West if it was mildly justifiable. If I were Iran

today, I would have no fear going ahead with the nukes as I realize

giving the West a punishing conventional body blow while not

threatening its existence was likely all I needed to do. So if Israel

threatens airstrikes against Iranian nuke facilities--Iran just has to

have the capability to significantly hurt Israel to retard this. I

think though 'never' is a strong word I am fairly correct that the

Western world dominance once only threatened by Soviets will have many

little challengers.

Berlin Airlift: near-war, victory

Israeli-Arab wars: victory (the chances of another big one are slim and

everyone knows what will happen-Hezbollah was a punitive expedition and

therefore the Israelis simply weren't prepared to bet as high).

Korea: tie

Cuba: near-war, victory

Wars of decolonization(including Greece-though not technically a colony was a COIN and therefore shared the flavor): mixed

Vietnam: defeat

Cold War overall: victory

Gulf War I: victory

Gulf War II: in contention

Local proxy wars: mixed

Le Carre stuff: tie-enemy gets better marks for prowess but the result was indecisive and could not be otherwise

Third "Battle of the Atlantic"(ships playing sonar tag): Near War, victory

Falklands: victory(does Argentina at that time count as a Western State?)

Arms Race: near-war, victory-they ran out of money first. Very bourgeois way to fight.

______________________________________________________

There have been few decisive victories-in the sense of conquest.

However the only crippling defeat was Vietnam. And the most important

"wars" was arguably the "sonar-tag" and the Arms Race. Both of which we

won. With control of the seas and skys, every conflict remains local.

Vietnam, be it noted was fought in Vietnam. It was not fought in Texas.

And still we almost won-the final offensive succeeded because we had

cut off funds to South Vietnam. ARVN came very close to being viable

enough to stand on the defensive indefinitely. It collapsed from lack

of supplies and pay and indefinite defense is not that onerous a task.

And the Northers were feeling the casualties more then is generally

thought.

In a way the Cold War was a giant siege. Containment coraled the enemy

until they ran out of money. It was a blockade siege, rather then a

bombardment siege, or a storm siege. But blockade sieges often win

eventually even though the besieger is often on the tactical defensive.

Effectively some sorties were repulsed, and others made minor salients.

But ultimatly the fortress fell.

In any case making definite statements about war is not good. There is

nothing definite about war. And wondering whether the West will ever

win a war in the future is ultimatly futile: there is no choice about

it.

And in any case the West spent a longer time wondering if it would win a war against the Turks.

Gulf War I was certainly a victory. To say otherwise
would be to define victory at an unachievable level. It would be to
claim the Germans lost the Franco-Prussian War.

Historically the results of war generally had some ambiguity. Today is no different.

Remember the old board wargames with levels of victory?

And in any case to preserve your own polity without overwhelming cost
is itself victory. It doesn't matter if local campaigns are indecisive
as long as the state is viable and the people live in safety. Bragging
rights are like spoil-an interesting side benefit to or rather
consolation for war, but not it's purpose.

It may be that decisive victory is impossible unless we are prepared to "make a desert and call it peace". We are of course perfectly capable of doing so if we are willing. However we are not willing yet and the situation is not really so bad that we need to go to extremes.
It is certainly true that defeat is intolerable-we are not fighting eighteenth and ninteenth century dynasts. However our tactical superiority is so great that that is unlikly.
However I don't see how mundane continuation is intolerable. It is inglorious but that is what regulars are for. There will always be another enemy-this will do as well as another. The real problem is not the danger of defeat but that the unwillingness of many segments to accept it will make it worse. Just as a dental exam is worse if the patient struggles.

Quote Reply

GOP 10/25/2006 3:38:25 PM

I completely disagree with your assertions.

First, give proof that the insurgents have won...you can't, because they haven't.

Secondly, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't "ragtag", these guys are very hardcore and extremely tough...I hate their guts, but it's the truth. Fortunately, their tactics are very bad on all levels (most notably their small unit tactics suck), but unfortunately, their strategy is solid. They are using the same strategy that has worked for centuries: Make us bleed, and we will leave.

Third, our tactics are very good (on all levels), and our strategy is also solid. As long as Bush is in power, we will stay in Iraq and help stabilize the country. 2008 is the timeline for handover of Iraq's security to the Iraqi's. If we can make it to there without something crazy happening at home, then we will be in very good shape and close to having achieved victory.

As far as how to change our strategy, there isn't much we can change. The Strategy for winning is pretty simple, and has been here for centuries: Stay the course, win hearts and minds, kill insurgents (most importantly their leaders), and win...there is no magical strategy to win. The insurgents strategy is basically the same: stay the course, win hearts and minds, kill soldiers, and make them withdraw. Technology has changed, but the fundamentals to winning a Guerilla war has been the same for a long time.

Quote Reply

Associator 10/25/2006 3:59:25 PM

Can an infantry soldier interject his level of thought on this question? I asked the question once before and I ask it again. When does limited warfare ever work? I cannot for the life of me think of when it does. I'll be honest, I don't want to fire live rounds at other people but it is my job. I think soldiers should be the last ones who want to go to war because we know what the cost might be. But having said that I think there is something to Herc's message. If we keep trying to "fight" wars by limited methods I doubt we can pull it off. It is not from the lack of modern equipment, training or leadership. We have these tools. But it is lack of commitment to do the job. Maybe it is because most Americans do not percieve the threat as life and death. Or maybe because the natural American wanting to stay out of it all is resurfacing. We didn't want to get involve in either World Wars, but we did. And when we did it was an all out effort. These limited wars baffle us. What are we trying to do? I could be trying to make this a black/white issue to fit my personal notion of what it should be. My belief is very simple. If you are going to commit the troops to battle, you go all out, 100%, no holds barred until the enemy is so tired of the fight they completely quit. I disagree that we can do nation building while we are also fighting. Do the fight first, then put the pieces back together. Again, I'll state that I am just an infantry soldier who is proud of his profession and will do as he is ordered like a good soldier should. So please try and see it from my view when you comment. I realize that some of you are above my level of thought and I look forward to your replies.

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc GOP--can't really prove u wrong but.. 10/25/2006 4:33:21 PM

First, give proof that the insurgents have won...you can't, because they haven't.

+++Well they have succeeded in seriously destabilizing Coalition goals. Obviously we are still screwing up theirs, but they have no timetable--absolutely none.

++++ The Iraqi ones are not that hot, and didn't do too well against US army, the Afghan ones maybe better but the US army still can whoop a$s, so I disagree-US Soldier way better trained than Iraqi counterpart.

++++ Our tactics in combat are great--can't complain, battle to battle we won most with least damage, but the overall plan is flawed, so not all levels, for us to call it a success we need the insurgency to VOLUNTARILY drop arms to some threshold level--obviously no plans for the Shias or Sunnis to do that. Dtermine a goal for violence in important areas and see if you can maintain it for 90 days, what is it now 50 or so Iraqis dead in violent acts per day??

All in all a long coalition prescence is reqyired which doesn't look likely, 12-18months being the number tossed around, if 18months is the max we have-its a lost war. If its longer than that its still a toss up. All in all a very bad idea in not expecting an insurgency when Syria and Iran were on the borders and the area had an history of internal strife. Poor planning, and low staying power again will wreck this.

Quote Reply

joe6pack 10/25/2006 4:52:35 PM

"I asked the question once before and I ask it again. When does limited warfare ever work? I cannot for the life of me think of when it does. "

I'd say most of modern history is full of successfull limited warfare. After all, what does "unlimited" warfare really mean? You want to go really old school and say the enemies village burned to the ground the population either killed or enslaved and the ground salted? That certainly resolves the issue without question. Now, thats what some folks might advocate but we have more or less moved away from that style of warfare. The fact that we have infantry in the days of nuclear weapons point to the fact we are willing to fight a limited wars and the past 61 years of warfare have not all been losses and not one nuclear weapon has been used.

I think the question here is maybe more of how much can warfare be limited and still be successfull?

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc Darth--war is a business 10/25/2006 4:54:21 PM

and politics by other means. Soviet Union collapsed because they ran out of money -Kim Jong iLL comes to papa for Money. Sigh!! And yes I have the latest ab machines to firm up my belly, golf and parties don't help.

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc Joe6pak- The Iraq wargame and maintenance scenario 10/25/2006 4:56:03 PM

Lets say you have 3 more years $80billion per year, 140,000 troops + say 20000 more--and CNN leaves town.

Could you do it??

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - July 4, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us